Our main task here is to analyse the text ‘Diplomacy’ (by Brian White) and underline the aspects which might be of particular significance when looking at the sub-discipline of Diplomacy. There will also be a brief reflection on our first seminar (Seminar 2).
Brian White can be seen as very adept in his field, having split his article on diplomacy into three parts, presenting the macro- and micro-perspectives of diplomacy, as well as the challenges it has recently had to face.
The one way of analysing diplomacy, as we already mentioned, is the macro-perspective – i.e. examining DIPLOMACY as WORLD POLITICS, or as White put it, ‘process of communication… central to the workings of the global system’. This is, probably, the more optimistic and, in a way liberal, approach. Here, diplomacy is seen as the key to the resolution of conflict and creation of stability and order via DIALOGUE and NEGOTIATION. Once institutionalised, diplomacy has gradually caused the states to evolve from functioning purely as a 'night-watchman' into setting agenda for people's welfare alongside their security. In his article, White has suggested diplomacy can be analysed in terms of STRUCTURE, PROCESS and AGENDA and has also chosen to look at diplomacy in temporal, rather than spatial dimension. Hence, there are 5 historical periods of diplomacy:
Traditional Diplomacy (originating possibly around 2500BC)
New Diplomacy (starting with Woodrow Wilson’s creation of the League of Nations)
Cold War Diplomacy (1945-1989)
Diplomacy after the Cold War (starting in late 1980s)
Diplomacy after 9/11 (11/09/2001 – PRESENT)
The other, micro-perspective – is based around the subject of FOREIGN POLICY. Just as Marxism sees the state as the ‘instrument of the bourgeoisie’, this approach sees ‘diplomatic machine’ as the instrument of the state, used to promote its NATIONAL INTERESTS - ‘political instrument, rather than a global process’. This is the more negative and sceptical approach echoing ideas of Realists and neo-Marxists. The strong states tend to prefer ‘MIXED DIPLOMACY’ to the ‘PURE DIPLOMACY’, adopting a ‘STICKS and CARROTS’ strategy and using (/abusing) their military and economic superiority to keep the ‘handicapped’ developing states down, which, in their turn, look up to international organisations (e.g. United Nations) as their only way of exercising power on the international arena.
More recently, the state-based diplomacy has faced major challenges from global governance organisations (e.g. UN), multi-national companies (e.g. Shell), stateless insurgent trans-national actors (e.g. Al-Qaeda) and other international non-governmental organisations (e.g. Greenpeace). Nowadays, diplomats enjoy less autonomy and flexibility of actions. Diplomacy itself has become a more open and multilateral process, although elements of secrecy and bilateral agreements are still present. In his book ‘Politics among Nations’ Hans Morgenthau actually supports the idea of diplomacy being closed to public, as that might cause the people of the states involved in negotiations to think their governments are weak and hence not suitable for defending their national interest. All in all, diplomacy has come a long way.
I believe we have had a very good seminar. Some of the students have yet to contribute; nevertheless, we had quite a stimulating and profound discussion. Hope everyone was happy with me taking the lead and starting our colloquium. I liked Farah’s statement about the resemblance between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ diplomacy. Carol raised a number of valid points about the ‘revers de medaille’ that is diplomacy – the ongoing Realpolitik and, in particular, America’s unilateralism, despite all the efforts of multilateralism and open negotiations and conference diplomacy. Francis came up with an interesting case about Venezuelan response to the recent Israeli attack on Palestinians and made his point clear. Everyone who took part in the discussion had something useful to say. What we have gathered from our seminar is that the temporal dimension offered by Brian White is more complex than it seems, as the 5 periods given in his article overlap, rather than just end succeeded by the next one – e.g. New Diplomacy was never given up upon; there are still elements of Cold War Diplomacy at present etc.
This blog is a wonderful idea and a tremendous way of sharing our ideas with each other, which prepares us for our future careers.
Sunday, 15 February 2009
White's writing on "Old" and "New" Diplomacy
Brian White’s Chapter on diplomacy not only offers us a definition of the term but also raises some interesting points and possible contradictions that seem to be synonymous with the subject. His definition of diplomacy as a ‘political instrument’ as well as the brief history of the practice which he lays out in the opening paragraphs of the chapter leaves the reader with the image of a regulated system of embassies and diplomats, organised over hundreds of years who’s job it was to represent the political aspirations and goals of their home states. White however makes the claim that this traditional or “Old Diplomacy’ began to change not only in terms of what diplomats attempted to achieve but how they went about it in the opening decades of the 20th century. The failure to overt the First World War led to the view that this style of secretive diplomacy, carried out predominantly by members of the aristocracy was no longer a satisfactory political tool. The major reasons given for this are the changing role of the state (no longer solely concerned with the physical protection of populations but also with economic and social factors) and the fact that ,as well as dealing with other states governments have increasingly been forced to deal with both non-governmental and intergovernmental organisations.
White further defines this ‘New Diplomacy’ in his differentiation between Cold war and post- Cold War diplomacy. The Cold War highlighted the necessity to use diplomacy as a tool to avert conflict (for example the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962). It was also in this time that attempts were made to place diplomacy within the framework of international law, establishing ‘universal rules and principles’. The optimism held by many with regards to the effectiveness of diplomacy at the end of the Cold War is however questioned by White with specific reference to the ‘War on Terror’. White draws our attention to the fact that Cold War diplomacy focused on the ideological East-West divide and was dominated by superpowers, viewing small states purely in terms of what part they could play in this divide. Diplomacy in the post 9/11 world however must now take into account not only individual states but the concept of an ‘enemy’ with whom diplomacy in the old sense of the word may not be a viable option.
White also highlights the changing role of diplomacy in regards to Foreign Policy. He suggests that the role of the diplomat abroad, amongst other things, involves the implementation of foreign policy. However these policies are often at least partially influenced by what information diplomats abroad gather. This, when linked with White’s analysis of ‘Diplomacy by Subversion’ leaves a worrying, yet somewhat cynical, image of diplomats’ orchestrating coups and undermining the political workings of another country. This may be seen as a complete turn around from what has been a major role of diplomacy since it’s beginnings, the resolution and cessation of conflict through politics instead of more potentially violent means.
Having read White’s chapter for seminar 2, what are the most important issues he raises concerning the nature and development of diplomacy?
Brian White first started defining the term using two different perspectives on world politics, that is, the macro and micro viewpoints. The first he argues, focus on international relations as a whole, while the latter is only concerned with states and their governments. Then, White defined diplomacy as a means of communication between states and took us to 2500 BC where the earliest diplomatic document was written from one kingdom now the Middle East to another, Northern Iran.
Brian White distinguishes two forms of diplomacy which are namely traditional and new diplomacy. To start off with, our current diplomatic system has its origins in the fifteenth century in Italy where the first permanent embassies were established and another diplomatic system developed afterwards.
In traditional diplomacy, the actors are states and it is a communications process between modern states. After the Italian experience, other European states imitate them and since then, embassies worldwide became a way of conducting state interests. Diplomacy was organised bilaterally, that is, between two states and most importantly undertaken in secrecy which was easier to achieve since it was based on a two-party basis. As to the agenda of traditional diplomacy, one could say that for a century, foreign policy was seen as the gaining of more territory for example accompanied with issues of peace and war. Traditional diplomacy played a major role in maintaining order in 19th century Europe. However, its success is only limited to that particular century as it has failed to prevent the First World War which led to a broad view that a new form of diplomacy was needed. Two elements of traditional diplomacy were seen as awkward which were extreme secrecy and that diplomacy should not be only limited to the aristocracy. The reason for this was because there was an urgent call for involving the public and the need to establish an international organisation such as the League of Nations that would peacefully solve issues between states and deter potential aggressors by collective action. In this form of diplomacy, states were still seen as major actors but not the only and most important ones as they had to share the international arena with other actors such as NGOs. Another important change was that states were no longer only concerned with issues of ‘high politics’ such as security but rather 'low politics’, that is, social and economic welfare of their citizens. Diplomacy also played a great role in the cold war and ‘cold war diplomacy’ means the different aspects of diplomacy that emerged in that period which was the necessity to avoid a global nuclear conflict that could annihilate the international system. The end of cold war, White states, produced optimism that diplomacy could resolve international issues. Nevertheless, the war against terrorism significantly challenged the role of diplomacy in World Politics since George W Bush response to 9/11 suggested that military force was the only viable option.
Brian White on diplomacy and some seminar comments:
White, in his chapter provides a very useful and cleared picture of diplomacy. He starts with placing diplomacy on to two levels. He believes that diplomacy on a „macro“level is the whole political order in the world. Smaller entities, like states, are the “micro” level.
White guides the reader through the historical development of diplomacy going back to as far as 2500BC (the first diplomatic written document).Italian city states, Ancient Greece both had modern elements in their traditional diplomacy. (Steven’s point from the lecture therefore is proven that new diplomacy is not that new etc.)The main difference between Old and New diplomacy lies in the process and issues. While traditional diplomats dealt with each other in secret ,new diplomacy is much open to a wider „audience“ therefore highly effecting the issue which needed to be dealt with-more people involved, more issues raised.
During the Cold War period the mentioned new diplomacy begun to operate, however a completely new element, nuclear diplomacy was highly shaping the era’s diplomatic relations. Since to avoid a nuclear war was a collective aim, diplomatic relations was slightly limited with a new shape. White believes that although nuclear diplomacy as such is not a new phenomenon; however, it requires new responses. We may notice thorough the chapter that even new diplomacy has its newer forms. Diplomacy has changed after the Cold War with new elements such as non state actors, pressure groups beginning to really mater. Although the tension between the East and West vanished, new problems such as the fragmentation of
Later on were seen as a failure of diplomacy) In spite of the fact that there were failed diplomatic actions after the end of the Cold War, the hopes were high towards a successful new approach. The hopes were demolished by 9/11 attacks were diplomacy was impossible to practice by terrorist being stateless.
White in the second half of the chapter is emphasizing on foreign diplomacy and how it is connected to diplomacy. In fact he suggests that diplomacy is an instrument by with foreign policies is implemented. Representation, prestige, negotiation forms, the quantity and the quality of the information provided by permanent embassies are crucial in order to have flourishing diplomatic relations between countries. According to White diplomacy on a micro level is often the same as a specific state’s foreign policy and often impossible to separate the two.
White talks about how traditional diplomacy can not function within an interconnected and technologically advanced society. While traditional diplomacy included only governments, states the current era is much more complex with non state actors which sometimes can be more influential than smaller states. Therefore White lowers the significance of the idea of a state centered diplomacy.
I found the chapter really relevant to the current era. Especially with all the new elements/events recognized within the international society I believe that White made a very good point by lowering the importance of an only state based diplomacy.
I would also like to comment on the seminar B(week 2) group. The discussion was instructive until it got very “undiplomatic” and irrespective of others opinion. However I liked the way the seminar was led. I think it is fair to ask from everyone to have a bit of respect and patience towards the other’s word.
Saturday, 14 February 2009
White, Morgenthau and Diplomacy
Brian White provides a very useful and interesting overview of the history of diplomacy and how its characteristics have developed. He dates the origin of the traditional diplomacy back to the 15th century and he looks at how diplomacy has evolved over time by examining its distinctive features of structure, processes and agenda. The New diplomacy, which emerged after the failure to prevent the break out of World War One, has seen important changes or additions with regards to structure, processes and agenda compared to traditional diplomacy. States are no longer the only actors involved in diplomacy and thus the processes have become much more complex. Furthermore, there has been a shift in the diplomatic agenda. Where traditional diplomacy focused primarily on issues of so-called ‘high-politics’, new diplomacy has a more diverse agenda and the focus is increasingly on matters of so-called ‘low-politics’.
Diplomacy took yet another turn after World War Two with the advent of what White terms ‘Cold War diplomacy’. The management of nuclear weapons, and their use as instruments to achieve goals while at the same time preventing their actual application, came to characterise diplomacy during the Cold War. Moreover, diplomacy in that period tended to be crisis or summit diplomacy. White ends his historical tale of the evolving nature of diplomacy by questioning what role diplomacy will or can have in the ‘war against terrorism’. Diplomacy seems to have been overlooked as an option by the previous American administration when it formed the response to the threat of terrorism.
As White questions the role of diplomacy in this new phase of globalisation, Morgenthau, in Politics Among Nations, also questions the applicability of diplomacy, arguing that the end of World War One also saw the decline of diplomacy. For Morgenthau the ideas behind New Diplomacy are partly to blame for the decline of diplomacy. Diplomacy by parliamentary procedures, introduced with the establishment of the League of Nations and subsequently the United Nations, does not help solve problems even though a decision must have a two thirds majority in the United Nations General Assembly. Furthermore, Morgenthau also highlights the problematical aspects of conducting diplomacy publicly. Governments, especially those democratically elected, are unlikely to want to compromise and thus negotiate with the intention of reaching an agreement when they have to do it publicly. Hence, diplomacy conducted in public becomes what Morgenthau calls a “propaganda match” which is highly likely to deepen conflicts rather than solve them. Morgenthau goes on to establish four fundamental rules of diplomacy and the rules of compromise, which he argues must be obeyed if diplomacy is to be possible and effective in the future. Yet, with regards to the current proclaimed ‘war on terrorism’ many of these rules have arguably been broken. As White notes, the Bush administration opted for military force and coercion as its instruments of choice instead of diplomacy. However, many more issues, also complex and fragmented, are facing the world today and it is for us to see how diplomacy will play a role in those issues.
Diplomacy took yet another turn after World War Two with the advent of what White terms ‘Cold War diplomacy’. The management of nuclear weapons, and their use as instruments to achieve goals while at the same time preventing their actual application, came to characterise diplomacy during the Cold War. Moreover, diplomacy in that period tended to be crisis or summit diplomacy. White ends his historical tale of the evolving nature of diplomacy by questioning what role diplomacy will or can have in the ‘war against terrorism’. Diplomacy seems to have been overlooked as an option by the previous American administration when it formed the response to the threat of terrorism.
As White questions the role of diplomacy in this new phase of globalisation, Morgenthau, in Politics Among Nations, also questions the applicability of diplomacy, arguing that the end of World War One also saw the decline of diplomacy. For Morgenthau the ideas behind New Diplomacy are partly to blame for the decline of diplomacy. Diplomacy by parliamentary procedures, introduced with the establishment of the League of Nations and subsequently the United Nations, does not help solve problems even though a decision must have a two thirds majority in the United Nations General Assembly. Furthermore, Morgenthau also highlights the problematical aspects of conducting diplomacy publicly. Governments, especially those democratically elected, are unlikely to want to compromise and thus negotiate with the intention of reaching an agreement when they have to do it publicly. Hence, diplomacy conducted in public becomes what Morgenthau calls a “propaganda match” which is highly likely to deepen conflicts rather than solve them. Morgenthau goes on to establish four fundamental rules of diplomacy and the rules of compromise, which he argues must be obeyed if diplomacy is to be possible and effective in the future. Yet, with regards to the current proclaimed ‘war on terrorism’ many of these rules have arguably been broken. As White notes, the Bush administration opted for military force and coercion as its instruments of choice instead of diplomacy. However, many more issues, also complex and fragmented, are facing the world today and it is for us to see how diplomacy will play a role in those issues.
Brian White on the nature and development of diplomacy
Brian White provides the reader with an overview of the development of ‘diplomacy’ dating it back as far as 25oo BC, however, he emphasises that the structure of traditional diplomacy as we know it was first established in the fifteenth century with the introduction of permanent resident embassies. He defines ‘diplomacy’ as a process of communication carried out between two parties – in this case two states – where ‘diplomacy’ is just one of several tools, or “policy instruments” used to implement the desired foreign policy.
White analyses the concept of traditional diplomacy out from 3 categories; structure, process and agenda. The main feature of structural aspect is the establishment of regulated institutions for diplomacy – in this case the institution of embassies – with states as the main actor. Furthermore, did ‘diplomacy’ become a more regulated and professionalised discipline. In terms of process he points out that traditional diplomacy was conducted on a bilateral basis, and the agenda discussed was concerned with ‘high politics’ featuring territory, war and peace.
In terms of the development of ‘new diplomacy’, this emerged in the eve of World War 1 after the failure of traditional diplomacy - (which indirectly may have caused the war in the first place due to the secrecy and hidden alliances). Brian White examines ‘new diplomacy’ the same way as ‘traditional diplomacy’ analysing the concept out from structure, process and agenda. In terms of structure states remained at the centre of the analysis, however, new non-state actors have entered the scene impacting on the process of negotiations as well as the agenda. Furthermore, where new institutions for diplomacy created like the League of Nations. The process changed in terms of new moods of negotiations like groups negotiating on a multilateral basis with decisions taken in plenum. Finally, the agenda for diplomacy changed in order to include issues of ‘low politics’ as well as ‘high politics’ being concerned with issues regarding economic and social welfare.
Brian White concludes that the globalisation do challenge the traditional notions of state-based diplomacy, however, he argues that the states are adapting to these new challenges and have not necessarily become less significant in the international system. The conclusion provided by White seems very appealing as I agree that despite the changes, or rather evolution, of ‘diplomacy, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but can still be applied when the context deems it appropriate.
White analyses the concept of traditional diplomacy out from 3 categories; structure, process and agenda. The main feature of structural aspect is the establishment of regulated institutions for diplomacy – in this case the institution of embassies – with states as the main actor. Furthermore, did ‘diplomacy’ become a more regulated and professionalised discipline. In terms of process he points out that traditional diplomacy was conducted on a bilateral basis, and the agenda discussed was concerned with ‘high politics’ featuring territory, war and peace.
In terms of the development of ‘new diplomacy’, this emerged in the eve of World War 1 after the failure of traditional diplomacy - (which indirectly may have caused the war in the first place due to the secrecy and hidden alliances). Brian White examines ‘new diplomacy’ the same way as ‘traditional diplomacy’ analysing the concept out from structure, process and agenda. In terms of structure states remained at the centre of the analysis, however, new non-state actors have entered the scene impacting on the process of negotiations as well as the agenda. Furthermore, where new institutions for diplomacy created like the League of Nations. The process changed in terms of new moods of negotiations like groups negotiating on a multilateral basis with decisions taken in plenum. Finally, the agenda for diplomacy changed in order to include issues of ‘low politics’ as well as ‘high politics’ being concerned with issues regarding economic and social welfare.
Brian White concludes that the globalisation do challenge the traditional notions of state-based diplomacy, however, he argues that the states are adapting to these new challenges and have not necessarily become less significant in the international system. The conclusion provided by White seems very appealing as I agree that despite the changes, or rather evolution, of ‘diplomacy, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but can still be applied when the context deems it appropriate.
Friday, 13 February 2009
Brian White on diplomacy and seminar reflection
Brian White on diplomacy: Having read White’s chapter for seminar 2, what are the most important issues he raises concerning the nature and development of diplomacy?
This is my first reflective blog on The New Diplomacy module. There I will highlight Brian Wite`s raised concerns on the nature and development of diplomacy. Also I will respond to some statements made on Seminar group B.
Brian White sees diplomacy as key concept in world politics. According to him this is the process of communication and negotiation between states and other international actors. At this point I definitely agree with his view on this concept. But at the seminar we had a student who argued that such thing as diplomacy does not exist at all. From my point of view this is wrong statement.
If we try to understand who international actors are, we see that event international student is an international actor, to some extent. So what happens if that student, for example, gets killed in car accident? The answer is: that country’s (accident place) appropriate institution contacts student`s country embassy, and informs that such accident happened. Then embassy contacting student`s relatives in his home country. So the point when institution contacted foreign embassy is the process of communication between states as well. That is carried out by people who serve diplomatic duty at embassies consular section. This is the first and less complex way of communication between states. Therefore this is a fact that diplomacy exist. At other stages it gets more complex, but still exists, and this is good, because we will have change to discuss about that in future seminars.
White argues that the end of cold war brought new mood to diplomacy. Just after cold war was seen optimism in diplomacy that everything could be resolved through it, but latter on everyone realised that now emerged many new player and international relation are more complicated than before. Therefore I think that this is the point when real new diplomacy started. Of course it was changing all the time in parallel with world. The statement when new diplomacy started is very debatable, but this depends from what angle we looking at world and diplomacy. I think this is most important think that we are able to identify changes in diplomacy in such areas as information gathering, policy advice, representation, negotiation and consular services.
I would like to give quick example from life to those people, who argued that new diplomacy does not exist. For example car makers such BMW every five years introducing new model for instance BMW calss 3, from the very old one model to the latest it has its strain and it continues though years. You are able to identify that this is BMW but it has many new features inside. So this is the same diplomacy has its core which was build long time ago, and have its strain, and through the time getting new features and roles.
So the fact is that diplomacy exist, as well as new diplomacy.
This is my first reflective blog on The New Diplomacy module. There I will highlight Brian Wite`s raised concerns on the nature and development of diplomacy. Also I will respond to some statements made on Seminar group B.
Brian White sees diplomacy as key concept in world politics. According to him this is the process of communication and negotiation between states and other international actors. At this point I definitely agree with his view on this concept. But at the seminar we had a student who argued that such thing as diplomacy does not exist at all. From my point of view this is wrong statement.
If we try to understand who international actors are, we see that event international student is an international actor, to some extent. So what happens if that student, for example, gets killed in car accident? The answer is: that country’s (accident place) appropriate institution contacts student`s country embassy, and informs that such accident happened. Then embassy contacting student`s relatives in his home country. So the point when institution contacted foreign embassy is the process of communication between states as well. That is carried out by people who serve diplomatic duty at embassies consular section. This is the first and less complex way of communication between states. Therefore this is a fact that diplomacy exist. At other stages it gets more complex, but still exists, and this is good, because we will have change to discuss about that in future seminars.
White argues that the end of cold war brought new mood to diplomacy. Just after cold war was seen optimism in diplomacy that everything could be resolved through it, but latter on everyone realised that now emerged many new player and international relation are more complicated than before. Therefore I think that this is the point when real new diplomacy started. Of course it was changing all the time in parallel with world. The statement when new diplomacy started is very debatable, but this depends from what angle we looking at world and diplomacy. I think this is most important think that we are able to identify changes in diplomacy in such areas as information gathering, policy advice, representation, negotiation and consular services.
I would like to give quick example from life to those people, who argued that new diplomacy does not exist. For example car makers such BMW every five years introducing new model for instance BMW calss 3, from the very old one model to the latest it has its strain and it continues though years. You are able to identify that this is BMW but it has many new features inside. So this is the same diplomacy has its core which was build long time ago, and have its strain, and through the time getting new features and roles.
So the fact is that diplomacy exist, as well as new diplomacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
