Sunday, 29 November 2009
"A very diplomatic blog: British ambassadors worldwide tell (nearly) all on the web"
It seems only appropriate - if a little self-referential - that I should use this blog to highlight a very interesting piece in The Guardian on the growing use of Web 2.0 by British diplomats and ambassadors. For the full article click on the title above. It includes the reflections of Ambassador John Duncan, who has generously commented on some of the students' work on this blog.
Friday, 29 May 2009
International issues and controversies
Hello everyone,
Hope your exams went well and you are all enjoying your holidays. Apart from that, I would like to introduce you to the blog I have created called 'international issues and controversies' available at http://worlddilemmas.blogspot.com.
Take look at it and if interested, you are more than welcome to join.
Best wishes,
Hope your exams went well and you are all enjoying your holidays. Apart from that, I would like to introduce you to the blog I have created called 'international issues and controversies' available at http://worlddilemmas.blogspot.com.
Take look at it and if interested, you are more than welcome to join.
Best wishes,
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
Visit to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
On 24th April some of the New Diplomacy students and I attended a wonderful morning of activity at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We heard from a variety of speakers, including the desk officer for Burma and officials dealing with export licences and arms control issues. Before lunch we were treated to a tour of the buildings by the FCO's historian Kate Crowe. A very informative and entertaining morning. Many thanks to Martin Garrett for inviting us and for being such a welcoming host.
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Just a thought, and in reference to February's blog on 'the alleged torture of British resident and detainee in Guantanamo Bay'
At the start of the semester one of our classmate posted a blog regarding the alleged torture of a British resident and detainee in Guantanamo Bay.
Recently, and thanks to the perseverance of Mr Binyam Mohamed (the former detainee) lawyers along with several media organizations such as the The Times newspaper, NY Times, The Guardian News & Media and the BBC has led the High Court to take rather unusual measures in reopening the case of the former British Guantanamo detainee.
At the start of the year, the UK agreed to US's request not to disclose details on manners in which US officials handled the detainee; however recent pressures from the media and human rights organisations have manged to trigger a re-inquiry into the matter.
Last week the director of human rights organisation 'Reprieve', said:
'It is long past time that this evidence was made public...... How can it be that two governments that purport to uphold the rule of law be working together to cover up crimes committed against Binyam Mohamed?'
The reasons behind me posting this blog is to ask whether the current scenario may turn into (what Hirut earlier in February suggestsd) 'a diplomatic crisis'. Can this incident, providing the High Court continues the process of re-opening the case.....to some extent harm the UK-US so called 'special relationship'?
Or does this news event illustrate the power and influence of international organisations (in this case a 'human rights oriented' group) along with media firms divert or re-direct government's courses of actions/behaviour?
Recently, and thanks to the perseverance of Mr Binyam Mohamed (the former detainee) lawyers along with several media organizations such as the The Times newspaper, NY Times, The Guardian News & Media and the BBC has led the High Court to take rather unusual measures in reopening the case of the former British Guantanamo detainee.
At the start of the year, the UK agreed to US's request not to disclose details on manners in which US officials handled the detainee; however recent pressures from the media and human rights organisations have manged to trigger a re-inquiry into the matter.
Last week the director of human rights organisation 'Reprieve', said:
'It is long past time that this evidence was made public...... How can it be that two governments that purport to uphold the rule of law be working together to cover up crimes committed against Binyam Mohamed?'
The reasons behind me posting this blog is to ask whether the current scenario may turn into (what Hirut earlier in February suggestsd) 'a diplomatic crisis'. Can this incident, providing the High Court continues the process of re-opening the case.....to some extent harm the UK-US so called 'special relationship'?
Or does this news event illustrate the power and influence of international organisations (in this case a 'human rights oriented' group) along with media firms divert or re-direct government's courses of actions/behaviour?
Friday, 1 May 2009
My understanding of diplomacy today
My first opinions about diplomacy were that diplomacy is similar to a pyramid in which you have the base, the foundations in the old diplomacy and then you continue to add layers to it and it becomes more diverse and complex similar to the international system that we live in now. This view has not changed drastically, I still see diplomacy as a feature deeply rooted in international politics, and the methods of the old diplomacy still exsist and will continue to exsist so long as we live through a Realists assumption of the world. However, my opinions about the role of diplomacy have altered slightly. I wasnt aware of the extent that diplomacy is needed throughout all arenas of international politics from the environment, to trade, finance, and security, and international policy making and treaties. My awareness of diplomacy was restricted to foreign policy and foreign relations. I am now much more aware of the significance of diplomacy in international politics and the role that individuals have in creating that. It has made me think a lot about the voting system, individual parties and non governmental organization that have a stronger impact than I believed, especially in Western countries. It has also made me think about the diplomatic process and systems used in Europe and North America versus the rest of the world and how much more progress we need.
What are the key differences between security, trade and environmental diplomacy?
Security diplomacy and trade diplomacy are in the foundations of diplomacy, whereas environmental diplomacy is a relatively new phenomena. Security diplomacy and trade diplomacy have had to adapt to the modern international environment, in terms of security, this means that there has been a need to control information because of all the communication and technology involved in diplomacy such as the internet, phone, tv, media; for trade diplomacy it has been a matter of involving more actors and adding extra dimensions when it comes to policy making in particular. Environmental diplomacy has followed the same route but because environmental diplomacy is quite new, tracing back to Stockholm in 1972, it has not had to change many aspects as it increased in importance just as the world was entering into its internationalization/globalization phenomenon during the mid to late 1980's. One way in which security and trade diplomacy differs to environmental diplomacy is that security and trade diplomacy have been an ongoing process since the beginning of diplomacy, whereas up until very recently, environmental diplomacy only recieved a higher important on the international agenda after a humanitarian disaster occured. You can see examples of this when Bill Clinton was in the administration, and the evidence came about that proved that human beings had caused the hole in the Antarctic ozone in 1985. There were a number of agencies created, CFC's were banned, and there were quite a strong movement towards being more environmentally friendly. However, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, all that we have heard for the past eight years are issues concerning security (ie terrorism) and trade (the most important contender in this being China's refusal to join the WTO). The US governments' refusal to sign the kyoto protocol and admit to the exagerrated climate change caused by high carbon emissions is an example of this. Therefore, security and trade diplomacy are in general deemed more important than environmental diplomacy.
Security diplomacy and trade diplomacy are in the foundations of diplomacy, whereas environmental diplomacy is a relatively new phenomena. Security diplomacy and trade diplomacy have had to adapt to the modern international environment, in terms of security, this means that there has been a need to control information because of all the communication and technology involved in diplomacy such as the internet, phone, tv, media; for trade diplomacy it has been a matter of involving more actors and adding extra dimensions when it comes to policy making in particular. Environmental diplomacy has followed the same route but because environmental diplomacy is quite new, tracing back to Stockholm in 1972, it has not had to change many aspects as it increased in importance just as the world was entering into its internationalization/globalization phenomenon during the mid to late 1980's. One way in which security and trade diplomacy differs to environmental diplomacy is that security and trade diplomacy have been an ongoing process since the beginning of diplomacy, whereas up until very recently, environmental diplomacy only recieved a higher important on the international agenda after a humanitarian disaster occured. You can see examples of this when Bill Clinton was in the administration, and the evidence came about that proved that human beings had caused the hole in the Antarctic ozone in 1985. There were a number of agencies created, CFC's were banned, and there were quite a strong movement towards being more environmentally friendly. However, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, all that we have heard for the past eight years are issues concerning security (ie terrorism) and trade (the most important contender in this being China's refusal to join the WTO). The US governments' refusal to sign the kyoto protocol and admit to the exagerrated climate change caused by high carbon emissions is an example of this. Therefore, security and trade diplomacy are in general deemed more important than environmental diplomacy.
what is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy?
It is important to mention before answering this question that many aspects of the ''old'' diplomacy still exsist and are quite fundamental to the diplomatic procedure such as state and government protocol, private diplomatic functions and missionaries. However, there are many new aspects involved in diplomacy. The biggest challenge that we have to the political system is our personal vote. Although there are many parts of the world that still dont have a ''full'' democratic system, according to The Economist about 51%, slightly over half the world, live in demicratic countries. Although the countries which practice genuine unflawed democracy is probably only a third of that percentage, so we need to do better, since the origins of democracy started in Athens over 2,000 years ago. So, our personal capabilities in the political and diplomatic system are and will continue to challenge modern diplomacy. The methods in which we have been able to do this have largely been due to modern technology and communication. For example, the internet. Websites such as ReliefWeb have allowed thousands of non governmental organizations access to crises all over the world, what exactly is needed, what the situation is. These websites and NGO's are in addition, facilitated by TV news channels such as BBC, EuroNews, and CNN international, who give us a minute to minute account of humanitarian crises, political riots, natural disasers, and so on. To a certain extent, our power, if used well enough, can override traditional governmental organizations. In the past, the campaign against landmines and the way that NGO's all over the world caused such a commotion over what was (or wasnt) being done and eventually allowed their representatives to speak at formal meeting on behalf of this cause shows this phenomenon. In the present, the British governments ruling against allowing Ghurkas british residency is being challenged by Nick Clegg the leader of the Liberal Democrats and Joanna Lumley as well as thousands of British resident supporters and the pressure which the government is currently facing might force them to overrule this desicion
It is important to mention before answering this question that many aspects of the ''old'' diplomacy still exsist and are quite fundamental to the diplomatic procedure such as state and government protocol, private diplomatic functions and missionaries. However, there are many new aspects involved in diplomacy. The biggest challenge that we have to the political system is our personal vote. Although there are many parts of the world that still dont have a ''full'' democratic system, according to The Economist about 51%, slightly over half the world, live in demicratic countries. Although the countries which practice genuine unflawed democracy is probably only a third of that percentage, so we need to do better, since the origins of democracy started in Athens over 2,000 years ago. So, our personal capabilities in the political and diplomatic system are and will continue to challenge modern diplomacy. The methods in which we have been able to do this have largely been due to modern technology and communication. For example, the internet. Websites such as ReliefWeb have allowed thousands of non governmental organizations access to crises all over the world, what exactly is needed, what the situation is. These websites and NGO's are in addition, facilitated by TV news channels such as BBC, EuroNews, and CNN international, who give us a minute to minute account of humanitarian crises, political riots, natural disasers, and so on. To a certain extent, our power, if used well enough, can override traditional governmental organizations. In the past, the campaign against landmines and the way that NGO's all over the world caused such a commotion over what was (or wasnt) being done and eventually allowed their representatives to speak at formal meeting on behalf of this cause shows this phenomenon. In the present, the British governments ruling against allowing Ghurkas british residency is being challenged by Nick Clegg the leader of the Liberal Democrats and Joanna Lumley as well as thousands of British resident supporters and the pressure which the government is currently facing might force them to overrule this desicion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)