Diplomacy is key in International Relations. It is the way of negotiating and coming to an agreement. One which will most of the time benefit both or more parties. Diplomacy has not so much changed throughout the years, but evolved. The idea still remains the same as it did before. To reach an agreement without resorting to drastic measures and avoiding serious conflict.
The way in which diplomacy has 'changed' or evolved has been the process of it. It is no longer secretive and exclusive as it used to be. It has become more inclusive and open to the public. It can be said to be more transparent. But this 'transparency' can be argued since the information given by the media to the public can be controlled, withheld and regulated by the parties involved.
Another difference between the old and new diplomacy is the role of non-state actors nowadays. Non-Governmental Organisations have a role in the decision-making process since their voices are actually heard and taken into account. In addition, the process has to be made in such a manner that the public will not be angered or disturbed, because people are more aware of what is going on due to the media coverage provided. This drives diplomacy to be more 'diplomatic' than before. Public opinion has become important in recent years.
Diplomacy is an art, since it is in the end about getting what you want but without force and in a peaceful manner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I must agree with you on the point where you say that diplomacy has not really changed but rather evolved, has been enhanced by new elements over the years. Indeed, states are not the only actors on the international stage but were joined by NGOs and other non-state actors which actively conduct diplomacy. But it doesn't mean that state’s role has been undermined. At the end of the day states still have a dominant function. Moreover, even though there is a visible move towards multilateralism, bilateral negotiations are still at the core of diplomacy (Bush-Blair). Furthermore, as we can see, economic and social issues took a lead in political agenda. However, security issues have not been necessarily abandoned. Here we should reconsider the 9/11 event and how it changed the perception of threats in the 21st century. At last diplomacy has become more open but we can not be absolutely sure whether all information we know are the only information which exist. It is well known that many agreements and negotiations take place in between meetings where media and journalists have to wait behind the closed door. So, old diplomacy is rather a foundation for current diplomatic practices, however, enhanced by new elements.
ReplyDeleteI agree that new diplomacy has not really changed in comparison with old diplomacy. The key concept of diplomacy still remains there to come to solution without chaos conflict. Bilateral negotiations are key principles of old diplomacy and new diplomacy. Basically New diplomacy is based on core elements of old diplomacy coming up with new ideas and concepts.
ReplyDeleteHi Pillar
ReplyDeleteAlthough NGOs are not officially considered to be diplomats especially those who emphasize the importance of the state in the conduct of diplomacy, they deserve more recognition now because of the role they play international Relations. Today, there is level of acceptance from states that NGOs, can play a leading role in disaster managements, environmental negotiations and trade negotiations.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
adw0076: I did not suggest that the state's role is undermined. Obviously, states are still the principal decision maers, but NGOs are emerging as contributors in the process. Or at least, of putting their issues on the table and saying their point of view. And yes, I agree that the information the media feeds the public may not be complete since there's still exists a certain amount of 'censorship'. In the sense that there are meetings held and decisions being made behind closed doors as you mentioned above. But can there ever be complete transparency?