Diplomacy and me

When we started this module, I was not aware of a distinction between diplomacy and foreign policy. I used to think diplomacy is about always immaculately presented and well organised diplomats enjoying their "high-class" lifestyle while representing their state. Indeed, it seemed to be as an exclusive club. I had a classical state centric approach to diplomacy. I was not fully aware of the development of diplomacy. I hoped this module would help me to understand what does it require to be a diplomat and what is all that communication, negotiation and representation about. I found many definitions of diplomacy but I did not understand what they really mean.

First of all, we were discussing when diplomacy started. Some of us argued that it started with the emergence of a state. I would say that diplomacy started with the formation of the first proto-state systems. I have learned that it is rather difficult to draw a clear line between an 'old' and 'new' diplomacy. We were arguing when the new diplomacy started- was it after the Second World War when groundbreaking social changes occurred as the demise of the aristocracy or with the emergence of world summits and international organisations? We looked at bilateral diplomacy and the role of an embassy. It was interesting to watch how its role evolved especially with the emergence of the Internet. Thanks to this module, I had an opportunity to visit the Swedish embassy. It was a great chance to put my theoretical knowledge into practice. I can say that diplomats are fully aware of the way diplomacy is evolving and what implications it has on their job. I knew they had to be excellent communicators but I was surprised at the range of issues they have to deal with. They have to be experts at many things. Their role does not require only being fully aware of the situation in the country they are staying in and their national situation. They have to lobby for their national businesses, promote investments and tourism in their country and build a massive network of contacts. This had made me more aware of commercial and consuming diplomacy. Having assessed the importance of technological change, public diplomacy seems to me the most important aspect of the new diplomacy and also the topic I enjoyed the most. It is crucial for diplomatic actors to present a good public imagine of the state/organisation they represent as it serves their interest. They can achieve it through blogs, YouTube channels or official websites. Nation branding is very popular. Public diplomacy is also about listening to other actors in international relations and reacting to their criticism. It is about a dialogue. States even create public diplomacy strategies (you might like this video about the future of public diplomacy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC1b8XZpy8c&feature=related). Another issue we discussed was the emergence of non-state actors in diplomacy. As mentioned before, I had state centric approach o diplomacy and I did not think non-state actors have a significant role in the conduct of diplomacy. I know that I have to consider that there are also many non-governmental organisations, international organisation, multinational corporations, interest groups and even terrorist groups that conduct their own form of diplomacy. For example, non-governmental organisations lobby state decision makers and try to influence how they develop their domestic policies. They also participate in international negotiations. Celebrities can also conduct some kind of diplomacy and they are good at attracting attention to global issues (The Live 8 concert tries to set up the global call action against poverty). I was also interested in environmental diplomacy as I had previously participated in environmental project in my home country. Lately, we discussed international negotiations on environmental issues. In my opinion, they are mostly ineffective because environmental policies are not among the main goals of states' foreign policies. The states obey "soft-law" that encompasses principles and guidelines and they seem reluctant to implement treaties into their policies. I also learned about the paradox of coercive diplomacy. This diplomacy is built on an assumption that an international actor/ state which represents a threat to an international society will behave rationally once confronted by a potential military intervention. However, this method has to be used rather sensibly as a state/ aggressor could also think it has nothing to lose and start waging a war. To sum up, I especially enjoyed themes public diplomacy, environmental diplomacy and diplomacy of the European Union.

Following the readings of scholars specialised in diplomacy, I would say that diplomacy has a dominant position in world politics.
Diplomacy is usually connected with a term "soft-power". As we all know, soft power is always contrasted with hard power- use of military force. Therefore, I hope that diplomacy will keep its position and it will be the first and hopefully the last solution when dealing not only with conflicts but a whole set of issues as it does nowadays.

I think that the success of this module reflects the fact that lot of us is taking another 'diplomatic' module next year: Public and Cultural diplomacy.

Thank you.