The main difference between bilateral diplomacy and multilateral diplomacy is that bilateral diplomacy is conducted between two governments on a one-to-one basis, but multilateral diplomacy on the other hand is conducted on a more complex environment, where one government has to deal with several other governments and those other governments in their own turn have to deal with all the other governments, or more simply- “dealing with several governments simultaneously” (Walker, 2004, p-16) “within the organization, while seeking to fulfill the mission given to the organization by the states that created it.”(Leguey-Feilleux, 2009: 217). Though in purpose, both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy are similar in a sense that in both cases states mainly act in their own national interests- as in Multilateral diplomacy is seen as “Acting globally, to benefit locally”. (Walker, 2004, p21)
As for main characteristics of multilateral diplomacy are:
“Parliamentary” or “Diplomacy by parliamentary procedures” or “Open diplomacy”
(note the Press behind)
It is “Open” only on the surface though, because it is argued that genuine agreements and negotiations take place confidentially in a more complex environment, thereby this process is criticized as corruption of diplomacy.
Therefore, one of the most important aspects of multilateral diplomacy is the process through which decisions/agreements are reached, that is through “informal consultations”, that could take place outside of official meetings, during lunches and etc.
Also, during such multilateral or conference diplomacy, the formation of coalitions or blocs play an important role in decision making, where “intrabloc diplomacy” takes place.
As for the reasons why do I consider Multilateral Diplomacy as the main aspect of the “new” diplomacy, because even though similar to conference diplomacy took place during the Concert of Europe in the form of Congresses in 1815-1856, where delegates also met for discussions and negotiations, which constitutes that it is not so “new” after all, I still think that contemporary Multilateral Diplomacy is different, because it is more effective and multidimensional.
This is observable through some of the main purposes of Multilateral Diplomacy:
o Information gathering and pooling, as the process of “peer review”
o Joint projects, that are useful in achieving ones own objectives in the issues that need joint management.
o Management of the external environment, where for example agreements on opening the markets at the WTO (World Trade Organization) can benefit the trade environment in certain regions, or agreements reached on Chemical Weapons Convention can create a more secure environment.
o Influencing behavior, where “governments who wish to influence are within the sovereign control of other states”. (Walker,2004, p18)
o Entering into mutually beneficial contracts, where both states should end up with good deals.
o Domestic agenda salvation processes, where states “see the international scene primarily as an extension of the domestic” (Walker,2004, p19).
o Reactive character of states, where if one state brings up a topic, other state that is in concern has to follow suit (even if the state would rather to dismiss the topic) in order to ensure that its own interests are not damaged.
o Meetings take place in routine-annually or at regular intervals planned basis.
(Walker, 2004, pp:16-20)
Thus, as Walker argues: “Multilateral Diplomacy is not different in purpose from bilateral diplomacy; it is merely one of the implements in the toolkit available to governments for coping with issues as they arise” (Walker, 2004, p-21).
Bibliography:
Leguey-Feilleux, Jean-Robert, (2009), The Dynamics of Diplomacy , Lynne Rienner Publishers, London.
Walker, Ronald A.,(2004) Multilateral Conferences: Purposeful International Negotiation. Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations, Palgrave Macmillan.
Pictures available at:
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/8KQfXW-Q3ov/IMF+WB+2008+Fall+Meetings+Washington+DC
No comments:
Post a Comment