Since we started this module of new diplomacy, there has been a change of perceptions for some of us in regards to the concept of diplomacy - from what is being considered as the original concept of diplomacy that had to be conducted by professional diplomats, to the overly publicized new concept of modern diplomacy of various actors. Over the past few days, it has been intriguing to discover that religion can bee associated with diplomacy in different circumstances. You could say that the Roman Catholic Church has been engaging in what is perceived to be a disreputable public diplomacy in an attempt to deflect the undesirable attention that has been descending onto the Vatican, since the revelations of child sex scandals involving a number of catholic priests. And on the other hand Hezbollah, a religious fundamentalist group with no known diplomatic recognition any where in the world, pledging to aggressively pursue any diplomatic means to over turn a court’s ruling in Cairo, Egypt that convicted 26 members of its groups for the attempted terrorists activities in Egypt (BBC, 29th April 2010). But such a move by Hezbollah can create a dilemma of defining the rightful participants in the conduct of diplomacy – especially when there are some elements of moral question involved, but they also provide a platform for us to analyze diplomacy from a different perspective. The module has widen the channels of understanding the diplomatic conducts of different actors that are not answerable to a particular State, and it has also equipped us with some valuable knowledge of the skills of negotiation by professional diplomats and the importance of their work at local and international level as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8651095.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI found your draft interesting, especially when you connected diplomacy with religion. I think you are right when you say that religion can be associated with diplomacy, which definitely remind me the 'Thirty Years Wars'(1618-1648) or religious war that lead to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 conducted through diplomatic channel. Nevertheless,I am confused when you say that Hezbollah is a religious fundamentalist group with no diplomatic recognition at all. There is a statement saying that: it is a well structured political party with members of parliament and even if US and Israel list it as a terrorist movement, Hezbollah is considered in Lebanon as a national resistance movement by the Government. htt://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1908671.stm
Hi Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic church has gone to great lengths in promoting itself through diplomacy.In countries that have been unable to implement democracy it has formed allies with other Christian denominations to promote human rights where there was not enough opposition to stand against corrupt governments,mostly in developing states.
'On this account religion's association with diplomacy, i agree is truly intriguing'. It can directly affect the states autonomy and influence the general reflections of society.
Hi Augustine,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your enlightening comment, but your argument regarding Hezbollah's political and diplomatic status has not been critically evaluated. Hezbollah is a well armed organisation with a religious ideology, operating and undermining the sovereignty of Lebanon, internally and externally. It can only represent its own ideology not the state of Lebanon.