Thursday 6 May 2010

NEW DIPLOMACY AND NGOs

The integration of NGOs in diplomacy has increased the field for many players,

many NGOs will respond to local and global dynamics in a way that is distinct from local social actors and community based organizations, employing different strategies.

According to the US Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott, "[I]n Bosnia, nine agencies and departments of the US government are co-operating with more than a dozen other governments, seven international organisations and thirteen major NGOs...to implement the Dayton Accords."

"multilevel involvement of NGOs (non-governmental organisations) in 

every aspect of international negotiations has revitalised many debates with new approaches and new options, but also stifled the ability of traditional sovereign actors to operate unimpeded in their own system. In almost every instance, the state must "share the stage with sovereignty-free actors", as Lewis Rasmussen negatively defines them"  


A NEW DIPLOMACY? EDWARD FINN 

http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volume5/June-August2000/VolumeVN2EdwardFinn.pdf


PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Nye divides the purposes of public diplomacy into three distinct dimensions.

"....requiring different relative proportions of direct government information and long term cultural relationship:

The first and most immediate dimension is daily communication, which involves explaining the context of domestic and foreign policy decisions...The day to day dimension is strategic communication, in which a set of simple themes is developed, much like what occurs in a public campaign...The third dimension of public diplomacy is the development of having relationships with key individuals over many years through scholarships, exchanges, training, seminars, conferences and access to media channels....Each of these three dimensions of public diplomacy plays an important role in helping to create an attractive image of a country and this can improve its prospects for obtaining its desired outcomes."


Therefore as Nye defined public diplomacy has mainly three interpretations, which are "firstly information: information management and distribution with an emphasis on short term events or crises. Secondly influence: longer term persuasion campaigns aiming to effect attitudinal change amongst a target population( sometimes referred to as 'moving the needle') and Thirdly engagement:  building relationships, also over the long term, to cultivate trust and mutual understanding between peoples( be they groups, organizations, nations, ect.)"(JRKelley)


A good example of use of public diplomacy:

After the 9/11and war in Iraq as USA gained a bad reputation, they were seen as bullies by the other states.

However as Obama was opposed to the war in Iraq and with his reliance on communication and dialogue rather than coercion and power. As well as his speech in Cairo, where he address the tension between the United States and Muslims around the world. "I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."(Times)

   



President Obama Speech to Muslim World in Cairo- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tY_KN8WVrEgC&pg=PA73&dq=public+diplomacy


Monday 3 May 2010

Diplomacy and My Understanding of It

Looking back at the beginning of this module and what I had written in the first lecture has made me realise, that what I wrote was relevant but it was very narrow. I had only basic knowledge of diplomacy. Throughout this module, my understanding of diplomacy has grown and deepened.

Diplomacy was used in the past in high politics and was secretive. Diplomacy was thought to be associated with a group of elites and influential people. Even though this was the case in the past, diplomacy has evolved and there are more actors involved in the present. Diplomacy does not involve states and official representatives alone, it has become more inclusive. This is what is called the ‘New Diplomacy’.

Diplomacy is a term which encompasses different factors. There is that of the practice of diplomacy (the negotiations and communication) and the mode of behaviour (the way of behaving when dealing with states and officials). Diplomacy is also an art as tact and protocol are key factors to keep in mind.
To be an official diplomat is no easy task as one has to be always aware of what one is saying and how one is saying it. The information disclosed should be that which is necessary, never too much or too little. And one should always talk on behalf of the state and never give one's own opinion.
Diplomacy is the political interaction between states in the international system. But it is no longer between states only, with the increasing role of emerging NGOs and non-state actors nowadays, this has changed.

Diplomacy is concerned with the low politics in the present as well. Often, these issues are brought to the table by NGOs. Especially with the issue of the environment in the present, NGOs have had a big influence. Climate change has been put on the agenda because NGOs have shed light and emphasised its importance. The activeness of NGOs was seen on the road to the Copenhagen Summit in December 2010.

Apart from this, I was not aware of the different opinions on diplomacy among scholars. Such as the debate about when is it that diplomacy first started and whether non-state actors and NGOs play an important role in diplomacy. There are no wrong answers, just different perspectives.



Also it is incredible how significant the role of the media is in public diplomacy nowadays. An example of this is embassies having Youtube accounts. The flow of information nowadays is unbelievably quick. As soon as something happens, the news of this can be accessed on the internet anywhere in the world. This is sometimes said to undermine the embassies and the official staff required to report back. But one can never substitute the credibility of an official staff by that of a news channel. When negotiations take place, the information and the outcome is available to the public, forming a so called ‘Open Diplomacy’. But this does not mean that issues are no longer discussed behind closed doors. It has tried to be more open, but it cannot be completely.

Diplomacy has definitely changed in the last few decades and public opinion has become quite important. It no longer deals with the sole interest of the states; this is again due to the media and how quickly the flow of information is. Diplomacy has evolved during the past decades and will continue to do so due to globalisation and the advancement of technology.




In the end, no matter how much diplomacy has evolved, the core of the essence is still the same. To get your way done and achieve what it is you want.

Sunday 2 May 2010

Diplomacy Today



In the beginning, diplomacy in my understanding was just a tactful and peaceful way of dealing with issues and getting what you want. I associated diplomacy with the “high-profile” diplomats dealing with foreign governments to create friendly relations between their respective states in order to promote one or another cooperative dealings, whether economic, political or cultural. However now, it is possible to see that diplomacy is not simply an interaction between professional diplomats with the hosting state, but it is a complex net, which is composed of many different actors and arenas of interaction. In other words, diplomacy grasps complex web of actors, issues and ways of dealings with issues. In particular, diplomacy involves negotiating and cooperating in different arenas, such as in multilateral diplomacy, where diplomats have to deal with several states at a time in a complex structure of international organizations such as the World Bank, IMF (International Monetary Fund), UN (United Nations) and etc. Diplomats have to compete with or deal with different sources of information for credibility as well as promulgating their interests, such as the press, media, Internet and other independent sources of information such as the BBC. Also, the role of the Non-Governmental Organizations in diplomacy further complicates the way diplomacy works. Their interaction can be either cooperative or competing and conflicting. Cooperative in a matter where government can use NGO’s as a “catalytic diplomacy”[1] where they operate through and within NGO’s since they have the credibility, specialization and the trust of the public, or their interests can be conflicting where they come to opposing each others intentions, whether on moral basis or political purposes. Moreover, issues that go beyond the state boundaries such as the environment takes diplomacy into a higher, more demanding nature, where it comes to a point that it becomes simply impossible to come to any agreements since there are so many actors such as NGO’s, pressure from the press and the public to deal with, as well as many different issues that need to be considered of such as the economic factors and political power as well as general concern with future damages of the climate change for example that shapes diplomacy as the most complex game of chess, where moves have to be planned in advance by considering all the possible options from both sides, ones own as well as the opposite with various outcomes. Therefore, in my opinion diplomacy today is more complex and intermingled. However, even though I think that diplomacy is more complex in nature, I still think that no matter where diplomacy takes place, with who it communicates and interacts and how it operates, it is still conducted for the national interests of the states, whether in promoting their image, getting their way, promote their interests, gain economic cooperation, all in all it is always and only in the name and for the sake of the national interest of the states.


[1] *“Catalytic diplomacy” does not refer to operation of governments within and through NGO’s only, it is conducted on a more inclusive basis. As Riordan states: “not simply on a narrow foreign ministry level, but at a higher, more encompassing level”. (2003, p,127).

1. Riordan Shaun (2003) The New Diplomacy Polity Press, Cornwall