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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you are right when you say that the role of embassies is being undermined these days due to the advancement of technology.
ReplyDeleteI think we should also conclude that diplomats and public need to learn how to evaluate the credibility of a source. As we mentioned in the seminar and lecture before, the role of embassies has evolved. I think their main role is to put available information in context. Therefore, as you suggest, it is impossible to replace "the credibility of an official staff".
Like Sir Henry Wotton put it:"an ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country"; that is how that diplomacy has often been perceived, as a way to serve our countries' interests as peacefully as possible and sometimes by questionnable means. The transparence that we know today in diplomacy opened people's eyes on how states conduct affairs internationally and what really goes on behind closed doors.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the point you highlight on the broad communication network that one has nowadays underminning the role of Embassies... In my opinion that is true. But I also agree on your argument saying that 'one can never substitute the credibility of an official staff by that of a news channel'... especially since Embassies are still build all around the world...
ReplyDeleteI above all agree with you Pilar, when you say that 'no matter how much diplomacy has evolved, the core of the essence is still the same'... Especially since you also think that the major change in New Diplomacy is the emergence of new actors (previous blog post on that topic).