Diplomacy is key in International Relations. It is the way of negotiating and coming to an agreement. One which will most of the time benefit both or more parties. Diplomacy has not so much changed throughout the years, but evolved. The idea still remains the same as it did before. To reach an agreement without resorting to drastic measures and avoiding serious conflict.
The way in which diplomacy has 'changed' or evolved has been the process of it. It is no longer secretive and exclusive as it used to be. It has become more inclusive and open to the public. It can be said to be more transparent. But this 'transparency' can be argued since the information given by the media to the public can be controlled, withheld and regulated by the parties involved.
Another difference between the old and new diplomacy is the role of non-state actors nowadays. Non-Governmental Organisations have a role in the decision-making process since their voices are actually heard and taken into account. In addition, the process has to be made in such a manner that the public will not be angered or disturbed, because people are more aware of what is going on due to the media coverage provided. This drives diplomacy to be more 'diplomatic' than before. Public opinion has become important in recent years.
Diplomacy is an art, since it is in the end about getting what you want but without force and in a peaceful manner.
Tuesday 23 February 2010
Modernized Old Diplomacy?
Diplomacy is the interaction between the states through communication and negotiation, which requires “the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent states”.(Roberts, 2009, p-3) It is the ability to find the balance and wise use of the most important means of diplomacy: persuasion, compromise and threat of force, that conducts “the key process of communication and negotiation in world politics and as an important foreign policy instrument used by global actors”. (White, 2005, 387). Whatever means is used however, the main objective of diplomacy lies and always laid on the “promotion of national interest by peaceful means” (Morgenthau, 1904, p329). Objectives of diplomacy are primarily the assessment of the power available from all perspectives and the ability to acutely employ the means in order to achieve the desired intentions.
Diplomacy in its nature and objectives has been the same throughout its origins until nowadays and the changes that have taken place as a matter of time being has resulted because the world politics has transformed in such a way that diplomacy needed a new way of achieving its means. The following I consider as the most significant changes in the nature of diplomacy.
First of all, since the traditional way of conducting diplomatic relations in secrecy allegedly resulted in World War 1, a need for a more open and publicized diplomacy emerged. This is one of the significant changes. Even though the need has emerged, it does not mean that diplomacy has become completely open and transparent. The rehearsed outcomes of the negotiations during the League of Nations for the public for example shows how the actual decisions are originally not the ones that are shown to the public. On the other hand though, the United Nations has reversed this issue and made diplomacy more transparent nevertheless the concern that diplomacy is still conducted on a secret basis.
The League of Nations and the United Nations denote the other significant change in the nature of diplomacy, that is the emergence of non state actors: international organizations, non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, multinational corporations and etc. In the new parliamentary diplomacy these new non-state actors also play a significant role.
The development of communication and technology is another most significant change in the nature of diplomacy since it resulted in a greater interdependence between the states and easier communication.
Moreover, in addition to “high politics”, the major change in the nature of diplomacy is the greater concern of governments with “low politics”, that is the transformation of governments from “night-watchman states” to “welfare states” that include the economic and social welfare issues.
Finally, one of the major changes in diplomacy is the transformation of world politics in global scope. The addition to the agenda of the issues such as the relations of now not only between the West and the East, but also Global North and the South, the global environment concerns, technology, terrorism and arms control all have the major influence on the change of the nature of diplomacy.
References:
Roberts Sir Ivor, (2009), (ed.) Satow’s Diplomatic Practice, 6th edition, Oxford State University Press, Oxford.
White, B. (2005), “Diplomacy” in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Morgenthau, Hans, J. (1904), 5th ed. Politics Among Nations, Alfred A. Knopf, INC, New York.
Leguey-Feilleux, Jean-Robert, (2009), The Dynamics of Diplomacy , Lynne Rienner Publishers, London.
New Diplomacy
The shift from old, to new diplomacy was due to the changes that occurred in international political system after the end of the cold war. The status of states as sole primary actors in the international political system diminished, thus, the boundaries of states’ sovereignty that emphasized and characterised the old diplomatic systems had to be redefined, due to pressures emerged from new Non – State actors as Non – Governmental Organisations and other international forces operating within the global political sphere.
Globalisation created an environment that was conducive for international forces to significantly defaced the national sovereignty with, a global concept. As such, traditional diplomatic structures of secrecy that elevated national security and trade as absolute responsibility of the state, to bilaterally or multilaterally interact with other states on the international platform evaporated because of the challenges mounted on the principles of state sovereignty by Non- state actors with a diversity of objectives, actively and aggressively engaged in diplomatic interaction on issues of environment, humanitarian, international health, and human rights on a global stage.
It can also be argued that, technological advancements in both traditional, and new media tools contributed to the dismantling of secrecy of the old diplomacy to openness of new diplomacy. The globalisation of information technology such as the internet and media networks might have forced states to reformulate diplomatic policies that can absorb and mitigate the impacts of globalisation to the sovereign of Nation states.
Bolewski, D. (2007): Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations, Heidelberg, Springer
Globalisation created an environment that was conducive for international forces to significantly defaced the national sovereignty with, a global concept. As such, traditional diplomatic structures of secrecy that elevated national security and trade as absolute responsibility of the state, to bilaterally or multilaterally interact with other states on the international platform evaporated because of the challenges mounted on the principles of state sovereignty by Non- state actors with a diversity of objectives, actively and aggressively engaged in diplomatic interaction on issues of environment, humanitarian, international health, and human rights on a global stage.
It can also be argued that, technological advancements in both traditional, and new media tools contributed to the dismantling of secrecy of the old diplomacy to openness of new diplomacy. The globalisation of information technology such as the internet and media networks might have forced states to reformulate diplomatic policies that can absorb and mitigate the impacts of globalisation to the sovereign of Nation states.
Bolewski, D. (2007): Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations, Heidelberg, Springer
Monday 22 February 2010
Old and New Diplomacy?
The nature of diplomacy has had to change with the modernisation of nation states. The growing channels of communication and rapid technological advances have casted doubt on the existentence of diplomats claiming that diplomacy is in gradual decline. However, even today, in a crowded arena that includes non state actors and interdependence in a shrinking borderless world, diplomacy and diplomats still remain effective and relevant.
The distinguishing features of the old diplomacy are based around its state centric approach that put the state at the forefront of every matter. Diplomacy was all about secrecy therefore it was maintained through a bilateral process of negotiations and diplomacy was emphasised on security.
What is now known as the new diplomacy does share the founding principles of the old diplomacy. States remain the main actors in diplomatic negotiations but they are also joined by NGO’s and multi-national corporations. There is more scope for other agendas that effect social welfare and human rights despite security, trade and the environment being the most emphasised. With the nature of information that diplomats deal with cannot be entirely transparent, though there is a change towards more transparency in certain matters, after all diplomacy is the application of intelligence.
One cannot set stone and define old and new diplomacy as two different concepts and cast aside old diplomacy as irrelevant in modern times. The old diplomacy still exists and is effective, but there have been gradual changes that are necessary with the changing dynamics of a globalised community.
Old and New Diplomacy .
Diplomacy is a phenomenon which citizens play a greater role in impacting internal relations.Actually it is a process of communication and negotiation in the world politics and an important foreign policy instruments used by global actors.
While the convention and machinery of diplomacy have evolved over a long historical period the introduction of diplomatic system began in the ancient world but took a recognizable modern form from the fifteen century onwards with the establishment of the permanent embassy.
A traditional diplomatic system was developed thereafter distinguished from from the ancient and medieval worlds as it constituted a communication process between recognised modern states and for relation and negotiation on regular bases,given the distance involved,diplomats were sent a broad for this state based activity.This mission was institutionalized and eventually professionalized.This was purely on bilateral bases and undertaken by secrecy through embassies on a state-to-state basis with the diplomats representing their countries and able to conduct their business without obstruction or fear. Traditional diplomacy reached its most developed form and most effective system for ordering international relations and this is the period know as century of peace.
A new form of diplomacy was needed as the successful traditional diplomacy which promoted stability,order and peace in the nineteen-century Europe failed to prevent the first world war.The first world war was a watershed in the history of diplomacy.The perceived failure of diplomacy to prevent this war led to a 'new diplomacy' as there was a demand it should be open to public scrutiny and control. The structure of the new diplomacy remained similar to the old diplomacy to the extent that the states and governments remained the major actors in the system with well established embassies abroad attached to foreign departments locally. States are no longer the only actors but share the stage with intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations.The state changed from the night watchman to the welfare state.
The new diplomacy is being used to address many issues such as human rights(e.g campaign to end South African apartheid and the save Darfur campaign),humanitarian assistance,lobar rights,environmental issues, and fair trade.The changing interest of states as international actors and the growing number of non-stae actors involved changed nature of the new diplomacy as a process of negotiation.The outbreak of the second world war revealed the limits ot the' new' diplomacy.
Diplomacy was delicate and dangerous during the cold war when international relation were dominated by a global confrontaion between superpowers and their allies and the need to avoid a nuclear war but also to win the cold war.Also the war against terrorism has posed a major challenge to the role of diplomacy in global politics which framed within a debate about the appropriate relationship between hard and soft instrument of power.Even the most powerful states are no longer the only significant international actors.Bilaterial state-to-state diplomacy has been increasingly supplemented by multilateral form of diplomacy.
Bibliography
1. Baylis,j & Smith,S(2005): The globalization of world politics,3rd ed, pp388-401.
2. Berridge,R: Diplomacy.Theory and practice,2nd ed
3. Pachios, Harold C. (2002) . The new diplomacy
4. Moomaw, William R.(2007). New Diplomacy
5. http://www.state.gov/r/adcompd/ris/15804.htm
6. http://fletcher.tufts.edu/ierp/pdfs/NewDiplomacy.2.pdf
While the convention and machinery of diplomacy have evolved over a long historical period the introduction of diplomatic system began in the ancient world but took a recognizable modern form from the fifteen century onwards with the establishment of the permanent embassy.
A traditional diplomatic system was developed thereafter distinguished from from the ancient and medieval worlds as it constituted a communication process between recognised modern states and for relation and negotiation on regular bases,given the distance involved,diplomats were sent a broad for this state based activity.This mission was institutionalized and eventually professionalized.This was purely on bilateral bases and undertaken by secrecy through embassies on a state-to-state basis with the diplomats representing their countries and able to conduct their business without obstruction or fear. Traditional diplomacy reached its most developed form and most effective system for ordering international relations and this is the period know as century of peace.
A new form of diplomacy was needed as the successful traditional diplomacy which promoted stability,order and peace in the nineteen-century Europe failed to prevent the first world war.The first world war was a watershed in the history of diplomacy.The perceived failure of diplomacy to prevent this war led to a 'new diplomacy' as there was a demand it should be open to public scrutiny and control. The structure of the new diplomacy remained similar to the old diplomacy to the extent that the states and governments remained the major actors in the system with well established embassies abroad attached to foreign departments locally. States are no longer the only actors but share the stage with intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations.The state changed from the night watchman to the welfare state.
The new diplomacy is being used to address many issues such as human rights(e.g campaign to end South African apartheid and the save Darfur campaign),humanitarian assistance,lobar rights,environmental issues, and fair trade.The changing interest of states as international actors and the growing number of non-stae actors involved changed nature of the new diplomacy as a process of negotiation.The outbreak of the second world war revealed the limits ot the' new' diplomacy.
Diplomacy was delicate and dangerous during the cold war when international relation were dominated by a global confrontaion between superpowers and their allies and the need to avoid a nuclear war but also to win the cold war.Also the war against terrorism has posed a major challenge to the role of diplomacy in global politics which framed within a debate about the appropriate relationship between hard and soft instrument of power.Even the most powerful states are no longer the only significant international actors.Bilaterial state-to-state diplomacy has been increasingly supplemented by multilateral form of diplomacy.
Bibliography
1. Baylis,j & Smith,S(2005): The globalization of world politics,3rd ed, pp388-401.
2. Berridge,R: Diplomacy.Theory and practice,2nd ed
3. Pachios, Harold C. (2002) . The new diplomacy
4. Moomaw, William R.(2007). New Diplomacy
5. http://www.state.gov/r/adcompd/ris/15804.htm
6. http://fletcher.tufts.edu/ierp/pdfs/NewDiplomacy.2.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
