Diplomacy has been used as a key process of communication and negotiation between states and other international elements for thousand years, starting in the Middle East and later on, in the ancient Greece, modern Europe and gradually developed around the world; simultaneously, diplomacy, kept changing its principles and practises to today, maintaining its significance all over the history. Without a doubt, diplomacy is a key concept in world politics.
“Diplomacy plays a key role in the foreign policies of states
and other international actors.” (White, 2005: 389)
There are suggestions that the traditional bilateral diplomacy is opposite to new multilateral diplomacy. However, it is more likely, that the new diplomacy is just a further development of traditional one, by means of improved adaptation towards the complex world politics; undeniably, its aim primarily is political, regarding self interests, no matter what number of players involved or whichever common goals are publicly announced. There is still a changing ‘arena’ of ‘losers’ and ‘winners’ in the final outcome of whichever settlement, since there would not be any need for negotiation in the first place. Even thought a positive compromise is possible, as it is a classical key function of diplomacy, history has demonstrated that equality is not a painless outcome.
Furthermore, confidentiality in communication between states or individual agents is still a core feature of diplomacy, no matter the height of public practise and announcements made. In this matter diplomats are the workforce of the legitimate government which works on behalf of the state and its people, who recognise the major changes of diplomacy by answering this question: who is behind the scene and what is the principle of changing agenda?
In traditional diplomacy, monarchs and their advisors, with aristocratic influence, were the rulers of the ‘game’ which was based on bilateral communications between states, concerning narrow issues of war, peace and territory. The functions of new diplomacy in world politics, however, became a multilateral communication, categorized in noticeably wider concerns with professionalized and institutionalised diplomatic practise. It evolved in nature of changing aim of the state or ruling government which was no longer only the promotion of stability, order and peace, which meant the physical security of its citizens; but also the growing concern of economic, social and environmental well being. These transformations also opened doors for the public diplomacy. It was a significant step forwards open view exchange and reduction of practised secrecy; on the other hand, it did not mean public participation in the diplomatic process as such, but rather as demand for provision of information to the public about agreements achieved. (Baylis and Smith, 2005: 391)
Nevertheless, the biggest success of public involvement would be the opportunity of criticism, which in many cases works towards improvement.
Maybe the most significant change in the new diplomacy was that states were no longer the only actors involved, and it meant they need to share the international stage with newly established international organizations which were engaged in diplomacy.
Starting point would be that intergovernmental institutions like the League of Nations, the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank, and spreading a range of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like ‘Greenpeace’, ‘Water Aid’, 'Human Rights Watch', etc. , have strengthened growing importance of non-state actors, and flourished multilateral diplomacy. Some may simplify and say that new diplomacy is simply an outcome of globalization: technological, cultural and economic exchange, common issues such as environmental degradation, global warming, poverty and security, protection of the resources for future etc. However, the arena of new diplomacy is more multifaceted, no matter its wrong or right; it keeps changing its progressing evolution.
Good videos related to complex diplomacy:
• ‘Ahmadinejad UN speech sparks walk-outs’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11401462
and
• ‘Mickey Mouse Goes to Haiti’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQUuWht4eSY
Since the new diplomacy evolved after the disaster of the First World War, democratic features has appeared in new agenda especially in post-cold war era, but like everything else in a history evolved in natural sense of human behaviour and adaptation to new circumstances. Public diplomacy is a significant movement towards improving global human rights, is an opportunity to criticise global politics and be part of global change. However, here must be an acknowledgement of manipulative and dangerous public freedom which often has hidden background of participatory reasons, opinions exchanged and etc. The media is a powerful criticism apparatus, which builds conflicts and offers solutions ahead; and nevertheless, it is also a major public representative. However, society is feeble in detailed knowledge of world politics, and it is often fallowed by individual neglect or the reason of powerful and manipulative public diplomacy, which is not independent as it may look like. Simplest way to put it in the questions: who chooses the facts shown or written: are opinions expressed? Why specific factors were ignored or hidden? What is a reason of centric attention to specific personalities, countries etc?
The question arises: Is public diplomacy ethical?
A good example: ‘Mapping Stereotypes/The geography of prejudice’:
http://alphadesigner.com/project-mapping-stereotypes.html)
Fallowing the link above, it may look the same as a daily source of information, but it can be a source of propaganda; in other words, diplomacy is a tool which creates global problems, and at the same time, a tool which has a power to solve them.
Indeed, we are living in the globalised world which reflects high level of interdependence. This factor is also significant changing diplomacy, in matter that diverse states are forced to negotiate for global common good even with exception of more or less inequality, which is inevitable in world politics.
All in all, the use of ethics in contemporary diplomacy perhaps may not be not the most important factor, for most, but for sure, the most respectful one which aids typical understanding of its aim, shaping diplomacy’s vision and missions.
The growing concerns towards undeveloped world’s issues such as poverty, insecurity, civil wars, unequal human rights and opportunities including internal and external factors, environmental degradation, corruption, etc., is a general demonstration of changing diplomatic agenda which slowly turns from high politics based on narrow self interests, and opens to global world, which is not only political achievement, but also the achievement of all humanity. Unfortunately, there are still much more to improve, than those to be proud of.
A good video presenting global trade, which is crucial in diplomatic activities:
‘Hidden Face of Globalization Part III’:
http://www.youtube.com/nlcnet#p/u/21/dx8VPjRKOkY
Bibliography:
Roberts, I. (ed.), (2009), Satow’s Diplomatic Practice, 6th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
White, B. (2005), ‘Diplomacy’ in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, 3edition, (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Art of Diplomacy
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the division of diplomacy into old and new is not only confusing, it is misleading in that the practice of diplomacy is an art in itself and instead of categorising it into old and new why not separate it into Western diplomacy and Eastern (China) diplomacy so that students can have a better understanding of the peace and conflict that is currently afflicting our world .
In Europe one mat categorise old diplomacy arising from, for example, the Westphalia state system of 1642 to the Napoleonic Wars of 1812 when France as a continental superpower was using diktats upon weaker states to further her national interests. Such a pattern of realpolitik diplomacy continued to the Bismarckian era to Kaiser Wilhelm whose confidence of German teutonic superiority complex dictates European policy as the old power ,France, started to wane. It was then inevitable that German quest for world expansion came into collision with British global and colonial interests in 1915, and the advent of World War 1 .
Diplomacy during this period, according to Henry Kissinger’s analysis ( in Diplomacy ) has more to do with trying to accommodate a foreign policy of belligerent states within the climate in the scramble for both Africa and Asia under the inertia of industrialisation and search for overseas markets and territorial annexation via gunboat diplomacy . By 1916 the Germans were issuing their diktats in power politics right up to 1939 to both Poland and Czechoslovakia and scorned Neville Chamberlain’s diplomacy . Events leading to the Westphalia conference was no different from that of 1919 Versailles and 1944 armistice. These are the behavioural patterns of Western diplomacy by way of diktats which continue to be used on both Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein .
Chinese diplomacy on the other hand has not changed in 3,000 years according to K.J. Holsti ( in International Politics, 1967) which was not base on diktats but through trade, persuasion, and suzerainty ( see Gavin Menzies 1412 ) that stretched from China to the coast of East Africa from the 12th century Yuan dynasty to the 15th century Ming dynasty long before Europeans sailed round the Cape of Good hope to colonise Chinese spheres of influence. However according to veteran sinologist Harold C. Hinton who rote that once China annexed a territory at remained within her sphere of influence in perpetuity and the possession is never lost.
Therefore base on the above comparison and discussion the term old and new diplomacy is simply not efficacious in describing our diplomatic world and clash of civilization .
Every writer acknowledges that this 21st century is China’s century, so why not liberate our thinking and start to study diplomacy on an East-West approach and help us to understand the underlying tensions . all comments welcomed........ToraToraTora .
Hi Tora,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment, very interesting and evident.
Your suggestion separating diplomacy into ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ (China) diplomacy is reasonable enough. I do agree that this term perhaps would state more evident definition of conflicting global politics. However, I think, it might be good to use it describing contemporary politics, as we know that figures in global politics are changing; Imperialism was still a centric factor shaping the first part of the 20th Century; the second part was a century of the US and the USSR. It might be right to say what 21st Century is a China's century, but for how long?
I would dear to stress on the global economic interdependence and struggles for the leading role in global politics, rather than clash of civilization. Indeed, diplomacy is a complex instrument which has been used in a complex world and there would be not prudent to say who is right or wrong. Although, we all are victims.
mate, the "aphadesigner" link (the 2nd one) does not work.
ReplyDeleteCould the others access it?
Hi Daemian,
ReplyDeleteThank you for letting me know, however, I haven't recognised any problem assessing the 3rd link.
Try this one (hope it works for you):
http://alphadesigner.com/project-mapping-stereotypes.html