The term "New diplomacy" is complicated itself, as there is no universal agreement which kind of actors can be called 'diplomats', neither the line between 'old' and 'new' is clear . The formal view suggests that diplomacy can only be excersised by small number of officials such as ambassadors, envoys, etc. Meanwhile , the broader approach, which is used in this blog, regards foreign ministers, state leaders and even some non-state actors as diplomats. The question of the origins of the "New diplomacy" is even more complicated. For example, Satow argues that "modern diplomacy" was born in the 17th century with theTreaty of Westphalia and was finally codified in the Congress of Viena in 1815(Roberts,10, 2009) . Liberals argue that the creation of The League of Nations after WWI was the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy, which started the era of "New Diplomacy".However, the most significant changes in the nature of diplomacy occured after WWII and, especially, after the end of the Cold War. The progress of technology and the participation of non- state actors are of paramount importance. The Mine Ban Treaty in 1999 and the creation of International Criminal Court proves that NGO's in some circumstances can achieve their goals even against the will of powerful states(Davenport,21,2002). Apart from these developments, there is one , which I regard as the most significant one. It will be illustrated below
1939/08/23, Moscow. One of the most shameful agreement in diplomatic history is made. Soviet foreign minister V.Molotov and German foreign minister J. von Ribbentrop sign the Treaty of Non-Agression between Germany and the Soviet Union. The treaty also includes secret protocol , dividing the East and North Europe to the spheres of influence of these powers. One week later Germany will attack Poland, which is in Reich's "sphere of influence". WWII will start...
1990/11/29, New York. United Nations Security Council votes for the Resolution 678. The Resolution authorize Member states to use all necessary means to make Iraq stop the occupation of Kuwait . "All necessary means" in diplomatic language means use of force. However , Iraq still has the opportunity to avoid the war , if it leaves Kuwait in six weeks time. But Sadam Hussein will not use his chance . UN authorised coalition, led by USA and United Kingdom , will launch an attack against Iraqi forces...
Now these two different cases of diplomatic practice can be compared. In the first case , despite the fact, that the agreement affected at least several states in Eastern Europe, the treaty was made only between two states. Besides , both negotiations and the final agreement remained "behind closed doors" . Even the majority of German and Soviet government members knew nothing about the negotiations. Finally, secret protocol was kept in secret so carefully, that the world found out this doccument really existed only after the WWII.
In the second case , which could be called an example of the "New Diplomacy",the decision to use the force against Iraq was made by UNSC which consisted of 15 states. Only Cuba and Yemen voted against the Resolution . The coalition wich launched an attack consisted of 34 states. Besides , the diplomatic process was open at all the time. All UN Resolutions( about 10 of them) were announced publicly. Iraq was given an opportunity to avoid the war. Finally, because of global TV channels( technology progress!) the public of the world had information about what was happening in the Persian Gulf at that moment.
Conclusions. Some states, especially powerful ones, still very often prefer secret and bilateral diplomacy. Therefore "Old diplomacy" and "New Diplomacy" coexist together in contemporary world , and both historic examples are relevent today. However, diplomacy today is more open ,public and democratic than has ever been before. That is the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy.
A clip from the BBC documentary series "Behind Closed Doors" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKHpHgpRuHY
No comments:
Post a Comment