What New Aspects did the New Diplomacy introduce?

The structure of the international system has been significantly altering in both the 20th and 21st centuries. The changes that the impact of globalisation, and the growing relevance of international bodies, brought about structurally changed diplomacy. The foreign policy is also conducted differently. It now considers the public involvement, the conduct of the foreign policy is no longer secret, and is exercised on a larger scale. All of these aspects have contributed to the introduction of what we call today the ‘New Diplomacy’.

Prior to the World War I, the prevailing opinion was that states had the right to pursue their own interests at whatever cost to the international order. The independently formulated foreign policy could be conducted through diplomacy or military action (Steans, J. 2001: 21).

The first major shift is from the widespread use of hard power to the soft one as a means of negotiation.

The “carrots and sticks” paradigm has proved ineffective. Taking America as an example, Saddam Hussain had managed to resist the impact of economic sanctions for over a decade, and even the outcome of the military action did not live up to the expectations of the American (and international) public (Nye, J. 2004: 99). This has been giving way to the emphasis on the growth of cultural and public diplomacy.

Even the military service per se seems to have become obsolete. There is indeed a debate over what tasks should the troops perform in the host countries at times of intervention. They rebuild airports and schools, train the foreign police and deprive the territory of landmines (the NATO troops in Eritrea 3 years ago is a good example).

As Bob Woodward point out, the U.S. NSC is considering a similar approach to the war in Afghanistan (2010: 17, 42-43).

The second major shift is the impact of media and non-state actors.

Globalisation opened the borders, allowed a fundamental mixture of cultures, and set most of the people to move freely. It all made media stronger and gave journalists even a greater power to either help to or to deter governments from winning people’s ‘hearts and minds’. Governments now depend on media as a means of creating the public opinion as never before.

The structure of the anarchical international arena became more complex with the raise of international institutions. As a more secure way to pursue peace, after the Second World War most of the countries recognised by the Treaty of Westphalia started creating unions, signed treaties, and opted for cooperation. This led to the increase of legitimacy and power that international bodies possess. Due to this private companies and businesses amalgamated or expanded over their home countries borders. And thanks to their financial independence and multinational character, many NGOs and MNCs now have the ability to contribute to the process of creating and applying different policies (Leguey-Feilleux, J.-R. 2009: 114-118).

It is true that some major international actors (the U.S. for example) still opt for a rather unilateral approach than a multilateral one (Jetleson, B. 2010: 287). But there are two crucial points against this. First, the world is changing and those lagging behind can only lose. Leading figures such as Henry Kissinger (2002: 31) and Joseph Nye point out the necessary changes that even America should apply.

Jetleson, B. W. (2010): American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21^st Century,4^th ed., London: W. W. Norton & Company Ltd.

Kissinger, H. (2001): Does America need a foreign policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21^st Century, 2^nd ed., London: Simon & Schuster

Leguey-Feilleux, J.-R. (2009): The Dynamics of Diplomacy. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

Nye, J. S. (2004): Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs

Steans, J., Pettiford, L. (2001): International Relations: Perspectives and Themes. Essex: Pearson Education Limited

Woodward, B. (2010): Obama’s Wars. London: Simon & Schuster