ZEITGEIST: MOVING FORWARD | OFFICIAL RELEASE | 2011

Very interesting case study of human nature - hope you will enjoy this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&feature=player_embedded

The significance of non-state actors in environmental diplomatic negotiations

Globalisation gave way to an increased number of contributions by various non-state actors to diplomatic negotiations. The amount of resources, their flexibility, access to modern technology and information that non-state actors now possess led to a point where governments need the reports and opinions they can provide. A number of services are much better delivered and get easily and effectively funded under supervision of agencies, non-governmental organisations and multinational corporations.

The crucial point of the role of the non-state actors in environmental negotiations is that some of them have been specifically created to do research and they focus on finding the best solutions themselves, on both regional and international levels. And as we could observe, most of multinational negotiations and summits aimed at addressing global environmental issues since 1985 Vienna Convention on Protecting the Ozone Layer until 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change have initiated the publication of a broad range of reports, scientific research, and alterations of national policies (Benedick, R. 1999: 4).

As Jonas Parello-Plesner from the European Council on Foreign Relations said, the EU’s cooperation with non-state actors was a step forward for the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico (East Asia Forum2010). He further points out the advertising prior to the event. In the UK a number of private companies invested a lot of money in order to lobby for stricter corporate reporting on carbon emissions via publicity.

Nowadays the presence of NGOs at the conferences sponsored by the UN is automatic. The summit in Cancun made no difference to this rule. When Japan declared it would no longer commit to the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, angry reactions were heard by the media from a number of NGOs. Organisations like the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), Burkina Faso NGO, or Information and Communication Service (ICS) complained about the injustice this Japanese action would evoke. They also highlighted the possible future consequences whose impact Africa would have to deal with (Afronline 2010).

In the Cancun Summit, NGOs, experts and companies had their place at the Cancun Messe convention centre, while government officials were put at the Moon Palace Golf and Spa Resort (Swissinfo.ch 2010). It can be therefore concluded, that even though non-state actors are present at the negotiations and contribute by complementing ideas, their debate is conducted separately from that of the officials.

Afronline, The Voice of Africa (2010) ‘Cancun Summit: Africa’s angry reaction,’ 6^th Dec 2010, [online] available from < http://www.afronline.org/?p=10972>

Benedick, R. (1999) ‘Diplomacy for the environment,’ in The Johns Hopkins University’s conference report (February 1999) Environmental Diplomacy Report, Washington, D.C.: The American Institute for Contemporary German Studies [online] available from <http://www.aicgs.org/documents/environmentaldiplomacy.pdf>

East Asia Forum (2010) ‘The EU engaging China on climate change beyond Cancun’ by Parello-Plesner, J., 5^th Dec 2010, [online] available from < http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/12/05/the-eu-engaging-china-on-climate-change-beyond-cancun/>

Swissinfo.ch (2010) ‘Cancun Climate Summit: Major sticking points will beset Cancun summit,’ by Besson, Pierre-Francois, 7^th Dec, [online] available from <http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/climate_change/news/Major_sticking_points_still_beset_Cancun_summit.html?cid=28970664>

Final Thoughts

My Final thoughts of New Diplomacy
To me it’s one of my favourite module. I learned a lot about “Old” Diplomacy and “New” Diplomacy. The history how it’s started and today’s approach. I pictured diplomacy just the way it happened in the lectures and seminars. There is a great book i will recommend “Independent Diplomat”. In this book Carne Ross talks about state of diplomacy and the long way it took him to become a diplomat.

My understanding of diplomacy today

The simplest way to absorb daily information is to believe in everything that media makes public. However, the study of new diplomacy reveals hidden, complex, mysterious relations of political activity, certainly, diplomacy plays a crucial role. The more you study diplomatic art, the more suspicious world seems to be. This perhaps is the most important character making diplomacy more than the prestigious, intellectual political art or practice of conducting international relations, as in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements etc., but, at the same time, the dangerous, sceptical, self-centric, manipulative ever evolving arena, which requires special tact and skill in dealing with people. More than ever before, the century of globalisation holds new challenges which make diplomatic missions go beyond its limits, involving governmental and non-governmental activities of wide concerns. Nevertheless, public opinion building seems to be crucial succeeding in the missions across the globe, which suggests that society is an important player whichever way, in action or in silence, it will affect governmental policy - decision making.

All in all, diplomacy is very interesting, significantly powerful art of politics which affects us all unconsciously. Despite the hidden, dark channels of diplomatic practises (eg. propaganda, secrecy, spying, self-centric, often immoral activities ect.), I hope, that the future diplomacy will remain and strengthen its major aim - negotiating and cooperating for its own people; guaranteeing social, economic, environmental developments for more peaceful, equal, trustworthy, hatless world with less disease of nationalism, competition and secrecy. No doubt, that in the process of learning more about diplomacy we can increase our consciousness concerning international relations, peace and conflicts, governmental missions etc., we can also increase our respect towards diplomats by recognition of their complex and skilful role. However, in some cases, it leads to have a lack of respect concerning the fact that many of diplomatic missions are not fallowing ethical grounds. For this reason, NGOs might be more favourable or alternative diplomats in many ways, concerning the fact that their goal is 'humane', international, less political, profitable and nationalistic, which makes a good sense.

Finally, diplomacy is evolving process, looking back in history we can see many differences in its agenda and practises adopted to changing environment (geographic, social, political, economic, scientific, cultural etc.). However, at the same time, diplomacy kept its origins equal to its very beginning. It is still a process of maturity; teaching to cooperate, listen, understand, appreciate, tolerate, search for compromises, learn to negotiate in mature manner leaving egos behind, and very importantly, opening for consciousness and recognition of others, differences, rights, etc., Indeed, it is a wise process which requires wise, mature individuals, I would compare it with a process of growing old.

My understanding of diplomacy today

Before doing this module, I had a very basic understanding of diplomacy and a lack of insight into the multi-dimensional dynamics of contemporary diplomacy. I assumed that a diplomats job was basically to spy in a foreign country and safeguard their national interests. It is true that diplomats safeguard their national interests but I now know more about the complex nature of the job and the crucial role it plays in foreign relations. I've learned that with the evolution of diplomacy, contemporary diplomacy requires new methods of approach to achieve the objective of peace and and the idea of peace has changed to mean much more than just the absence of war. For example, I mentioned in my earlier blog that Obama recorded a Diwali message for Indian's celebrating the festival all over the world and it was very well received. But some of the new approaches aren't necessarily good for diplomacy as we have seen recently with UN Envoy Jan Pronk in Sudan over comments he made about the Sudanese government on his personal blog. He wrote "The morale in the government army in North Darfur has gone down. Some generals have been sacked; soldiers have refused to fight... Security Council resolutions which forbid armed mobilisation are being violated." The Sudanese government accused him of psychological warfare and he was ordered to leave the country. This situation also shows how much diplomacy has changed from when it was a discrete profession. The BBC said of his blog “His blog was startlingly detailed, the kind of information that is normally sent back, encoded, only to national capitals. Sometimes in a one-on-one talk, a journalist can get something similar from a lively envoy, but to get it in the raw on the internet is an innovation.” I also learned that more multi lateral diplomacy is carried out than on a bilateral basis and that this has allowed for new actors such as Non Governmental Organisations to play an important role in international organisations and this also meant that the exclusivity of overseas knowledge to the old diplomats came to an end.Overall, I have learned a few interesting things and especially that being a diplomat isn't all about champagne receptions.

Few interesting videos for diplomatic wonders: Can one person make a difference?

"RSA Animate – Empathic Civilisation" - Very interesting video which might be useful describing the psychology of diplomacy:

http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/05/06/rsa-animate-empathic-civilisation/


"Can One Person Make A Difference":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhZJ3sCNmqA


"We Are All One" - the inspiring short film to watch concerning environmentalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWtVTu6S51M&feature=player_embedded

The significance of non-state actors in trade negotiations

It is argued that 3^rd world debt is rooted in trade. According to the World Development movement, “if industrialised countries had not stacked the terms of trade so heavily in their favour, Southern countries would not have fallen so deeply into debt.” Many commentators believe it is a great injustice that instead of correcting the imbalance in world trade, northern governments have added more problems to the dilemma. For instance, in the past, northern countries have encouraged poor countries to export raw material to the west, ensuing in their further integration into debt. This was initially seen by many economists to be the best way for all the developing countries to produce wealth for the reason that commodities make up a large section of their income. However in practise this in fact had the opposite effect of the theory. Its major disadvantages included, poor countries having to rely on one or two basic exporting products since they were rarely allowed a range of difference thus resulting in dangerous economic affects if their major commodities were traded at low prices. This particular theory was dependant on consistent supply and demand and failed to take into account the inevitable drop in commodity prices hence making it a short term solution. Furthermore, raw materials do not produce as much wealth as manufactured goods.

NGOs now play a very important role in influencing trade negotiations and the World Development Movement (WDM) is an NGO that has campaigned on trade issues since 1995. In 2004 they stopped the UK and EU passing an agreement in the WTO which would have meant developing countries being forced to allow private countries taking over vital services such as water and banking. Ethical trading is also another significant focus of many NGO's and trying to make sure that companies adhere to internationally agreed labour standards. Another one of their past campaigns saw WDM campaign for the rights of Costa Rican workers on a banana plantation. The workers were “victimised” for joining free trade unions and after WDM supporters sent thousands of letters and organised events such as dumping a tonne of banana skins in front of the Del Monte office in the UK, Del Monte were put under enough pressure to sign a historic agreement allowing an independent trade union to freely organise on the plantation. These campaigns are examples of just how important the role of NGOs have become in international policy making and policy implementation.

Sources:

http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=7321

http://www.wdm.org.uk/world-trade-organisation

http://www.wdm.org.uk/fairtrade-bananas

Trade and environmental diplomacy

In modern diplomacy diplomats have to pursue also commercial interests of their country.

Therefore diplomacy contain collaboration with international institutions, such as WTO, GATT, and there is increasing role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Barston argues: “Trade has traditional been a concern of diplomacy. Trade interests and trade policies are generally part of the central preoccupations of most states.  Ideally, trade policy and foreign policy should support each other.

Trade interests may be acquired for a number of reasons, such as long-standing commercial links, entrepreneurial exploitation of overseas markets or successful domestic lobbying, as in the case of European, Japanese or US farming interests.

In international trade the classical functions of diplomacy are in four areas:

-         multilateral rule making or rule changing

-         the creation of a favourable political setting or legal framework at a regional level

-         resolution of disputes

-         the creation of innovatory agreements.

The setting for international trade diplomacy is distinguished by the post-war growth in the number of multilateral institutions with a direct or indirect responsibility for trade (e.g. GATT/WTO, UNCTAD, the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO), IFC and International Labour Organisation (ILO)” (Barston, 2006, 134-135).

Trade diplomacy now involves domestic and international bargaining. Next agenda of Trade diplomacy are negotiations about reducing taxes, non-tariff barriers etc.

The example of involvement diplomacy in trade negotiation was in the Doha (in Qatar) ministerial round in November 2001, although there was reduced NGOs access.

Barston points out: “Trade negotiations at Doha involved 21 agenda areas, including carry-over issues from Uruguay Round and core traditional issues as industrial tariffs, market access, agriculture, trade in services, TRIPS etc.” (Barston, 2006, 140).

It can be concluded that trade issues play an important role in a modern diplomacy. For example, the Prime Minister David Cameron appointed successful businessmen as diplomats.

The development of science and industry is important for development of economy and society. However, there are also negative impacts on our planet.

Mankind make mile steps. For example, when a former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was born, people travelled on horses or walked. Since his death globalization, science and industry changed our lives even more. People produce enormous amount of CO₂ emissions, there are problems with waste, waste water etc.

Enormous production of Carbon dioxide makes holes in ozone layout of the planet. Consequently, it melts icebergs on both poles, rise sea levels and it makes also health problems. For example, people in Australia have increase of skin cancer.

Barston argues: “ Major incidents such as Chernobyl and Exon Valdez have the effect of dramatising a problem, galvanising non-governmental groups and influencing calls for the revision of international codes and rules.

Environmental diplomacy has involved an increasingly wide range of actors, including new intergovernmental organisations, UN and other international institutions, secretariats, elected conference officials, NGOs, as well as states.

The UN Conference on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks is a classic example of a modern chair-led multilateral negotiation. The complex nature of the conference was underlined by the extensive range of interests: distant water fishing, coastal reformist, flag-registering countries, developing coastal states, newly industrialised import or transit states, FAO, intergovernmental fisheries organisations (e.g. International Commission on North Atlantic Tuna) and a variety of NGOs” (Barston, 2006, 151- 179).

To sum up, Environmental diplomacy has involved an increasingly wide range of actors, including new intergovernmental organisations, UN and other international institutions, secretariats, elected conference officials, NGOs, as well as states. The role of NGOs in international negotiations is increasing because they have expertise, access through resources and networks, such as CAN.

References:

Barston,R.P. (2006). Modern Diplomacy, 3^rd edition, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow

My understanding of diplomacy today

My understanding diplomacy today differs from my view on diplomacy in September.

I realized that diplomacy involved wider range of activities than I thought. For example, a modern diplomacy involves also trade issues, propaganda, NGOs, celebrities etc.

During evolution of diplomacy the role of diplomacy substantially changed.

Diplomacy is possible to understand from various points of view. For example, as managing international relations, way of communication, representation etc.

Diplomacy involves also information gathering and consular services. Diplomacy provides information for government, particularly in the United Kingdom it is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Diplomacy is crucial for making and the implementation of foreign policy.

White argues: “There are two major stages in foreign policy – the making and implementation (or carrying out) of policy.  A simple view suggests that the making of foreign policy is the exclusive business of government.  So important is foreign policy to the achievement of the ‘national interests’ of the state that the most senior members of government will oversee and control the policy process” (White, 2005, 396).

So what is the role of a diplomat and which virtues he/she should possess?

A diplomat at the present time must be able to pursue interests of his country abroad. Moreover, the person needs language, negotiation, IT skills etc.

However, Harold Nicolson points out at virtues of a diplomat in views of a French diplomat de Callières:

“The good diplomatist must have an observant mind, a gift of application which rejects being diverted by pleasures or frivolous amusements, a sound judgement which takes the measure of things as they are.

The good negotiator must have the gift of penetration such as will enable him to discern the thoughts of men and to deduce from the least movement of their features which passions are stirring within.

The diplomatist must be quick, resourceful, a good listener, courteous and agreeable. He should pay attention to women, but never lose his heart. Courage also is an essential quality.  The negotiator must possess the patience of a watch-maker and be devoid of personal prejudices.  He must have a calm nature, be able to suffer fools gladly, and should not be given to drink, gambling, women, irritability, or any other wayward humorous and fantasies” (Nicolson, 1954, 64-65).

As is seen above the list of abilities of a modern diplomat is very long. A diplomat has to possess those abilities and be able to use in a modern diplomacy.

Henry Kissinger - one of the most successful and important US diplomats

Tasks of diplomacy are also possible to divide to six areas.

Barston these tasks as follows:

1. Ceremonial:

-         Protocol

-         Representation

-         Visits

2. Management

-         Day-to day problems

-         Promotion of interests

-         Explanation and defence of policy

-         Strengthening bilateral relations

-         Bilateral co-ordination

-         Multilateral co-operation

3. Information and communication

-         Assessment and reporting

-         Monitoring

4. International negotiation
5. Duty of protection
6. Contribution to international order (Barston, 2006, 2)

It can be concluded that during the module I obtained new knowledge, information and skills about diplomacy. I understand diplomacy better and from broader point of view.

References:

Barston,R.P. (2006). Modern Diplomacy, 3^rd edition, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow

Nicolson,H. (1954). The Evolution of Diplomatic Methods, Constable and Company Ltd, London

White,B. in Baylis & Smith (2005). The Globalization of World Politics, 3^rd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Trade and environmental diplomacy

In modern diplomacy diplomats have to pursue also commercial interests of their country.

Therefore diplomacy contain collaboration with international institutions, such as WTO, GATT, and there is increasing role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Barston argues: “Trade has traditional been a concern of diplomacy. Trade interests and trade policies are generally part of the central preoccupations of most states.  Ideally, trade policy and foreign policy should support each other.

Trade interests may be acquired for a number of reasons, such as long-standing commercial links, entrepreneurial exploitation of overseas markets or successful domestic lobbying, as in the case of European, Japanese or US farming interests.

In international trade the classical functions of diplomacy are in four areas:

-         multilateral rule making or rule changing

-         the creation of a favourable political setting or legal framework at a regional level

-         resolution of disputes

-         the creation of innovatory agreements.

The setting for international trade diplomacy is distinguished by the post-war growth in the number of multilateral institutions with a direct or indirect responsibility for trade (e.g. GATT/WTO, UNCTAD, the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO), IFC and International Labour Organisation (ILO)” (Barston, 2006, 134-135).

Trade diplomacy now involves domestic and international bargaining. Next agenda of Trade diplomacy are negotiations about reducing taxes, non-tariff barriers etc.

The example of involvement diplomacy in trade negotiation was in the Doha (in Qatar) ministerial round in November 2001, although there was reduced NGOs access.

Barston points out: “Trade negotiations at Doha involved 21 agenda areas, including carry-over issues from Uruguay Round and core traditional issues as industrial tariffs, market access, agriculture, trade in services, TRIPS etc.” (Barston, 2006, 140).

It can be concluded that trade issues play an important role in a modern diplomacy. For example, the Prime Minister David Cameron appointed successful businessmen as diplomats.

The development of science and industry is important for development of economy and society. However, there are also negative impacts on our planet.

Mankind make mile steps. For example, when a former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was born, people travelled on horses or walked. Since his death globalization, science and industry changed our lives even more. People produce enormous amount of CO₂ emissions, there are problems with waste, waste water etc.

Enormous production of Carbon dioxide makes holes in ozone layout of the planet. Consequently, it melts icebergs on both poles, rise sea levels and it makes also health problems. For example, people in Australia have increase of skin cancer.

Barston argues: “ Major incidents such as Chernobyl and Exon Valdez have the effect of dramatising a problem, galvanising non-governmental groups and influencing calls for the revision of international codes and rules.

Environmental diplomacy has involved an increasingly wide range of actors, including new intergovernmental organisations, UN and other international institutions, secretariats, elected conference officials, NGOs, as well as states.

The UN Conference on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks is a classic example of a modern chair-led multilateral negotiation. The complex nature of the conference was underlined by the extensive range of interests: distant water fishing, coastal reformist, flag-registering countries, developing coastal states, newly industrialised import or transit states, FAO, intergovernmental fisheries organisations (e.g. International Commission on North Atlantic Tuna) and a variety of NGOs” (Barston, 2006, 151- 179).

To sum up, Environmental diplomacy has involved an increasingly wide range of actors, including new intergovernmental organisations, UN and other international institutions, secretariats, elected conference officials, NGOs, as well as states. The role of NGOs in international negotiations is increasing because they have expertise, access through resources and networks, such as CAN.

References:

Barston,R.P. (2006). Modern Diplomacy, 3^rd edition, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy

We could consider that certain period of time is required for the new diplomacy to expand to its modern characteristics, allowing its further evolution. However, there was not a natural or neutral evolution: it was evolved by the forces of political, social, and cultural dynamic conditions, few to mention: rise of the resident embassies, changing diplomatic agenda shifting from the ‘high’ to ‘low’ politics, the dominance of global imperialism, the end of Napoleonic Wars, the global states – system emerging form the European state – system, the explosion of multilateral conferences with its origins mostly devoted to peace settlements between the great powers, extend of bureaucratization, the First World War, formation of the League of Nations, and the Second World War, the United Nations, the period of Cold War, the European Economic Community, and the European Union, the role of
telecommunications (telephone lines and wireless signals) in modern information technology, the globalisation, etc. The new characteristic procedures associated with what in the earlier periods were, inevitably, the factors which transformed the ‘old diplomacy’ to the ‘new diplomacy’. (Berridge, 2005: 151-3)

History has shown the complex changes in political and social sphere which gradually affected the diplomatic agenda. The most important aspect of the new diplomacy is likely to be changing practises and perspectives of traditional (bilateral) institutions; the multilateral conferences and evolving nature of embassies and foreign ministries; the social and technological change such as the revolution ICT and increasing operations of summitry and shuttle diplomacy, the significance of the 'public diplomacy' and the growth of the international organisations and the NGOs, which involved public engagement in diplomatic practises. All in all, the new diplomacy shines out with a democratisation aspects and the need, more than ever before, for the international cooperation which is crucial for the new global system of high interdependence - globalisation. The fast modernisation has boosted the pressures on the value of the traditional diplomacy.

More detailed analysis below:

Furthermore, as already mentioned, the important aspect of new diplomacy is its multilateral properties , which not only promoted and helped to secure the prestige of the great powers and gave the opportunity to influence over the subjects of immediate concern, but also it advertised the other aspects of consideration like global climate change, etc. (Berridge, 2005: 154)

It suggested that the new diplomacy offers the significant concerns towards non-state actors (economic and social wealth), which have increased the growth of the IGO and the NGOs. It also perhaps suggests the fading of bilateral diplomacy in global perspective; however, it would not mean its elimination from the diplomatic practice or its shading value.

Nevertheless, the new diplomacy fallowed the indications above, gave roots to the increasing practise of public diplomacy with its aims to provide information, construct relations and prestige of the nation - states, and maybe the most importantly, to influence domestic and foreign public. However, it has also improved opportunities for propaganda provided by the revolution in mass communications.
Although, the new diplomacy considered to be an open diplomacy, which might look as a necessity in globalised world with a high extent of common interests and interdependence, yet, there also seem to be the extend of new difficulties in the modern diplomatic practise, especially concerning the security issues, such as difficulties to handle, seems ‘unlimited’, ICT and to prevent its damages on diplomatic missions, including the fact that globalisation widens the possibilities of terrorism, migration, labour exploitation and inequalities among states.

All in all, the few elements mentioned above, indeed have brought the democratisation into the diplomatic value which certainly provided the significant outcomes on the changing diplomatic practise. It started in the early years of the twentieth century by the questioning the liberal thought:
“If government were to be democratically accountable in the domestic
sphere, it fallowed that it should be similarly accountable in the international
sphere.” (Berridge, 2005: 155)

The key feature for achieving this was ‘open diplomacy’ which by practical procedures allowed some formal influence, however, limited to the smaller states. In this matter, even the 'new diplomacy' or the 'open diplomacy' can’t be recognised as fully democratic, although, equality is not fairy recognised in the global politics, which indeed, is dominated by the ‘realist’ approach. Fair or not, the ‘open diplomacy’ might be the only way in which each state has a right to be heard, however, it can’t guarantee the fair outcomes.

Comment: I do agree that in my blog I have not stated my position towards the major important aspect of the new diplomacy evidently. Nevertheless this is for the reason that I do believe there can not be one particular aspect which is of more importance than others. I think it involves few collective aspects creating the disposition of new diplomacy, such as multilateral, public diplomacy, revolution of ICT, and growth or increasing importance of NGO's and globalisation. Firstly, I tried to analyse history behind theses aspect before concluding, and secondly, I tired to conclude that those characteristics are interconnected in the new diplomacy, which finally have evolved into democratisation. I do believe that that is the most important aspect of new diplomacy.

Bibliography:
Berridge, G. R. (2005), Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 3rd edition, (Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills)
Riordan, S. (2003), The New Diplomacy, (Polity, Cambridge)
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)

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

The New Diplomacy

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy is peace-keeping and prevention of war using negotiation as an instrument to find resolution of international crisis.

White argues: “The agenda of the new diplomacy contained a number of new issues as well as a reinforcement emphasis on military security.  The avoidance of war now became a priority as the ‘new’ diplomats sought to make the First World War ‘the war to end all war’, but diplomatic activity also began to focus more on, economic, social, and welfare issues relating to material well-being.”(White, 2005, 392).

One of the most important functions of diplomacy is communication between states to find an optimal way of international relations and collaboration.

In case of a crisis it is role of crisis diplomacy to prevent a war conflict and to find resolution of a crisis.

White points out: “Crisis diplomacy refers to the delicate communications and negotiations involved in a crisis.  A crisis may be defined as a short, intensive period in which the possibility of war is perceived to increase dramatically.”(White, 2005, 392).

For peace-keeping is important the Balance of Power. This principle of foreign policy is nothing new in international relations. For example, Nicolson describes this phenomenon in diplomatic theories of a French diplomat Francois de Callieres. He served, first as a secret agent and then as an accredited envoy, in the Netherlands, Germany and Poland. Later he was appointed Secretary to the Cabinet, or Conseil d’Etat.  In his early manhood the principle of the Balance of Power represented an equilibrium, which might well have been rendered a just equilibrium, between the strength of the Austrian Empire and the strength of France.

The successive partitions of Poland were not merely unjust in themselves, but they also did lasting damage to the principle of the Balance of Power. It required almost half a century and a series of terrible wars before the statesmen of the C ongress of Vienna were able to re-establish the Balance of Power as a credible principle of foreign policy and to found a system that preserved the world from major war for exactly one hundred years. (Nicolson, 1954, 62-69).

Negotiating power depend on many circumstances. For success is important intelligence gathering.

Melissen points out: “Negotiations are carried out by people who usually act for organizations.  Diplomats, the official representatives of their countries, bring all the power and prestige of their countries to the negotiating table.  This puts the negotiations under extra pressure.  It also brings risks with it which must be limited.  Serious loss of face for diplomatic negotiators can result in serious loss of face for the country, which can lead to unforeseen consequences.”(Melissen, 1999, 86)

References:

Melissen,J. (1999). Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, Palgrave, Basingstoke

Nicolson,H. (1954). The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, Constable and Company Ltd, London

White, B in Baylis & Smith (2005).The Globalization of World Politics,3^rd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford