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

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy

Bilateral diplomacy is an old institution that has adapted to an increasingly globalised world and the importance of multilateral diplomacy has increased dramatically. Multilateralism took off after the First World War with the League of Nations which demonstrated the expectation that public diplomacy and a united response could lead to a more peaceful world.

The League of Nations was a response to international affairs increasingly involving several countries and a need to establish a group of states collectively addressing their challenges. The founders of the League believed that diplomacy conducted in public was likely to preserve peace more than the traditional secret diplomacy.

In order to achieve mutually beneficial solutions, multilateral organisations have been formed and a culture of collective cooperation has become pervasive in contemporary world politics as we have seen countries unite in the fight against the economic recession, terrorism and climate change. There have been multilateral trade agreements such as the World trade Organisation; states have formed alliances with multilateral common policies like the European Union and institutions like the World Bank have been set up to fight poverty.

Nongovernmental organisations also have an important role in multilateral diplomacy due to the technological advances in communication which means they can focus the attention of individuals, the media and governments onto their issues. They are committed to fighting poverty, maintaining economic stability and peace and claim to represent the interests of groups of people, normally separate from the state although these days they have become so effective that governments sometimes channel their aid money through them.

They use soft power to change the public perceptions of what governments and firms should do. For example, firms can become the targets of NGO campaigns that ‘name and shame’ companies that mistreat their workers in poor countries and because they can attract so many supporters, governments and firms have been forced take them into account.

The process of globalization in our time and the resulting problems require a united response and although governments remain the major actors in international politics, when they get it wrong, NGOs act as pressure groups and call issues to the public’s attention.

Most important aspect of New Diplomacy!

Most important aspect of New Diplomacy!

As I mentioned before Public Diplomacy really is “soft diplomacy” and looks to persuade, but unlike propaganda it uses subtle subconscious techniques. So one country’s propaganda is other country’s Public Diplomacy.
Conference Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy form constituent parts of New Diplomacy. As opposed to Public Diplomacy, Conference Diplomacy organises meetings at a government level. For instance the Congress of Paris resolved issues of the Crimean War in 1856. That touched many European countries and made them realise the importance of Conference Diplomacy. Another Conference in Berlin on behalf of Christian interests resolved unpleasant and offensive disagreement between so-called “Eastern” and “African” questions in 1878 and 1884-85. These are just few of aspects of New Diplomacy.
By looking at these two individual diplomacies which form part of New Diplomacy it is clear to me that the most important aspect of New Diplomacy, is the fact that its divided into a lot of different Diplomacies.
It is amazing that we can relate to these because each are very different. But yet they come together to form a body of diplomacy. Diversity within diplomacies means they do different jobs and with some overlapping, as a group, together, they help the governing bodies and citizenry move forward to achieve goals.
To me to be made up of different diplomacy’s gives New Diplomacy its power and is ‘the’ fundamental aspect.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/164602/diplomacy/233747/Conference-diplomacy-and-the-impact-of-democratization?anchor=ref254560

The Evolution of diplomacy

Diplomacy as in instrument of communication between states existed also in ancient times and some authors, such as Melissen, argue that history of diplomacy goes back to 2500 BC.

However, one of the first written records about diplomats is in Homeric poems ‘Illiada and Odyssea’. Homer wrote about diplomatic mission of two Greek kings – Odysseus and Menelaus. Before the war with Troy they visited this ancient town to require returning Menelaus’s wife Helen, kidnapped by Troyan prince Paris.

Nicolson pointed out that each of them delivered his own set speech to the Assembly of the Trojans. (Nicolson,1954, 4).

The next step in evolution of diplomacy is possible to find in ancient Rome.

Nicolson points out: “Their ambassadors, who were called either nuntii or oratores, were appointed by the Senate, by whom they were provided with credentials and instructions.” (Nicolson, 1954, 17).

Although diplomacy has existed thousands of years, the ambassadors and diplomats had not a permanent residency. Since 15^th century when was established first embassies is possible to say about diplomacy comparable with present.

Hamilton points out: “By the time diplomacy succeeded war as the principal buttress of security after 1454, it was firmly in place.  The title of ambassador came to be generally used to describe the resident, his accreditation became definite and his instructions carefully composed.

The most important transition was the exportation of the resident ambassador. From 1494, it was no longer possible, even with all the accumulated skills and experience of Italian diplomats and rulers, for the small states lying between Rome and the Alps to remain free from external interference.”(Hamilton and Langhorne, 2000, 35).

In the evolution of diplomacy very important factor is technological development. Faster communications and technological inventions such as telephone, the press, fax and the Internet change way of diplomacy.

However, the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy was necessity of new approaches.

White argues that the failure of diplomacy to prevent the First World War and, for some indeed, its role in actually causing that war led to a widespread belief that a new form of diplomacy was needed.

What was new in diplomacy emerged from two important ideas:

First, there was a demand that diplomacy should be more open to public scrutiny and control.

The second idea related to the importance of establishing an international organization – which initially took the form of the League of Nations – that would act both as an international forum for the peaceful settlement of disputes and as a deterrent against another world war. (White, 2005, 391).