The most significant dimension of what we call new diplomacy is summit diplomacy. The importance of summit diplomacy is provided that the fact that it allows different types of actors to interact with each other in order to solve (or at least try to solve) global issues. Despite of being a fundamental part of new diplomacy, summit diplomacy is not new, as pointed out by Dunn, we have examples of public diplomacy that date back to the fifth century AD. What has changed is the frequency on which they take place, also favoured by the development of transport, and the major role they now play in international relations.
The reason for its importance is because they perfectly fit the current characteristics of diplomacy, with so many and so different actors in place, any diplomatic discussion on global issues will be lacking rigor if it was done differently. Moreover, the establishment and development of the United Nations are its many specialised agencies have contributed to the expansion and regularisation of summit diplomacy since they are permanent institutions of summit diplomacy.
The most illustrative example of summit diplomacy is provided by the talks on climate change when the scientific community, the NGOs and representative of public society organisations get together with diplomats from states to discuss and try to find a solution for such a pressing issue. The particular characteristics of climate change; it goes beyond borders and therefore measures taken by a state will not prevent it from happening unless the rest do the same, make a solution hard to find. However the COPs conferences are becoming more frequent proving that the interest from all types of actors in finding a solution is real.
To summarise, summit diplomacy is an old practice that has acquired a complete new dimension due to the peculiarities of the world we now live in; globalisation has also allowed the development of a transport network that allows delegates to travel from a part of the world to the other side in just a few hours, more importantly, there are now (there were before but now we are aware of them) global issues that require a global approach to be taken not only by governments, but also by the rest of international actors.
The New Diplomacy
The New diplomacy, or diplomacy 2.0, may refer to the dramatic changes in the way diplomacy operates. One of the biggest advancements in the new diplomacy is technology. The rise of technology has exploded in our everyday lives, making the world dependent on it. Advancing new hardware, such as versatile smartphones and even the most basic of task such as send emails, making phone calls and even video calling through Skype, has been entrenched in our daily lives. This allows the world to connect thus, making it virtually smaller. Rising use of technology and digital communication has been taken advantage of, as diplomats can now contact their counterparts with ease getting results faster than before. What was of great significance when discovering the practice of diplomacy during the ancient civilizations of Sumer was the use of communication between one sovereign entity to another.
The fact that the basic use of communication by speech and importantly writing reflects how diplomats today have made significant use of the new technologies today. Furthermore, as technology has become commonplace, states disregarding the use of technology will disadvantage them greatly as it will slowdown the process of communication between essential state partners especially in a time of urgency.
For e.g. the United States of America have around 150 full-time staff and over 900 diplomats abroad who use Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and blogs to conduct their work, showing how harnessing the use of digital technology can develop strategies to communicate to the world, in and outside of diplomacy. In the United Kingdom, the Digital Diplomacy Department of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office develops guidelines in using social media and other new technologies where they train diplomats before they’re sent to their post. The department also oversees the activities and performance of diplomats abroad using such technologies. Furthermore, the use of technology allows leeway to the way diplomats in each embassy approach foreign publics. They are free to choose a particular subject to discuss, target the audience to discuss it with and control the level of information given to the public.
Technology in diplomacy today, is an essential aspect of how embassies operate. As technology develops it erodes the wall of isolation making it open not only for diplomats themselves to contact each other, but for the public sphere as well. Digital communication has helped make decisions faster and also easier for foreign ministries to reach out to their diplomatic missions across the world.
http://www.exchangediplomacy.com/the-united-kingdom-and-the-rise-of-digital-public-diplomacy
Multilateral Diplomacy
Multilateralism is a form of diplomacy where more than two nations cooperate in negotiations. It began to be common after the end of WWII, mainly due to the birth of the United Nations, which consists of the General Assembly and the Security Council, with members from across the world working together. Today, multilateral conferences are commonplace ranging from issues such as climate change to cyber security. However, many question the credibility of multilateral negotiations and whether they’re effective enough for a nation, or nations, to pursue their goals fulfilling their national interest. This is due to the high number of states participating with a wide range of views and demands that are likely to clash with others.
The 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, which consisted of 192 participating states, saw China, India, South Africa, the EU and the USA left to broker an agreement. The conference itself was important, as it was the first time all states met understanding that there’s a pressing need to reduce Co2 emissions and not whether climate change is of importance. Nevertheless, the conference also reflects a world where the balance of power has significantly changed in the past two decades, requiring industrial nations including, Brazil, China, India and South Africa, rather than the common Western powers to come to an agreement on tackling climate change. The Conference proved to be chaotic, with 192 states, all with issues of their own affected by climate change, coming to single agreement. Furthermore, smaller, poorer states affected by climate change – such as the Maldives- who are relying heavily on an agreement to reduce emissions and control water levels, are faced with influential powers, such as China and the USA, that do not wish to regulate Co2 emissions as it would curtail their highly lucrative industrial sector. Agreements are dropped at the last minute, as developed states are reluctant to focus political capital towards climate change. However on the other hand, developing states vulnerable to climate change, are desperate to pull of an agreement that could allocate $100 billion a year for poor countries to adapt to climate change. What ultimately put the conference to a halt was agreeing to keep temperature rises to no more than 2C although poorer countries, including a majority of African countries, wanted the threshold down to 1.5C.
Although there was much scepticism about the conference and whether there will be a concrete agreement, it would’ve been no surprise as this was the first of its kind. All states have come to the conference agreeing that there is a pressing need to deal with, deforestation, high water levels and high Co2 emissions as well as tackling the causes of them. Furthermore, 192 states have come with proposals that they require in their own terms, that might clash with others puts them in positions of compromise. However, the end of the conference showed no significant results, as the major players in the conference conveyed vague messages about what they want, which ultimately halted negotiations and delayed it till the next conference.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8424522.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal
The formal institutions of diplomacy
Many misconceive that the diplomacy we understand today, was formulated in Europe. That is true in part, but many don’t appreciate the facts of pre historic societies practicing the diplomacy we know during the 3rd to the 1st millennium BC. Surprisingly, societies in Mesopotamian Sumer possessed inscribed tablets that proved it ran a diplomatic system of messengers and diplomats that was as efficient and really similar to that of historic Europe up until today. Due to how old these civilizations were, archaeologists have found it difficult to document their everyday activities. Nevertheless, the inscribed tablets they found and deciphered show world no one would think at such a primitive time. The civilization of Sumer, consisted of city-states maintained interstate relations with one state chosen to maintain and regulate their relations as city-state, through the use of diplomacy. The conventional method of messengers was used to send inscribed tablets, being the early documented use of diplomacy. In the 1970s, archaeologists deciphered a message sent by the King of Ebla in northern Syria the kingdom of Hamazi north of Iran today, which shows a similar style of language used by todays diplomats advocating unity and partnership.
“You are my brother and I am your brother. As a brother I will grant you whatever you desire, and you will grant me whatever I desire. Give me good work-animals. Please send them. Ten beams of boxwood, two sledges of boxwood, I Ibubu, have given the messenger, for you.”
Other than the style of language used, the fact that a messenger was sent from one sovereign entity to another, conveying a message of friendship and exchange is sufficed to say that the basic form of diplomacy we see in todays world, has be practiced. Furthermore, diplomacy at the time is fascinating at how many of these civilisations managed to communicate with each other at such a isolated period as well as traveling being an onerous task. The Ebla messenger had to travel over 2000 km just to deliver the message to the Hamazi kingdom.
Although many would relate diplomacy to most commonly, Ancient Greece, many fail to realise how sophisticated these Mesopotamian civilisations were to the extent that they’ve discovered the foundations of diplomacy. In the coming years, through the ancient Egyptians, ancient Greece, and Renaissance Europe until today saw diplomacy develop from mistakes, errors and challenges the we’ve learned from to develop the diplomacy we see today.
Leguey Feilleux, (2008), “The dynamics of diplomacy”, Lynne Rienner, P. 24-47
Crisis Diplomacy
International crises are rife in the world we live in. Even if they don’t erupt at the same time, they reoccur. It could be land disputes in the Middle East or even rebel uprisings in Africa. More importantly however, there’ll always be a crisis that somehow involves the United States of America or US interests. Which is therefore why it is their responsibility to manage these crises.
This was the case in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. When the Egyptians and Syrians declared war on Israel, the Americans of course feared that their greatest ally in the Middle East was in trouble. Furthermore, the US state department also feared the Soviets involvement with brokering a ceasefire, would gain them a strategic advantage over the US in the Middle East. The most famous of all to deal with the crises in the early and mid 1970s was the United States secretary of state Henry Kissinger. Though trying to resolve the crisis between Israel and surrounding Arab states his method of managing the crisis is famously known as ‘Shuttle Diplomacy’.
It is mostly used when two disputing parties or states, do not formally recognize each other but are willing to engage in negotiations in order to disengage both armies as well as promoting lasting truce between the states. Moreover, A third party is involved acting as the mediator between the disputed states by shuttling back and forth.
The definition is quite self explanatory when mentioning the Arab Israeli conflict
A year after the war, there was stalemate. Kissinger succeeded when the first disengagement began with the withdrawal of Israeli and Egyptian troops in the surrounding the Suez Canal and to allow non-military ships to cross it. A second round of negotiations began. The second disengagement was signed, which agreed that both Egypt and Israel are to withdraw from the Sinai region and allow Israel to ship non-military goods through the Suez. Additionally, Israel and Egypt agreed no to use force as a resolution and to reach a settlement under the U.N. Resolution 338.
The drawback we see is a continuation of conflicts within the region, proving that a long-term strategy seems far-fetched. However, Kissinger proved what no man could do.
http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=883997&ct=2837497
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conversations/Habib/habib5.html
Environmental diplomacy is becoming increasingly important in the modern world. The environment itself is one of the biggest issues our world faces today and it is an excellent example of a problem that needs an international and joint approach to tackle it. This is because it is a problem that affects all of us and one states actions can have vast consequences on another and therefore it needs to be tackled by everyone working together. This in itself is a major issue as many states simply aren’t interested in helping to tackle the environment issue as they’re more interested in increasing the wealth or power of their own states. The US and China are two great examples here.
However in diplomacy as we have learnt over the course of the module, there are many more actors around than just states. An example of this is the vast number of NGO’s we have around the world. Especially in an area such as the environment there are many NGO’s and this is necessary as they can sometimes get far more done than the states themselves. As they are specialised in the area they know what is really happening and can advise and crucially pressure governments into caring about the environment more.
We need these NGO’s to pressure governments as without them the states are likely to carry on as they are. An example of this is the Kyoto treaty on Greenhouse gases which wasn’t ratified by the United States. However if Ngo’s continue to increase in power we may start to see changes where they are able to influence states decisions for the better.
It is due to their vast potential power that they will continue to play a very important role in diplomacy. As an example on occasions they can work as a middle man between two states that aren’t that keen on negotiation with each other. By having a NGO as a third party there may end up being more visible and positive negotiations and results. They are also important in diplomacy as they can quite often appeal to the people of a state more effectively than the government themselves. This can be crucial as then a nations people can also pressure their government into tackling issues around the environment.
Before I started this module, my understanding about diplomacy was about the basic communications. However through the teaching year I understood the development of different kinds of diplomacy such as the public diplomacy, which is famous type of diplomacy; this type of diplomacy came from people from the roots. It can be through art, educations exchange, cultural, media and sport. Today the popularity of the public diplomacy reached the top which led governments to use them in order to affect Societies, where the traditional media, led by governments, for example, BBC in Britain, they use them to affect people. As well as the” NGOs” diplomacy, there are more than 15000 NGO’s working in the international level such as, the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, Medicine Sans Frontiers, Greenpeace, etc.: all those organizations can be considered diplomatic and are supporting the international public interest as well as development of economic relations. However, the important of formal institution for example , embassies works are not just about consulter services they have different section rather the consult service such as the economic affair which help the citizen to choose a good companies in the host country. In addition through the year we have visited few embassies, which gave us an idea about the work of the embassies. We also visited the British Foreign Ministries which helped us to develop our knowledge of the different departments. Today I know how the diplomatic people deal with crisis that creates by politicians, such as, Iraq-Kuwait conflicts. The diplomatic role is more important than the politicians. Today I know more than before and I know very well how the countries need the diplomatic people more than any other time.
Other interesting thing was the multilateral diplomacy, I did not what means by this kind of diplomacy, but know I understand clear that multilateral diplomacy is “international governance of ‘many,’” ,For example EU ,UN and others . Multilateral diplomacy is about states who shared the same opinion and the same agenda and cooperation together in order to but push on the internationals opinion and affect them. Now I know every single thing in the diplomacy I know about the semi-diplomacy which is on presidential level, I did not known before about co-location, countries that shared the same location in order to reduce the expense of each country and became more powerful in host country such as Britain and Canada.
Before I stared the module I did not want to be a diplomat. However, through the year I seen the important role of diplomacy in world politics, because it help countries to get best deal in peaceful way, the important role of diplomacy makes me sure to choose this field, and I definitely will became a diplomat, because they solving the problem that create by politicians, diplomacy is a peaceful term. The diplomat men is an independence person (his loyalty to his country) ,who work and make effort to get best offers for his country ,also defends his country views . Diplomacy work looks like a game, where the diplomatic men, elude with words in order to achieve their goal.
I joined this year I will like to thank every person, who helped us to develop our knowledge through the years.
Environmental diplomacy is the process of enabling and encouraging environmental cooperation between two or more parties. In terms of cooperation it helps to promote peace through conflict resolution by supporting to prevent conflict before it escalates and turns into violence by addressing the root cause of the instability and promoting a proper way for dialogue between parties in order to help minimize and resolve disputes, by enabling more effective peace building process, reconciliation among groups that have been divided and settling of post-conflicts among countries.
Non-state actors are actor’s that are not representatives of states, yet that are able to operate at the international level and that are potentially relevant to international relations. Non State Actors (NAS) see themselves as more effective, efficient and faster at tackling climate change than nation state actors because of the difficulties and slowness in diplomatic procedures and also reaching agreements but they recognizes that having a rigorous international policy framework is critical for achieving long term deep cuts in emission. Lovell, Liverman, Brack, Bulkerey (2007) and other research institute believes that NAS are effective than nation state actors in negotiating and addressing climate change.
Also the case study suggests that NAS conducts and focuses on the drivers and barriers to emission reductions and the role of post-2012 climate change to their action. United Nations Generals report to the Assembly stated that “arrangement and practices for the interaction of Non-Governmental Organization in all their activities on the UN system”. He acknowledges that NGO’s does not only disperses information but they helps in shaping policy and intergovernmental process.
As the global population continuous to rise and the demand for resources continuous to grow, there are always significant potential for conflicts over natural due to the limitation and high volume of people that seeks to have the resources, there is the fear escalation of more conflicts in the coming decades. In addition the possible consequences for climate change for water availability, food security, prevention of diseases, costal boundaries and population distribution may exceed existing tension and generate new conflicts.
Chinese premier Li Keqiang told reporter after National People’s Congress in Beijing that “China should not only pursue economic grow at the expense of the environment but Li Bo, Beijing’s environmental NGO friend of nature said Chinese leadership speaks very well about how the environment should be protected on paper but dealing with the issue practically such as protecting the environment or going ahead with a specific developmental projects, the development initiative wins due to the fact that the leaders seeks to develop economically more than seeking the solve the problem of the world.
As the environment is and continuous to change constantly, the earth is warming up with stunning scientific consensus that it is happening, human activities and nature is being induced. Particularly with global warming which is on the increase, species and their habitats keeps decreasing, chances that ecosystems will adapt naturally are seemingly diminishing at a threatening alert. Many nation state actors and non state actors have agreed that climate change is one of the greatest threats that then environment is facing. Recently temperatures increase in various regions and increasing extremities increase in weather patterns have alerted non state actors to participate in negotiating and also raising the awareness of how important it is to regulate trade and care for the environment and not only be driven by trade expansions and profit maximisation.
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/cop14/non-state-research.php
http://www.iisd.org/ecp/diplomacy/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/18/campaigners-sceptical-china-environment-changes
At the time of writing, it seems much of the political world seems to be very much concerned about the North Korea “crisis”. I’ve used the analogy several times throughout my blog posts, but the situation does very much remind me of a playground argument.
To begin with we have North Korea. It very much appears that in the world political sphere, North Korea are seen by many as the “dangerous loner” of world politics, a role which is traditionally assigned to certain characters in the playground as well. There is very little confirmed knowledge about North Korea, and this is what makes things complicated. Nobody knows how seriously they can take any threats made by North Korea, but past incidents have shown that it only takes the smallest thing to set them into action of one kind or another (admittedly much like many other nations). Former U.S ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson stated “I think the (US) administration’s response does make sense in the sense that you don’t want to continue this huge rhetoric and at the same time provoke some kind of incident.”
In playground terms, North Korea has been bragging about their attributes and position, and has been talking themselves into a fight. However, a major problem is that when somebody gets challenged to a “fight” on a global scale, it inevitably drags several other nations in, much like the playground, but obviously without the nations. Many actors have become involved in the crisis, other than simply U.S and North Korea. China and South Korea have notably become involved, while many others look set to be dragged into it. The increasing numbers involved in the dispute mean that public diplomacy around it becomes even more important. A compromise/ending has to be reached that satisfies all involved, and when there’s several involved in the dispute, all with different aims, this becomes even more difficult. When taking part in public diplomacy around this dispute, when a number of nations are involved, it becomes possible that communication becomes distorted, due to increased channels, and there’s also the need to ensure that any public diplomacy which occurs doesn’t upset or anger somebody else on “your side”.
The conflict between US and North Korea very much revolves around keeping face domestically. Therefore, public diplomacy becomes vital in keeping face towards your own public, and ensuring it is seen you are defending your nation’s interests. Jim Walsh of MIT Security Studies Institute describes President Obama’s reaction as: “sending a message of reassurance to South Korea and the American public in particular,but [it is] also telling a leader who is really breaking new ground with direct and specific threats, ‘If you keep talking like that, this is what you have to look forward to.’ ” However, public diplomacy is also important with regards to image on the international stage. One of the greatest problems with previous conflicts such as the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict was the opinion of others on the world stage. Public diplomacy is of vital importance to those involved in the conflict so that they can gain support for their actions in the conflict and so far throughout the conflict, regional media have had very different opinions.
Public diplomacy is all about keeping face, and the importance of this very much fits in to the US/North Korea conflict. Many actors are involved in the conflict, when one side operates in public; it has to consider the volatile nature of all those involved, and the effect of any public diplomacy. A key issue is domestic image, and any public diplomacy conducted will have to appeal to the domestic opinion. This truly is the first “PR” war, and whoever can “spin” the best, may come out on top.
Rediscovering the Traditional Institutions of Diplomacy
When talking of old diplomacy we often refer to bilateral negotiation, secrecy, exclusiveness of the actors and “high politics”. Practiced from the beginning of the Modern Time during the Italian era in the middle of the 15th century (Leguey-Feilleux, 2009: 38) , it is marked by the development of resident embassies and its ministry of foreign affairs (MFA) which will be further developed in France by the Cardinal Richelieu in the 17th century. In contrast, in contemporary society diplomacy includes new forms of negotiation and representation which started after the First World War when doubts emerged over the efficacy of traditional diplomacy and its incapacity to prevent the devastating war that occurred in 1914. In this context needs for better world cooperation were demanded and the League of Nations saw itself as the beginning of a new system of diplomacy, a system including openness, public channels and summits. This form will be further expanded after the Second World War with the creation of the United Nations but also later on by the spread of new communication systems, the development of internet and the involvement of non-state actors.
The British Embassy, Paris (circa 1830)
Nowadays, some argue that embassies and MFAs are becoming institutions that need to be reassessed as their role in contemporary society have been diminished due to new actors such as Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), Multinational and Transnational Corporations (MNCs & TNCs); technology revolution; and finally the changing security agenda (global warming, environment issues, terrorism, disease …) (Riordan, 2007: 163). This is mainly what Copeland and Riordan tend to discuss. To quote Brzezinski, “if foreign ministries and embassies did not already exist, they surely would not have to be invented (1970). However it seems that the old institutions of diplomacy still have a role to play. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that it is not about whether embassies and MFAs are relevant in contemporary society or not but instead whether traditional institutions are capable to show flexibility and adaptability in a world in constant evolution.
In fact regarding MFAs and embassies we could actually demonstrate that they still have relevance today. As Berridge demonstrated in his book “The counter revolution in diplomacy and other essays” and in “Diplomacy Theory and Practice”, MFAs and embassies still have an important role to play. For instance in response to the pluralism of actors these institutions have developed a department which aims at managing and coordinating this multiple channels (Berridge, 2010: 16); regarding openness, they have also started to open their door to public scrutiny by allowing academics, students or civil societies to get in contact with them for any information sought (Berridge, 2010: 18-19). Rather than staying away from technology they have embraced it by developing their website enabling them to share information with the public andthe media. For instance the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office owns 255 websites in multiple languages as well as a “youtube”, “flick” and “twitter” channel (Hocking 2013: 133). They have also been useful in other role such as mediation, simply by offering an opportunity for conflicting parties to find a common ground as it was the case between the USA and the People’Republic of China during the Cold War in cities such as Geneva, Warsaw or Paris (Berridge, 2010: 122).
In fact, as the world is moving forward (or sometimes arguably backward), it seems that the old institutions of diplomacy which used to be described as secret and exclusive have slowly started to show openness. It is hardly conceivable that the old institutions of diplomacy disappear. As our structures tend to be more and more complex as well as the issues emerging through globalisation such as terrorism, drug or disease, MFAs and embassies will still have a role to play but as mentioned previously this will depend on the capacity for these institutions to adapt to the evolution of the world.
Reference:
~ Berridge G.R (2010) Diplomacy Theory and Practice, Fourth Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA.
~Leguey-Feilleux J.R (2009) The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Lynne Rienner Publisher, Colorado, USA.
~Riordan Shaun (September 2007) Reforming the Foreign Service for the Twenty-First Century, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 161-173, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Diplomacy Old and New 2012a 