"Trade has long followed the flag, but in recent years the flag has followed trade" Sanjaya Baru

“The Seattle Symposium on International Trade Issues in the First Decades of the Next Century was held at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in Seattle, Washington on 29 November 1999, on the eve of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Third Ministerial Conference, which is to take place from 30 November-3December. Approximately 1500 delegates, comprising representatives of WTO Member States, intergovernmental organizations(IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and journalists, participated in the Symposium, which was webcast live. He noted that it was Clinton who proposed that the WTO host a day for NGOs so that they would have an opportunity to voice their concerns and that the Symposium represented the first time in 50 years that NGOs have been given such a voice” (WTO).

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that descended on Seattle were a model of everything the trade negotiators were not. They were well organised. They built unusual coalitions (environmentalists and labour groups). They had a clear agenda to restrain the talks and outcomes. And they were masterly users of the media.
The combat of Seattle is only the latest and most evident recent NGO success. Yet the breaking point was the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, when the NGOs provoked enough public pressure to push through agreements on controlling greenhouse gases. In 1994, protesters conquered the World Bank's anniversary conference with a "Fifty Years is Enough" campaign, and forced a rethink of the Bank's goals and methods. In 1998, an ad hoc coalition of consumer-rights activists and environmentalists helped to descend the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, a draft treaty to complement rules on foreign investment under the support of the OECD. In the past couple of years an additional global coalition of
NGOs, Jubilee 2000, has pushed effectively for a dramatic reduction in the debts of the poorest countries. However, NGO’s agendas are not only limited to economic issues. One major success in the 1990s was the campaign to outlaw landmines, where hundreds of NGOs, in concert with the Canadian government, pushed through a ban in a year. Nor are NGO’s narrowed to government agendas. Nike has been targeted for poor labour conditions in its overseas factories from NGO organizations.


Interestingly, it must be addressed that NGO’s likewise influencing public opinions with an immense impact. To achieve one’s goal, be it National interest or NGO’s targets, the attractiveness and constitute character of a state or NGO’s philosophies for the use of ‘soft power’, to pursue each interests are an ever increasing diplomatic streak. The terminology ‘soft power’ was invented by Joseph Nye and is as follow defined: ‘Soft power rest on some shared values and soft power means getting others to want the same outcomes you want’ (J. Nye, 2004: 111). Let me explain what I mean: The Fairtrade organization set up 1992 by five leading international development NGO’s, with his mission to improve the lives of poor and marginalised farmers and workers in developing countries by promoting fairer forms of trade, achieved

“the growth in public awareness of Fairtrade it has enabled the foundation to take the complex, distant issue of trade, development and poverty
outside of their usual audience into the mass market. It is widely recognised that one of the most effective ways of eradicating poverty in developing countries is to establish successful and sustainable economic activity. Fairtrade has proved to be an extremely successful model of how people-centred development can effectively reduce poverty and improve livelihoods”. (Fairtrade, 2007

As we discovered earlier NGO’s shared their times of success on trade and environmental solutions. The impact of NGO’s will further succeed and growing on influence, and therefore I believe it deserves the wholehearted Government & Public support.

References:

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


WTO
• http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min99_e/english/ngo_e/sdvol34no1.pdf



• Sanjaya Baru http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/2010/09/10/Comment/17450



• Fairtrade http://www.blogger.com/•http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/f/fairtrade_foundation_idc_submission.pdf
  

My understanding of diplomacy

My 'first imporession' of the subject of diplomacy was reduced to the negotiation process itself. My idea of diplomatic relation were concentrated on the talks between actors and agents, not necessarily state officials, but nevertheless between those who were present at the meetings. I also thought of diplomatic relations a something positive and democratic, like invisible bonds betsween countries, organizations and big businesses, focused on talk, consensus and agreements rather than violence, threath and coercion.

My knowledge have developed in terms of widening the concept of diplomacy. I now know about the importance of public diplomacy, and the influence of people and civil society movements. Together with NGOs and other non-state actors, public pressure can influence the outcomes, and processes of negotiations and turn the position of states, international organizations and the media. I know that the use of soft power is extensive when it comes to the new, modern conduct of diplomacy, and is not limited to any physical meetings or debates. Soft power is exercized on many levels and in different dimensions, simultaneously, many times unnoticed, but never without a source.

I know understand that diplomacy, as many almost all other relations between humans, objects, nature, animals and beings is about power. How we interpret the meaning and effects of diplomatic relations depends on how we understand the concept of power. Power is as abstract as the diplomatic process itself. I believe new diplomacy should be understood as the relationship between agents and actors rather than outcomes of negotiations. In my opinion, we can not evaluate how succesful negotiations have been by only consider particular outcomes. Talks are going on constantly, everywhere and on all levels of governance, and interconnects with other processes of political power, flows of information, advanced communcation technology, globalization, mass-consumption, ideological tendencies, grassroot movements and the creation of plural identities. In a post-modern cosmopolitan society, the processes of diplomacy becomes more complex and integrated. The concept of new diplomacy is marked out by less secrecy, and value is put on having open, transparent and accountable negotiations. The narratives and rhetoric about open diplomacy is that is is th building blocks for global democracy. Nevertheless, some critique should be pointed at the conduct of diplomacy. Not only are negotiations controlled, and agendas are set, by those in power, which is the rich countries in the west and big multinational cooperations. Poor nations, NGOs with few resources and people from the global south still have a weaker voice and are excluded from the global space of diplomacy. Therefore, the grassroot movements and NGOs located in the South are very important in increasing equal participation, representation and influence.

My idea of diplomacy is, after taking this module, more about integration of interests, influence, representation, relationships and ongoing process than about the actual talks and the formal participants. I now understand that multiple components are interacting in creating the diplomatic space and that the functions, procedures and outcomes are dependant upon power relations, not always visable for the public eye. And importantly, I understand that citizen participation is more relevant in understanding diplomatic processes than it is stated in the traditional literature about diplomacy.

Environmental Diplomacy and the Impact of NGOs

NGOs have had significant influence in international negotiations, exercising pressure on politicians and leaders and creating public awareness through public diplomacy. As for example, many NGOs use intersessional meetings to set the agenda of international environmental negotiations, often seen at large climate summit meetings, such as Klimaforum09 during COP15 in Copenhagen, also called People's Climate Movement, a space for the civil society to gather, share information, discuss and debate, share ideas and come up with alternative solutions. It was a place where people and organizations could meet and inspire each others to participate in the diplomatic process through taking action in terms of demonstrating, protesting, signing petitions and involve in different projects.

Betsill and Corell argue that non-state actors commonly influence the process of diplomatic relations rather than the outcomes. They have the capabilities to influence the outcomes in terms of providing education and information to delegates from particular countries, to help them pressure for certain outcomes. If they get themselves involved at an early stage, it is more likely they will effect the process of negotiations. Non-state actor involvement in environmental negotiations should rather be seen as a relationship between actors such states, organizations and representatives from different levels of government, and not defined by the outcomes its involvement achieves. Non-state actors can without any formal status highlight certain issues and create a public awareness, and thus put pressure on the process to be transparent, accountable and fair.

NGOs in particular should be seen as influential in global environmental matters. This is because they usually enjoy a good reputation in terms of high moral status. They tend to have resources and scientific legitimacy to be considered as truthful and reliable. They can therefore shape the agenda at negotiations and provide liable information to the public, under the same conditions as the scientific community.

It is very important to mention that NGOs are, to a higher degree than they use to be, recognized by states as actors in global governance. This is a proof of that states understand the importance of cooperation with non-state actors in tackling the problems the world faces.

During COP15, the buildings where the negotiations were going on were highly restricted and closed up from the public. Klimaforum09 provided a space that connected the people with the true issues and gave them an opportunity to express themselves and their concerns not restrained by government designed programmes for citizen participation. People were given the opportunity to search for alternative answers to their concerns and discuss with others. According to the Evaluation Report of Klimaforum09, the event also functioned as a logistic partner to the COP15 conference, as a summit point for people, grass root movements and NGOs from different parts of the world with different interests and concerns. People from the global south were present at the forum, sharing experiences of how it is to live under difficult circumstances caused by the climate change. All movie screenings, exhibitions, lectures, workshops and debates were free as a democratic opportunity to learn and share knowledge and experience. A Declaration was written and signed by about 500 of the participating organizations.

I believe non-state actors, in terms of civil society movements and NGOs, play an important part in environmental negotiations. Even if they do not directly effect the outcomes of the negotiations, they provides a sense of democratic organization and opportunities for people to get inspired, and inspire others, without any money or resources and without any power. Still, the event became recognized as a democratic and open arena of influence. It is very important to have a place where everyone is welcome to take a part, not least because everyone is affected by the environmental change.

Links/Sources:

http://09.klimaforum.org/09/evaluation-report

Betsill, Michele M. and Elisabeth Corell (2008). NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://books.google.com/books?id=cuVt2ZNE-8UC&printsec=frontcover&hl=sv#v=onepage&q&f=false

Is there a need for Public Diplomacy?

Diplomacy can be said to in a constant state of evolution or re-invention, while in a few decades ago diplomacy was about state to state affairs; today we talk about new forms of diplomacy such as public diplomacy. Public Diplomacy on its own can very controversial since its essential about public opinion; there are many questions about its relevance which I will try to address in this blog.

Joseph Nye talks about the importance of foreign opinion to the US Foreign Policy, he says that ‘good reputation fosters goodwill which therefore brings acceptance for unpopular ventures’. An example of this can be seen with the happening of 9/11 in USA soil where the US not only got the sympathy of the ‘world population’ but also the support for the Afghanistan invasion. But in my reality it wasn’t the support of ‘the world’ that lead USA to Afghanistan but their own will, like in the case of the Iraq invasion in 2003. Where America invaded the country against the will of many people and states and even without the support or resolution from the United Nations.

While foreign opinion may facilitate ‘unpopular ventures’ it has no power or influence in today’s world. Not even with the improvements in technology and the easy access that people to information matters; because we simply not aware of all the facts that are considered behind certain decisions taken by diplomats or state representatives. The media has it’s own agenda their main goal is to make profit like any business, therefore a selection of new and how this new are delivered is required; which consequently can have many different meanings. Also the diversion of public opinion is too much to be taken into consideration. Public Diplomacy for me in a way it's like democracy that we have today, a coercive tool way to make the uneducated masses happy, by making them think that they can make a difference if their voices are heard.

Important elements in the New Diplomacy

Soft power?

The increasing use of soft power. Joseph Nye explains soft power as the ability to affect others so you get the particular outcomes you want, without using coercion, threath or payments. The point is to make your views, or methods, or ideas attractive to others. Nye argues there has been an increase of use of soft power; and a change of view that power do not lie mainly in armies but in values. The approach is rather to use mutual respect to try to influence people in other countries, or in the domestic field, so people hopefully will be more likely to embrace the new values when they are not seen as a threath but rather as an improvement. Nye also introduced a concept; “smart power”, refering to a combination of hard and soft power. Soft power also matters in relationships between state actors – in three major types; culture such as arts, literature, movies and music, values such as and policies. Soft power could be imposed on people of a nation through the use of public diplomacy, sometimes called propaganda.

The increase of non-governmental actors in international affairs. Even if government are still the main actors, they are not the only bodies operating on the international stage. Non-governmental organization have become important global actors. They have both resources and knowledge to pressure for their interests, and attract people over borders to unite and struggle for the same purpose. The definition of an NGO is an organization independent from the government control, that is to say independent from one state in particular. Non-governmental actors refers to a more broad range of actors, also including criminal and profit-making ones such as terrorist groups and big corporations. I believe NGOs is an important part of the new global civil society, acting together in accord for issues such as human rights, global justice and for saving the planet from a climate disaster.

Increase use of multilateral diplomacy. We live in an age of globalization, and more actors are and states are involved concurrently in negotiations and international talks. The increasing number of actors contributed to the development of a multilateral and more complex style of diplomacy. Today, more conventions and summits are held with invited guests from all over the world, from states, NGOs and MNCs. Economic networks have also grew, broadening the diplomatic field. Additionally, technological advancements have made it easier to communicate transfer data between countries. For example, it is common that some participants only attend through webcam.

The New Diplomacy is also characterized by less secrecy. Public scrutiny and control are applauded as important elements in making the diplomatic process legitimate. The NGOs tried to influence the the inter-state activity to push for their interests. It was more difficult to hold the negotiations secret with so many actors involved, so the new diplomacy thus became a more open process easier to scrutinize.

The New style of diplomacy also brought on a focus on new issues in diplomatic relations, such as social, economic and welfare issues, sometimes called 'low politics'. The new diplomatic agenda reflected a new society with more wider but specialized interests.

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/CS-NTWKS/NGO-ART.HTM

http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?Soft-Power-Explained

Balance between patterns of change and continuity

Ever since the end of the Cold War a global organism has come into life, creating new situations in which nearly all states are in diplomatic communication with almost all other states. ‘The Globalization, breakdown of national barriers to the world-wide spread of trade, investment, travel and information of all kinds, brought societies and civilizations into contact as never before’ (R. Cohen and J. Melissen 1999: 1). Diplomacy in his traditional form was mainly responsible for the communiqué on a state-to-state basis and the management of international transactions. However with the rapid change of environments in political and global spheres, the restricted functions of diplomacy consequently revolutionized. As J. Batora and B. Hocking suggests, ‘contemporary diplomacy is not marked by clear breaks with its role in its modern phase but by a re-ordering of functions and additions to them reflection the contemporary context of world politics ‘(2008: 8). Dealing with global problems could not be located within the framework solid of the states; it would require the participation of the range of actors. States remain very important, but observably supranational organizations, trading corporations, other transnational bodies and non-governmental organization, taking now part in multilateral conferences on global issues, as they can contribute with valued information. (Cohen and Melissen, 1999:2) Hence we have two new aspects of diplomacy, dealing with global problems on multilateral level and collectively with non-state actors. In the process of diplomacy, changes are the global issues facing the world today, adapting and reforming diplomacy towards it would be the continuity of modernizing diplomacy. I therefore agree with the following argument that ‘the evolution of diplomacy is marked by a balance between patterns of change and continuity’ (J. Batora and B. Hocking, 2008: 12).
The first significant turning point of global changes was the end of the cold war; however a second turning point to be changing the globe, is the war on terrorism. After the 9/11 attack on the USA and the 7/7 bombings in London, the nature of diplomacy will be changed completely.



References:
• Batora, J. and B. Hocking, ‘Bilateral Diplomacy in the European Union: Towards “Postmodern” Patterns?’, Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy, No. 111, 2008, available at: www.clingendael.nl/cdsp/publications/discussion-papers/archive.html
• Cohen Raymond, edited by Melissen Jan, Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, Pelgrave, 1999

Hopenhagen became Nopenhagen – public diplomacy during COP15

In connection with the UN Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) in Copenhagen in december 2009, the Danish government set up a website, cop15.dk, featuring news, articles, links and information about the conference and related issues. Visitors could look at webcast live from the conference and send “Climate Greetings” that were shown on a large screens on different locations. The official website had about 4 million visitors in total. It is clear that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark put in a significant effort in communicating with the public. They also launched campaigns through social media channels, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

The UN, together with the International Advertising Association launched a campaign called Hopenhagen – a symbolic name for the role the conference were suppose to play among the public. The aim was to support COP15, and deliver an optimistic message to the global citizens that they actually had a great chance to influence the political leaders. The idea was to empower people to engage in the conference, for instance by signing petititions and appoint a 'Hopenhagen Ambassador', and to inspire people doing good things around the world. John Clang, a photograher, created a short film as well as posters for the Hopenhagen campaign, with the idea of “bring to life the visual representation of Hopenhagen’s citizens”. The Under-Secretary for Public-Diplomacy in Denmark stated that: "Our main objective is that an ambitious agreement will be concluded in Copenhagen, and we want to applaud the Hopenhagen campaign for its emotional and inspirational messages. Hopenhagen is a perfect way to engage the world and make everyone part of the discussion and solution at the December "COP15 meeting."

The goal of the conference was to set up new climate agreements, particularly about an increase in carbon emission cuts and financial funds to developing nations for climate-friendly improvements in technology and production, for 2012. The outcome, however, was no binding agreement for the future. Just a few agreements were made, with barely any significant when it comes to combat global warming. Government representatives from 193 countries participated in the negotiations, as well as many NGOs, industry groups and civil society organizations.

The failure of the conference can be analyzed in many ways. In an article by Shamus Cooke, published on The Market Oracle, the unsatisfying results can be illustrated by two events. First, the huge police actions in the beginning of the conference, where thousands of climate activists and protestors were arrested. Second, the large number of limousine rented in Copenhagen during the conference. The assessment of this, is that public diplomacy extensively failed in the respect that the general public, the people in the civil society, engaged in the issues of climate change, obtained no response from the political leaders representing them. The public diplomacy was aimed at fooling the public that they could involve themselves in saving the planet by participate in organized events around the town, such as paint earth-skaped ballons and send them to the sky with messages to save the climate. But in reality, people were too frustrated to buy such nonsense. The talks were strictly nothing else but talks. Talks among the elite, representing their own governments' interests rather than those of the climate. When the people, from grassroot level, tried to get involved and through different forms of action, put pressure on the politicians, they faced arrests, insults and police violence. The concerns of the people were met with military force while big business and national governments could travel safely in limouines, more concerned with the national economies than to save the planet. People were aware of this, illusrated by the slogans of many protesters' banners: “bla bla bla... ACT NOW!” and “Nature doesn't compromise”.The message to the global citizens, through a fancy designed campaign, had been: "Engage yourself, but not too much".

Democracy Now!'s reporting from COP15 included an interview with Naomi Klein, who claimed that Obama uses the tools of multilateralism to destroy multilateralism. This means U.S., as many other countries are gathering together in multilateral negotiations without any intention of reaching any agreements. Public diplomacy have effectively been used in the sense that Obama was awarded with the Nobel Peace Price for his multilateral attempts to strenghten international diplomacy. The reality, on the other hand, that he undermined it. Cooke also point on another event, when the Bush administration effectively used public diplomacy to justify their invasion of Iraq. While engaging in fake-multilateralism on the international stage, Bush succesfully inlfluenced the U.S. public opinion and gained their support.

The point is that UN, the governments, politicians and the media tried to give the people an impression that there was hope in the COP15 meeting. That there was hope that economic aid and carbon emission caps could save the planet. The powerful leaders, governments and big corporations targeted public diplomacy on the global audience, hoping to get positive response. That people would get the idea that they took their responsibility. That they were willing to come to an agreement, to save our precious world. But in reality, they were just quarrelling over money as usual. The governments, to a high degree controlled by big coorporations, were not interested in saving the world, only to make profits. That's why COP15 turned out to be such a big failure. Not only did they fatally failed to reach any significant agreements, they also let the citizens of the world down. They failed with diplomacy in both respects. So much hope generated by all the campaigns, posters, movies and media reports, for nothing. If all the campaigns were launched to inspire the public to take action and put pressure upon the leaders to come to an agreement, it didn't work. The political elite don't seem to care about demands from the civil society, as long as governments to a considerable degree are controlled by big corporations. When no agreement was reached, the whole scope of public diplomatic campaigns were ridiculed. Hopenhagen became Nopenhagen.

Democracy Now!'s interview with Naomi Klein (and Martin Khor):

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

Shamus Cooke's article on The Market Oracle:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/UserInfo-Shamus_Cooke.html

Hopenhagen's website:

http://www.hopenhagen.org/

John Clang's stop-motion movie, and more:

http://www.youtube.com/hopenhagen

Three articles and a story

• - 19 July 2010: Nancy Birdsall, Molly Kinder and Wren Elhai wrote about “Building, not buying trust in Pakistan” on http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/19/building_not_buying_trust_in_pakistan;
• - 25 July 2010: the Guardian wrote “Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks);
• - 20 October 2010: the Guardian Development Network, in partnership with Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, asked “Can US aid change minds in Pakistan?” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2010/oct/20/us-aid-humanitarian-pakistan-winning-hearts-minds).

The three articles listed above have at least one thing in common: they are very skeptical on the significance of the United States’ public diplomacy nowadays.

[A quick reminder on what is commonly intended with the term “public diplomacy”:

‘Official government efforts to shape the communications environment overseas in which American foreign policy is played out, in order to reduce the degree to which misperceptions and misunderstandings complicate relations between the U.S. and other nations’,

see http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/1.htm for further definitions]

One could argue that public diplomacy is wonderful. I agree, to the extent that it is transparent as it promises and that it avoids propagandistic power games. The problem arises when it isn’t wholly sincere, when you find out that the information made public doesn’t quite correspond to some other hidden information that was labelled as ‘unsuitable’ to the sensitive minds of the public.

Like those bloody questionable hundreds of “errors” at civilian expense by American and British troops in Afghanistan, recently made available to every online reader in the so-called Afghanistan War Logs on WikiLeaks.

According to the article, the White House stated that their secrecy was necessary in order not to ‘threaten the national security’.

Or like the US intention to “win hearts and minds” in Pakistan. In a part of the world that is not ready yet to trust the Americans, their clumsy attempts to flood the country with aid to quietly obtain a positive return on their image just could not work. As reported by a journalist for the Guardian Development Network,

the more the US seeks out a public relations boost from its aid, the less likely it is that this will materialise [...] A Pakistani journalist recently captured this sentiment rather bluntly. After I reported on the large relief pledge of the US, he said to me: "Yes, but isn't it all just too contrived?"

As pointed out by Birdsall, Kinder and Elhai, the US are (in)famous in Pakistan for abandoning their aid commitments as soon as ‘diplomatic imperatives’ vanish, regardless of the needs of the Pakistani people. American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s reassuring speech in the country on 19^th July is not enough for the US to meet Pakistan’s favours, unless the States start to seriously stick to the promises they make and to achieve them under the public eye, forgetting once and for all their back-up games behind the scenes. Same goes, of course, for the American military effort in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, it is amazing what a single American citizen can do to improve the perception of his country abroad, without even meaning it. Greg Mortenson, 51, has arguably achieved more in terms of American public image among the Afghani and Pakistani people than the government itself. Author of best-selling book Three Cups of Tea (http://www.threecupsoftea.com/)

and of its sequel Stones Into Schools: Promoting Peace With Books, Not Bombs, Mortenson has established over 90 schools in rural regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan, which provide education to over 34,000 children, including 24,000 girls, where few education opportunities existed before. He started his work in 1993 in a small village close to the K2 and has recently received the honorifical prize of the “Star of Pakistan” (https://www.ikat.org/2009/03/24/bdc-3-24-09/) for his achievements in the country, which include publishing workbooks and grammar books in local languages, building libraries and playgrounds, initiating women’s development projects, clean drinking-water projects and scholarship programmes. All of this, he did thanks to generous grants from private benefactors, to lots of hard work and determination, and with the help of dozens local co-operators. Now it might be asked, how is this relevant to public diplomacy?

Greg Mortenson represents the best of America. He’s my hero. And after you read Three Cups of Tea , he’ll be your hero, too.” -U.S. Representative Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

I read Mortenson’s book. It is truly awesome. It tells a beautiful story, that of thousands people who live in remote areas and used not to know anything about the rest of the world; people who cherished the first American person they ever met as a family friend, because he did something concrete for them, which now allows them to have a better and better life style; people who now love the whole of the United States, just because that’s where Greg Mortenson, their ‘angel’, comes from. How inspiring to read that, in spite of religious, cultural and –especially- political challenges, Good can still triumph if it comes from a genuine desire to help others. How heart-warming to think that there real ‘public diplomats’ like Mortenson around.

Soft power explained by Joseph Nye

http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?Soft-Power-Explained

Though you may find this helpful/interesting/good to listen to!

Do Embassies do more than supplying Passports/ Visas?

What is the role of embassies today and of those diplomats that work on them? How relevant is their existence? In 1970 Brzezinski said that “If foreign ministries did not already exist, they surely would not have to be invented”. In my opinion the words foreign ministers should be swapped to embassies (just to be more specific). In ancient time when communications were slow ambassadors had the power to take immediate decisions. Nowadays with the development of communications and the increase of bureaucratic system ambassadors have their roles reduced to mere advisors.

They gather information that they see as important and they send for foreign ministers, this information is then selected by “civil servants, (mostly probably people in a lower rank than them) who them forward to foreign minister who will them decide if is relevant or not. Even Foreign Ministers many times see their role being undermined by their political leaders, when dealing with sensitive issues (terrorism, etc). Also with the creation of bureaucratic systems such as CIA in the US, who also gather intelligence for their governments, (even more efficiently than embassies, I dare to say); embassies loose even more their relevance.


Shaun Riordan in his book ‘New Diplomacy’ talks about how embassies today are seem as buildings that represent enormous capital investment in order to cause a physical impact. Many states build their embassies has a way of a making a statement. Through this evidence my opinion about embassies today is that role or function is to help their citizens in foreign countries, and help advertising their home country for tourism and investment. This doesn’t mean that their role hasn’t developed, on the contrary, embassies have found a reason to still exist.

Western and Europe Diplomacy since 1945

Western and Europe diplomacy since 1945 has been mainly concerned with its relations with the Communist block. In the period of co-operation immediately after the war, the United Nations was established, war criminals were tried, peace trea ties were made with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, and Finland, and the Marshall Plan—originally designed for all Europe—was initiated.

However, deteriorated by a process of action and reaction publicly manifested by Churchill's Fulton speech in the spring of 1947 in which he referred to the Iron Curtain.

The Soviet take-over of European satellites, the Truman Doctrine, the formation of NATO, the China becoming Communist block, the Korean war, and the initiation of atomic rival maintained a condition of Cold War.

The death of Stalin in 1953 and the advent of Khrushchev led to more peace ful coexistence. The Korean war and the Indo-Chinese war were ended. A summit conference was held; the Asian and African countries met in Bandung on 18 April 1955, and the United States and the Soviet Union acted together to stop aggression at Suez.

The pioneering period, when everything still seemed possible, was also the period when some impulsive ideas, bearing the imprint of hastiness or utopianism, fell victim to events or the inertia of governments. It was followed by a period when more concrete achievements could take shape. Recourse to consensus and intergovernmental measures gave way to initiatives that raised hopes of a supranational approach. The fledgling European Community, born of the Schuman Plan, took its first steps and began to acquire organisational shape. Everyone observed with interest the ever closer relations between the age-old enemies, France and Germany, and it attracted other countries that were also tempted by the European venture. While Central and Eastern Europe lived under the yoke of Communist regimes that owed allegiance to the Soviet Union, in Western Europe the Six decided to take their fate into their own hands and tentatively explored new forms of sectoral integration that might lead to greater things. Agriculture, transport and public health would emerge as possible areas in which sectoral integration might be implemented.

There were some liberalization in Poland, but Czechoslovakia in 1968 was crushed when it attempted to break away from the Soviet bloc. Disarmament negotiations made little progress, and stability continued to depend on a balance of terror. Communism penetrated Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The Western policy of containment and deterrence by threats of massive retaliation had not prevented a great decrease in the Western relative power position, relative economy, and relative reputa tion in the underdeveloped world. A new policy looking to ward a world secure for all states seems in order.

I am mentioning the west because was all the time the influence and the negotiations in the peace maintaining and the domination on the subject. so was the collapse of the communism block in the late 80's and the extension of the EU family in the early millennium .

So forward has the European diplomacy did play important role on the field of International Relation?

Bibliography

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1032812

traditional diplomacy

Since 1945 there has been significant change in diplomatic practice, one argues that old diplomacy has adapted to essential changes in international relations. World war one and world war two has subsequently lead to an unstable second half of twentieth century. Since then there has been massive increase of diverse diplomatic activities and the globally diplomatic scene significantly altered. Diplomacy has been affected by the forces of change as much as its context, is also facing challenges such as revolutionary developments in transport and communications, the expansion of international society to global size and the rift between the East and West, the ways in which states are dealing with one another in a variety of bilateral and multilateral settings and one argues of mixes of both has altered since the peace of Westphalia. Diplomacy is a sensitive area with complex procedures and rules, for example issue areas in foreign policy and many other changes, have demanded an absolute renovate of the organization of foreign ministries. The dynamics of diplomacy has significantly altered compared to old era of diplomacy due the increase of technical nature and also the growing volume expanding agenda. New set of concerns has surfaced since decolonization and their also has been realization of issues surrounding transnational and global nature which at times leads diplomats into new territory.

The traditional world 2010

At the beginning of the twentieth century, most part of the world was still very much a traditional world. The relations of the great powers remained what they had always been; the balance of power provided the central ordering principle of international social order. Such stability and moderation as the balance brought rested ultimately on the threat or use of force. War remained the essential means to the maintenance of the balance of power. Despite a growing movement that looked to the amelioration of state relations through greater legal regulation, international law depended for its effectiveness, as it had always depended, upon the maintenance of a balance.
( R. Tucker, http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/national-security-international/1059748-1.html, 2001 )

In last week’s Seminar, we discussed the origins and functions of diplomacy. The main argument was: that diplomacy if ‘old’ or ‘new’ is largely about the promotion of “National- (self) - Interest”! Rising concerns in each country to cope with globalisation, economic dept, exhaustion of natural resources and technological & nuclear warhead evolutions, is consequently developing into isolation of states. It was not everywhere that isolation found political expression, but primarily in Europe. Regardless of the changes in the ‘New’ Diplomacy, like public opinions and interest in moral principal rather in material interest, that behind the new diplomacy was still an old diplomacy, in that the determination to remain dominant within a traditional sphere of influence was as strong as ever. (R Tucker)

“War is still very much a rational and a relevant policy option in the
contemporary world. Witness the Korean War, the Indo-Pakistani Wars and the Arab-Israeli Wars in the post-war period: all had been fought with specific aims in mind; all had been deemed the most cost-effective way of resolving issues; and all had settled the political problem at hand, if not totally, then certainly satisfactorily.

But war is so much a consequence of the states system and human instincts that it does not seem likely to disappear; at least not until something wonderfully dramatic happens to mankind”. (War and the Use of Force in the Contemporary World by CPT Goh Teck Seng)

Another Article which inspired me to argue my point is the analysis written by Dr. G. Friedmann in 2003 at time of the Invasion of Iraq. In his article he demonstrates how imperative the relations between states are and how the balance of power is still a ‘traditional’ contest.
Any comment is appreciated and I am curious what other think!?!?!?!

http://textus.diplomacy.edu/thina/GetXDoc.asp?IDconv=3039

Electronic Resources:

• http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/national-security-international/1059748-1.html, R. Tucker, 2001, accessed 25.10.10
• http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/Vol25_4/13.htm, Goh Teck Seng, 1999, accessed 29.10.10

Who's Diplomacy?

What are the normative values of diplomacy? Why are states and organizations negotiating in the first place? We can find part of the answer in the nature of humans. We tend to believe, as humans, that we will all benefit from cooperation rather than hostility. Non-violent competiveness have long been applauded virtues in the global sphere, not saying that the structures maintained by such systems are non-violent. The 'old', traditional way of upheld diplomatic relations have been charaterized by a realist view concentrated on states and bilateral agreements with secret negotiations. Pubic opinions and the power of global movements, border-crossing non-governmental interests, multilaterism and vertical power-sharing were not considered elements in the old way. I think the new diplomacy is a step towards how diplomacy should be maintained. In a globalized world, with advanced technology and communication, opportunities for travel and global opinion formation, the order of states have changed. The world is spinning faster and faster. Hence, borders and boundaries are becoming more floating and identities of people are changing in unpredictable ways. New technology have open up for new opportunities leaking out information (Wikileaks forinstance), making it harder to keep negotiations secret in the respect that when the truth comes out to the public, it will affect people so they lack trust in the government and how they carry out diplomatic relations.

I believe the core functions of diplomacy are to be emancipatory, inclusive, progressive, accountable and adaptable to conteporary circumstances. Diplomacy should reflect human behaviour, as it should be, because even though the negotiations are between states, the states are made up of people. The old diplomacy reduced the functions of diplomacy wo communacations between states. The new diplomacy have introduced new principles; made room for an abundance of new dynamic actors, power is indisposed, agents are acting over boundaries in a complex net of agreements, unions, coalitions, political initiatives and interests. Actors interacts on different levels, horizontally as well as vertically, to reach consensus over new emerging global problems.With all those changes, we have to reconsider the true core functions of diplomacy. I would say the true nature of humans are of great compassion, solidarity and toleration. In this respect, I disagree with the Hobbesean idea of man's nature. Nevertheless, I don't fully dismiss his idea about a 'state of war' – the difference is that he applauds the idea of having one great leader for keep order in the states, while I think the big leaders (including the big businesses) that makes the rules for the global diplomatic system is the actual reason our minds have become corrupted and we are selfish and competitive. That's not the nature of humans, but merely how we have become in a capitalist system which is now more globalized and affecting international relations and are corrupting the new diplomacy.

Even though national interests seem to rank very high in international relations, other interests, such as cultural and social, are of significant importance and should be considered. Powerful structures are operating in the society, and if the system to change succesfully, these structures will have to change as well. For example, we are currently living in a patriarchal world order and these norms and values are reproduces themselves all the times. If society stopped favouring men over women, these structures would end.

The old diplomacy were introduced in a time of great change. Embassies replaced envoys and diplomatic processes intedified to become more practical and economical. For who? The powerful, of course, in other world great male leaders. Secret diplomacy was the most efficient way to negotiate.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations from 1961 changed the diplomatic laws. Before, the laws concerning diplomatis and their functions were manifested in civil law. With the new convention, it was moved to customary international law and codified as a multilateral treaty. The convention was heavily critized because it was too much based on the old diplomacy. There were new opportunities for communication and travelling and multilateral dealing between Ios, NGOs and states.

However, there are cases when elements of secret diplomacy still exists. The case of Dawiit Isaak clearly indicates a situation where secret diplomacy is used, and additionally being subjected to massive critique from the public and the media. Dawiit Isaak is a Swedish citizen and journalist imprisoned in Eritrea since many years back. His crime is working for a newspaper that, according to the Eritrean government, promoted democratic reforms. The imprisonment of Dawiit Isaak have had great response in both Sweden and other countries. Swedish newspapers have launched a campaign called 'Free Dawiit Isaak", supporting his release from prison. Many journalists, debaters, musicians and artists is involved in his case and are putting pressure on the Swedish authories to take action. Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has used secret diplomacy ever since he first was imprisoned and has not been willing to reveal any details about the case or the process. The only thing they have said is that they work very hard to gt him released. According to the major Swedish newspapers, the silent diplomacy between the Swedish authorities and the Eritrean government has not been succesful, since he is still imprisoned after so many years. In the media campaign, politicians are pressured and asked what they have done, and will do, to het him released. Even international artists such as Bruce Springsteen and Madonna have given their support in his case.

Mass media, not least the international media, have had a great role in reporting and gathering information about different cases, maybe a more important role than the embassies have had and will have in the future. In the case of Dawiit Isaak, the media have played a significant role in forming public opinion and exercising pressure on the Swedish authorities, question the use of secret diplomacy today.

The Swedish Foreign Secretary Carl Bildt argued for secret diplomacy in his blogg on april 8, 2009, claiming that secret diplomacy does not necessarily have to be about not being open with the aims and what achievements that is hoped for, but rather that the actual diplomatic process is carried out undisturbed.

I believe the problem with secret diplomacy goes down to the fact that we can not really evaluate it, because of its very nature as secret. We can not be sure if it really achieve something or not.

If the traditional diplomacy is about establishing relations between states and government, what is the new diplomacy about? Has the focus shifted? Are the established relations rather concentrated between the general public, the citizens of the states, and civil societies and people in other countries. I think the case of Dawiit Isaak clearly have shown that the understanding of diplomacy have changed, from the eyes of the public. We live in a global system with powerful economic interests, big businesses influencing policy-making, organized protest movements, mass-consumption, injustice and advanced information technology. Borders and identities are more blurry and I think the individual will have greater opportunities to influence diplomacy by taking part in NGOs or other action groups not limited to states.

Sources (english):

http://www.freedawit.com/aboutDawit?lang=eng

Sources (Swedish):

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/free-dawit-isaak_2657409.svd

http://carlbildt.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/tyst-diplomati-kan-lyckas/

Modern ancestors

“Expressions such as ‘Old Diplomacy’ and ‘New Diplomacy’ bear no relation to reality”

This quote from French diplomat Jules Cambon (1845-1935) is the inspiring opening sentence of “Old and new diplomacy: a debate rivisited”, an article printed by the Review of International Studies in 1988 (click here for the online version - http://0-journals.cambridge.org.emu.londonmet.ac.uk/action/displayFulltext?type=1&pdftype=1&fid=6280880&jid=RIS&volumeId=14&issueId=&aid=6280872).

To make it short and simple, the article suggests that

1. it is inappropriate to talk about ‘old’ and ‘new’, as diplomacy has not lived long enough to be split in eras yet;
2. the functions of diplomacy have not changed relevantly in the past few centuries, and its older forms have actually resisted evolution in spite of the costantly developing nature of international relations: even if we can find significant developments in diplomacy today (such as the “appearance of multi-lateral diplomacy and the institution of summitry”) they are nothing but additional elements to the traditional ‘parent cell’.

Diplomatic correspondent Aubrey Leo Kennedy (1885-1965) supports this view:

"To the public eye the difference between the old diplomacy and the new seems to consist in doing business at conferences instead of in the chanceries and anterooms of professional diplomatists... Any change, to be real and lasting, must be in the spirit rather than in the method"

(371, ‘Old Diplomacy and New: from Salisbury to Lloyd’s George’, 1922).

Arguably, it all depends on what is considered to be a real change: there could be unanimity on the fact that nowadays it is not usual that weddings are organised between the heirs of two kingdoms in order to stop a conflict, ‘War of the roses’ style.

Nor is it the case anymore that a government leader diplomatically switches religion to turn civil upheavals into peace, like Henry IV of France did.

Nonetheless, the Roman Empire took slaves and animals for its popular Games from its recently acquired colonies, in exchange for peace and tranquillity: how far is that from the U.K. selling arms to Africa (for an approximate total of £1 billion, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jun/12/uk.hearafrica05) in years as recent as 2005?

Whether you call this diplomacy or not, it is evident that empires, kingdoms and states have always behaved similarly, century after century, to obtain what they wanted from each other while sparing the least possible blood. Nowadays the rich and powerful might be politer than in the past when presenting their requests – I’ll admit that; but I would not consider it to be a change big enough to state that ‘traditional’ diplomacy has nothing to do with the present day.

Diplomacy and the New Players

Diplomacy has not been invented in modern times. Diplomacy between states has been practiced since the formation of the first city-states. The traditional diplomacy was based on a secure sovereign state with a commonly agreed national identity. Their key responsibility of diplomacy then was to communicate between governments. The only affairs of their communication or negotiations were foreign policy, defined as the relations between states. While in the course of time only the nature and structure of arrangements mutated, most of the ‘old’ diplomacy remain dynamic in the ‘new’ diplomacy. Diplomacy is no longer limited to high-level government officials sitting opposite each other in negotiations. While it still exists in this format, globalization has led to its evolution; a craft that now includes the private and public sectors. One claim of the new diplomacy is that it represents people, not governments

On one side are the globalists, who have seized the moment and moved proactively to advance an agenda of strong international organizations and treaties. On the other side are those who continue to believe in the primacy of the nation-state system, with international law and organizations playing a secondary role where needed.
That would be the debate going on between idealists vs. realists.

However above all diplomacy must adapt itself to a new system with some new rules and some new players.


Political and Global issues are today not only discussed by the State or Diplomats, furthermore non-governmental and International Organizations and Movements are taking part in such conferences.
The awarness of human rights abuse, envoirnmental problems, health issues (HIV, AIDS, Famine), domestic violence ect., is now comprehensible through the work of non-governmental / Organizations & Movements. All these Issues mention but many more are existing and gradually more contemporary in Politic and Diplomacy. A new division in Diplomacy arose to solve hand in hand, with the ‘new players’ (non-governmental and International Organizations and Movements) successfully these problems.

That high level of awarness comes forward by the vast flow of information and technological advantage which extended the potentiallity of diplomats today. Successful development and resolutions will depend on the capacity for enhanced international exchanges of information and transparency, besides Organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) or World Health Organization (WHO).

With the next case I want to propose of how reports and information of HRM a non-governmental organizations can contribute to public awarness of what is happening and being negotiate between states. Certainly bringing such reports to the diplomate table also pressures diplomates to intense their action:

"For the last two years, the diplomacy surrounding a China resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission has been marked by a sorry lack of will and outright hypocrisy on the part of those countries that purport to defend human rights. The U.S. and E.U. member governments in particular have watched in near-silence as penalties for dissent in China steadily increased. The one tool that even U. S. and European critics of a vocal human rights policy were willing to support was a resolution in Geneva because it was by definition multilateral and less damaging, it was thought, to bilateral relations.

But by 1997, American and European leaders appeared ready to take any promise the Chinese government was willing to make as evidence of progress on human rights and as a pretext for backing out of a resolution. At the same time, it had ensured that no such resolution could ever pass by holding off so long on the lobbying needed to build support at the commission even as China was engaged in steady and effective lobbying of its own. The U.S. and Europe have sent a clear message that powerful countries will be allowed to abuse international standards with impunity. That signal is a disservice to the United Nations and to the cause of human rights."

Reference:
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/1997/03/01/chinese-diplomacy-western-hypocrisy-and-un-human-rights-commission

The evolution of diplomats

Different sources give different accounts of the birth of diplomacy. Among others, the hypothesis include the Middle East in 1340 BC (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/unearthed-the-humble-origins-of-world-diplomacy-602173.html), Egypt about 60 years later (http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S1995R/Szykman/History.html), and Greek and Phoenician city-states in the 5^th to 4^th Century B.C. (http://www.ediplomat.com/nd/history.htm) but, as you can see in the following timeline, interpretations of the history of diplomacy are well wider than this (http://www.diplomacy.edu/Knowledge/evolution/org%20website/buttons/homepage.htm).

Whatever its real origins, the concept of diplomacy has existed since the start of human history, and consistently developed during the centuries. As a Northern Italian, I like to think of myself as a countrywoman of the so-called “modern diplomacy” which, some believe, started in the early years of the Renaissance – i.e. in the 13^th Century – with the establishment of the first official embassies in the area around Milan. At that time, however, ambassadors radically differed from nowadays’ diplomats, as the title was usually held by noblemen whose energies were conveyed in all kinds of striking displays of wealth and power, rather than being actually employed in an effective management of international relations. Nonetheless, there is no doubt they had to be naturally patient people, who well tolerated lengthy negotiations and were never prone to threaten their counterparts. After all, they aim was to keep a watchful eye on what happened in their neighbouring countries, in order for their homeland to hold on to its power.

Dr Joseph Siracusa, Professor in Human Security and International Diplomacy at RMIT University, Melbourne, believes that this is exactly what constitutes the greatest change in diplomacy from past to present. As he states in the first page of his ‘Diplomacy: A Very Short Introduction’,

“Traditional diplomacy has been most importantly concerned with the transition from a state of peace to a state of war, and vice versa; in other words, dealing with the interface of conflict and peace-making...today...(d)iplomacy has become something very much more than the diplomacy of states and governments.”

His point is that, although states are the only legal diplomatic actors according to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, nowadays it is unthinkable not to consider transnational corporations (TNCs), intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as equally significant co-actors in the international system. These interrelate not only with states, but among themselves, and in the last century they have come to constitute a whole world web of urgent delicate communications handling a brand-new set of topics, unfamiliar to yesterday’s diplomats. In fact, it is their goal to address contemporary issues such as international terrorism, sustainable development, civil wars, human rights and environmental emergencies, which go well beyond the control of one or few single states. Betsill and Corell support this view with vim:

“We contend that the increased participation of NGOs in...political processes reflects broader changes in the nature of diplomacy in world politics...(D)iplomats are actors who act on the behalf of a clearly identified constituency. International...negotiations cannot be understood in terms of inter-state diplomacy”

(NGO diplomacy, 2008, 2).

To sum up, if History is made by men and women, the History of diplomacy is necessarily made by diplomats. Consequently, it is believable that there cannot be most significant change in diplomacy than the change of diplomatic figures. On this ground, a question could be raised: what future for diplomacy?

(http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/61/future_of_diplomacy_project.html : apparently, I'm not the only one who's wondering...)

Diplomatic Changes in Context

The nature of diplomacy is not an easy subject to describe, neither as an independent practice, a neutral subject, a dynamic process, a transboundary project, a mean of power, a mumbo-jumbo game, a post-modernist illussion or a complex construction. No matter which approach one choose to follow, we will certainly be left with the difficulties of defining what constitutes the nature of diplomacy.

If one reduces diplomacy as observable negotiations between countries or states, a few important changes of states' behaviour is worth to point out.

My idea of diplomacy at this point is mainly about human behaviour. Even if realists tend to describe diplomacy as the relationship between states and political leaders, state policies and governmental decisions are never independent. They are rather made up by humans. In other words, diplomacy is the fine art of presenting and lobby for one's interest, while avoiding conflict, no matter if you represent a state, a government, an interest organization or yourself. The nature of diplomacy is not necessary about winning, but certainly about not loosing.

In the Dynamics of Diplomacy, Leguey-Feilleux and Robert argue that the need for trade and security was the main reasons for diplomacy to develop a very long time ago. The art of talking, negotiating and compromising have always been main feature in the history and evolution of humans. All animal creatures share that fundemental characteristic: communication is necessary for survival. The nature of diplomacy, that distinguish it from other forms of communication, is to see it as an artform in a complex structure with different actors, with a certain aim of recieving sustainable peace and beneficial agreements. One could certainly argue that this idea is nothing but a human construction, as well as the 'actors' in terms of states, nations, institutions and organizations is nothing but modern contructions. However, it appears to me that diplomacy tend to be understood as voluntarily and created rather than natural. According to the realist approach, states are not cooperating out of sympathy and good will, but merely to reinforce their interests.

Legueu-Felilleux and Jean-Robert argue that the of sublime art of diplomacy developed in Ancient Europe. With the emerge of 'democratic' assemblies in Athen, the importance of different views became central in the political branch of philosophy. They consider this to be a huge change in the nature of diplomacy, from a relationship between state officials, directly representing the king or the ruler, to a practice we today call 'public relations'.

Legueu-Feilleux and Jean-Robert trace back the beginning of modern diplomacy to the 16^th century, when the use of diplamacy became more institutionalized. With the increasing international dependence, a diplomatic community emerged in Europe over the centuries. Probably, the power struggle and the diplomatic failures leading to the outbreak of the WWI changed the direction of diplomatic development. Baylis and Smith, in The Globalization of World politics, argue that this lead to the emergence of a less secretive and more democratic diplomacy.

Sustaining peace became a global concern involving many states and demanding multilateral diplomacy. As it appears to me, globalization is the most significant cause in the change of diplomacy. The traditional diplomacy concerned agreements between states, but with globalization more actors are operating in the international political field. The functions of these new actors depends on norms, structures and other actors and they have to adapt themselves to an increasingly interdependent project called international relations. The development of technology contributed to a new more efficient way of communication. The result was more interdependent states. The emergence of international institutions and organizations was also characteristics for the new diplomacy. The purpose of these organisations were to upheld peace, protect industrial workers and stop abusive labour practice, fascilitate trade and organize other specialized tasks.

Technological development have changed the way diplomacy are used. Now people talk about 'virtual diplomacy'. Decision-makers are able to interact at any time, through webcam and be present at conferences and conventions even if they are not there in their physical appearance. There are also more actors. Small states participates in internatinal affairs because coalition diplomacy gives them influence. Also mentioned by Baylis and Smith, International organizations play a big role in influencing policy. Diplomacy today is more complex because of NGOs with access to the latest technology, capable of mobilizing great numbers of people and wield political power.

A big change in the nature of diplomacy was certainly how the system of representation changed in the beginning of 20^th century. In the newly created international organizations, the nature of national representation projected itself in a different way than before. Delegates independent from their government could negotiate on behalf of their own interest (even though they might have represented an interest group) and form coalition with other representatives from other countries with the same interests. In that way, the notion of power were challenged. Soft power became widely used, as well as the introduction of 'low politics'- such as economic and social issues, on the international stage.

I believe, that to understand the changes of diplomacy as the change of actors' behaviour in a globalized world, we also have to consider the changes in the global system itself. In other word, diplomacy are totally dependant on the contemporary context, as well as the old traditions. Diplomacy is a practice pursued in a capitalist and male-dominated world order, also serving those interest to a high degree. By saying this, I conclude that how we understand the world in which we live in highly influence what we think about diplomacy and its outlooks and chances for success. The opportunities of trade and technology have opened up for more efficient negotiations, but also an international arena characterized by greater competition and inequalities. Diplomatic relations today is not reduced to military agreements about war and peace between states but about economic interests and negotiations between multinational coorporations. I believe that the increasing number of actor is a result of a more open diplomatic process opening up the possibility or non state actors to influence decision-making. The diplomatic field today is broader in pace with the growth of economic network. I don't believe the traditional diplomacy is not wholly played out, but its function is heavily reduced in a modern and globalized context. With shifts in the world order, we will surely experience more changes in the nature of diplomacy. An interesting question to think about, is the next step in the evolution of diplomacy. What are likely to change in the future?


Sources:
Legueu-Feilleux, Jean-Robert (2009). The Dynamics of Diplomacy. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
Baylis, John, and Steve Smith (2006). The Globalization of World Politics; an introduction to International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press