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