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