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/