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
Good post, change and continuity indeed characterizes the evolution of diplomacy as you said. I find it extremely interesting that you mentions the two turning points of the conduct of diplomacy as the end of the cold war and the war against terrorism. These are the two big global events that have changed the nature of diplomacy in my understanding as well, included the gradual development of internet. I think the whole practice and meaning of public diplomacy have been devaluated since the war on terror begun, particularly from an American discourse, trying to communicate with the muslim world (which have been seen as a threath). It seems like the US have tried to show people in other countries that it is in their interests to support the war on terror for their own safety. I think the future of diplomacy will, to a high degree, be about attempts to influence people from different cultures to buy ideas and values. Of course, economical interests are involved in this process, public diplomacy opens up the possibility to sell and promote trademarks, something I see a great danger in. But i guess it's not breaking news that diplomacy is also conducted by those in power, and power of today are defined in terms of economic resources...
ReplyDeleteYes, this is a very interesting reflection on diplomacy. It is true that during the Cold War diplomacy was used by states to join their efforts and ambitions and order the world in accordance with particular ideas and interest. It was the diplomacy of supremacy and hegemony of some states.Yet, the situation in the world required such a way of conducting of diplomatic relations. Nowadays, the great leaders must accept that there is space for individuals and NGOs on the international field, as well. And although, as u mention, again diplomacy is used to resolve the problem of terrorism, it may come up with better results haing participants of various background on its side.
ReplyDelete