I cannot quite recall what I wrote as my ‘first impression’ of diplomacy in the first lecture. I can only suppose that it went along the simplistic lines of “it is a set of rules that define how to handle issues of peace and conflict; it implies the work of diplomats, who travel the world representing the interest of their country and try to negotiate the best for their government”. This is basically the definition that anyone could give – anyone who has not thoroughly studied diplomacy in its multi-faceted aspects as we have in our module, “The New Diplomacy”.
Lecture after lecture, and thanks to visits to embassies in London as well, we learnt to dispel all stereotypes on the matter. We discovered that real diplomats do not only have the function of sitting at richly laid tables in every corner of the world to chat with each other and make friends; we found out that diplomacy is not only made by diplomats; and we realised that it is in fact much more complex than it is usually depicted by collective imagination. To start with, I was particularly surprised to find out that the term ‘diplomacy’ does not correspond to ‘foreign policy’ and that it undertook so many structural changes in the past hundred years or so, becoming more open, inclusive, and dealing with more technical issues as opposed to the secrecy, connected with the use of force in case of ‘necessity’ and to a focus on high politics, of earlier years. I have to admit that I still find it confusing when I hear about ‘old’ and ‘new’ diplomacy: having studied the history of diplomacy and the theories of some of its scholars in detail, I cannot get to a satisfactory conclusion recognising the existence of the two, as they look to me as being one (the ‘new’) the natural continuation of the other (the ‘old’). In fact, there is no significant historical divide between them. The term ‘modern’ is equally unclear to me, as it sometimes refers to the last century, while some other times it is employed with reference to the establishment of the first embassies, in Renaissance Italy. In any case, this is certainly a topic that deeply interested me and got me thinking.
I also enjoyed the video on how to be a foreign secretary: before taking this module, I had at times thought that I could pursue a career in the diplomatic service later on, after I finished my studies. This video dissipated any doubt about it, in the sense that I realised that I am too open and straightforward to possibly make a good diplomat. Above all, I would like to add, I know that I could never perform my duties if I believed they were unethical, immoral or hypocrite, and I am afraid that in this respect I would often disagree with the decisions of my government. Besides, I had never thought about it before, but it is evident that a diplomat cannot care for a family or for real friends. My understanding of representatives abroad has therefore changed in every way, and my esteem for them has decreased although I understand their job is extremely important and delicate.
On the other hand, NGOs as a non-state actor in para-diplomacy have my complete support and I was happy to learn that they actually have a few strengths I was not aware of, that make them significant in the diplomatic arena. I am convinced that NGOs have a right to intervene alongside the states, as we now live in a globalised world where everything is connected with everything else, with no exceptions. As for the rest of the module, it excited me less, but in general I can really tell that my conception of diplomacy has broadly developed and most importantly detached itself from pre-conceptions! “The New Diplomacy” helped me build the basis to keep learning about diplomacy by myself, as well as to have a deeper understanding of diplomatic processes nowadays.
No comments:
Post a Comment