My understanding of diplomacy today

At the first Lecture we were asked to ‘brainstorm’ our thoughts and first impressions of the New Diplomacy, else what we expected to gain from this module.
The following came to my mind:

“It was most of the period since World War II dominated by government and within them by permit officials. For me, the new diplomacy was shaped throughout, by the constraints of the war and the huge advance of globalization with far more non-governmental player. For me diplomats should be working cohesive, states to states, to tackle Global issues which are ever increasing problems for all countries!
I hope I can gain a full understanding of the system and communications been done between states and how powerful non-governmental organisations can be?”

With the end of this module my knowledge certainly expanded and clarifies my understanding of the new diplomacy. Diplomatic terms such as bilateral, multilateral and public diplomacy are now well defined and apparent for me. Fascinatingly, my view on global politic has released once again various directions and visions for me to comprehend, the system in a new approach. Would I ‘brainstorm’ on my thoughts and impressions at present, the following perceptive and experience I would present.

The definition of diplomacy commonly used is from Satow,

diplomacy is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent states.

Furthermore, Satow defines diplomacy more briefly, the conduct of business between states by peaceful mean (2009: 3). B. White in turn said diplomacy in world politics which refers to a communications process between international actors that seeks through negotiation to resolve conflict short of war. He argues that this process has been refined, institutionalized and professionalized over many centuries (2005: 388).

The arrangement of the traditional diplomacy was primarily conducted on a bilateral level, or as Berridge describes the term bilateral diplomacy as nothing more than communication limited to two parties at any one time (2005: 108). The French system, considered as traditional, precedent the idea of resident missions, expanding the communications channel. Hence, Berridge points out clearly, bilateral diplomacy will mean the conduct of relations on a state-to-state basis via formally accredited resident mission (2005: 108). However continuity in diplomacy via the resident missions was not the only idea the French system brought along, another feature was secrecy. As I mentioned at my first blog entry, 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 new diplomacy can be differentiated by the technological advancement of travel and communication or it’s new channel to communicate on multilateral level, else serious ideological tension and deepen cultural divisions building across the world, issuing changes. I thought at the first lecture, that the new diplomacy was shaped throughout the nineteen and twentieth century, by the constraints of the war and the huge advancement of globalization with far more non-governmental player integrating. However, I too discovered, 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 (my first blog entry), Yet again, Berridge makes clear that after the first World War multilateral diplomacy was probably inaugurated with the creation of the League of Nations, and it was widely believed that the old diplomacy had been replaced by a ‘New Diplomacy’. Nevertheless, the French system remained at the core of world diplomatic system after WWI and remains – albeit disguised – at its core today (2005: 114). Multilateral diplomacy clearly is a change in the traditional system, with non-state actors playing a greater role contemporary, but bilateral diplomacy still widely used and favoured.

One could even say that multilateral diplomacy and bilateral diplomacy are two sides of the same coin (Interview with Kishan Rana- Indian diplomat, ).

http://www.diplomacy.edu/Multimedia/transkript/Rana_BilateralDiplomacyToday.htm

On the blog entry about trade and environmental diplomacy, I answered my question of the first lectures’ note of how powerful non-governmental organisations can be? Demonstrating the success, with the breaking point of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, Jubilee 2000, or Nike’s finding for poor labour conditions in its overseas factories from NGO organizations. B. Hockings attempt to track the arguments as to how trade diplomats might best respond to the challenges represented by the growing impact of pressures from disaffected domestic constituencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), for a long a feature of trade diplomacy (2008: 264).

Finally, I would like to draw back to my thought that all countries should work out cohesive solutions on global issues the world faces today. The ever increasing issues such as environmental problems or security issues and the threat of terrorism are significant turning points of global changes. As Riordan expresses, both the scope and nature of international security agenda have evolved significantly in recent years (2003). Leading to its conclusion, that this reflects changes in the geo-strategic environment and in the way we think about security. These changes have serious implications for global issues and how diplomatic services should be reconfigured to tackle them (2008: 135). At 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. As a result I 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).






Bibliography:

• G. R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 3rd edition (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005)

• Batora, J. and B. Hocking, ‘Bilateral Diplomacy in the European Union: Towards “Postmodern” Patterns?’, Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy, No. 111, 2008,

• Andrew F. Cooper, Brian Hocking and William Maley (eds.), Global Governance and Diplomacy:Worlds Apart? (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008)

• Sir Ivor Roberts (ed.), Satow’s Diplomatic Practice, 6th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2009)

• Shaun Riordan, The New Diplomacy (Cambridge: Polity, 2003)
• Shaun Riordan, ‘The New International Security Agenda and the Practice of Diplomacy’ in Andrew F. Cooper, Brian Hocking and William Maley (eds.), Global Governance and Diplomacy: Worlds Apart? (Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008)

• Brian White, ‘Diplomacy’ in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, 3rd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)