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)

Broader view today about Diplomacy.

In the end of my second semester of first academic year of my studies i registered my modules. Your aim is to find the right module which would help you on the academic training, always about the degree you've selected. The selection of this module I thought that would assist me in fulfilling my academic knowledge. I thing was a right choice for my International Relation and Political studies. The thought and informations about many changes which happened in the international arena since the Second World War specially.
The case of the conference between 69 nations coming together and established United Nation. On 10 December 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon to all member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and

"to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories"

Democracy and protection of the human life's was difficult for the United Nations and other actors. To help countries to become democratic and international efforts frequently can make a difference. Those days were changed and the diplomacy didn’t varnish i would say but got another color. Especially to the states like USA and Soviet Union made that they aim to come with different public diplomacy. This diplomacy was shared such in clever ways. One of them was the democracy claimed from USA , and the other social country claimed from the USSR. This diplomatic solution between to great powers of the SECOND WORLD WAR being played or i would say tested until late 8Os early 90. After the Cold War ended, promoting the international spread of democracy seems to work specially with the experiences of the in the Eastern part of Europe. Or maybe was that early game need to bee changed?

However spring doesn’t come with one flower, and this flowers does need attention and the fruit of “democracy” it would make a colorful and great world.

Diplomacy is the main pillar on the international relations i would say. Lectures after lectures and the visits on the embassies made it more clear my thoughts and approaches to the international relations. Diplomats us a body of the respective government. These diplomats not only represent the interests of the foreign policy of their government on the other hand also represent their country as nation. This means that in turn advertise the place they come from. Their effective work makes us realize that straight forwards these degrees are very important for the continuation of state representing, the field of international relations as a key point of government programs. Especially in the current situation where globalization has a huge impact on many factors.

Non-Governmental Organizations Another theme developed in this subject. My previous opinion on this subject has been poor and not observed in a way that I see now. These organizations I can call as a factor of the important factors in view, but notes The key International main diplomatic relations between the two countries . These independent in collaboration with their reports could fall into an opinion without desired by the current government of that state that they are performing their job that was loaded respectively. To explain in depth this phrase from reports issued by these organizations sometimes they give not a pleasant image in the international arena of this state where they operate. However, will they are renamed as pressure groups in that country for several objectives that governments must realize.

The other fact that i learned on this module was the secrecy. This diplomatic agreements, has left to understand that these agreements shouldn’t always be public for one or another reason. if the side effects of these agreements has implication of other states could bring no pleasure and turmoil in the diplomatic relation. And as we all know the example of Wikileaks.

However diplomacy directly or indirectly has great impact in the International Relation. The world is changing so diplomacy will gradually.

Bibliography

http://www.france24.com/en/20101201-interpol-wikileaks-founder-assange-red-notice-rape-wanted-list-alert-swedish-warrant
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

NGOs and Environmental diplomacy, case study - Kyoto

Over the past half century interest about environmental issues rapidly growth and not just between the scientists. Environment became important component of inter-governmental relations, object of international summits and conferences. Nevertheless, important player in environmental lobby are Nongovernmental organizations.
NGOs are important components of civil society and are active in variety of human doings. Significant is fact that NGOs are not established by inter-state agreement and publicly express views, which are often very different from any government. Over the past century numbers of NGO increased significantly as well as their participation and activity in political process around the world. According to the issue in which is NGO interested, is possible to divide NGOs in four groups; environmental, social, scientific and business/industry, however, this separation has major impact on the level of their influence in real political arena.
Environmental diplomacy is very specific and has influence on domestic and international political arena. On the sphere of development of domestic policies environmental NGO achieved important changes in protection of natural resources, creation of national parks or protection of endangered species. Nevertheless, to achieve significant changes in environmental issues on international political arena is more difficult, even if NGOs activity grows. NGO diplomacy is very often considered as on the border or more likely outside of inter-state diplomacy because of diversity of interest across the representatives during the negotiations. When the multilateral negotiations take place, governmental representatives perform as diplomats who represent common interest limitless by territory or by continent. Unfortunately, in majority of cases about environmental issues, mainly climate change, NGO do not have formal right to vote and on the process of negotiations participate particularly as observers, in difference of state diplomats their position is not identified clearly. The only opportunity to influence conference or summit has NGO diplomats and representatives during the pre-negotiation phase. To achieve their aim on the conferences, NGO diplomats negotiate, provide policy advice or engage in information exchange.



Kyoto Protocol Negotiations – case study

The main aim of the Kyoto Protocol was to fight global warming and the main topics of the negotiations were:
• Reduction of carbon emissions
• Hot air emission trading
The environmental NGOs in general wanted to achieve 20% reduction of carbon emissions and strictly opposed to any possibility of flexible mechanism (trading of emissions). During the negotiating process significantly participated two non-state actors; Environmental Defense Fund and Climate Action Network, both actors represented different views.
EDF acted as advocate of emission trading for exchange of reduction targets, whereas CAN was strictly against possibility of any trade with emission. Delegates (main polluters) asked for emission trading in order to accept ANY carbon emission reduction. CAN was not successful in their effort to keep trading out of the process, finally by raising concerns about climate were able to slow down but not to stop process. (Trade with emissions became part of the Protocol- Article 17)
The result of the presence of more non-state actors was competition between them for the attention of state delegates (decision-makers). In general, was access of NGO to process of decision making very limited. Representatives could just form negotiation by the raising of concerns and they generated pressure on states like –how we will look home?
The Kyoto Protocol requires 5% reductions of carbon emissions and allows their trading, what means that real polluters have not really reduced emissions.

Without any doubts, nongovernmental organizations are very important part of society, represents spectrum of interests, are source of information and are its conscience. Unfortunately, is needed to divide between raise of activity and real possibility of NGO to influence negotiations about environmental issues as climate change. However, their influence in international environmental diplomacy is not really significant. Because NGOs do not have formal right to vote, in reality are not part of decision making, and their chance to influence result significantly is very small. To achieve at least small change, environmental representatives are pushed for agreements about trading of carbon emissions, at the end it is not big victory and allows flexibility in emission quotas between states.

Resources
The Dynamics of Diplomacy, J.R. Leguey - Feilleux (chapter 5, The role of non state actors)
NGO Diplomacy – The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations, Michele M. Betsill, Elisabeth Corell (Chapters 1,2,3)
e recourse http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cuVt2ZNE-8UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ngo+and+diplomacy&source=bl&ots=U8Y4-e2pvB&sig=oCY0LdXYFKDQ6cYddyWQUstSM2Q&hl=en&ei=jSYuTbeILtK7hAf1sYCmCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=true
•

Interesting article (very quick as well)

http://uspublicdiplomacy.blogspot.com/2010/12/delivering-humanitarian-aid-in-bamyan.html

Delivering humanitarian aid in Bamyan, Afghanistan
It is freezing cold in Bamyan, and as I am getting ready for another day of
a journalism workshop for young women, my colleague tells me, "Mahtab, we are receiving humanitarian aid by Afghan Air force and we need your help for distribution." I told her, "Of course, count me in."

Click on the link to see the whole article! Hope you enjoy it.

My conception of diplomacy today

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.

My understanding of diplomacy today

Over our lectures for New diplomacy we learned about the processes/ redefinitions of diplomacy till today, diplomacy today can been seen as more than embassies, it also exists in the form of summits, conferences, signing of treaties and many more. It refers to a communication process between various actors and much of its development came together with the technological progress. But it is my believe that diplomacy old or new has lost its relevance.

In 1970 Brzezinski said that “If foreign ministries did not already exist, they surely would not have to be invented”. In my opinion the words foreign ministers should be swapped to embassies (just to be more specific).
In ancient time when communications were slow ambassadors had the power to take immediate decisions. Nowadays with the development of communications and the increase of bureaucratic system ambassadors have their roles reduced to mere advisors. They gather information that they as important and they send for foreign ministers, this information is then selected by “civil servants, (mostly probably people in a lower rank than them) who them forward to foreign minister who will them decide if is relevant or not.
Even Foreign Ministers many times see their role being undermined by their political leaders, when dealing with sensitive issues (terrorism, etc). Also with the creation of bureaucratic systems such as CIA in the US, who also gather intelligence for their governments, (even more efficiently than embassies, I dare to say); embassies loose even more their relevance.

Shaun Riordan in his book ‘New Diplomacy’ talks about how embassies today are seem as buildings that represent enormous capital investment in order to cause a physical impact. Many states build their embassies has a way of a making a statement. Through this evidence my opinion about embassies today is that role or function is to help their citizens in foreign countries, and help advertising their home country for tourism and investment. This doesn’t mean that their role hasn’t developed; on the contrary, embassies have found a reason to still exist. The same can be said of the role of non state actors that take part in certain negotiations their roles is also as mere advisors since they have expertise in certain areas that governments don’t have.

From Old diplomacy to public diplomacy is just an excuse for states to come together and push their wills, but making it we believe that they do this in a democratic way, nothing but public propaganda.

“Change the System, don’t change the climate”

How many politicians today talk about the environment, how many promises have we heard coming from their mouths regarding “tougher legislations/ commitments”. Barack Obama in its 2008 Presidential campaign made a speech in Detroit about its environmental concerns that America should be more involved and concerned. Yet during the Copenhagen Summit as usually politicians put their environmental concerns aside since for many is synonyms of bad economics.

While many would agree that there’s been success in many negotiations others can rightful argue that there’s been no measured or tangible success from this negotiations. The lack of consensus from scientists regarding the effect of human behaviour in the environments is used by many governments and people to dismiss the importance of climate change and its effects on human life in the future. The future seems another excuse since we (western countries) are not suffering major effects of climate change like Maldives and other south countries, so why bother now.

During the Copenhagen summit for climate change, third world countries such as Venezuela complained of being left in the sidelines, once again the final accord was made behind closed doors and between the most powerful economies. These agreements aren’t successful also because they do not represent the will of all states, not that this blog will demonstrate this; also sometimes too many opinions can jeopardise efforts for improvement. But exclusion of different opinions and stand points has not achieved anything substantial in these matters anyway. What the Copenhagen summit demonstrates once more is that only the richest states can have say on the results many deals are negotiated only by the most powerful states.

The lack of successful outcomes in environmental negotiations comes from the difficulties that these negotiations go through; from failed model systems (lack of International Government responsible for environment) to bureaucratic requirements (ratifications, not legally binding, etc). But all this problems can be overcome if there will to do it not only from governments but from us also the people who gives power to this people. But why stop driving our cars, or even taking holidays abroad; if a change my lifestyle and other people not I will only be losing. This seems to be what many of us think, well at least me, I am not ready to change my lifestyle.

‘If climate was a bank, you would have already saved it’.
President Hugo Chavez addressing the richest countries at Copenhagen Summit 2009