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

"Trade has long followed the flag, but in recent years the flag has followed trade" Sanjaya Baru

“The Seattle Symposium on International Trade Issues in the First Decades of the Next Century was held at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in Seattle, Washington on 29 November 1999, on the eve of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Third Ministerial Conference, which is to take place from 30 November-3December. Approximately 1500 delegates, comprising representatives of WTO Member States, intergovernmental organizations(IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and journalists, participated in the Symposium, which was webcast live. He noted that it was Clinton who proposed that the WTO host a day for NGOs so that they would have an opportunity to voice their concerns and that the Symposium represented the first time in 50 years that NGOs have been given such a voice” (WTO).

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that descended on Seattle were a model of everything the trade negotiators were not. They were well organised. They built unusual coalitions (environmentalists and labour groups). They had a clear agenda to restrain the talks and outcomes. And they were masterly users of the media.
The combat of Seattle is only the latest and most evident recent NGO success. Yet the breaking point was the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, when the NGOs provoked enough public pressure to push through agreements on controlling greenhouse gases. In 1994, protesters conquered the World Bank's anniversary conference with a "Fifty Years is Enough" campaign, and forced a rethink of the Bank's goals and methods. In 1998, an ad hoc coalition of consumer-rights activists and environmentalists helped to descend the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, a draft treaty to complement rules on foreign investment under the support of the OECD. In the past couple of years an additional global coalition of
NGOs, Jubilee 2000, has pushed effectively for a dramatic reduction in the debts of the poorest countries. However, NGO’s agendas are not only limited to economic issues. One major success in the 1990s was the campaign to outlaw landmines, where hundreds of NGOs, in concert with the Canadian government, pushed through a ban in a year. Nor are NGO’s narrowed to government agendas. Nike has been targeted for poor labour conditions in its overseas factories from NGO organizations.


Interestingly, it must be addressed that NGO’s likewise influencing public opinions with an immense impact. To achieve one’s goal, be it National interest or NGO’s targets, the attractiveness and constitute character of a state or NGO’s philosophies for the use of ‘soft power’, to pursue each interests are an ever increasing diplomatic streak. The terminology ‘soft power’ was invented by Joseph Nye and is as follow defined: ‘Soft power rest on some shared values and soft power means getting others to want the same outcomes you want’ (J. Nye, 2004: 111). Let me explain what I mean: The Fairtrade organization set up 1992 by five leading international development NGO’s, with his mission to improve the lives of poor and marginalised farmers and workers in developing countries by promoting fairer forms of trade, achieved

“the growth in public awareness of Fairtrade it has enabled the foundation to take the complex, distant issue of trade, development and poverty
outside of their usual audience into the mass market. It is widely recognised that one of the most effective ways of eradicating poverty in developing countries is to establish successful and sustainable economic activity. Fairtrade has proved to be an extremely successful model of how people-centred development can effectively reduce poverty and improve livelihoods”. (Fairtrade, 2007

As we discovered earlier NGO’s shared their times of success on trade and environmental solutions. The impact of NGO’s will further succeed and growing on influence, and therefore I believe it deserves the wholehearted Government & Public support.

References:

• Nye Joseph S. (2004), Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics , New York: Public Affairs


WTO
• http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min99_e/english/ngo_e/sdvol34no1.pdf



• Sanjaya Baru http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/2010/09/10/Comment/17450



• Fairtrade http://www.blogger.com/•http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/f/fairtrade_foundation_idc_submission.pdf
  

My understanding of diplomacy

My 'first imporession' of the subject of diplomacy was reduced to the negotiation process itself. My idea of diplomatic relation were concentrated on the talks between actors and agents, not necessarily state officials, but nevertheless between those who were present at the meetings. I also thought of diplomatic relations a something positive and democratic, like invisible bonds betsween countries, organizations and big businesses, focused on talk, consensus and agreements rather than violence, threath and coercion.

My knowledge have developed in terms of widening the concept of diplomacy. I now know about the importance of public diplomacy, and the influence of people and civil society movements. Together with NGOs and other non-state actors, public pressure can influence the outcomes, and processes of negotiations and turn the position of states, international organizations and the media. I know that the use of soft power is extensive when it comes to the new, modern conduct of diplomacy, and is not limited to any physical meetings or debates. Soft power is exercized on many levels and in different dimensions, simultaneously, many times unnoticed, but never without a source.

I know understand that diplomacy, as many almost all other relations between humans, objects, nature, animals and beings is about power. How we interpret the meaning and effects of diplomatic relations depends on how we understand the concept of power. Power is as abstract as the diplomatic process itself. I believe new diplomacy should be understood as the relationship between agents and actors rather than outcomes of negotiations. In my opinion, we can not evaluate how succesful negotiations have been by only consider particular outcomes. Talks are going on constantly, everywhere and on all levels of governance, and interconnects with other processes of political power, flows of information, advanced communcation technology, globalization, mass-consumption, ideological tendencies, grassroot movements and the creation of plural identities. In a post-modern cosmopolitan society, the processes of diplomacy becomes more complex and integrated. The concept of new diplomacy is marked out by less secrecy, and value is put on having open, transparent and accountable negotiations. The narratives and rhetoric about open diplomacy is that is is th building blocks for global democracy. Nevertheless, some critique should be pointed at the conduct of diplomacy. Not only are negotiations controlled, and agendas are set, by those in power, which is the rich countries in the west and big multinational cooperations. Poor nations, NGOs with few resources and people from the global south still have a weaker voice and are excluded from the global space of diplomacy. Therefore, the grassroot movements and NGOs located in the South are very important in increasing equal participation, representation and influence.

My idea of diplomacy is, after taking this module, more about integration of interests, influence, representation, relationships and ongoing process than about the actual talks and the formal participants. I now understand that multiple components are interacting in creating the diplomatic space and that the functions, procedures and outcomes are dependant upon power relations, not always visable for the public eye. And importantly, I understand that citizen participation is more relevant in understanding diplomatic processes than it is stated in the traditional literature about diplomacy.

Environmental Diplomacy and the Impact of NGOs

NGOs have had significant influence in international negotiations, exercising pressure on politicians and leaders and creating public awareness through public diplomacy. As for example, many NGOs use intersessional meetings to set the agenda of international environmental negotiations, often seen at large climate summit meetings, such as Klimaforum09 during COP15 in Copenhagen, also called People's Climate Movement, a space for the civil society to gather, share information, discuss and debate, share ideas and come up with alternative solutions. It was a place where people and organizations could meet and inspire each others to participate in the diplomatic process through taking action in terms of demonstrating, protesting, signing petitions and involve in different projects.

Betsill and Corell argue that non-state actors commonly influence the process of diplomatic relations rather than the outcomes. They have the capabilities to influence the outcomes in terms of providing education and information to delegates from particular countries, to help them pressure for certain outcomes. If they get themselves involved at an early stage, it is more likely they will effect the process of negotiations. Non-state actor involvement in environmental negotiations should rather be seen as a relationship between actors such states, organizations and representatives from different levels of government, and not defined by the outcomes its involvement achieves. Non-state actors can without any formal status highlight certain issues and create a public awareness, and thus put pressure on the process to be transparent, accountable and fair.

NGOs in particular should be seen as influential in global environmental matters. This is because they usually enjoy a good reputation in terms of high moral status. They tend to have resources and scientific legitimacy to be considered as truthful and reliable. They can therefore shape the agenda at negotiations and provide liable information to the public, under the same conditions as the scientific community.

It is very important to mention that NGOs are, to a higher degree than they use to be, recognized by states as actors in global governance. This is a proof of that states understand the importance of cooperation with non-state actors in tackling the problems the world faces.

During COP15, the buildings where the negotiations were going on were highly restricted and closed up from the public. Klimaforum09 provided a space that connected the people with the true issues and gave them an opportunity to express themselves and their concerns not restrained by government designed programmes for citizen participation. People were given the opportunity to search for alternative answers to their concerns and discuss with others. According to the Evaluation Report of Klimaforum09, the event also functioned as a logistic partner to the COP15 conference, as a summit point for people, grass root movements and NGOs from different parts of the world with different interests and concerns. People from the global south were present at the forum, sharing experiences of how it is to live under difficult circumstances caused by the climate change. All movie screenings, exhibitions, lectures, workshops and debates were free as a democratic opportunity to learn and share knowledge and experience. A Declaration was written and signed by about 500 of the participating organizations.

I believe non-state actors, in terms of civil society movements and NGOs, play an important part in environmental negotiations. Even if they do not directly effect the outcomes of the negotiations, they provides a sense of democratic organization and opportunities for people to get inspired, and inspire others, without any money or resources and without any power. Still, the event became recognized as a democratic and open arena of influence. It is very important to have a place where everyone is welcome to take a part, not least because everyone is affected by the environmental change.

Links/Sources:

http://09.klimaforum.org/09/evaluation-report

Betsill, Michele M. and Elisabeth Corell (2008). NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://books.google.com/books?id=cuVt2ZNE-8UC&printsec=frontcover&hl=sv#v=onepage&q&f=false

Is there a need for Public Diplomacy?

Diplomacy can be said to in a constant state of evolution or re-invention, while in a few decades ago diplomacy was about state to state affairs; today we talk about new forms of diplomacy such as public diplomacy. Public Diplomacy on its own can very controversial since its essential about public opinion; there are many questions about its relevance which I will try to address in this blog.

Joseph Nye talks about the importance of foreign opinion to the US Foreign Policy, he says that ‘good reputation fosters goodwill which therefore brings acceptance for unpopular ventures’. An example of this can be seen with the happening of 9/11 in USA soil where the US not only got the sympathy of the ‘world population’ but also the support for the Afghanistan invasion. But in my reality it wasn’t the support of ‘the world’ that lead USA to Afghanistan but their own will, like in the case of the Iraq invasion in 2003. Where America invaded the country against the will of many people and states and even without the support or resolution from the United Nations.

While foreign opinion may facilitate ‘unpopular ventures’ it has no power or influence in today’s world. Not even with the improvements in technology and the easy access that people to information matters; because we simply not aware of all the facts that are considered behind certain decisions taken by diplomats or state representatives. The media has it’s own agenda their main goal is to make profit like any business, therefore a selection of new and how this new are delivered is required; which consequently can have many different meanings. Also the diversion of public opinion is too much to be taken into consideration. Public Diplomacy for me in a way it's like democracy that we have today, a coercive tool way to make the uneducated masses happy, by making them think that they can make a difference if their voices are heard.

Important elements in the New Diplomacy

Soft power?

The increasing use of soft power. Joseph Nye explains soft power as the ability to affect others so you get the particular outcomes you want, without using coercion, threath or payments. The point is to make your views, or methods, or ideas attractive to others. Nye argues there has been an increase of use of soft power; and a change of view that power do not lie mainly in armies but in values. The approach is rather to use mutual respect to try to influence people in other countries, or in the domestic field, so people hopefully will be more likely to embrace the new values when they are not seen as a threath but rather as an improvement. Nye also introduced a concept; “smart power”, refering to a combination of hard and soft power. Soft power also matters in relationships between state actors – in three major types; culture such as arts, literature, movies and music, values such as and policies. Soft power could be imposed on people of a nation through the use of public diplomacy, sometimes called propaganda.

The increase of non-governmental actors in international affairs. Even if government are still the main actors, they are not the only bodies operating on the international stage. Non-governmental organization have become important global actors. They have both resources and knowledge to pressure for their interests, and attract people over borders to unite and struggle for the same purpose. The definition of an NGO is an organization independent from the government control, that is to say independent from one state in particular. Non-governmental actors refers to a more broad range of actors, also including criminal and profit-making ones such as terrorist groups and big corporations. I believe NGOs is an important part of the new global civil society, acting together in accord for issues such as human rights, global justice and for saving the planet from a climate disaster.

Increase use of multilateral diplomacy. We live in an age of globalization, and more actors are and states are involved concurrently in negotiations and international talks. The increasing number of actors contributed to the development of a multilateral and more complex style of diplomacy. Today, more conventions and summits are held with invited guests from all over the world, from states, NGOs and MNCs. Economic networks have also grew, broadening the diplomatic field. Additionally, technological advancements have made it easier to communicate transfer data between countries. For example, it is common that some participants only attend through webcam.

The New Diplomacy is also characterized by less secrecy. Public scrutiny and control are applauded as important elements in making the diplomatic process legitimate. The NGOs tried to influence the the inter-state activity to push for their interests. It was more difficult to hold the negotiations secret with so many actors involved, so the new diplomacy thus became a more open process easier to scrutinize.

The New style of diplomacy also brought on a focus on new issues in diplomatic relations, such as social, economic and welfare issues, sometimes called 'low politics'. The new diplomatic agenda reflected a new society with more wider but specialized interests.

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/CS-NTWKS/NGO-ART.HTM

http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?Soft-Power-Explained

Balance between patterns of change and continuity

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

Hopenhagen became Nopenhagen – public diplomacy during COP15

In connection with the UN Climate Change Conference 2009 (COP15) in Copenhagen in december 2009, the Danish government set up a website, cop15.dk, featuring news, articles, links and information about the conference and related issues. Visitors could look at webcast live from the conference and send “Climate Greetings” that were shown on a large screens on different locations. The official website had about 4 million visitors in total. It is clear that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark put in a significant effort in communicating with the public. They also launched campaigns through social media channels, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

The UN, together with the International Advertising Association launched a campaign called Hopenhagen – a symbolic name for the role the conference were suppose to play among the public. The aim was to support COP15, and deliver an optimistic message to the global citizens that they actually had a great chance to influence the political leaders. The idea was to empower people to engage in the conference, for instance by signing petititions and appoint a 'Hopenhagen Ambassador', and to inspire people doing good things around the world. John Clang, a photograher, created a short film as well as posters for the Hopenhagen campaign, with the idea of “bring to life the visual representation of Hopenhagen’s citizens”. The Under-Secretary for Public-Diplomacy in Denmark stated that: "Our main objective is that an ambitious agreement will be concluded in Copenhagen, and we want to applaud the Hopenhagen campaign for its emotional and inspirational messages. Hopenhagen is a perfect way to engage the world and make everyone part of the discussion and solution at the December "COP15 meeting."

The goal of the conference was to set up new climate agreements, particularly about an increase in carbon emission cuts and financial funds to developing nations for climate-friendly improvements in technology and production, for 2012. The outcome, however, was no binding agreement for the future. Just a few agreements were made, with barely any significant when it comes to combat global warming. Government representatives from 193 countries participated in the negotiations, as well as many NGOs, industry groups and civil society organizations.

The failure of the conference can be analyzed in many ways. In an article by Shamus Cooke, published on The Market Oracle, the unsatisfying results can be illustrated by two events. First, the huge police actions in the beginning of the conference, where thousands of climate activists and protestors were arrested. Second, the large number of limousine rented in Copenhagen during the conference. The assessment of this, is that public diplomacy extensively failed in the respect that the general public, the people in the civil society, engaged in the issues of climate change, obtained no response from the political leaders representing them. The public diplomacy was aimed at fooling the public that they could involve themselves in saving the planet by participate in organized events around the town, such as paint earth-skaped ballons and send them to the sky with messages to save the climate. But in reality, people were too frustrated to buy such nonsense. The talks were strictly nothing else but talks. Talks among the elite, representing their own governments' interests rather than those of the climate. When the people, from grassroot level, tried to get involved and through different forms of action, put pressure on the politicians, they faced arrests, insults and police violence. The concerns of the people were met with military force while big business and national governments could travel safely in limouines, more concerned with the national economies than to save the planet. People were aware of this, illusrated by the slogans of many protesters' banners: “bla bla bla... ACT NOW!” and “Nature doesn't compromise”.The message to the global citizens, through a fancy designed campaign, had been: "Engage yourself, but not too much".

Democracy Now!'s reporting from COP15 included an interview with Naomi Klein, who claimed that Obama uses the tools of multilateralism to destroy multilateralism. This means U.S., as many other countries are gathering together in multilateral negotiations without any intention of reaching any agreements. Public diplomacy have effectively been used in the sense that Obama was awarded with the Nobel Peace Price for his multilateral attempts to strenghten international diplomacy. The reality, on the other hand, that he undermined it. Cooke also point on another event, when the Bush administration effectively used public diplomacy to justify their invasion of Iraq. While engaging in fake-multilateralism on the international stage, Bush succesfully inlfluenced the U.S. public opinion and gained their support.

The point is that UN, the governments, politicians and the media tried to give the people an impression that there was hope in the COP15 meeting. That there was hope that economic aid and carbon emission caps could save the planet. The powerful leaders, governments and big corporations targeted public diplomacy on the global audience, hoping to get positive response. That people would get the idea that they took their responsibility. That they were willing to come to an agreement, to save our precious world. But in reality, they were just quarrelling over money as usual. The governments, to a high degree controlled by big coorporations, were not interested in saving the world, only to make profits. That's why COP15 turned out to be such a big failure. Not only did they fatally failed to reach any significant agreements, they also let the citizens of the world down. They failed with diplomacy in both respects. So much hope generated by all the campaigns, posters, movies and media reports, for nothing. If all the campaigns were launched to inspire the public to take action and put pressure upon the leaders to come to an agreement, it didn't work. The political elite don't seem to care about demands from the civil society, as long as governments to a considerable degree are controlled by big corporations. When no agreement was reached, the whole scope of public diplomatic campaigns were ridiculed. Hopenhagen became Nopenhagen.

Democracy Now!'s interview with Naomi Klein (and Martin Khor):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLu_wYXIaog&feature=player_embedded

Shamus Cooke's article on The Market Oracle:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/UserInfo-Shamus_Cooke.html

Hopenhagen's website:

http://www.hopenhagen.org/

John Clang's stop-motion movie, and more:

http://www.youtube.com/hopenhagen

Three articles and a story

• - 19 July 2010: Nancy Birdsall, Molly Kinder and Wren Elhai wrote about “Building, not buying trust in Pakistan” on http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/19/building_not_buying_trust_in_pakistan;
• - 25 July 2010: the Guardian wrote “Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks);
• - 20 October 2010: the Guardian Development Network, in partnership with Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, asked “Can US aid change minds in Pakistan?” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2010/oct/20/us-aid-humanitarian-pakistan-winning-hearts-minds).

The three articles listed above have at least one thing in common: they are very skeptical on the significance of the United States’ public diplomacy nowadays.

[A quick reminder on what is commonly intended with the term “public diplomacy”:

‘Official government efforts to shape the communications environment overseas in which American foreign policy is played out, in order to reduce the degree to which misperceptions and misunderstandings complicate relations between the U.S. and other nations’,

see http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/1.htm for further definitions]

One could argue that public diplomacy is wonderful. I agree, to the extent that it is transparent as it promises and that it avoids propagandistic power games. The problem arises when it isn’t wholly sincere, when you find out that the information made public doesn’t quite correspond to some other hidden information that was labelled as ‘unsuitable’ to the sensitive minds of the public.

Like those bloody questionable hundreds of “errors” at civilian expense by American and British troops in Afghanistan, recently made available to every online reader in the so-called Afghanistan War Logs on WikiLeaks.

According to the article, the White House stated that their secrecy was necessary in order not to ‘threaten the national security’.

Or like the US intention to “win hearts and minds” in Pakistan. In a part of the world that is not ready yet to trust the Americans, their clumsy attempts to flood the country with aid to quietly obtain a positive return on their image just could not work. As reported by a journalist for the Guardian Development Network,

the more the US seeks out a public relations boost from its aid, the less likely it is that this will materialise [...] A Pakistani journalist recently captured this sentiment rather bluntly. After I reported on the large relief pledge of the US, he said to me: "Yes, but isn't it all just too contrived?"

As pointed out by Birdsall, Kinder and Elhai, the US are (in)famous in Pakistan for abandoning their aid commitments as soon as ‘diplomatic imperatives’ vanish, regardless of the needs of the Pakistani people. American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s reassuring speech in the country on 19^th July is not enough for the US to meet Pakistan’s favours, unless the States start to seriously stick to the promises they make and to achieve them under the public eye, forgetting once and for all their back-up games behind the scenes. Same goes, of course, for the American military effort in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, it is amazing what a single American citizen can do to improve the perception of his country abroad, without even meaning it. Greg Mortenson, 51, has arguably achieved more in terms of American public image among the Afghani and Pakistani people than the government itself. Author of best-selling book Three Cups of Tea (http://www.threecupsoftea.com/)

and of its sequel Stones Into Schools: Promoting Peace With Books, Not Bombs, Mortenson has established over 90 schools in rural regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan, which provide education to over 34,000 children, including 24,000 girls, where few education opportunities existed before. He started his work in 1993 in a small village close to the K2 and has recently received the honorifical prize of the “Star of Pakistan” (https://www.ikat.org/2009/03/24/bdc-3-24-09/) for his achievements in the country, which include publishing workbooks and grammar books in local languages, building libraries and playgrounds, initiating women’s development projects, clean drinking-water projects and scholarship programmes. All of this, he did thanks to generous grants from private benefactors, to lots of hard work and determination, and with the help of dozens local co-operators. Now it might be asked, how is this relevant to public diplomacy?

Greg Mortenson represents the best of America. He’s my hero. And after you read Three Cups of Tea , he’ll be your hero, too.” -U.S. Representative Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

I read Mortenson’s book. It is truly awesome. It tells a beautiful story, that of thousands people who live in remote areas and used not to know anything about the rest of the world; people who cherished the first American person they ever met as a family friend, because he did something concrete for them, which now allows them to have a better and better life style; people who now love the whole of the United States, just because that’s where Greg Mortenson, their ‘angel’, comes from. How inspiring to read that, in spite of religious, cultural and –especially- political challenges, Good can still triumph if it comes from a genuine desire to help others. How heart-warming to think that there real ‘public diplomats’ like Mortenson around.

Soft power explained by Joseph Nye

http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?Soft-Power-Explained

Though you may find this helpful/interesting/good to listen to!

Do Embassies do more than supplying Passports/ Visas?

What is the role of embassies today and of those diplomats that work on them? How relevant is their existence? 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 see 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.

Western and Europe Diplomacy since 1945

Western and Europe diplomacy since 1945 has been mainly concerned with its relations with the Communist block. In the period of co-operation immediately after the war, the United Nations was established, war criminals were tried, peace trea ties were made with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, and Finland, and the Marshall Plan—originally designed for all Europe—was initiated.

However, deteriorated by a process of action and reaction publicly manifested by Churchill's Fulton speech in the spring of 1947 in which he referred to the Iron Curtain.

The Soviet take-over of European satellites, the Truman Doctrine, the formation of NATO, the China becoming Communist block, the Korean war, and the initiation of atomic rival maintained a condition of Cold War.

The death of Stalin in 1953 and the advent of Khrushchev led to more peace ful coexistence. The Korean war and the Indo-Chinese war were ended. A summit conference was held; the Asian and African countries met in Bandung on 18 April 1955, and the United States and the Soviet Union acted together to stop aggression at Suez.

The pioneering period, when everything still seemed possible, was also the period when some impulsive ideas, bearing the imprint of hastiness or utopianism, fell victim to events or the inertia of governments. It was followed by a period when more concrete achievements could take shape. Recourse to consensus and intergovernmental measures gave way to initiatives that raised hopes of a supranational approach. The fledgling European Community, born of the Schuman Plan, took its first steps and began to acquire organisational shape. Everyone observed with interest the ever closer relations between the age-old enemies, France and Germany, and it attracted other countries that were also tempted by the European venture. While Central and Eastern Europe lived under the yoke of Communist regimes that owed allegiance to the Soviet Union, in Western Europe the Six decided to take their fate into their own hands and tentatively explored new forms of sectoral integration that might lead to greater things. Agriculture, transport and public health would emerge as possible areas in which sectoral integration might be implemented.

There were some liberalization in Poland, but Czechoslovakia in 1968 was crushed when it attempted to break away from the Soviet bloc. Disarmament negotiations made little progress, and stability continued to depend on a balance of terror. Communism penetrated Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The Western policy of containment and deterrence by threats of massive retaliation had not prevented a great decrease in the Western relative power position, relative economy, and relative reputa tion in the underdeveloped world. A new policy looking to ward a world secure for all states seems in order.

I am mentioning the west because was all the time the influence and the negotiations in the peace maintaining and the domination on the subject. so was the collapse of the communism block in the late 80's and the extension of the EU family in the early millennium .

So forward has the European diplomacy did play important role on the field of International Relation?

Bibliography

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1032812

traditional diplomacy

Since 1945 there has been significant change in diplomatic practice, one argues that old diplomacy has adapted to essential changes in international relations. World war one and world war two has subsequently lead to an unstable second half of twentieth century. Since then there has been massive increase of diverse diplomatic activities and the globally diplomatic scene significantly altered. Diplomacy has been affected by the forces of change as much as its context, is also facing challenges such as revolutionary developments in transport and communications, the expansion of international society to global size and the rift between the East and West, the ways in which states are dealing with one another in a variety of bilateral and multilateral settings and one argues of mixes of both has altered since the peace of Westphalia. Diplomacy is a sensitive area with complex procedures and rules, for example issue areas in foreign policy and many other changes, have demanded an absolute renovate of the organization of foreign ministries. The dynamics of diplomacy has significantly altered compared to old era of diplomacy due the increase of technical nature and also the growing volume expanding agenda. New set of concerns has surfaced since decolonization and their also has been realization of issues surrounding transnational and global nature which at times leads diplomats into new territory.

The traditional world 2010

At the beginning of the twentieth century, most part of the world was still very much a traditional world. The relations of the great powers remained what they had always been; the balance of power provided the central ordering principle of international social order. Such stability and moderation as the balance brought rested ultimately on the threat or use of force. War remained the essential means to the maintenance of the balance of power. Despite a growing movement that looked to the amelioration of state relations through greater legal regulation, international law depended for its effectiveness, as it had always depended, upon the maintenance of a balance.
( R. Tucker, http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/national-security-international/1059748-1.html, 2001 )

In last week’s Seminar, we discussed the origins and functions of diplomacy. The main argument was: that diplomacy if ‘old’ or ‘new’ is largely about the promotion of “National- (self) - Interest”! Rising concerns in each country to cope with globalisation, economic dept, exhaustion of natural resources and technological & nuclear warhead evolutions, is consequently developing into isolation of states. It was not everywhere that isolation found political expression, but primarily in Europe. Regardless of the changes in the ‘New’ Diplomacy, like public opinions and interest in moral principal rather in material interest, that behind the new diplomacy was still an old diplomacy, in that the determination to remain dominant within a traditional sphere of influence was as strong as ever. (R Tucker)

“War is still very much a rational and a relevant policy option in the
contemporary world. Witness the Korean War, the Indo-Pakistani Wars and the Arab-Israeli Wars in the post-war period: all had been fought with specific aims in mind; all had been deemed the most cost-effective way of resolving issues; and all had settled the political problem at hand, if not totally, then certainly satisfactorily.

But war is so much a consequence of the states system and human instincts that it does not seem likely to disappear; at least not until something wonderfully dramatic happens to mankind”. (War and the Use of Force in the Contemporary World by CPT Goh Teck Seng)

Another Article which inspired me to argue my point is the analysis written by Dr. G. Friedmann in 2003 at time of the Invasion of Iraq. In his article he demonstrates how imperative the relations between states are and how the balance of power is still a ‘traditional’ contest.
Any comment is appreciated and I am curious what other think!?!?!?!

http://textus.diplomacy.edu/thina/GetXDoc.asp?IDconv=3039

Electronic Resources:

• http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/national-security-international/1059748-1.html, R. Tucker, 2001, accessed 25.10.10
• http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/Vol25_4/13.htm, Goh Teck Seng, 1999, accessed 29.10.10