New blogs on the New Diplomacy

The students posting their thoughts on this blog have now completed the module. I have set up a series of new blogs for the students who are about to start the module this week. Please follow and comment on their work at:

http://thenewdiplomacya.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyb.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyc.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyd.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacye.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyf.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyg.blogspot.com/

My understanding of diplomacy today: How have your opinions about the role of diplomacy in world politics changed since the start of the module? Looki

Looking back on the first impressions I wrote in the first lecture do not believe that my opinion about the role of diplomacy in world politics has changed providing that I always saw diplomacy as being the key for international cooperation, because it values dialogue and debate. Additionally, diplomacy is not stagnant as is evolving from its traditional practice to adjust to the present world. On the other hand, I have to admit that this module taught me everything about the growing importance of non-state actor in diplomatic practice and particularly the way public diplomacy today encourages the processes of democracy, engaging the public and setting the stage for debate distinguishing itself from messages designed to control. In a world, where the public is not a passive recipient, transparency has to be the key to hold representatives accountable.

Diplomacy Today

In my opinion, the role of diplomacy in world politics had changed in relation to the impact of globalization. During the Cold War and the post-Cold War, the politics at that time was more based on the political ideologies such as Marxism and Realism. But nowadays, the politics was based on the political economy. Also, some powerful states were mot considered to be the only significant international actors. When the creation of bilateral states had expanded the supplement of multilateral forms of diplomacy. Another contributions for the change in the world politics was the creation of embassies during the World War 2. The embassies were created for countries to represent their own countries in another states as well as for a country own interest. For example, nowadays, people who wants to know something about their own embassies and want to know more about visas and issues of their own country. They could go to their embassies website where the information is there available for them to read.

Nevertheless, International Organizations and the NGOs, both were seeing to be diplomatic actors and they liked to demonstrate their interests and their resources to influence the overcome their negotiations.

In conclusion, sometimes when a country had problems and they could not solve. There is another country who does try to have a diplomatic talk to solve the problem. Also, the same happened to countries who tries to violent some other countries law.

Diplomacy: The New View

When I began this module, I must admit that my view of diplomacy was very narrow. At the beginning of this semester, I would have defined diplomacy as the means by which states develop relations with each other and seek to solve conflicts. Needless to say, this module has revealed diplomacy to be far less simplistic than I initially assumed.

Learning about the “Old” and “New” diplomacy and the differences between them was the first eye-opener for me on this course. This lecture was the first to reveal to me that there was much more to diplomacy than I thought. It showed me the way diplomacy had evolved from its origins to the present day.

I found it interesting that bilateral negotiations had almost completely been replaced by multilateral negations. This added an interesting new dimension to the module for me because this showed me how diplomatic negotiations (and diplomacy as a whole) became open to non-state actors. The inclusion of non-state actors in the process of diplomacy has truly changed the face of diplomacy because it has shaken more of the elitism and secrecy of the old diplomacy off, allowing for more openness and public transparency. NGO’s and celebrities are now able to illuminate issues that many governments may not have the resources to address.

The development of multilateralism in diplomacy was a defining moment in the evolution of diplomacy because it not only opened the door for non-state actors, but it allowed for the participation of developing states in international affairs. The United Nations and other INGO’s have created forums in which multilateral negotiations can take place as well as allowing developing states to participate in discussions on international issues which may or may not directly affect them.

The inclusion and use of modern technologies in the business of diplomacy was another interesting facet in the evolution of diplomacy for me. Our visit to the Ghana High Commission was an excellent illustration of how modern technology is being used to enhance the work of diplomats and to streamline the daily operations of embassies. Finally, I am very pleased to have learned so much and to have been allowed to gain a broader understanding of what diplomacy was and is, as well as the things that drive it.

How have your opinions about the role of diplomacy in world politics changed since the start the of the module?

Before I took the New Diplomacy module, I had an impression that diplomacy means negotiations between the state actors as well as making treaties and alliances. Globalization has changed the world politics, but I was not aware of significant changes from the old diplomacy to new diplomacy. To defining diplomacy and its origins is a complex topic, because various scholars have different opinions and view concepts of diplomacy differently. It surprised me that there is no strong consensus on many features of diplomacy, for instance arguments by Riordan versus Berridge. The role of diplomat has been always considered as the profession for representing the country. This module introduced the changes within the diplomatic profession, which is challenged, for instance by the non-governmental organizations which could be to some extent considered as a diplomats, but not professionally recognized ones. It was very interesting to find out about the role of public diplomacy and its significant impact on the world politics. „Diplomacy has remarkably adjusted to its changing global environment and promises to continue adapting. New ways of interacting will be tried, some of them radically different“(Leguey-Feilleux, 355, 2009). This view about the future of diplomacy means that it keeps evolving. It was very interesting to research how the EU has transformed the institution of diplomacy. To conclude, my knowledge about the diplomacy is not much more extended than it was before. The content of module made every topic stimulating. I am very pleased about the New Diplomacy module, because it helped me to deeply understand how the diplomacy have been changing and what challenges it has been facing.

My understanding of diplomacy today

According to what I wrote at the beginning of the module, it is clear that I had a rather traditional, narrow-minded view of diplomacy, that is to say it was principally the actions of ambassadors and embassies that constituted my understanding of diplomacy. My understanding was therefore one of limited scope; secrecy, bi-lateral practices, high politics, crisis management and old traditions were all aspects that I understood as diplomacy. At the end of the module, I feel that my understanding has broadened to incorporate many of the different aspects of diplomacy and the debates that surround it. I am now more aware of the history of diplomacy, and how much diplomatic practice has changed, for example, the impact that technology has had on the practice of diplomacy and how significant NGO’s have become in multilateral diplomacy. Also the issues that warrant diplomatic action are far beyond what I would have imagined at the start of the module, i.e. global trade and the environment. This module has huge relevance to current affairs, and has helped me to analyse and gain a greater understanding of contemporary events, such as the Copenhagen climate change conference.

Having said that, I think the most important outcome for me in studying the subject, is just how important definitions are when talking about diplomacy. One can go to either end of the spectrum, either taking an incredibly broad view that diplomacy constitutes actions undertaken by a range of actors that encompass notions of communications and negotiations (the view largely taken by Leguey-Feilluex); or limiting the scope of diplomacy to official state actors and diplomatic channels (largely the view taken by Berridge).

My understanding of diplomacy today

Information is not only important to teach or inform but it also changes people's opinion and increase their understanding. The same way technological, social and political change has combined to undermine the traditional assumption of diplomacy. Lectures, seminar, books, visit to embassies, debates, documentaries and the media combined to undermine my old understanding of diplomacy (S. Riodan, 2003). When I started this module my opinions about the role of diplomacy in the world of politics were very different from the ones I have now, I changed my opinion because I gained more understanding of the topic. In my first lecture I wrote about my impression of diplomacy, at that time my impression was that diplomacy was all about propaganda, it was made of tact and lies to resolve crises between states, for the benefit only of your own government. I dint know about the role of non states actors, or even if they could be involved in diplomacy. knowledge of diplomacy had a big development today, my knowledge of diplomacy started developing during the first lectures after realising that there is more in diplomacy them lies and propaganda , I started reading books, reaching on the web, participating in debate and participate on visit to embassies. From that point my understanding of diplomacy completely changed, today my opinion about diplomacy became more realistic, I now understand that diplomacy changed and is no more made only of lies and propaganda. I learned that diplomacy is very important to maintain global peace and solve crises not only security but other type of crises as well, and that there is many different type of diplomacy today, bilateral, multilateral, security crises, environmental and trade diplomacy. My understanding changed so much that I choice to write my essay arguing against the statement that “diplomacy is a polite expression for propaganda”. Diplomacy is not only important but is an essential need for today politics. I changed my opinion and I am proud of it “only those who don’t have the income of new understanding and ideas remain with same opinion forever”.

the new diplomacy

In my opinion, public opinion is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy for the reason that it is definitely a source of power. While classical diplomacy only involved governments’ representatives and leaves a passive public to rely on their bilateral decisions, new diplomacy opens its door to a large informal diplomats and gives a voice to various extremely active actors including non -governmental organizations and particular individuals. In my view, it is the power accorded to public in the political arena that creates opportunities for non-governmental actors to expand their influence in diplomatic processes, as public diplomacy requires transparency and cooperation when it encourages debate. To me even multilateral diplomacy would be irrelevant without the public’s pressure since NGOs play in important part in multilateral processes. Of course, living in an era where interconnection and fast communication dominate as noted by Snow it is “the rise in user-friendly communication technologies that have increased public participation in talking about foreign affairs” (Snow 2009: 6), indeed, globalization is causing the centre of diplomatic gravity to move “(Copeland 2009:166) from isolation and secrecy of governments to the public's sphere of influence.

What in your opinion is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy? Explain your reasons.

Charles Evans Hughes made a statement that „diplomacy is an old art practiced under new conditions...“ This is very true, because the entire structure of the international system has been changing over the time. Some scholars divide diplomacy into old and new, while they define each one by different features. This blog argues that multilateral diplomacy is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy, because in a way it includes NGOs, public diplomacy, intergovernmental organizations, and few other concepts as well.

Multilateral diplomacy is mainly conducted on international conferences. Although conference diplomacy is not synonym for multilateral diplomacy, because it can be conducted only between two states. In the 19th century, the Vienna Congress could be considered as a stepping stone for a conference diplomacy because for the first time in the history, multilateral agreement was signed according to the international law. Nowadays, in the time of the new diplomacy, the conferences and multilateral diplomacy are conducted differently. The greatest expansion of the multilateral diplomacy happened in the 20th century, when the United Nations /UN/ was set up. Creation of the UN meant increase in international organizations /eg: Amnesty International/, international conferences /eg: the Tehran Conference/, and multilateral international treaties /eg: Convention on the Rights of the Child/.

Andrew Young said „the UN was not designed to be, nor is it adequate to serve as, either a law-making body for the world or a court to judge the nations of the world. It is a forum for diplomacy, and true diplomacy is the art of the dialogue in pursuit of common goals and the avoidance of war“. The UN is the multilateral fora in which all the nations are represented. Multilateral diplomacy is important because it allows even smaller nation-states to find ways how to seek their interests, national or global. Issues could be tackled better through expertise, which are resolved via NGOs, and therefore they play important role within the multilateral diplomacy. There have been questions whether the multilateral diplomacy made bilateral diplomacy to disappear, however the fact is that they co-exist along with each other. Secrecy also matters in the multilateral diplomacy, for instance the agreements made within the UN Security Council. Venue, participation, agenda, decision-making, public debate, and private discussion are issues of multilateral diplomacy defined by G. R. Berridge. However, when these issues are resolved, multilateral diplomacy can be an effective tool for solving problems caused by globalization.

what in your opinion is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy

The world of diplomacy keeps on changing its face, globalisation technology, social and political change are the main influence of the continues change in diplomacy (S.Riordan, 2003). today there are many important aspect of the new diplomacy, this are the development in public diplomacy, the contribution of non state actors in diplomacy,the development and role of multilateral diplomacy,the increase corporation when regarding to environmental issue. all of this aspect of diplomacy are playing an important role in today politics, but the one that is showing more effectiveness at this moment is the use of public diplomacy together with multilateral diplomacy.In my opinion it is the most important and most useful aspect of diplomacy today. politicians have notice the importance of the international public support in politics,and how it can make it easy to apply soft power on other states. they are using public diplomacy in multilateral meetings, if you analyse in many summits many politician make decision that are not at their best interest but they do it in form of promoting their regimes.for example in the nuclear summit president Obama used soft power to apply is nuclear strategy were he got china and even Russia to sign nuclear reduction treaties, Were the USA is making publicity that the are for a world free of nuclear dangers and global disarmament china and Russia had no other option them to sign or be seen the world bad guy like Iran (www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/07/world-nuclear-danger-treaty-america)15 April 2010.The media covers all multilateral meeting or summits, and the USA is using Obama global popularity and the media in multilateral meetings and summits to promote its governments and gain more support leaving their enemies no other opposition but cooperate (www.guardian.co.uk/world/barack-obama)15 April 2010. this is why IRAN his now asking for talks, they have no other option as they loosing global support. this is how important public the diplomacy is today.

Important Aspect in the New Diplomacy

In my opinion the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is that there are three main factors in which describes strategies. The first factor is that the tension between soft power and hard power. Where it can be seeing as a comparison between two countries with different power the reason is that a country can see it as an attractiveness, legitimacy or reliability towards how effective is their power. Sometimes there are competence in who has more military force and more military arms. when it comes to politics some countries like the USA politics is try to demonstrate that their policies is considered to be soft power, but in reality when it comes to the military arms they are hard power. As for Russia there policies seeing to be hard power as for their military arms they are soft power. The second issue is the role of non-state actors and the Non-Governmental Organization(NGOs) have a multinational corporations and they are try to create a more concern international organization. By that it is meant creating different types of campaigns which involves the participation of celebrities, in regard of using the public diplomacy through media and politics. The last factor is that multilateral diplomacy relies on negotiations and agreements between the Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs) and the United Nations (UN). In conclusion, the new diplomacy has made some changes through the whole process of being more open to the public and more concern about all the others actors.

Multilateralism

When considering the differences between the Old and New Diplomacy, it becomes quite clear that there have been several significant facets which distinguish the Old from the New. However, what I believe to be the most significant characteristic of the New Diplomacy, would have to be multilateralism.


Multilateral negotiatons have altered the way in which states relate to each other. One way in which summitry has impacted the international community is by providing issue specific forums in which open discussions can take place. As a result, a number of agreements have been arrived at on issues ranging from sustainable development to human rights. Multilateralism has also helped to foster a sense of community and consequently curb (to an extent) the tendancy towards isolationism in international politics, in that it is able to bring together multiple states which may be affected by common issues or which may have common goals. These states are then able to share ideas and come to mutually beneficial agreements. Were international negotiations conducted solely on a bilateral basis, it is unlikely that we would have been able to witness the degree of cooperation which exists among states today. The 20th century produced more development and more advances in technology than at any previous point in history. It is my belief that this rapid spurt of growth was as a result of inter state cooperation which was partly facilitated by conference diplomacy.

Before the end of WWII, when one spoke of world or international issues, it generally refered to issues affecting the world's powerful/wealthy states. Most of today's sovereign states were at the time colonies of the great powers and as a result did not have a voice. Multilateralism is very significant because it allows developing states which normally would not have a voice in issuues such as disarmament, to contribute to the resolution of such concerns. The General Assembly of the United Nations is an excellent vehicle for allowing developing states to be active in the process of decision making. Dr. Julian R. Hunte, Saint Lucia's ambassador to the UN was voted President of the UN General Assembly for its 58th regular session, allowing him to preside over discussions which he would not be a part of if such a forum did not exist.

Another attribute of multilateralism is that it provides a level of transparency which did not exist under the Old Diplomacy. Since summits are open, the press and by extension, lay people are able to witness these events and be informed of the decisions being made on an international scale which may affect them. It is therefore my opinion that we would not yet have known a world where such a high level of cooperation between states exists to establish such things as human rights and where regional organisations such as the EU and CSME could facilitate such things as freedom of movement, were it not for the presence of multilateralism in modern diplomacy.

What I consider to be the most important aspect of new diplomacy

Multilateral conferences have been the most important aspect of new diplomacy. Conferences held under new diplomacy have become important in contemporary world due to the large number of states in the international system and the way it highlights global issues. As conferences are subject focused, it brings together all parties including non state actors whose agreement may be required to resolve an urgent international problem such as terrorism. Conferences enable hostile states that might not have diplomatic relations to discuss matters outside the formal agenda in which they have been invited to discuss. Multilateral conferences also help mediators to kick start stalled negotiations. The six party talks involving china, the United States, North and South Korea, Japan and Russia reinforces the importance of multilateral conferences where mediators from these countries have jumped start talks on North Korea’s nuclear programme. Earlier bilateral talks between North Korea and United States of America had been stalemate as a result of President George W Bush’s policy of including North Korea in Axis of Evil countries. Finally conferences perpetuate agreements as signing of treaties openly display consensus achieved in a visible manner which encourages parties to monitor and adhere to agreement.

Yaw

What, in your opinion, is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy?

I would like to argue here that the most important and significantly ‘new’ aspect of the new diplomacy is that of the role of non-state actors. It can be said that although it depends on the specific issue at hand, the influence of institutions such as NGO’s or MNC’s can have on negotiations between states today is unprecedented. The increase in amount of these organisations is also an important point, for example, the total number of NGO’s has increased significantly since the beginning of the 20th century; In 1909, there was a total of 176 NGO’s in operation, compared with 21,026 in 2006 (Leguey-Feilleux, 2009, 105).

One could easily refute their importance by taking a more realist stance, and argue that it is the state which is the only real actor in diplomatic negotiations. However, Legeuy-Feilleux argues that representatives from MNC’s tend to be high level business executives, therefore wielding the influence of their firm’s resources; as a result they are taken very seriously by those in the public sector. He goes on to say that some state officials are even intimidated by their power (Legeuy-Feilleux, 2009, 144).

So why have these institutions become so important? One argument is that the types of issues that require negotiations between states are not limited by state boundaries. Environmental issues are a classic case in point. At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 for example, there were a significant number of NGO’s participating as members of government delegations, and actively participated in official decision making (Legeuy-Feilleux, 2009, 106-107).

Another example of NGO influence, and perhaps the most significant, was the formation of the landmine treaty, which even managed to go through despite the opposition from the United States.

Although it can be said that the majority of influence wielded by non-state actors (especially NGO’s) is most prevalent in multilateral diplomacy, in a world increasingly challenged by issues that are not exclusive to the single unit of the state, their role is more important than ever before.

Public Diplomacy

Communication is vital in international relations since it is the tool to negotiate, and exert influence. As noted by Holsti “in seeking to achieve objectives, realize values, or defend interests, governments must communicate with those whose actions and behaviour they wish to deter, alter, or reinforce (1992:132). Diplomacy, “the conduct of business between states by peaceful means” is the best way to exercise influence on foreign states, in an era dominated by fast communication and wide spread of liberal democratic ideas the pubic plays an important part in shaping policies which justifies the attention on public diplomacy that is becoming essential to the processes of state-run promotion. If traditional diplomacy focus on influencing foreign governments’, public diplomacy is “the art of communicating with foreign publics to influence international perceptions, attitudes and policies” (Waller: 19). New diplomacy is the vehicle that countries like The United States traumatised by the 9/11 tragedies chose, to transform the image of arrogance and imperialistic that most countries have of the US. But, Whereas, the Bush era was dominated on secure associations with the heads of government, president “Obama’s rhetoric is aimed at the ruling elite and the common citizen alike” to whom he lecture to directly in prestigious local Universities in Cairo and Moscow to “highlight the importance of future generations that are growing more interconnected and interdependent by the day”. Communicating directly with the public of other countries Obama increases his credibility as he appears more sincere because the public is been given importance, he shows them that their voice matters. As he demonstrated in Prague when he claimed” that’s why I’m speaking to you in the centre of a Europe that is peaceful, united and free- because ordinary people believed that divisions could be bridged, even when their leaders did the not”( Zubrow, 2009)

Public Dipolmacy: A Force for Good

Public diplomacy has become a very significant facet of world politics. Many states have used public diplomacy in an attempt to influence the population of another state in their favour. This is not by any means a new phenomenon. According to Joseph Nye, “In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, France promoted its culture throughout Europe. French not only became the language of diplomacy but was even used at some foreign courts,...After its defeat in the Franco-Prussian war, the French government sought to repair the nation’s shattered prestige...through the Alliance Francaise...” (Nye, 2004: p. 100) Being a citizen of a former British colony (which was under French rule on seven occasions spanning about 200 years and as a result of fourteen wars being fought), I can attest to the use of French public diplomacy via the Alliance Francaise. In my country, the French are generally viewed as a generous, caring and helpful people because of the work done through the Alliance Francaise and because of our close relations with neighbouring Martinique. Through the Alliance Francaise, the French government has undertaken a number of initiatives including offering free French classes to the public. The Venezuelan government through a sub-office of its embassy called the Venezuelan Institute operates in much the same way as the Alliance Francaise, providing services to the public while promoting its culture. My country has benefited greatly from many of the developmental initiatives offered by these two countries, and enjoys good relations with both of them.

www.alliance-francaise-antilles.org/en/saint-lucia/about-us.html

“The Pyramid” Alliance Francaise Building, Pointe Seraphine, Castries, Saint Lucia

A fairly recent development in the sphere of public diplomacy is celebrity diplomacy. I believe celebrity diplomacy is rather significant because of its potential to reach much further than conventional means of diplomacy. Since many people only participate in politics on a superficial level, they find it easier to embrace an issue if it is brought to their attention by a celebrity they admire than they would if it came from a politician . Since celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt have lent their voices to environmental issues, there has been a rise in awareness of environmental issues even though scientists and NGO’s such as Greenpeace have been talking about them for years. Another celebrity, John Legend has also, been actively singing the praises of the Millennium Promise initiative, aimed at ending extreme poverty in our generation, through his Show Me Campaign. All of these celebrities and others not mentioned here are using their status to mobilise the otherwise inactive citizens to pay attention to and to take part in the process of addressing and in some cases solving these issues, not only in their respective countries but all over the globe.

Brad Pitt

Leonardo DiCaprio

John Legend

www.leonardodicaprio.org/

www.showmecampaign.org/

Public diplomacy: Write about a recent event or development which illustrates the importance or otherwise of public diplomacy in contemporary world po

To be able to have indirect influence on foreign governments, public diplomacy has been the best tool in contemporary world. The usage of British councils in commonwealth countries for example indicates how liberal democratic principles and values have been exported into these former British colonies. Having different style of operation and any kind of political agenda, British councils in commonwealth countries has not only exported liberal democratic values to these countries. It has also built mutual beneficial cultural and educational relationships between the UK and its former colonies. The sharing of cultural practices has enlightened commonwealth citizens. Dissidents in authoritarian countries have also been able to air their views to the global world through the council’s technologies such as providing free Internet for the citizens of the resident countries. Being detached from the regular high commissions, British councils are more approachable to residents and are probably to remain opened even if the regular high commission is forced to close. Its branches in Ghana for example have been providing anti terrorism literature's to school and educating students about the rise of radicalization by Muslim extremists. Such programmes indicate how terrorism is being tackled in the grass root level through public diplomacy.

A brand new 550 sqm Britian Council Building in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Barack Obama and the importance of public diplomacy

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8082676.stm).This link is for the speech president Barack obama made to the Muslim world in Cairo Egypt 4 November 2009. In is speech president obama called for a new beginning in USA relation with the muslin world.The president also said Muslim perceptions of the US must change.
"Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire."
Mr Obama said America was not at war with Islam, but would confront violent extremists who threatened its security. i will see this as the recent event that most influenced the importance of public diplomacy in contemporary world politics. according to Joseph Nye"Soft powers works by convincing others to follow, or getting them to agree, norms and institution that produce the desire behaviour" (S.Riordan,2004, page120). I will agree that president Obama uses soft power to impose is policies. write now one of Obama's main aim is to fixed the America's bad reputation and the way the world sees it.the war and market exploitation, made many states to lose faith on the USA.Obama is trying to change that. but is it not as easy going to does leaders say sorry and peace. no because of globalisation the world is more united people in different states parts of the world share information and culture in seconds via media or internet. if a leader is hated abroad that may effect is popularity in is own state.for this reason Obama is using public diplomacy as is main weapon to clean America's reputation. the speech he made to muslin world is very powerful tact for public the diplomacy. this will help restore trust of the muslin people and even government. I think that international public relation is a very important virtue for a leader. and Obama is proving that using public deplomacy is a very important tact in today politics. he is now popular all over the world and he is also trusted by many nations.

Write about a recent event or development which illustrates the importance of public diplomacy in contemporary world politics.

The definition of public diplomacy is as complex as determining the actual date when the term started to be used within the art of diplomacy. Jan Melissen points out that „there is no one-size fits all model for public diplomacy“ /Cooper, Hocking, Maley, 243, 2008/. Some scholars think about public diplomacy as a tool of soft power, others refer to it as propaganda used for political ends. Factors such as media development, spreading of democracy, and increasing elements of globalization contributed to the acceleration of the public diplomacy, which plays inevitable role in which not only non-state and state actors are engaged, but also individuals as such.

Image of the country is important for foreign relations, therefore the role of media in public diplomacy can destroy or contribute towards the image of country. The release of pictures from the prison Abu Ghraib which were taken by American soldiers did not contribute to a good image of the United States.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

The other example of the power of media within the public diplomacy in the world politics is the case of using Google in China. Media can influence public to a great extent, and therefore China has been trying to keep its population far from reaching the information that is available online, because the truth is that the information provided by media is not always credible, but manipulative.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35981427/ns/technology_and_science-security/

Sweden is the first European country that created a virtual online embassy. This project supported by the government is a very good example of the public diplomacy, meaning that through this project Sweden has improved its public diplomacy.

http://www.sweden.se/secondlife

The public diplomacy in Norway has a few aspects. First of all, Norway is considered to be one of the biggest contributing countries in the matters of humanitarian aid during peace-keeping operations. Some scholars even compare Norway to „a humanitarian superpower“, even though it is a small country with no significant interests, such as for instance the United States has. Norway through its peacemaking policies shows the world what Norway wants to achieve. This type of public diplomacy ensure the positive image of Norway in the globalized world.

To conclude, the public diplomacy involves building up relationships between state and non-state actors. Governments need to inform the public about the strategic goals of foreign policy, avoid any misinterpretations which would further lead to worsening of the image of country, and also indirectly influence foreign governments. The examples in the presence support the argument that the public diplomacy is extremely effective tool in conducting public opinion.

A Development that shows the need for Public Diplomacy in Contemporary World Politics

The Importance of Public Diplomacy for the United States and its Allies Regarding International Terrorism post 9/11

The impact that the events of September 11th 2001 have had on contemporary world politics cannot be underestimated. The fact that the United States was attacked on its own soil from fanatical, foreign non-state actors not only proved the need for effective techniques to combat international terrorism, but it also proved that public diplomacy strategies had to adapt to a new world, as Bruce Gregory argues:

‘States are not what they used to be. Governance is provided increasingly by political actors above, below, and around the state. Thick globalism, non-state actors, a mix of secular and religious "big ideas," digital technologies, and new forms of communication have transformed the old world order. Network societies challenge organizational hierarchies. Attention – not information – is today's scarce resource. And we confront insurgents and terrorists in a new paradigm of armed conflict fought within civilian populations by contestants with local and global reach.’ (Gregory, B, 2008)

The 9/11 commission provided a ‘three-dimensional’ strategy for combating international terrorism that clearly included aspects of public diplomacy. It stated the need to ‘communicate and defend American ideals in the Islamic world, through much stronger public diplomacy to reach more people... Our efforts here should be as strong as they were in combating closed societies during the Cold War’ (Waller, JM, 2007). All this is very well, but the ‘promotion of American ideals’ after the incredibly unpopular decision to invade Iraq in 2003 is arguably an incredibly difficult task, and a pretty hypocritical one at that.

The Obama Effect:

One way in which you could argue that the U.S has made progress in its public diplomacy is the election and actions of its current President (and therefore it’s Chief Diplomat). Obama has made the decision to pull combat troops out of Iraq, refocus on the Taliban in Afghanistan and made numerous speeches showing his desire to reach out and influence those in the Muslim world. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/NewBeginning/transcripts (notice the amount of languages you can see it in) and http://www.whitehouse.gov/video/President-Obama-Gives-Ramadan-Message.

Whether the United States has developed appropriate public diplomacy strategies to deal with the threat from terrorism is up for grabs. However, I would argue that events such as 9/11, the London bombings of July 7th 2005, and the subsequent views of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq clearly illustrate the need for effective public diplomacy on the part of the United States and its allies.

Bibliography:

Gregory, B. (2008), ‘Public Diplomacy and National Security:Lessons from the U.S. Experience’, Public Diplomacy Alumni Association (Formally USIA Alumni Assoc.) http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/100.htm

Waller, J.M. (2007), National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (2004), The Public Diplomacy Reader.

public diplomacy

Public Diplomacy deals with public opinion that has increase the way how diplomats make their negotiation through communication. They play an important role in the political life in a state. In fact, diplomats affairs are more exposed through media when it comes down to interviews and shows talks. Also, sometimes when a state has issues and they can not solve the problem by themselves, then some other state comes along through a diplomatic talk.

http://www.euronews.net/2010/01/14/israel-apologises-to-turkey-over-public-snub/

Does the old diplomacy have any contemporary relevance?

There have been radical changes on international relation over the last few years, social and political change has combined to undermine the traditional assumption of diplomacy (S.Riordan,2003,the new diplomacy). Its is also assumed that the old diplomacy could not cope with the new dilemmas of of globalisation that brought easy access of communication.we agree that most of the principal of the old diplomacy were overshadowed by the principal of the new diplomacy(S.Riordan,2003,the new diplomacy).but if we we still define diplomacy as "application of intelligence and tact to conduct of official relation between states governments"(E.Satow,1964,A guide to diplomatic practice, page1), this make has agree that even there were many significant changes on diplomacy, the old diplomacy still as contemporary relevance in today's diplomacy. this is because there are still many old principal and tact of old diplomacy being used today. states still use secrecy and bilateral meetings when possible,in some parts of the world diplomacy is still political motivated,military secrets between states, there are many secrets allies states have that they don't share with other states this including military secrets, for example the military secret of NATO are not shared with states like IRAN or North Korea, and military force is still used in times of political crises. today bilateral diplomacy is mostly used to by a state that are acting as middle man for two states who don't have good diplomatic relations, to bring relation to this two states(S.Riordan,2003,the new diplomacy).

Public diplomacy in contemporary world politics.

Public Diplomacy in a contrast to “traditional” diplomacy is about communication with citizens. Public Diplomacy includes dialogue between individuals and various institutions including non-governmental as is often referred as a “two-way street” for credentials of the dialogue.

‘The basic premise of public diplomacy is that by engaging in a country’s political and social debates, you can create the intellectual and political climate in which your specific policies can flourish.’ (Riordan, S. (2004) The New Diplomacy: 122) Those engagements can be cultural and educational programs, seminars engaged to certain theme, TV documentaries, interviews and articles. Public diplomacy aims to create a positive image of the advocate country within the target community or country; however this is not always in positive manner, but could be with the aim to create a negative image as well. This blog would argue that there is a fine line between public policy and targeted propaganda and is often somehow fused together.


There is an interesting video showing how Israel is using new technologies to improve the image of the Israel. Technologies that Israeli diplomats are using are i.e. Twitter, Facebook or YouTube. It is interesting how by using the internet can help to change the perspective of the one country in the globalised, interconnected world with help of advanced technology and can reach the targeted group of people within seconds.
Please watch this video on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujYb0dCWVDc

This blog would argue that the most profound example of the public diplomacy in the use of public diplomacy in the time of Vietnam war, when Americans did realize the importance of the support of the Vietnamese citizens and more recently the same situations occurred in Iraq. There is interesting interview led by a Yemeni-born British television news reporter and interviewer Riz Khan on subject of the public diplomacy of the USA in Iraq. Watch at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fHn97YoQ14

Does the "Old" Diplomacy have Contemporary Relevance?

I most certainly agree that old diplomacy has contemporary relevance. Diplomacy – like every other facet of International Relations – has undergone an evolution. While the principles of the old diplomacy have been overshadowed by the principles of the new diplomacy, this does not mean that it is any less relevant or present in contemporary International Relations. A key feature of new diplomacy is transparency. Under new diplomacy, diplomatic relations are supposed to be conducted openly so that among other things, certain failings of the League of Nations will not be repeated. An example would be the Abyssinia Crisis of the 1930’s. Despite the fact that Ethiopia was also a part of the League of Nations, this state was forsaken and was not granted the protection that was its right under the agreement of the League of Nations. This occurred partly because of secret agreements between the Great Powers.

Haile Selassie - Last Emperor of Ethiopia

The transparency highlighted by new diplomacy appears to only apply to the various international summits and conferences which are constantly taking place. A more recent example of the secrecy of old diplomacy in practise would be the fact that some European states still rely on the gathering of intelligence in order to conduct their diplomatic relations with other European Union states. While former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in the documentary “How to be Foreign Secretary”, chose not to speak on the matter, another former Foreign Secretary quite openly admitted that intelligence was gathered on Britain’s closest neighbours. While some would argue that new diplomacy has replaced old diplomacy, (and in some respects, such as the move away from elitism, it has been) it is becoming more apparent to me that old diplomacy is still alive and well, simply wearing new garments.

TRADITIONAL DIPLOMACY

TRADITIONAL DIPLOMACY
DO YOU THINK THE “OLD DIPLOMACY HAS ANY CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE?

Many would believe that "old" diplomacy where secrecy and states lead the negotiations has little relevance in an era of rapid communication dominated by multilateral diplomacy and public scrutiny. However, I would say that bilateral meetings are very much present in what is suppose to be Multilateral for instance two representatives would negotiate while their having their lunch instead of in the presence of all the others. Furthermore, if as Berridge claims “secret diplomacy can mean keeping secret all or any of the following: the contents of a negotiation; knowledge that negotiations are going on; the content of any agreement at all has been reached”(2005: 110), one could argue that secrecy is still in tradition because even if the public is informed about the agreement reached, they are not engaged the negotiations and the diplomats will not limit their freedom of action by revealing their intentions or the contents of their negotiations and take the risk of damaging their chances of representing their countries.
"Old" diplomacy is the basis for diplomacy therefore it will always complement and be the point of reference. States are still the central actors when taking decisions of course non-States actors have a very important role today in pushing and influencing the agreements but at the end the States take the decisions according to their national interest as we saw with the Copenhagen summit on environment.

Do you think the „old“ diplomacy has any contemporary relevance?

„Secrecy is the very soul of diplomacy“, this is the statement made by Francois de Calliéres in 1716. Secrecy, high politics, and exclusiveness are the main theoretical foundations of the „old“ diplomacy. This blog argues that the „old“ diplomacy is relevant in the 21st century, even though diplomacy, as an art which uses ways and means to preserve peace, has been transformed.

The main theoretical foundations of the „old“ diplomacy are closely inter-related. Secrecy is very important element in order to achieve the goal which is needed. In the traditional system, diplomacy was made only in secrecy, which meant that the actors were able to negotiate more easily in a sense that they could adapt their requirements. In the 21st century, secrecy is present in diplomacy, for instance when Norway was conducting top-secret diplomacy when resolving conflict between the Tibetans and the Chinese authorities. This example confirms the fact that secrecy within diplomacy is important in order to fulfill its main functions, which is preserving the peace.

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=21531&article=Norway+trying+to+broker+peace+between+China+and+Tibet&t=1&c=1

In the times of „old“ diplomacy, bilateral diplomacy was the dominant, while the multilateral diplomacy was very rare. In the 21st century, bilateral diplomacy has not been replaced by multilateral, as some might argue. These two types of diplomacy co-exist along with each other, and therefore bilateral diplomacy is relevant nowadays, for instance between the Great Britain and France when British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, offered „Entente Formidable“ to French President, Nicolas Sarkozy. This bilateral summit, which also included political aspects, confirms the necessity to develop limited relationship between two parties. The reason are easier negotiating and keeping secrecy.

http://www.euractiv.com/en/priorities/brown-sarkozy-seal-entente-formidable/article-171188?_print

The „old“ diplomacy is relevant in the contemporary diplomacy, because without the foundations of the „old“ diplomacy, „new“ diplomacy would not emerged. In the attached video, Hillary Clinton points out that diplomacy in the 21st century has been challenged by technology and communications. It is true, however, secrecy and exclusiveness will always remain the significant factors for functioning diplomacy even in the globalized world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6PFPCTEr3c

'Old' in 'New'

The 'old diplomacy' is based on the bilateral negotiation between two states where they have a secret conversation. The diplomats used to travel to have indirect negotiation, so the aim for the diplomats at the time was to be sent abroad to negotiate, nowadays the diplomats do not need to travel to get to one end of the world. The reason is that now there is the Internet that has change the way in which the diplomats communicate, but still it is relevant to the 'old diplomacy'.

Before the Cold War, the negotiation was due through secrecy when the states used to meet to discuss about an issue. When the states wanted to have meetings that others should not know they had that secret meeting between them. However, in the 'old diplomacy' embassies played a big role in when it came to negotiation or sharing information about the place they were representing. Sometimes the embassies are used to be the intermediate in a negotiation when countries are not able to solve a problem.

When conflicts occurs in countries there need to have one other country to play the intermediate. So they will need to use the diplomacy talk or talk to one country first and later to talk to the second country to end the dispute among them. In the case of Israel and Lebanon where there was a conflict, later on the U.S.A had to intervene to find a diplomatic solution.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7817135.stm


Since the United Nations was created which followed by the Second World War, then 'new diplomacy' had challenged many view of the 'old diplomacy'.

Traditional diplomacy; do you think the ‘old diplomacy has any contemporary relevance? Explain why you hold your view and refer to contemporary or his

Traditional diplomacy has been the underlying structure in which modern diplomacy has thrived upon. In spite of the emergences of multilateral and public diplomacy, traditional diplomacy is still relevant in contemporary world due to the important tasks it performs such as representation, negotiating, clarifying intentions and gathering information on economic and military intelligence.
As promoting national interest abroad is the core function of diplomacy, a state’s representative options is broadened when embassies exist. On occasions where a senior government minister could not travel abroad on representative duties, the resident ambassador deputise on that minister’s behalf as good embassies honour local customs and make extensive social contacts.
At the funeral of the former soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in Moscow 1982, heads of government who could not attend were represented by their resident ambassadors to show their respect as failure to send a representative would have been deemed as lack of respect by the soviets.

Funeral of former soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in 1982

Pre negotiation is another important role of traditional diplomacy. Through the usage of its embassies, pre negotiations tend to influence the atmosphere in which negotiation is conducted. For instance the International Road Transports agreement between Turkey and the United Kingdom in 1977. The commercial counsellor of the British Embassy in Ankara had negotiated an interim agreement in February 1976 and made all the preparations for the visit of the negotiating team from the British Department of Transport.
Finally, a resident ambassador can explain a written message with an oral explanation and be more appropriate than a special envoy. An ambassador’s presentation would reinforce the message due to the local reputation the ambassador has earned.
With the above arguments, it has been demonstrated that traditional diplomacy still has relevant role to play in today’s world.

Yaw

What you consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy

Diplomacy is "the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the government of independent states" (S.Riordan, 2003, page 12). There are debates on what to to be considered the most significant change in diplomacy. Many people look at diplomacy as just a theory or maybe ideology but I look at it as an action or attitude towards another state, this action depends on the predicted effect of a reaction of another state. This why in my point of view the most significant change in diplomacy is the creation of the new diplomacy. The change from old to new, before diplomacy was more bilateral secretive, and states used high politics and threat of force, at this time diplomacy was only between states that share the same political ideologies, feared each others military, or were depending on each other for trade, the other states were considered possible threats and any mistakes will lead to a war. This lead to the brake out of the two world wars. today we are experiencing the new diplomacy where a state like USA will need to use diplomacy to resolve crises with a small state like Cape Verde. The new diplomacy is more open inclusive, as low politics and more efficient in solving diplomatic crises, this diplomacy contains suctions instead of military force, which I believe to be the reason for the absence of another world war. There are also debates on the reason and motives that lead to the change in diplomacy. As I stated before diplomacy is an action or attitude towards another state, action and attitudes towards others change we with time this why diplomacy will continue to change. the main reason on the change in diplomacy is fear of the cost of conflict, before only western states had strong military power so they went bullied and colonised other states at that time war with a week state will benefit them, when they realised that this wars started to course them lives and money bringing less international support they started valuing diplomacy over conflicts. Another t important reason is the advance of globalisation, with globalisation cheaper transportation cost, the internet, the media easy access of communication, uniting nations, increasing tourism and immigration people are now living in deferent parts of the world having family members in many other states. sports also plays a major role , players playing abroad getting fans from all over the world ,the media and global information, the creation of organisation like UNA acting as middle man in diplomatic crises , multinational companies opening in many other states and acting as noon governmental player of diplomacy. For this reason the attitude to others states changed. For example it was not in the political benefit of Israel to have GAZZA independent but because of the pressure of the international community they opted for diplomatic negotiations. Diplomacy is not at its perfect stage yet, international foreign policies act only for the benefit of some strong states. Diplomacy will keep changing and what we today call the new diplomacy one day we will call it the semi new diplomacy.

A combination of summit diplomacy, the old and the new....

Hi Guys,

I was just perusing the internet when I stumbled upon the galleries section of the White House website. They have a collection of photo's taken at the Copenhagen climate change summit, and I thought this was a particularly interesting one showing some of the aspects of diplomacy that we've been talking about in seminars and lectures over the past few weeks. Here, we see President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev having a bi-lateral meeting at a very much multilateral conference! This can also be used as an example of 'summit diplomacy', in which it is not ambassadors that are involved in negotiations, but heads of state themselves (although I guess you can argue that the U.S. President is the 'chief diplomat').

This image highlights to me that there is arguably some relevance to the more 'traditional' methods of diplomacy even today. Let me know what you guys think!

Chris

p.s. I hope the image downloads properly, incase it hasn't, and you wonder what on earth I'm banging on about, here's the link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/photogallery/a-breakthrough-copenhagen

What do you consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy?

There have been quite a number of changes in the nature of diplomacy over the past few centuries. However, there are two that I believe to be more significant than the others.

The first significant change was a product of World War I. WWI, the subsequent formation and collapse of the League of Nations as well as WWII, forced world leaders to re-evaluate their diplomatic practices. The world experienced a shift from the “old” to the “new” diplomacy. The old diplomacy was marked by elitism and secrecy while the new diplomacy favoured a greater degree of openness and also professionalised the business of diplomacy. The decline of empire necessitated the abolition of the practice of appointing diplomats based on their bloodlines and opened the way for skilled and suitably educated individuals to assume these responsibilities.

The other significant change is that of technology. Since WWII, there have been many advances in technology - specifically communications technology. Communications technology as we know it today is changing the face of diplomacy. Many argue that with the ready availability of the internet, video and tele-conferencing and the likes, diplomats are becoming obsolete. After all, why bother having an entire embassy in another state when CNN or BBC World can tell you exactly what is going on in real time halfway across the globe. While diplomats and embassies have by no means been made obsolete, the development of communications technology has had and will continue to have an effect on the way diplomacy is practised.

What you consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy

The evolution of diplomacy started with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 where it was based on two different empires those were France at Munster, Sweden and the Protestant. The main focus of the Treaty of Westphalia was to end the old order that was used in all the empires, but there was an increase of new powers(Online Encyclopedia).

Also, the Second World War main concerns was the Germany aggression, it had implied that all nations contribute in the war. At that time it had lead to a change into the world politics. The other factor was the Cold War where Soviets and American were to be at the time big Superpowers and they were competing to see who had the best military forces. This had transform the world politics the reason was that the Soviets policy concentrated on the belief that capitalism did not get along with communism (Kegley, JR. 101, 2009). As for the American concentrated more on their belief which was capitalism.

The NGO's had play a very different important role in the new diplomacy where for example two rivals states can not find a diplomatic way to work together. NGO take place and act as diplomatic entrepreneur creating links diplomatic links between the two states.

Another example is the way the internet is being used in the diplomacy, for example in the embassies where they have their websites where people can use to renew their visas on-line or other services can be done on-line.