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.

write about 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" (Satow 2009:3). diplomacy, claims Leguey-Feilleux is as old as civilisation and it adapts to the currant international society (2009:23). i think World War One was the beginning of the mains changes that have taken place in diplomatic relations because it emphasized the need for transparency and multilateralism within the processes of diplomacy. indeed, the traditional diplomacy failed to prevent the conflict that destabilized the world by the simple use of dialogue and negotiation. Instead favoured "mutual agreement" therefore "limiting the relationship to two parties, of course made easier to keep negotiations secret" (White 2005:390). This secrecy was against the goal of obtaining stability and peace since it caused a world war. Thus, the war highlighted problems within the old processes and a open the horizon for change.
The changes required for a more effective diplomacy implied "public scrutiny and control" (White 2005:391) and a "new diplomacy" emerged.
Firstly, an open diplomacy where the public will be informed of any reached agreements is one of the mains changes for the simple reason that diplomacy is not anymore limited to a "closed social elite" but this also means that the states have to be careful in their choices and alliances they do not want to be seen as weak or too aggressive. Furthermore, the creation of institutions like the League of Nations and Later the United Nations is also a significant transformation since it favours cooperation and gives a certain power to this international organization because its role would be to foster and regulate the exchange between states. Finally, the changes meant that non states actors also have important role to play in diplomacy since security was no longer the only issues that affected the diplomacy's agenda but social and economic problems were becoming and sometimes were taking over the security concern.

The evolution of diplomacy:Write about what you consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy

Multilateral diplomacy has been the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy. Diplomacy as we all know was first conducted in secrecy by Kings, Princes and Elites in the medieval era. This form of practice was justified in the sense that the contents of negotiation must be kept a secret to prevent radical supporters of governments who might try to sabotage talks if they are made aware of what were at stake. And also, a successful negotiation means each party has to settle for less than its requirements.

However multilateral diplomacy has become essential today in contemporary world due to the large number of states in the international system. Multilateral diplomacy hinges on conferences, where a specific or urgent matter could be discussed by staging a conference rather than working through normal diplomatic channels. Multilateral conferences bring all interested parties and warring factions whose agreement may needed together and having a chair person helps the participants to reach a decision.

Conference diplomacy also enables states to engage in bilateral diplomacy as participants could discuss other matters outside the formal agenda at the multilateral conference. States such as Iran and the United States of America who might not enjoy a good relations could use such conferences to improve their relations.

In conclusion, multinational diplomacy has been the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy.

Yaw

What do you think is the most important change in the nature of diplomacy?

This entry will focus on two factors which I believe are important in order to be able to think of a ‘new’ diplomacy.

1 – A reduction in the significance of ambassadors and the social class that they traditionally originated from.

It can be said that there has been a significant reduction in the autonomy and therefore significance of ambassadors in traditional 'high politics'. For example, in the nineteenth century, governor of Hong Kong (British territory until 1997), Sir John Bowring had so much influence and power that it is argued that he had a large part to play starting the second Opium War between Britain and China (see Christopher Meyer’s documentary ‘Getting Our Way’). It is difficult to imagine ambassadors being given the freedom for such action today!

It can be suggested that those who work in foreign affairs on behalf of the state have also gone through an important change. Those who undertook these duties in the nineteenth century tended to be solely from the aristocracy, whereas now, the FCO recruits from a wide range of backgrounds, signalling a change in diplomatic style and representation.

2 – The impact of non-state actors on the world stage.

Secondly then, there is the fact that traditionally, states themselves were considered the only actors to be conducting diplomatic relations. Today though, we see that they share the world stage with multi-national corporations and non-governmental organisations, which are often represented at IGOs such as the UN (White, B. 2005: 391). Also, the fact that NGOs are separate from the state, and therefore have no loyalties to it, means that diplomacy is not limited purely to the perceived national interest. The UN itself is another good example of diplomacy conducted on a wider scale, rather than on a traditional bi-lateral basis.

Whether diplomacy has in fact changed altogether though, is another matter. Personally, I think you can view diplomacy as being made up of two faces. It can be suggested that the so-called 'high politics' (such as whether to go to war), are still related to the more traditional style of diplomacy, such as bilateral discussions and a certain amount of secrecy. As an example, take Tony Blair’s revelation that he committed Britain into ‘dealing with Saddam Hussein’ along with the U.S (see Chilcot enquiry) during secret talks held with George W. Bush at his ranch in Texas. 'Low politics' however, such as talks on climate change, are significantly different. There is often a huge amount of people present, and they are very much 'open', as they are often reported on, or maybe even televised.

Links that may be useful:

http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/440249_731201502_727554036.pdf - Article on representation of NGO’s at the UN.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qvkrp/Getting_Our_Way_Prosperity/, Christopher Meyer’s documentary on British diplomacy throughout the years. This episode talks about Britain’s relationship with China, and explains Sir John Bowring’s role.

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

The Treaty of Westphalia /1648/ is often recognized as significant step for evolution of modern nation-states. Nation-states have always tried to seek various interests, and therefore the diplomacy as such gained meaning within the discipline of international relations. This blog argues that the most significant change in nature of diplomacy was transition from so-called „old“ diplomacy to „new“ diplomacy.

„The First World War was a „watershed“ in the history of diplomacy“ /Baylis and Smith, 395, 2005/. Many scholars argue that the „new“ diplomacy began after the First World War, because the „old“ diplomacy failed to prevent the Great War. Secrecy was vital aspect of traditional „old“ diplomacy. Citizens did not know about anything that was going on behind the scenes, and therefore the „new“ diplomacy transformed partly diplomacy onto public, meaning that citizens are able to know about the foreign policy, which is interconnected with diplomacy, but they necessarily do not have to know about means and processes involved in negotiations.

The involvement of non-state actors and concern about other interests than only military and security were the main changes from „old“ to „new“ diplomacy. „New“ diplomacy set up the basis for the diplomacy in the present global era, meaning that nowadays the number of non-state actors is high and the areas of interests, such as social, economic, and others have transboundary and international dimension, because the sovereignty of nation-states is constantly challenged, for instance by the „Charter for Human Rights“. George F. Kennan argued that „no international organization can be stronger than the structure of relationships among the Great Powers“ /Russell, 171, 2000 /. Although, there are examples of successful diplomacy in which international organizations played important roles. Globalization has made the pace of international organizations faster, however, with no basis from 1918, it would be less likely, as well as significance of multi-lateral diplomacy. Even though this blog argues that the the most significant change of diplomacy was transition from „old“ to „new“ diplomacy, it is vital to keep in mind that while diplomacy does what it needs to, peace-preserving, the changes in nature of diplomacy are just steps towards its main role.