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.