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.
That's really interesting Aissatu. I think you are absolutely right that bilateral diplomacy can flourish within multilateral meetings. Indeed, Berridge thinks this is one of the main benefits of the latter.
ReplyDeleteBut two of the three images you have included in your posting suggest that you are critical of the persistence of the 'old diplomacy'. For an account that takes up this criticism of the exclusive nature of contemporary diplomacy, even at supposedly inclusive and open organisations like the UN, see Carne Ross, Independent Diplomat: Dispatches from an Unaccountable Elite.
even if i understand the persistence of the 'old diplomacy',i do not agree with the practice and i think transparency is the best way to obtain accountability. i used the critical image because i am frustrated by the lies and the supposedly multilateral diplomacy.i don't believe in multilateralism even in an era of globalization where non-state actors have an important role. i wish for a more democratic diplomaticy, where the state or its sphere of influence would not decide the outcome.
ReplyDelete