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)