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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you for your thoughts. Could you perhaps say where you now stand in the debate between Berridge and Riordan and why?
ReplyDelete