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).