My understanding of diplomacy today: How have your opinions about the role of diplomacy in world politics changed since the start of the module? Looki

Looking back on the first impressions I wrote in the first lecture do not believe that my opinion about the role of diplomacy in world politics has changed providing that I always saw diplomacy as being the key for international cooperation, because it values dialogue and debate. Additionally, diplomacy is not stagnant as is evolving from its traditional practice to adjust to the present world. On the other hand, I have to admit that this module taught me everything about the growing importance of non-state actor in diplomatic practice and particularly the way public diplomacy today encourages the processes of democracy, engaging the public and setting the stage for debate distinguishing itself from messages designed to control. In a world, where the public is not a passive recipient, transparency has to be the key to hold representatives accountable.

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)

TRADITIONAL DIPLOMACY

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.

write about what you consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy

Diplomacy is "the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the government of independent states" (Satow 2009:3). diplomacy, claims Leguey-Feilleux is as old as civilisation and it adapts to the currant international society (2009:23). i think World War One was the beginning of the mains changes that have taken place in diplomatic relations because it emphasized the need for transparency and multilateralism within the processes of diplomacy. indeed, the traditional diplomacy failed to prevent the conflict that destabilized the world by the simple use of dialogue and negotiation. Instead favoured "mutual agreement" therefore "limiting the relationship to two parties, of course made easier to keep negotiations secret" (White 2005:390). This secrecy was against the goal of obtaining stability and peace since it caused a world war. Thus, the war highlighted problems within the old processes and a open the horizon for change.
The changes required for a more effective diplomacy implied "public scrutiny and control" (White 2005:391) and a "new diplomacy" emerged.
Firstly, an open diplomacy where the public will be informed of any reached agreements is one of the mains changes for the simple reason that diplomacy is not anymore limited to a "closed social elite" but this also means that the states have to be careful in their choices and alliances they do not want to be seen as weak or too aggressive. Furthermore, the creation of institutions like the League of Nations and Later the United Nations is also a significant transformation since it favours cooperation and gives a certain power to this international organization because its role would be to foster and regulate the exchange between states. Finally, the changes meant that non states actors also have important role to play in diplomacy since security was no longer the only issues that affected the diplomacy's agenda but social and economic problems were becoming and sometimes were taking over the security concern.