New Diplomacy or just bureaucracy?

Most of us mere mortals never really come in contact with the actual diplomatic processes although we are subject to its effects in the form of our counties foreign policy. That is until we go abroad. And if during a holiday it may only mean a visit to the consulate to request a replacement for a lost passport, when you decide to study or work abroad it suddenly means a lot more.

When you find yourself at the end of the “diplomatic food chain” you start to take more interest in what is diplomacy and how it affects you, and then decide to take the New Diplomacy module to try and make sense of it all…

So by applying the knowledge on diplomacy I have gained through this module so far, to my experiences of living in the UK as a foreigner and my dealings with the Polish Embassy in London, I have tried to have a look at the contemporary relevance of the “old” diplomacy.

The function of diplomacy is to maintain relations between states. This can be achieved in many ways, and many more are available to contemporary diplomats than in the past. The traditional diplomatic system was designed to fulfil its function via certain tasks, however over the years a large number of these tasks had become redundant. As the world changes the function of diplomacy remains, what changes are the methods. So we can’t say that the “old” diplomacy is not relevant anymore, as certain aspects of the system still serve some purpose, but we can see that its role has changed and it will most likely continue to do so.

In the recent years Polish Embassy in London became more of an “outreach of bureaucracy” than “outpost of diplomacy” of Poland in the UK.

With the development of new communications technologies and super-fast travel, the need for a plenipotentiary representative has virtually disappeared. Most high level negotiations between the states are being led by their foreign secretaries, in person or via any mode of communication. In any case the Ambassador has no decision- making powers, and more often than not, is completely excluded from the negotiations but only informed of the outcomes.

This basically brings the Embassy to the role of B&B. It hosts the government representative, and maybe throws a small “Ambassadors Party” in their name. This was exactly the case a few days ago, when Polish Foreign Affairs Minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, visited London to meet with UK Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Polish Foreign Affairs Minister visits London.



Radoslaw Sikorski during international conference on Afghanistan in London 28/01/2010



However Embassy’s role in the day-to-day affairs of the polish citizens living in the UK was significantly increased. According to the 2001 census there were 60.000 polish nationals living in the UK and today there are estimated half a million to a million, depending on which paper you read. However two years ago Polish Consulate in London was closed and the Embassy’s “Consular Department” took over its function. So these days the Embassy is constantly besieged by queues of people – either wanting to vote or needing a passport for their new baby.




The voting Queue - video


The Ambassadors themselves have also changed. They are no longer “born into the job” well educated aristocrats. These days not all Ambassadors have diplomatic experience, or at least knowledge of the diplomatic protocol, prior to taking their post. In most countries Ambassadors and Consuls are nominated by the president or the government, therefore in most cases they are “friends and family” of the ruling party, and often change after it loses power. This can lead to very “undiplomatic” situations and reduce the Ambassadors to the positions of pawns in their country's internal political game.

Disagreement over ambassadorial nominations created a “Mexican Standoff” between the Polish Prime Minister and President last year, as they were representing opposing parties. In Poland the Prime Minister proposes candidates for diplomatic positions and the President actually signs nominations for their posts. As the President wanted his favourite to be nominated for a specific post, he refused to sign all the other nominations until it happened. But the Prime Minister didn't put forward that person for nomination.


Ambassadors - President's hostages



Prime Minister, Donald Tusk and President, Lech Kaczynski.


So for a few months there were no polish Ambassadors in quite a few countries, yet the diplomatic relations between Poland and those states continued. This showed that, to a certain degree, we could do without the “old” diplomacy and its tools, as in the world today we have ways of replacing it successfully.

Secrecy in Diplomacy

The Old Diplomacy is defined (following Richelieu) as the maintenance of constant bilateral negotiation (with the establishment of Embassies) on high political issues, such as war and peace, based on the following values; secrecy, honesty, integrity, trustworthiness and equality (Jean-Robert Leguey, 2009, Chap2). Therefore, professionalism is required (from the “diplomatic corps”) and the establishment and respect of the protocol, developed in the aim to assure equality and avoid cultural clash between nations.

The relevance of the old diplomatic principle and practice in the 21^th Century stand still. Constant collaboration and cooperation (negotiations) between nations on a bilateral (and multilateral) level is indispensable in a globalized world. “High politics” dialogues between the US with the USSR and China were what had permitted to keep the “Cold War” cold. Kissinger uses of “back channels” (secretive negotiations) had successfully led to the detente period in the 1970s (G.R. Berridge,2010 , 68). Until today, the “Cold War Diplomacy” is use during crisis like the recent confrontation between North and South Korea (bbc news, 21/07/10; Korea war game, sign of growing tensions, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10712664). Without our diplomats’ professionalism, cooperation and assistance between states would be replaced by direct confrontation and constant cultural clash between our nations, and the cold war could have turn “hot”.

Nevertheless, the value of secrecy in the old diplomacy is challenged by democratic principles, the new technologies in telecommunication and the Media (Richard Grant, (2005);Democratization of Diplomacy).

Indeed, in a democratic society, the people, who elect their political representatives, may claim a transparent and open policy from the politics towards the public. Moreover, as Richard Grant says, the rapid evolution of the new technologies in telecommunication has made available a cheap and easy access to information. Therefore, the population considered granted the right to know (R. Grant, 2005, 12). On the top of that, nowadays the media can report instantly the major event in the world. So, the diplomats are not as useful as before to know what is going on abroad. So, what is the legitimacy for a secretive diplomacy?

Some argues that the public pressure during an open debate can undermine the negotiation. Secondly, external actors can compromise to the success of the negotiations, if they consider it as a threat to their own interest (G.R. Berridge, 105, 2010). To add, open negotiation can jeopardize the national security of the parties involved if confidential information is revealed to the public.

From my view, these are reasonable justifications to conduct secretive negotiations between two parties. The pacts and treaties resulting from these negotiations can be public, as long as it doesn’t jeopardize the national security. Concerning the “Old Diplomacy” in the 20^th and 21^thcenturies, it is clear that we need the experiences and principles of the old to build up the “New diplomacy”, which finally seems to be the natural evolution of the former.

Traditional diplomacy in today's world

Do you think the ‘old’ diplomacy has any contemporary relevance?

Diplomacy, nowadays, is a mixture of old and new diplomacy if we consider the characteristics of each one. Making any distinction between "old" and "new" diplomacy does not mean that diplomats must choose between one of them. We can consider that traditional diplomacy is still relevant in the sense that all diplomatic negotiations take some pieces from the old and the new diplomacy. For example, bilateralism is a key feature in the old diplomacy and multilateralism in the new diplomacy. However, bilateral and multilateral negotiations are interconnected one another. Many times, multilateral negotiations success because there have been bilateral negotiations between the different parties before all parties start to negotiate in common.

If we think in the relevance of the "old" diplomacy nowadays, there are at least two highly important things:

1) The strong power of the protocol. Protocol does not only mean the way in which diplomats and heads of state interact, but also the use of structures to have high level relations, such as the embassies. Embassies are a key point in the traditional diplomacy. They are used to interact with other states, to negotiate treaties and to provide assistance to the fellow citizens. Nevertheless, even thought nowadays, technology could substitute embassies, it is not happening since embassies are not only used to negotiate or to provide assistance to citizens or to interact. They are a strong symbol of power.

2) The strong power of the face-to-face. Technology can be used in negotiations and it can save millions of pounds every year to governments. However, the use of technology such as video-conference in diplomatic negotiations could have unexpected consequences in the developing of the negotiations. It does not create the same impact in a negotiation if a head of state stands up and goes, rather than if a head of state switches off the video-conferences. Switching off the video-conference could be seen by the other parties as a failure in the software or in the internet or many other things. Standing up and going, however, has only one meaning. Thus, face-to-face relations become even more important in the contemporary world.

Old Diplomacy and contemporary relevance

Does ‘old’ diplomacy have any contemporary relevance?

So long as we have nation-states we will continue to have Diplomacy, because it facilitates states to interact on political, economical and social issues. The 18th and 19th century characteristics of old diplomacy continue to be applied within contemporary society.

States have maintained their embassies and resident diplomats abroad. Although financially costly, embassies have remained relevant for several reasons. For example, they provide timely and accurate information on local matters, to their home ministries. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot solely rely on information that is provided by foreign states or journalist because such information may be subjected to censorship. Also, the role of embassies has broadened to include administration of visa and travel documentation processing for local residents. Embassies provide tourist advice to their visiting nationals and they can liaise with local officials when problems arise.

A core element of traditional diplomacy is bilateral negotiations. Bilateral diplomacy remains active and key for securing meaningful agreements between two states. Recent bilateral agreements between Sri Lanka and the Ukraine, strengthening their military ties and a similar agreement between the USA and Montenegro illustrates the continued importance of bilateral diplomacy.

The traditional practice of conducting negotiations in secrecy still prevails. ‘If interested parties are aware of what is being negotiated, they might well be able, and would certainly try, to sabotage the talks’ (Berridge, 4th edt, p105). Within contemporary society, secret negotiations are routinely conducted on neutral territory. Like the recent Israeli and Turkish talks which took place in Brussels in July 2010 as a result of Israel’s naval raid on Turkish ships in the Gaza strip (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10471551). Secret diplomacy is particularly important in helping to maintain world peace.

A conventional feature of diplomacy is diplomatic protocols. Whilst some may argue that the pageantry of formal ceremonies, diplomatic ranking and precedence at events, privileges and immunity, is no longer conducive to modern society, they continue to be strictly adhered to by all states, thus providing consistency within the diplomatic community. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 (http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf)
and The Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1233500&ActiveTextDocId=1233502&filesize=24448 reinforces the importance of diplomatic protocols within contemporary society.

Conventional diplomatic issues of preventing wars and maintaining peace remains as relevant today as it did in previous centuries. Although, the threat of war between states has significantly reduced, attacks and acts of aggression inflicted by dissident groups are the ‘new war’ being fought by states with the aid of traditional mechanism and processes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq3FtHZwzZo&feature=related discusses the current violent capabilities of one dissident group.

As with old diplomacy, reinforcing and promoting national interests abroad is still important. Whilst traditional trade diplomacy, was used to influence the outcome of negotiations and secure and strengthen alliances, it is now coupled with commercial diplomacy (which involves the use of diplomatic resources to secure business opportunities in the host nation for small to medium enterprises at home) as states seek to expand their exports markets within host nations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Wq71iuuOo&feature=related is a Bloomberg TV interview with Suresh Kumar on USA-India trade & commercial diplomacy.

The above illustrates that overall the original structure, processes and agenda issues of old diplomacy has continued to survive in modern society, and they also accommodate contemporary issues. Hence, old diplomacy has contemporary relevance.

Traditional Diplomacy

The subject Old Diplomacy is a very sensitive one, as whilst some people say that it is the best way to approach diplomacy in the twenty first century, others argue that, its forms are quite vague and should no longer be applied. There is no one definition to Old Diplomacy, but I have decided to go by the definition of Duncan Etal, he defined Old Diplomacy as “the form of diplomacy that characterised the era prior to World War 1-European centred, it emphasised secrecy and was generally devoid of nationality. [Duncan D. Etal, 135, 2008].

There are different forms of Old Diplomacy, Secret, Exclusive, and High Politics. This has been practised and had proved to be working until Renaissance Italy, when Modern (New) Diplomacy was invented. Old Diplomacy indisputably is of great significance in today’s world, it is revealing to say that most diplomatic agreements reached in post war era after 1945 were arrived at in privacy and near secrecy. The negotiations leading to the North Atlantic Treaty and the arguments (lead by the United States and Britain) for the lifting of the Berlin blockade in 1949 are only two examples. [Singh N., 208, 2002]. I believe that these negotiations ended in a positive outcome because it was conducted secretly without public interference. The truth about Old Diplomacy is that, it is everything New Diplomacy can never be, according to Ammon R., were Old Diplomacy is private, autonomous, cosmopolitan, elite and more importantly unhurried, New Diplomacy is not. Adam Watson also criticised the current diplomatic surroundings as one which expects government to “react with increasing speed to events and the actions of other government, so that they are less and less able to wait for the reasoned comments distilled by their diplomatic organisation in the field and home. [Ammon. R., 46, 2001]. This gives the explanation to why Prime Minister Blair bizarrely argued that “military actions were preferable to the distress caused by sanctions on Iraq” [Ross C., 76, 2007]. They were in so much hurry to invade Iraq just for the United States Administrations to show its power to the world after 9/11.

Most people might not be familiar with the Nigeria/Biafra war, but the peace accord produced at Aburi, Ghana (the Aburi Accord) of January 1967 was arrived at through secret negotiations by the Nigerian and the Biafran sides. Although the Accord later collapsed as the war started in July same year because of the failure of Gowon and the Military Government of Nigeria to honour their agreements. None the less, during the negotiations in Aburi, Ojukwu (the Biafran General) managed to get agreement to a confederation for Nigeria, rather than a federation. However, the success of this accord at that time was due to the Secret Diplomacy applied which is a form of Old Diplomacy. [http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nigerian_Civil_War]. As soon as the agreement reached were made open, the Nigerian side refuted, which made the Nigerian side to go contrary to the Aburi Accord. Evidently, the Old Diplomacy is a more effective way to carry out Diplomacy in the 21st century, and unless Diplomats goes back to the old form, little or nothing will be achieved as can be observed in today’s world.

You can read more on the call for Old Diplomacy to be applied in today’s world by Weisbrode K, of Japan Times online: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20100401a1.html.

To Prevent in Oppose to Cure

The new diplomacy as a whole can be seen as a preventative medicine, which seeks to prevent diseases in oppose to cure them. It seeks to reach the maximum possible of the implementation of its own interest, rather to strengthen its own power in the conflict situation that has already occurred. Yes, diplomacy has failed many times, but it has succeed many times as well. It has reached failure because it was not wanted to succeed. Throughout the history e.g. when war was the normal activity of kings, the task of diplomacy was not to prevent it, but to bring it about at the most propitious moment. Then again, when diplomacy was used for the purpose of preventing war, they have often succeeded. (e.g. Congress of Berlin 1878). It would be wrong to say, that achievement of peace in the world was a goal of all the nations all the in times, achieving the situations of war were fueled by economical advantage, and driven by furious ideological powers.

The revival of diplomacy reflects in its publicity, and fragmentation of international issues- emerging of low politics. It turned the state from a ‘night-watchman’ to a ‘welfare’ one, which is more related on well being and providing less autonomy for professional diplomats- the liberal view appears. Majority of votes achieving by bringing non-state and international actors into the arena of international relations, which deals not only with issues of security, but with the problems of the other spheres as well.

Nevertheless, H. J. Morgenthau (even though his comments mostly touched the period of the Cold War) argues, that it would tend to aggravate, rather than mitigate international conflicts and leave the prospect for peace dimmed rather than brightened. When diplomats have the world as their audience, they do not speak to each other anymore. And to convince the world, where you have a variety of individual actors, which have their own preferences and engagement with the other actors as well as to find common ground of agreement seems to be more difficult task than to agree to a compromise or persuade each other.

No good card or chess player would reveal his moves, and diplomatic negotiations are similar to these games and important respects. Neither it is possible to negotiate in public; the presence or absence of negotiations, however, cannot be hidden from people in the new diplomacy.

Diplomacy served as an instrument of the struggle for power among political entities, which try to maintain orderly and peaceful relations among themselves. If sovereign nations want to preserve peace and order in their relations, they must to persuade, negotiate, and exert pressure upon each other; engage in, cultivate and rely upon diplomatic procedures. The ability to persuade is central to art of diplomacy.

Winston Churchill in one of his speeches “Will there be war” where he called for peace through accommodation, claimed, that it is idle to argue with the Communists. It is fair, however, to deal with them on a realistic basis, and they will keep the bargains as long as it is in their interest to do so.

Diplomacy and Democracy

Nowadays, one of the major change and challenge for Diplomacy, is it opening to the public opinion.

Diplomacy’s evolution is the mirror of Human cooperation throughout History. At the dawn of the first civilization, diplomatic negotiations were mainly about war and peace issues. Nowadays, Globalization and the growing interdependency between states have extended the diplomatic agenda to economic, cultural, religious, and social issues. Negotiation and collaboration between states to permit the development and maintenance of international transport and trade, for instance, would be impossible without diplomatic experts. Indeed, specialization and assistance is needed within the “corps diplomatic” to face the new challenges of the 21^th Century, like Global Warming, Terrorism and Development.

State collaboration and the growing influence of new actors on the International Relation stage, the NGOs, Transnational Organisations and Multinationals, will, hopefully, tackle these new challenges. Somehow, it will not be easy for the “New Diplomacy” to manage those new actors. The involvement of public actors within diplomatic negotiations can be a threat for any possible accord between States. Paul Cambon claims that including more than 5 actors during diplomatic negotiation reduce the chances of success to reach an agreement. So, should we blame the sheer number of public representatives at Copenhagen for the failure of the conference on Climate Change? The good quote from Bismarck, saying that, like sausages, policy can’t be practice in public, is a reminder of the limits of “Public Diplomacy”. The public opinion lacks the experience, skill and common sense of good diplomats. For example, diplomatic relation between states is seriously undermined when individual like Terry Johns proposes to burn the Koran, in protest against the project to build a new Mosque two blocks away from ground zero (BBC news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11269681).

One challenge for the “New Diplomacy”, this century, is to learn how to cope with the freedom of expression and the growing power of the media, which can be so disrupting, when cooperation between states is needed the most. Should we limit our freedom of expression to preserve International collaboration and harmony between our societies? To what extend the public can be involve in the negotiation process?

Between diplomacy and democracy, we still need to find the good balance to address the challenge of the 21^th Century. Personally, I think that the old diplomacy (in secrecy) should be use regarding the negotiation process, and only the outcome of negotiations, treaties, should be public. Concerning the freedom of expression, we should all bear in mind the impact of our actions.

The evolution of Diplomacy

Diplomacy failed to prevent the WWI and, as a consequence, more than 10 million people died. So, the diplomacy that was being used, was not working any more. A new kind of diplomacy needed to be created in order to be effective. It was called the “new diplomacy”.

Diplomacy “is the application of intelligence and tract to the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent states, [...], and between governments and international institutions” (Roberts, 2009, 3). This is the definition of the “new diplomacy” because in the “old diplomacy”, the states are the only important actors in the negotiation process. Moreover, in the “old diplomacy”, states are concerned about the physical security of their citizens rather than about their “social and economic well-being” (Baylis; Smith, 2005, 391).

However, the most important change in diplomacy was the establishing of an open diplomacy because of some reasons:

1. Third parties can be involved in negotiations. There have been many cases throughout history in which third parties have offered themselves as mediators such as in the Israel-Palestine conflict where the USA is acting as the third party so that diplomacy can success.
   
   
2. If negotiation fails, states need to give account. Diplomacy is subjected to public scrutiny and control by the citizens.
   
   
3. Multilateral negotiations. It is almost impossible to keep in secret multilateral negotiations due to the complexity of the situation and the number of actors involved. That is why “old diplomacy” was based on bilateral negotiations. However, there are less probabilities of success in multilateral negotiations because each actor has its own interests and does not want to be seen as the loser. One example of this is The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009 where nothing was achieved due to the different interests of each state and the unwillingness of some parties to give up some of their demands so that a common agreement could be achieved.
   

Thus, even though technology has changed many things in the way that diplomats interact each other and, therefore, in diplomacy, this change has not been so deep as open diplomacy was after the First World War.

Changes to the nature of Diplomacy

 

Diplomacy is known to be concerned with the management of the relations between states and between States and other actors. [Barston R.P, 2006, 1]. I didn't know the definition of Diplomacy before my first lecture on the 8^th of October, 2010; neither did I know the distinction between the Old and New Diplomacy. Having done some readings on the subject, I have learnt a few things about the Old and New Diplomacy; more emphasis will be laid on a particular form of New Diplomacy, which is Open Diplomacy. Significant change occurred in the Diplomatic environment when after the World War 1, President Woodrow Wilson during his peace settlement speech, specifically on the fourteen-point plan; called for the abolition of Secret Diplomacy. [Gaddis .J.L, 1997,
Online].

Open Diplomacy on the other hand; which is what has changed in diplomacy, that is since the New Diplomacy came into being, is the use of open negotiations, to uphold peace or cooperation amongst international communities. There are two features to Open Diplomacy; First, the rejection of the conclusion of Secret Diplomacy.

Second, the conduction of diplomatic talks in full public glare. [Chatterjee A., 78, 2010]. This has been effective especially in the 21^st century as countries have encouraged State to State relation by building embassies in various countries. Examples of the effectiveness of Open Diplomacy is could be the end of the Apartheid regime in South Africa and the Subsequent release of the former President, Nelson Mandela, the recent agreement to release more Cuban political prisoners, brokered by the Roman Catholic Church in Cuba. [CNN Online]. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, to every advantage there are disadvantages, the disadvantages of the Open Diplomacy to the world is too much, one could be right to say that the Peace talks between Israel and Palestine has not been that successful as it is negotiated openly. Even experts like Frankel and others have questioned whether it is possible in reality to go for Open Diplomacy. [Chatterjee A., 78, 2010].

In conclusion, using the words of Lord Grey of Falloden "very often at the early stage of negotiations, to make a premature disclosure would result in the other power desiring to break off negotiations altogether". [Emden C.S, 253, 2006].Therefore, until diplomacy goes back into privacy, where there will be again the freedom to engage in the give-and-take that is necessary for any agreement, its success will continue to be negligible. [Singh N., 208, 2002].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most significant change in the nature of diplomacy

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


Diplomacy encompasses several aspects but primarily it is concerned with communicating, negotiating and representation. Based on these core elements Diplomacy is likely to be as old as mankind, however, the earliest official diplomatic document – a letter inscribed on a tablet - is dated around 2500 BC. (Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2005, 3rd ed, page 389). From these distant beginnings, diplomacy has evolved through the centuries and it could be argued that diplomacy has been shaped and influenced by circumstances prevailing at the time. The traditional bilateral diplomatic processes that existed amongst states between the 15th - 20th century was insufficient for preventing two World Wars and as such, new processes and practices were demanded for a rapidly changing world. Also, the veil of secrecy and aristocracy dominance of the profession was also under public scrutiny (Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2005, 3rd ed, page 391).

In addition to the above, other factors that have helped to transform the nature of diplomacy includes the impact of technology and the introduction of the internet; the role and influence of non-government organisations, international, multinational and transnational organisations; the impact of globalisation and the interdependency of states. And where traditionally, diplomacy focused on preventing state wars, implementing espionage, securing trade deals etc, since the late 20th century the scope of diplomacy has broadened and includes for example preventing environmental degradation, promoting human rights and combating international crime.

With such an extensive range of issues to manage with limited resources, many states have adopted alternative diplomatic channels. I currently believe that the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy has been the application of Public diplomacy. The United Kingdom’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office has implemented Public diplomacy which involves forming partnerships with organisations and individuals, within the UK and overseas, in order to resolve specific global issues (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/what-we-do/public-diplomacy/ ). The previous government also supported a May 2000 publication - Going Public: Diplomacy for the Information Society (http://fpc.org.uk/publications/going-public ). Whilst some may argue that Public diplomacy is a manipulative propaganda tool, I believe that Public diplomacy could provide the general public a forum to contribute, albeit, limited commentary on global issues and with appropriate implementation and administration it could become a significant facility for assessing public opinion and helping to shape, in particular, foreign policies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGEsWJ9tSiY is an interesting you-tube video link of American student’s airing their views on Public diplomacy.