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.
Hey Merlyn!
ReplyDeleteI really like your first paragraph, I find it excellent that you've talked a bit about the history of diplomacy. Actually, all of your post is very clear and well-written, in my opinion! If I could suggest one little thing though, I would say you could maybe change the definition of public diplomacy into something easier to understand? I can't tell why, but it sounds to me like someone who doesn't study in our area wouldn't quite get the meaning of it. By the way, I like your choice of the video!!! :)
Public Diplomacy will work in a perfect world, but as we live in an imperfect world, it is almost impossible to achieve a lot in the glare of the public eyes. Romains et al, stated in their publication in an international magazine in 1954 that "with regards to disclosures made by press when delicate diplomatic negotiations are being conducted, such disclosures often force diplomats to take up attitudes from which they cannot retreat, with the result of that prospects of agreement are jeopardised". And I completely agree with this view point, it is possible that the United Nations negotiation with Iran about the building of a Nuclear plant would have a more positive outcome had it be conducted privately, and many other instances. Therefore in my opinion, I believe that for Diplomacy to be more effective there should be a limit to what should be made public.
ReplyDelete