Since the inception of the New Diplomacy; which includes Open, Public and Multilateral negotiations amongst nations, there is no denying that relationships between countries have improved. Government and non-governmental organisations have employed the use of diplomacy, to improve their relationships with public of other countries, thereby helping in the improvement of human rights for different people in different countries of the world. Take Yemen for example; its government have given into calls from United Nations and other human rights activists to improve its human right laws. In showing its willingness to embrace human rights for its people, the Yemeni government went as far as establishing a human rights ministry, which is the first of its kind in the Arab region, and are making plans to make the next step of establishing an independent national human rights institution in accordance with the Paris Principles. (Sweeney 2006).
All this would undoubtedly be impossible to achieve without the involvement of multilateral discussions between countries in organisations like the United Nations, to find ways to improve the ways of life of other people. The role of NGO’s in diplomacy cannot be overemphasised, as they are leading negations with the military governments of Burma, for the release of its political prisoners and the improvement of human rights of the Burmese people. (U.S Department of State 2010).
Evidently, New Diplomacy brought about a peaceful way of resolving conflict, “diplomacy, not war”. Imagine a world were countries maintained their isolationist status, a world where there is no consideration for the impact of global warming on developing countries? The answer would have been that only rogue states would be in existence as their will be no multilateral commitment to fight terrorism, cyber crimes, human rights violations. As for climate change, countries in the Sub-Saharan Africa would be in extinction as they will not be able to cope with the impact of global warming on their own.
Thanks to conference diplomacy, their is an opportunity for participants to discuss matters outside the formal agenda, and also an avenue for powerful negotiators to be involved in kick starting, and then discreetly shroud, a series of bilateral negotiations taking place elsewhere. (Berridge 2010, 145). Countries and peoples can be rest assured that they are not alone in whatever they might be going through. Examples of such conferences are: the G20 Summit 2009 to discuss the world recession, the Copenhagen Summit of 2009, to discuss global warming, the recent NATO Summit, to discuss the exit strategy in Afghanistan, and other security issues in the world.
In conclusion, it is imperative to note, that the world has indeed become a better place with the introduction of a contemporary approach to diplomacy, which entails involving the public’s of other nation, participation of non-governmental bodies, governments of different countries coming together to discuss issues that are of common interest.
Imagine a world, were we have the likes of Bush, who is willing to use his policy of pre-emption on rogue states, the world will be inhabitable as other countries will like to follow his precedents.
ReplyDeleteThanks to organisations like the United Nations, which is a multilateral organisation, their is hope for peaceful resolution of conflicts, and world's co-operation in the fight against terrorism.
I like your post!!
ReplyDeleteI do not necessarily agree with the idea that the world is better since there are more actors involved in diplomacy. Take Iran and North Korea as nuclear powers, for example. I do not think that more actors involved are helping in order to stop them to be nuclear powers. It is the opposite, however, more actors involved in a negotiation, creates more confusion and many interests arise.
So, more actors means a better world? Not necessarily.
More actors here implies reducing American hegemony, if American was not so powerful prior to the invasion of Iraq, based on the multilateral corporations, most countries that supported their use of pre-emption on Afghanistan were not in support of the use of that same doctrine on Iraq.
ReplyDeleteMy arguement is, if more actors are involved i making decisions then the world will be a better place, wereby American power is recognised but their abuse of that power is discouraged.