Representation

Regulations and the procedures as protocol are relevant for the classical and contemporary diplomacy. In the past and nowadays ambassadors have to be experts of culture. The difference, however, is the change of diplomat from aristocracy to professional.

While the foreign office is the brains of foreign policy, the diplomatic representatives are its eyes, ears, and mouth, its fingertips, and, as it were, its itinerant incarnations the diplomat fulfills three basic functions of his government- symbolic, legal and political (Morgenthau, 1973, 520). Symbolic representation includes symbolic functions of the diplomatic ceremonial, such as state dinners, receptions, and the like. While entertaining, the diplomat does not act for himself as an individual, but as the symbolic representative of his country. In legal representation a diplomat gives legal protection to citizens abroad, while politicalrepresentation. Puts the diplomatic representatives in the two-way traffic between the foreign office and the outside world.

Protocol is commonly described as a set of international courtesy rules. These well-established and time-honored rules have made it easier for nations and people to live and work together. Part of protocol has always been the acknowledgment of the hierarchical standing of all present. Protocol rules are based on the principles of civility." As defined by Dr. P.M. Forni on behalf of the International Association of Protocol Consultants. It goes as far back as there have been contacts between states, with evidence of diplomatic protocol being found in reliefs at Persopolis. The twentieth century has witnessed a growing informality in the practice of diplomacy, though there is always the underlying necessity, in the existing Westphalian system based on the sovereign equality of states, that states must see that they are being treated equally. The trend towards informality in the treatment of individuals as representatives of their state is underpinned by the evolution of formulas, which assure that all states are, and are seen to be, treated as equals.

Protocol concerning permanent diplomatic missions between states is now well established, but the area which is seeing the most innovation is that involving meetings between leaders. Historically, personal meetings between rulers of states were infrequent before the nineteenth century, the logistics of travel making such meetings difficult. Developments in technology and transport have made meetings easier and safer to arrange, and there has been a vertical rise in summitry since 1960. Little changed in the protocol of meetings between leaders until the twentieth century boom in summitry, when protocol has had to evolve in order to facilitate political leaders’ desire to meet. The result has been, for the most part, a further relaxation in it.

The Most Important Aspects of the New Diplomacy

From all differences that distincts ‘old’ and ‘new’ diplomacy, the progress of ICT (information and communication technology) and the diplomacy becoming more public are in the fundamental importance. When characterizing these broad change dynamics, Manuel Castells argues that at present, we are experiencing a paradigm shift towards the ‘informational society’. This term refers to a specific form of social organization, where information generation, processing, and transmission become the fundamental sources of productivity and power, due to newly emerged technological conditions (Batora, 2008, 52).

Moreover, the most powerful states are no longer the only significant international actors. Bilateral state-to-state diplomacy has been increasingly supplemented by multilateral forms of diplomacy. The number of new state and non-state actors has arise into arena of international relations. With many different actors the process is more open, what is more, it is more related to well- being, and other, wider range of issues (e.g. environment, economics, trade etc.), rather than only to security dilemmas. When the negotiations, which are fundamentally important in a casualty of diplomacy, are kept in secrecy an consist of small number of negotiators, it has more chance to succeed, than those, which consist of multi-parties as well as it is easier to keep 2 parties negotiations, and more important, their content secret, not showing ‘the cards in advance’ (White, 2005, 390).

It is less possible to keep the secrecy, where innovation technologies are involved. The example of WikiLeaks organization, which brought secret diplomatic documents to the daylight and caused chaos in the mass media and pubic life.. This example is just one of many that shows the importance of raised ‘soft power’ in international relations, where the primary focus is on state’s image. in the 21st century it is more important how do you look like, than the way you

are. The 9/11 terror attack in the United States served as an initiator for America to start company on promoting state’s image gaining support and reliance of other states. Clinton’s cut budget on promoting America’s image was increased by Bush. Engaging public, rather than having a public government gives some positive results. However, not only state’s diplomatic system is trying to promote its image abroad and the mass media has a huge role to play ion this context. Western celebrities have a tendency to take part in charity campaigns for foreign countries, moreover, one cinematographic movie on international issues, might affect the public opinion more than a diplomatic negotiation.

Public Diplomacy

Public Opinion is a very powerful tool – it can change the world - as many historical examples show us. Governments and regimes fell; wars stared and ended thanks to the mass support, or opposition, for a cause. Thanks to the pressure of public opinion, powered by many state’s public diplomacy we have witnessed the collapse of the communism in Western Europe or the end of Apartheid in South Africa.


(Collapse of the Berlin Wall)


During the 20th century, with the development of mass communication methods, public diplomacy became the weapon of choice for many governments. It aims to promote the state’s interest through influencing the opinion of a population (in most cases foreign but it can be directed at the states own population). Influence is exerted through information, true or false, to either gain support for the policies the state wants to pursue or turn it against another (foreign) government or a cause which is not in line with its policies.

In todays’ world of mass media and instant news – there is not politics without public diplomacy, or even propaganda. It’s all about PR. One well publicised situation can achieve more for the state’s interest than years of conferences and negotiations.



One recent example is the development in Polish-Russian relations.

Centuries of hostilities and wars have ingrained in the two nations distrust and animosity towards each other. But one tragic event provided the platform which allowed the governments to show their willingness to bury the hatchet and start cooperating, and at the same time provided them with opportunity to sway the public opinion in support of it.

The Presidential plane crash in Smolensk, on its way to commemorate 70th anniversary of Katyn atrocities was used by the Russian leaders to show their support and compassion for Poland. The vey public gestures of paying respects to the victims by the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, shoulder to Shoulder to shoulder with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk




as well as Russian President’s quest to attend the funeral, despite the disruption caused by the volcanic ash have helped to convince the polish people, and the world, that Russia is ready to take responsibility for its sins, and thereby ushered a new era in the Polish-Russian relations.

(http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63G0ZY20100418)

Power and Popular Culture

Power is the ability to achieve one’s purposes or goals.[1] Through the scholarship of Joseph Nye, the concept of power occupies two distinct spheres: ‘hard’ and ‘soft’. The former purports to have a coercive function through economic might or military strength. The latter is loosely defined as attractive power, resting centrally upon state’s foreign policy, ideology and culture. In the post-Cold War international system, soft power has risen to increasing prominence. International politics, like all politics, is a struggle of power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim[2].

In the contemporary world of 21^st century, providing credibility and reliability as well as proposing friendly image of a state is becoming an issue, which seems to significantly important in the arena of international politics. The rise of soft power is more about how do you look like, than the way your are, as in world of democracy as well as in public diplomacy, it is essential what do people think. It is argued, popular culture is the best way to attract public attention. For instance, Japanese cultural export has engendered an attraction toward a benign image of the Japanese state. Japan’s role as the disseminator of video and computer games, fashion trends, anime, manga and cuisine has, Kelts states, transformed Japan into a “visual arbiter of cool.”[3] This representation stimulates a yearning for Japan rather than passively consuming fans were inspired to know not only more about the product, but also about its cultural origins. Similarly, ‘Hollywood and celebrity diplomacy’, leading role as a state of capitalism and ‘consumer good’ as a globally attractive module, had nominated U.S. to be country that named as being another ‘Soft Power Superpower’.

Nevertheless, unlike foreign policy and political values, popular culture cannot be directly ascribed to the state’s governmental organs. Hence, positive view attractions have their limitations, as attraction to image does readily translate to similar appeal to foreign policy. In a case of U.S., it is argued that it is losing its protection of its soft power, as the excesses of the war on terror—including abuse of prisoners in Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib—have devalued the attractiveness of American values.[4] American international relations scholar Joseph Nye Jr., who coined the expression in the late 1980s, views "soft power" as the ability of a nation to achieve its objectives by attracting or seducing other nations to do its bidding or emulate its policies without resorting to coercion. Gains achieved by military force and economic sanctions are often short-lived and provoke a backlash. Nye maintains it is more effective to inspire nations to adopt desired policies and objectives. Nonetheless, it is argued that soft power is not merely a velvet glove enveloping an iron fist, although it works best in combination with hard power. Hence, that gives a roof for a further investigation of the ‘smart power’ -a combination of two powers, hard and soft, for the maximum result achieved.

---

[1] Joseph Nye, ‚The Changing Nature of Wrld Power, (1990), Political Science Quarterly 105:177.

[2] Hans J. Morgenthau, ‘Politics Among Nations‘, 27.

[3] Roland Kelts, Japanamerica (New York: Palgrave, Macmillan, 2006), 149

[4] Joshua Kurlantzick, ‘The Decline of American Soft Power‘

My Personal Understanding of Diplomacy Today; a summary

During the last three months, I was developing my understanding of the "New Diplomacy". Here is a summary of what I consider to be the most important points in diplomacy today.

As demonstrated by Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux, diplomacy has constantly evolved, since the times of ancient civilization, towards more collaboration between international actors, mirroring Human development (Jean-Robert Leguey-Feuilleux, 2009, Chap 2). Agreeing with J.R. L. Feilleux’s idea, Ivor Roberts notes that diplomacy nowadays is not relevant anymore with what happened on the ancient Greek island of Milos. Instead, he says that diplomacy is “the conduct of business between states by peaceful means” (Ivor Robert, 2009, 3).

Nonetheless, nowadays, diplomacy is not only about the relationship between governments (G2G), like “old diplomacy”, back in the time of Richelieu. For Brian Hocking, it has evolved from the Keohane & Nye’s “Club Model” (G2G) to the “Multistakeholder” Model, which includes the consultation of Civil Society, and the people, in the policy-making process (Brian Hocking, 1999, 269-72). Nonetheless, for Paul Wapner, Civil Society wants more than just consensus in this process. For him, Civil Society (or activist organizations) has the power to influence and bend public policy in one direction or another, being a “political actors in their own right” (Paul Wapner, 1995, 312).

However, the crux of the matter nowadays is the conduct of the collaboration between those different actors. For E. Susskind, there are conflictual relationships between international actors, affecting, for instance, environmental diplomacy (E. Susskind, 1994, 18). Moreover, the flaws in the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties, concerning with the treaty-making procedures, add to the difficulty of working together when the different parties have dissimilar, or sometimes antagonistic, interests (E. Susskind, 1994, 24-25).

With regard to the conduct of this “new” public diplomacy, Berridge talks about the “white propaganda” which aims to influence democratic regimes through their people, reflecting this conflictual situation (G. R. Berridge, 2010, 179). However, for Joseph Nye, it is becoming more difficult for some international actors to achieve such goals, because we are undergoing what he calls the “paradox of plenty” in the new age of communication (Joseph S. Nye, 2004, 106). Indeed, the activity of the media, nowadays, is so intense that it is becoming harder for some international actors to be heard by the public to defend their interests. Batora and Hocking take the example of the European Union (EU) to show that the intensive activity of the media plays a major role in refocusing the function of the embassies towards Civil Society and businesses (Jozef Bátora & Brian Hocking, 2009, 170). In such circumstances, it is not surprising that most of the academic world, nowadays, reckon that governments are only left with one possibility: to coordinate monitor and influence, rather than control, the international activities.

Somehow, I think that International institutions are indispensable to regulating those activities. For Barston, the structure of such institutions is important (R. P. Barston, 2006, 142). He made a comparison between the UNCLOs and the WTO, noting that the UNCLO’s structure had the ability to disperse political power, while the WTO remained bloated with discrimination issues, dominated by the “Quad”. Therefore, equality between actors, as within the EU, with its system of presidency for instance (A. Blair, 2001, 155), should be maintained to ensure an effective cooperation on the international stage.

To conclude, I believe that the conduct of diplomacy on the international stage nowadays can only be possible if it is outlined by clear and well defined international law, recognising all international actors as equals, ultimately leading to a more efficient system of collaboration and a common decision-making process. In my personal understanding of diplomacy today, I am glad to have accumulate more knowledge about diplomacy, somehow I have the feeling that there is still much more to explore ahead, like the issue of terrorism for instance.

'First Impressions' changes with knowledge

My understanding of diplomacy today

When I began the New Diplomacy module in early October 2010 my perception of diplomacy was very limited. But after twelve weeks of lectures and seminars, I can honestly say that I have gained an immense wealth of knowledge and understanding that have enhanced my opinions on the role of diplomacy in the modern world.

I have learnt several new terms such as Summit and Conference Diplomacy, Paradiplomacy and Track I and Track II Diplomacy. And I have developed my understanding of the importance of Back Channels and Front Channel diplomacy. I have a greater awareness of the arguments for and against Public Diplomacy and I have seen how diplomacy have been applied to and influenced core issues such as security, trade and development and the environment. I also realise the wider impact and influence of non-state actors in the modern diplomatic arena.

Diplomacy has evolved for several reasons, for example, to accommodate new issues; to cater for new needs and to utilise advances in technology. However, we have seen and debated at great lengths that, technology can be an asset as well as a liability (wikileaks) within the workings of modern diplomacy. Undoubtedly, New Diplomacy is here to stay, but some aspects of Old Diplomacy such as ‘secrecy’ will never be replaced.

My understanding of diplomacy today

As I have seen during the lectures and seminars, diplomacy has been changing throughout history. However, my understanding of diplomacy before starting this module was very limited to a few elements of what diplomacy is about, such as embassies, ambassadors, negotiations and visas. Moreover, as I wrote in my “first impressions” in the first lecture, I could understand, for the title of the module, that there were two types of diplomacy. What the title module says, new diplomacy, and what I could imagine, old diplomacy.

Nevertheless, during this course I have been able to acquire a better understanding of what diplomacy is and the differences of the new and the old diplomacies. And, even though with the names of new and old diplomacy we can imagine that they are completely opposed and different, today I can say that they “coexist peacefully” in the contemporary world politics. The old diplomacy has not disappeared, and the new diplomacy has taken lots of elements from the old one such as secrecy and bilateral negotiation, among many others. Furthermore, the old diplomacy is not as old as the name says, and the new diplomacy is not as new as the name says, as well.

Diplomacy today is more opened to new types of actors and new channels of communication which were completely unexpected twenty years ago. NGOs are playing an important role in the conduct of multilateral negotiations regarding environment, for example. International Organizations, at the same time, are more taken into account by governments and diplomats than twenty years ago. So, the nature of diplomacy as it was after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, has changed.

Moreover, the integration of technology in diplomacy has been a key element in the recent years. Besides, the possibilities of being in a negotiation through videoconference, and the limitations that it has, can have a profound impact in the near future. Nevertheless, diplomacy, nowadays, is facing new challenges at the same time. Wikileaks revealed confidential information between the US Department of State and its diplomats around the world. Thus, we do not know yet how it is going to affect diplomacy, if it is going to affect, but governments will probably try to keep their information safer from the newspapers.