'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.

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.

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.

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.