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.
Showing posts with label Merlyn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Merlyn. Show all posts
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Sunday, 19 December 2010
The significance of non-state actors in environmental and trade negotiations
Environmental NGOs are generally successful in influencing environmental negotiations and agreements because these NGOs often consist of people who are experts in environmental science, and they tend to have information that is not available to government negotiators. Hence their expert knowledge and contributions are welcomed and highly regarded (Rahman and Roncerel, 1994, p241). The agreement drawn up at the recent Cancun climate change conference was influenced by approximately 300 NGOs who voiced their opinions at several meetings and events hosted by Mexico’s Foreign Ministry (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-12/11/c_13644965.htm) . Gordon Shepherd, head of the World Wide Fund’s (WWF) Global Climate Initiative gave credit to the Mexican presidency for “creating a negotiation atmosphere that was inclusive and efficient” (http://wwf.panda.org/?197831/Global-climate-deal-in-reach-with-Cancun-outcometcome) .
The WWF is a leading international independent conservation organisation registered under Swiss law in 1961. WWF has 90 offices in over 40 countries across the world and they are involved in a wide range of environmental, conservation and climate change issues. http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_quick_facts.cfm http://www.wwf.org.za/who_we_are/
However, not all aspects of WWF activities are embraced by some governments. For example, WWF is committed to marine conservation, and have campaigned for the banning of Whaling. In previous years, they along with Greenpeace, they have successfully lobbied the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to implement whaling restrictions. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/oceans/why-greenpeace-won%E2%80%99t-compromise-commercial-whaling-20100621
But, along with all other environmentalist groups, they were excluded from the opening discussions of the 62nd annual International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting, held in Morocco during June 2010. It is believed that pressures from Japan, Norway and Iceland to negotiate in private, in their drive to resume commercial whaling, may have been behind the NGOs and Media initial exclusion. The meeting ended without any agreement or satisfactory proposals. Wendy Elliot, WWF International Species Manager said, “we are left with a situation in which yet again, Japans whaling fleet will kill hundreds of whales in the Southern Ocean in the name of ‘science’”. http://www.wwf.org.za/what_we_do/marine/?2601/Whaling-meeting-ends-in-failure-after-shutting-out-NGOs-and-mediaNGOs-and-media
It is reported that Whaling is a valuable and corrupt industry and that an estimated 35,000 whales have been killed in 24 years, (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7149086.ece) during this timeframe there was a moratorium on Whaling, with the exception that Japan had a licence to whaling for scientific research. Elliot argued that “the IWC should step up its responsibilities to help save these majestic animals”. Another member of WWF suggested that “the IWC should consider creating a sponsorship programme for delegates from developing countries to avoid further allegations of vote-buying”.
WWF also has a Trade and Investment Programme that works with governments and industry in emerging economies, to provide ‘green’ goods and services domestically and internationally in order to reduce the depletion and pollution of natural resources and achieve sustainable trade. The programme also includes sustainable development. http://www.wwf.org.za/what_we_do/trade_investment/ .
In summary, as a non-state actor, WWF plays a leading and significant role in environmental and trade diplomacy.
The WWF is a leading international independent conservation organisation registered under Swiss law in 1961. WWF has 90 offices in over 40 countries across the world and they are involved in a wide range of environmental, conservation and climate change issues. http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_quick_facts.cfm http://www.wwf.org.za/who_we_are/
However, not all aspects of WWF activities are embraced by some governments. For example, WWF is committed to marine conservation, and have campaigned for the banning of Whaling. In previous years, they along with Greenpeace, they have successfully lobbied the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to implement whaling restrictions. http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/oceans/why-greenpeace-won%E2%80%99t-compromise-commercial-whaling-20100621
But, along with all other environmentalist groups, they were excluded from the opening discussions of the 62nd annual International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting, held in Morocco during June 2010. It is believed that pressures from Japan, Norway and Iceland to negotiate in private, in their drive to resume commercial whaling, may have been behind the NGOs and Media initial exclusion. The meeting ended without any agreement or satisfactory proposals. Wendy Elliot, WWF International Species Manager said, “we are left with a situation in which yet again, Japans whaling fleet will kill hundreds of whales in the Southern Ocean in the name of ‘science’”. http://www.wwf.org.za/what_we_do/marine/?2601/Whaling-meeting-ends-in-failure-after-shutting-out-NGOs-and-mediaNGOs-and-media
It is reported that Whaling is a valuable and corrupt industry and that an estimated 35,000 whales have been killed in 24 years, (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7149086.ece) during this timeframe there was a moratorium on Whaling, with the exception that Japan had a licence to whaling for scientific research. Elliot argued that “the IWC should step up its responsibilities to help save these majestic animals”. Another member of WWF suggested that “the IWC should consider creating a sponsorship programme for delegates from developing countries to avoid further allegations of vote-buying”.WWF also has a Trade and Investment Programme that works with governments and industry in emerging economies, to provide ‘green’ goods and services domestically and internationally in order to reduce the depletion and pollution of natural resources and achieve sustainable trade. The programme also includes sustainable development. http://www.wwf.org.za/what_we_do/trade_investment/ .
In summary, as a non-state actor, WWF plays a leading and significant role in environmental and trade diplomacy.
Sunday, 28 November 2010
New Diplomacy
The most important aspect of the New Diplomacy
It is recognised that the nature and dynamics of diplomacy has changed immensely since the ending of the cold war and the rise of globalisation. In agreement with Leguey-Feilleux comments, the traditional diplomatic agenda of military security, ideology and territorial rivalry has broadened and now includes a wide range of issues, such as, problems of the environment; depletion of energy resources, concerns of pandemics, the rise of international crime and terrorism and improving human rights across the world (Leguey-Feilleux, J-R., The Dynamics of Diplomacy, 2009, p 60-61). And it is internationally accepted that no one state has the resources to single-handily solve any or all of these problems. In the past, states have been dismissive and slow to react towards many of these ‘new’ problems and it could be argued that, if it wasn’t for external civil intervention many of these issues would not be on the ‘new’ diplomatic agenda.
It is therefore believed that the most significant changes to the practice of diplomacy have been the achievements and influence of non-state actors, in particular non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
NGOs have used their expertise and resources to raise public awareness on issues that governments either do not want to discuss or are slow to recognise as problem areas. NGOs have also made great use of the information communication technology systems and the media in promoting issues and their interests, mobilising public support and established international networks.
In recent years NGOs have successfully set the international agenda and lobbied governments on issues such as human rights, the environment, gender equality, child labour and child soldiers, trade and development and the campaigned to ban landmines and a host of other issues.
Their 1990s confrontational image and reproach towards states, government and multinational corporations have been transformed. Many NGOs now hold formal advisory roles within the international community and within many postmodern states. For example, the NGO Working Group on the United Nations Security Council meets regularly, with senior council ambassadors, to discuss humanitarian relief, disarmament, global governance and development.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/major-ngo-campaigns/ngo-working-group-on-the-security-council-4-24.html
‘When crises seem to lie beyond the control of governments or the
relevant intergovernmental organisations, “non-state” actors come
to play significant roles. They appear in the familiar guises of non-governmental
organisations, corporations, and intergovernmental organisations and
they promise levels of efficiency and responsiveness that transcend the
constraints of the state’
(Langhorne R, The Diplomacy of Non-State Actors, Diplomacy and Statecraft, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2005).
Highly influential and internationally recognised NGOs have provided guidance on how best to present and implement sensitive policies. And as such they are increasingly emerging as consultative partners within international diplomacy. It is believed that NGOs are increasingly participating in mediation and conflict resolution because they are seen as being more credible and trustworthy than most governments and official diplomats and as a result they are generally able to achieve greater progress and agreement between warring parties and on controversial issues. Recent examples of joint NGOs and international efforts are the Kimberley Process diamond certification scheme, the establishment of the International Criminal Court and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.
Despite their influences, successes, advisory and mediation roles it remains that NGOs do not have diplomatic rights, privileges or immunities, and state officials remain responsible for international and diplomatic affairs. That said, NGOs have undoubtedly contributed towards opening up the diplomatic agenda and their efforts in my opinion is the most important aspect of the New Diplomacy.
It is recognised that the nature and dynamics of diplomacy has changed immensely since the ending of the cold war and the rise of globalisation. In agreement with Leguey-Feilleux comments, the traditional diplomatic agenda of military security, ideology and territorial rivalry has broadened and now includes a wide range of issues, such as, problems of the environment; depletion of energy resources, concerns of pandemics, the rise of international crime and terrorism and improving human rights across the world (Leguey-Feilleux, J-R., The Dynamics of Diplomacy, 2009, p 60-61). And it is internationally accepted that no one state has the resources to single-handily solve any or all of these problems. In the past, states have been dismissive and slow to react towards many of these ‘new’ problems and it could be argued that, if it wasn’t for external civil intervention many of these issues would not be on the ‘new’ diplomatic agenda.
It is therefore believed that the most significant changes to the practice of diplomacy have been the achievements and influence of non-state actors, in particular non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
NGOs have used their expertise and resources to raise public awareness on issues that governments either do not want to discuss or are slow to recognise as problem areas. NGOs have also made great use of the information communication technology systems and the media in promoting issues and their interests, mobilising public support and established international networks.
In recent years NGOs have successfully set the international agenda and lobbied governments on issues such as human rights, the environment, gender equality, child labour and child soldiers, trade and development and the campaigned to ban landmines and a host of other issues.
Their 1990s confrontational image and reproach towards states, government and multinational corporations have been transformed. Many NGOs now hold formal advisory roles within the international community and within many postmodern states. For example, the NGO Working Group on the United Nations Security Council meets regularly, with senior council ambassadors, to discuss humanitarian relief, disarmament, global governance and development.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/major-ngo-campaigns/ngo-working-group-on-the-security-council-4-24.html
‘When crises seem to lie beyond the control of governments or the
relevant intergovernmental organisations, “non-state” actors come
to play significant roles. They appear in the familiar guises of non-governmental
organisations, corporations, and intergovernmental organisations and
they promise levels of efficiency and responsiveness that transcend the
constraints of the state’
(Langhorne R, The Diplomacy of Non-State Actors, Diplomacy and Statecraft, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2005).
Highly influential and internationally recognised NGOs have provided guidance on how best to present and implement sensitive policies. And as such they are increasingly emerging as consultative partners within international diplomacy. It is believed that NGOs are increasingly participating in mediation and conflict resolution because they are seen as being more credible and trustworthy than most governments and official diplomats and as a result they are generally able to achieve greater progress and agreement between warring parties and on controversial issues. Recent examples of joint NGOs and international efforts are the Kimberley Process diamond certification scheme, the establishment of the International Criminal Court and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.
Despite their influences, successes, advisory and mediation roles it remains that NGOs do not have diplomatic rights, privileges or immunities, and state officials remain responsible for international and diplomatic affairs. That said, NGOs have undoubtedly contributed towards opening up the diplomatic agenda and their efforts in my opinion is the most important aspect of the New Diplomacy.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Public Diplomacy in contemporary world politics
The importance of Public Diplomacy in contemporary world politics
In addition to strengthening foreign military ties and trade relations through bilateral and multilateral agreements, it has long been recognised that winning over foreign public opinion is important and can help to make cooperation at states level much easier. Diplomacy is no longer an isolated ‘Government to Government’ process, whereby foreign ministers and diplomats control all interaction between states. Governments across the globe (have always, and will continue to) seek to influence foreign public opinion via ‘Government to People’ communications strategies. Such as broadcasting information by radio and television; engaging in direct dialogue between diplomatic officials and local citizens; promoting domestic cultural activities overseas and building long-term individual relationships through student exchange programmes and scholarships.
In addition to strengthening foreign military ties and trade relations through bilateral and multilateral agreements, it has long been recognised that winning over foreign public opinion is important and can help to make cooperation at states level much easier. Diplomacy is no longer an isolated ‘Government to Government’ process, whereby foreign ministers and diplomats control all interaction between states. Governments across the globe (have always, and will continue to) seek to influence foreign public opinion via ‘Government to People’ communications strategies. Such as broadcasting information by radio and television; engaging in direct dialogue between diplomatic officials and local citizens; promoting domestic cultural activities overseas and building long-term individual relationships through student exchange programmes and scholarships.
Jamaican students show off their scholarship letters, which were presented yesterday (Aug.17) at a reception held at the Chinese Embassy in Kingston.
A total of 11 students have been awarded full scholarships under the Chinese Government Scholarship Programme to pursue masters and doctoral degrees in China.
A total of 11 students have been awarded full scholarships under the Chinese Government Scholarship Programme to pursue masters and doctoral degrees in China.
As Dr Nicholas J. Cull, Professor of Public Diplomacy at University of Southern California writes ‘public diplomacy is a two-way street’ (http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=7&paper=3028). In addition to communicating a message that will win-over the foreign audience, the communicator must in return listen to the audience’s response, or at least convey that their opinions have been heard. If opinions are ignored, public participation will dissolve and the communication exercise will be ineffective or even cause adverse reactions.
Besides the possibility of losing public support by adopting a one way communication process, the practice of public diplomacy is neither welcomed nor embraced by all states. Some states perceive public diplomacy as a tool for promoting western ideology, propaganda and subversion, and for those citizens who choose to participate they face serious repercussions from their governments.
But whilst public diplomacy is mainly concerned with influencing foreign public opinion, we have recently seen Americas President Obama use public diplomacy to speak directly to the Iranian people and their government, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY_utC-hrjI with the intention of presenting a new open image aimed at winning over the government of Iran.
For several decades America portrayed a strong dominant image across the globe and until 2001 had reduced resources and expenditure on public diplomacy. However, we now have a reversal and a softer image under the current leadership.
Besides the possibility of losing public support by adopting a one way communication process, the practice of public diplomacy is neither welcomed nor embraced by all states. Some states perceive public diplomacy as a tool for promoting western ideology, propaganda and subversion, and for those citizens who choose to participate they face serious repercussions from their governments.
But whilst public diplomacy is mainly concerned with influencing foreign public opinion, we have recently seen Americas President Obama use public diplomacy to speak directly to the Iranian people and their government, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY_utC-hrjI with the intention of presenting a new open image aimed at winning over the government of Iran.
For several decades America portrayed a strong dominant image across the globe and until 2001 had reduced resources and expenditure on public diplomacy. However, we now have a reversal and a softer image under the current leadership.
President Obama, greets the Indian delegation present at the airport to see him off in the traditional Indian way of namaste as he leaves for Indonesia at the end of their tour of India, at the airport in New Delhi, India, on Nov 9.
Saurabh Das/AP
Public diplomacy is a multidimensional tool that is used by most countries to pursue their foreign policy agendas. Consequently, public diplomacy remains important in contemporary world politics.
Saturday, 30 October 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, 14 October 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)