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.

Different elements in the new diplomacy

Public diplomacy and multilateral diplomacy are key elements in the new diplomacy as well as the “paradiplomacy” of non-state actors. None of these three kinds of diplomacy is more important than any other. None of them has more impact in the international system than the others because they all have their own role to play in what is called diplomacy.

The introduction of non-state actors in the international system such as multinational corporations, NGOs, celebrities or international organizations, among many others, has helped weak states and minorities to be heard and taken into account in the international community. Moreover, non-state actors are, sometimes, more concerned about citizens, environment and improving quality of life rather than states’ national interests. A clear example of this is the recent announcement of some food companies such as Carrefour or Lidl which says that they will stop selling tuna in order to preserve the species.

Non-state actors have a huge impact in the international arena. They are used as intermediaries by many states as a way to keep relations with enemies or non-recognized governments. Besides, they are used as partners by international organizations since non-state actors can provide expertise, information and legitimacy. Thus, the “paradiplomacy” of non-state actors benefits the world by maintaining and promoting peace.

Public diplomacy also has its own and important role in diplomacy. It is used to build relations between different states and to react against bad press. Furthermore, public diplomacy helps in the modeling of state’s image in the world. States want to have a good image so that they can attract investments and tourism and export their culture, values and products around the globe. However, if public diplomacy is not used correctly, it can have deep effects in the way a country is seen by the others.

Multilateral diplomacy is essential for any state in the globalized world that we are currently living. International problems require international solutions and states by their own can no longer solve problems that affect different states at the same time. The eradication of species, for example, can only be solved by cooperation between states. So, throughout the years we have seen an increase of multilateral conferences and negotiations in order to solve problems and avoid conflicts.

Thus, as a conclusion, it is not possible to determine which one is more important since they all are interconnected, interdependent and have their own role in diplomacy.

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.

Diplomacy and Democracy

Nowadays, one of the major change and challenge for Diplomacy, is it opening to the public opinion.

Diplomacy’s evolution is the mirror of Human cooperation throughout History. At the dawn of the first civilization, diplomatic negotiations were mainly about war and peace issues. Nowadays, Globalization and the growing interdependency between states have extended the diplomatic agenda to economic, cultural, religious, and social issues. Negotiation and collaboration between states to permit the development and maintenance of international transport and trade, for instance, would be impossible without diplomatic experts. Indeed, specialization and assistance is needed within the “corps diplomatic” to face the new challenges of the 21^th Century, like Global Warming, Terrorism and Development.

State collaboration and the growing influence of new actors on the International Relation stage, the NGOs, Transnational Organisations and Multinationals, will, hopefully, tackle these new challenges. Somehow, it will not be easy for the “New Diplomacy” to manage those new actors. The involvement of public actors within diplomatic negotiations can be a threat for any possible accord between States. Paul Cambon claims that including more than 5 actors during diplomatic negotiation reduce the chances of success to reach an agreement. So, should we blame the sheer number of public representatives at Copenhagen for the failure of the conference on Climate Change? The good quote from Bismarck, saying that, like sausages, policy can’t be practice in public, is a reminder of the limits of “Public Diplomacy”. The public opinion lacks the experience, skill and common sense of good diplomats. For example, diplomatic relation between states is seriously undermined when individual like Terry Johns proposes to burn the Koran, in protest against the project to build a new Mosque two blocks away from ground zero (BBC news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11269681).

One challenge for the “New Diplomacy”, this century, is to learn how to cope with the freedom of expression and the growing power of the media, which can be so disrupting, when cooperation between states is needed the most. Should we limit our freedom of expression to preserve International collaboration and harmony between our societies? To what extend the public can be involve in the negotiation process?

Between diplomacy and democracy, we still need to find the good balance to address the challenge of the 21^th Century. Personally, I think that the old diplomacy (in secrecy) should be use regarding the negotiation process, and only the outcome of negotiations, treaties, should be public. Concerning the freedom of expression, we should all bear in mind the impact of our actions.

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.