Old and New

Diplomacy is a practice that has existed for centuries, going back to the time of the Ancient Greeks, Chinese and many other great civilisations. Although today diplomats are being used for the purpose of delegating trade, financial and security among states either in line with wars such as the War against Terror was one such event where delegates from USA and United Kingdom sat down and discussed ways in solving the issues of terror.
Just as Greeks, which were continuously at war with its neighbours were resorted to send delegates with gifts to please the Kings in pursuing them either follow the Greeks or to go to war. Even to this day these ancient systems are still practiced by states either to gain alliances or to have support in the international community.
Modern day diplomacy does not differ to what was practiced when the United Nations were established in post WW II. Most states rallied behind United States with the hope of gaining support and the backing from them as one of the most powerful states. Today although various states gather around various states for different reasons and through diplomacy most states get to succeed in going forward with their own agendas. As Micheal Saward the author of ‘Must democrats be environmentalist?’ in the book by Democracy and green political thought: sustainability, rights, and citizenship By Brian Doherty, Marius de Geus notes that states will do what is best for the citizens.
Compared to past diplomacy takes on a different agenda where states are focused more on power and economic gains rather than benefitting one another through a mutual understanding. For most states common binding reasons such as poverty, terrorism and so on allows them to form a diplomatic connection that allows the common states to share and support one another just as such in regional organisations like EU, Asean and NATO. As diplomacy on a state backed method of allowing states to promote themselves and also negotiate and bargain with other states, the power struggle continues to play an important role.
New diplomacy focused on more graver and vital issues that was need to be discussed such as Human Rights, labour laws and the environment. Powerful states neglected the responsibility of looking after their planet, as the ‘New Diplomacy’ took a close a look at these issues while creating a new generation of issues for governments to ponder over. The transition from diplomacy to new diplomacy was not that drastic change although with globalisation most issues have taken a new perspective.
In the past, states would be more anxious to over look other states actions and to persuading states on matters such as human rights. Even though states are still bound between the rights of individual states while major catastrophes such as genocide in Rwanda occurred unnoticed. A diplomatic approach is the first approach to be looked in to by states and secondly comes war for all these people are required who makes the state their priority while avoiding catastrophes such as wars.

The 'Old' and 'New' Diplomacy

In my opinion, the most significant difference between the ‘Old’ and the ‘New’ diplomacy is, the concept of diplomacy has changed. Although there has been changes between the ‘Old’ and the ‘New’ diplomacy, I believe that the basis of the diplomacy has not been changed dramatically.
The ‘Old’ diplomacy was more concerned about; war, peace, rights of foreign citizens, trade rules between and among nations but after the World War 2 with the changing conditions and the issues arised and the concernes of diplomacy has changed and became more about; human rights, labour rights, environmental issues.. etc. In other words; the new diplomacy, in relation to the old diplomacy, is more concerned with the global issues rather than the national ones.
In addition to that the emphasis has changed from bilateral to multilateral. The ‘New’ diplomacy which also known as public and inclusive diplomacy has shaped more open than the ‘Old’ diplomacy. Also with the globalisation of the world and with being easy to travel, government ministers did not have to depend on their ambassadors to be represented. The international conferences and meetings made it easier to communicate between nations. Therefore the actors of the diplomacy has changed from government ministiries, diplomats and ambassadors to NGO’s and Non-state actors. Before the ‘New’ diplomacy; diplomacy was taken as an issue which specialists; such as diplomats supposed to deal with.
In conclusion; the concerns of the diplomacy has changed and became more global while the actors changed into NGO’s from ambassadors and diplomacy has become more open and public. In spite of the fact that there has been differences the main basis of the diplomacy has remained the same.

Changing Diplomacy

The changes that took place around the world in the last century are too many to tell but in the matters of international relations, there are memorable ones that we tend to remember. Since the end of the world war two,the way countries perceived their relations wiht each other has dramatically changed. There various reasons why such changes occured. In the "old" diplomacy, as opposed to the "new" diplomacy, the states of affairs were not always what they seemed to be with all the secrecy, policies objectives and secret agreements mainly concocted by powerful Nations. The introduction of Nuclear Weapons in 1945 propelled the international community into another dimension, with the fear of destruction. Their spread brought tension furthermore and therefore affected diplomatic relations in way that one can only imagine. States seem less aggresive towards each other because of the mutually assured destruction and the devastation that come with it. More recently, the assassination of the Hamas commander involving the use of British passports would not have gone this quiet back in the 30s for example. This is to say that the impact of advanced military technology has played a big role in oeaceful negotiations eventhough it would never be said out loud. The information revolution is to be stressed as well with the birth of information channels with worldwide coverage, people around the world are able to follow how other parts of the world are doing, with regular updates. This type of pressure form the media have impacts on how some affairs are handled in the end. The press and the public opinion have serious impact on the matters of foreign policies nowadays.

changing diplomacy

The changes that took place around the world in the last century are too many to tell but in the matters of international relations, there are memorable ones that we tend to remember. Since the end of the world war two,the way countries perceived their relations wiht each other has dramatically changed. There various reasons why such changes occured. In the "old" diplomacy, as opposed to the "new" diplomacy, the states of affairs were not always what they seemed to be with all the secrecy, policies objectives and secret agreements mainly concocted by powerful Nations. The introduction of Nuclear Weapons in 1945 propelled the international community into another dimension, with the fear of destruction. Their spread brought tension furthermore and therefore affected diplomatic relations in way that one can only imagine. States seem less aggresive towards each other because of the mutually assured destruction and the devastation that come with it. More recently, the assassination of the Hamas commander involving the use of British passports would not have gone this quiet back in the 30s for example. This is to say that the impact of advanced military technology has played a big role in oeaceful negotiations eventhough it would never be said out loud. The information revolution is to be stressed as well with the birth of information channels with worldwide coverage, people around the world are able to follow how other parts of the world are doing, with regular updates. This type of pressure form the media have impacts on how some affairs are handled in the end. The press and the public opinion have serious impact on the matters of foreign policies nowadays. scheduled 10:00:00 by mamyn6 Delete

Diplomacy Documentary

This is link to a very interesting documentary about diplomacy by Sir Christopher Meyer, not sure if Prof.S.Curtis has already provided it, but here it it is anyway hope you find it useful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00r06j3/Getting_Our_Way_Values/

Make Room: NGO's and the New Diplomacy

For me, the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy is the role played by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO's) and Non-State Actors. Previously, international affairs had been dealt with solely by diplomats and ambassadors; specialists, officially assigned to deal with a state's negotiations. NGO's were relegated to the 'back benches' of politics and had little influence over the political sphere. However, with the end of the Cold War and the 'Great Power Rivalry' came change. NGO's began to emerge into the forefront of world politics and many international matters began to bypass states altogether and instead be dealt with by the NGO's themselves. One example of this can be seen in the Ottawa Convention. A group of NGO's and human rights campaigners came together with a view to banning the use of anti-personnel landmines. They organised themselves under one big NGO called the ICBL (International Campaign to Ban Landmines) and with the help of a few small and middle power states called their own meeting to seek the ban. Subsequently, a treaty was produced within fifteen months, and was created without the agreement of many high power states such as the USA and China. (Davenport, 2002) This was previously unheard of.

The success of the Ottawa Convention acts as a good example for the New Diplomacy and also enables us to see the evolution of diplomacy itself. Negotiations have gone from secretive and exclusive to open and inclusive since the end of the Cold War. Most notably of all however is the influence NGO's and collaborations of similar-thinking states have had in international affairs, and also their ability to set agendas both internationally and domestically. In the case of the Ottawa Convention, the NGO's were the lead actors in orchestrating the ban, and their pressure was the determining factor in the outcome. In fact, it can be argued that without the ICBL's use of New Diplomacy tactics, the use of anti-personnel landmines may not have been prohibited, merely limited, and any possible treaty would have taken years to come into effect. In addition to this, there are many other instances where NGO involvement has been pivotal to effecting change, the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is one example.

In conclusion then, it seems that over time diplomacy has evolved greatly, and in today's world NGO's and other non-state actors have carved themselves a vital role in matters of international politics, with their use of the New Diplomacy being central to their success.

Alex

Davenport, D. (2002) The New Diplomacy. Policy Review. Issue 116 (p.17). [Online] Available at: http://0-web.ebscohost.com.emu.londonmet.ac.uk/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=108&sid=71886b8d-0211-409d-b8f4-7adf63d5490f%40sessionmgr113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=8645016db=aph&AN=8645016 [Accessed on: 18th February 2010]

A change is a change ... No?

The nature of diplomacy in my opinion has not really shown some major changes but still a change is a change. My opinion on this whole concept of “Old” and “New” diplomacy will be more or less based on the development that allows us to evoke an old and new diplomacy. The old diplomacy is usually considered as a bilateral, secrete, and exclusive. This traditional diplomacy was a system that exchange ambassadors and ministers as soon as two states developed an important relationship. Whereas the new diplomacy is often known as a multilateral, public and inclusive system. Some believe that in reality those two forms of diplomacy appear to be more complementary than opposed where for example the multilateral and the bilateral system take advantages of each other. There is no opposition between those two but a sort of evolution and adaptation of the diplomatic system. The change of the nature of diplomacy can be seen through numerous ideas. If we look at in terms of membership it is possible to see that there has been an expansion of the international community after the First World War. The change is also clearly seen in the actors in diplomacy. Heads of states today act direct and indirectly in foreign policy matters. The notion of secret and open diplomacy is also one of the main evolutions of the diplomacy. The old diplomacy was presented as secret parliamentary and the new as an open diplomacy.

R.P. Barston , Modern diplomacy 3rd edt (Pearson Education limited 200)

B. Hocking, Trade politics : International Domestic and regional Persepectives 2nd edt (London routledge, 2004)

Change ? What Change..

The nature of diplomacy for me has not changed that much with regards to what diplomacy is for,the actors may have changed or should i say may have multiplied to include various organisations. I attribute this to the changing nature of politics in general, their has been a shift from high politics to low politics on the international stage and this has meant that we can see different organisations taking part in international negotiations over issues such as the environment, aid and other humanitarian concerns. However this does not constitute a change in diplomacy, but more of a shift in the issues of international political concern. When we look at history, the major issues of political concern were wars between nations, and we find that negotiation over the prevention of war were dominant in diplomacy, but after the cold war and some would say after world war two, they were a lot of issues that arose due to the end of colonialism and the fall of the USSR. These new issues did not necessarily need ambassadors to negotiate over them, but could be engaged by different actors such as NGOs and other non- state actors. For example anti- apartheid movements played a major role in applying pressure on the south Africa government to abolish apartheid. I think the changing nature of political concern has been the defining feature of diplomacy in the late 20th and early 21st century, a broad range of issues which require a broad range of actors.

'Diplomacy' - Chemistry-Catalyst of International Relations

Following lecture and seminar for New Diplomacy by Prof.Steven made it very clear that with the phase of time we can differentiate "Old Diplomacy and New Diplomacy" on many grounds. It is also end up in seminar discussion that it is also a chemistry where Diplomatic strategy acts as 'CATALYST' as it reacts with the substance, aims and attitudes of a state's relations with others on different levels under the element of social, economical or political aspect of nation. Hence, we can also that chemistry of international relations in terms of 'Diplomacy' has created a cohesive bond and also globalised.

But if we look bit more closely and considering literal meaning of diplomacy; the main function of diplomacy is negotiation - which broadly means discussions designed to identify common interest and areas of conflict between the parties. To establish the conditions under which negotiations can take place a number of other tasks are undertaken. But changes have occurred both in the conduct of diplomacy and in the personnel associated with it. So following changes can be considered as a result of the increasing complexity of inter-state relations with reference of Sinning, Vince in their book of "Diplomacy In The 21st Century" (CODIA, 2002)

• The intrusion of ideological conflict and the opening up of diplomatic dialogue.
  
• The change of emphasis from bilateral to multilateral dealings.
• The decline in the decision-making power of the ambassador.
  
• The advent of personal diplomacy.
  
• The increased use of experts and specialists.
• The involvement of ministries not normally associated with foreign affairs.
  
• The increased number of treaties.
• The growth in importance of the media.
• The expansion of the international community and of non-state actors.

This enhancement and enlargement of the scope of modern diplomacy and the widening of its agenda has resulted in a change of emphasis and hand on economic sector, rather than on any major change in function. In response to the rapid changes in information technology, diplomacy today refers not only to the advancement of national interests and the practice of persuasion but also to the management of global issues.

At the end I can say, it has created lots of changes but without itself getting changed. I think title to New Diplomacy as 'Catalyst' is suitable for us to understand current situation of it existence. Yes, certainly there are some changes in the norms and fields as mentioned above.

Also click and have a look at: Transformation of diplomacy in the 21st century

You are welcome to address if something wrong or something you find interesting and want to add more ideas.

Once up a time, Americans achieved great things abroad. No longer.

I would like to recommend an article by Aaron David Miller from February 3 which is available online on Foreign Policy web: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/03/the_end_of_diplomacy?page=0,0

It is entitled 'The End of Diplomacy?' with quite strong subtitle 'Once up a time, Americans achieved great things abroad. No longer.' In this quite short article the author looks critically at American diplomatic achievements and the US decline in terms of being a 'superpower'. At some point he argues that the US never was a dominant actor but only had a few great moments. He is also quite sceptical about  the future of American diplomacy. He says that Obama won't be able to change much as he has not produced any valuable strategy since he moved to the White House. 

In my opinion this article is a good base for further investigation into this matter. It also makes you to reflect on some of the issues from the past which were claimed to be solved in a 'doplomatic way'. Hope you will like it. 

adw0076

COERCIVE DIPLOMACY THROUGH MILITARY INTERVENTION

The literature delivers many examples for the existence of a close relationship between diplomacy and the use of military force. Namely, over centuries, these tools have enabled the governments to press their agendas onto other states and have helped many to advance its different goals such as economic or political. Equally, as the diplomacy played a part in verbal communication, the military actions aimed to communicate other nations that any resistance to proposed agendas can be easily wiped out. Nevertheless, it seems like the time of coercive diplomacy has gone as most of states understood that dialogue and cooperation are a real source of power. Nowadays, diplomacy, with much more convincement, is perceived as a peaceful alternative to violence. However, opinions are divided between those who believe that world of diplomacy has matured and those who see the use of military force as inseparable from diplomatic environment (the USA and its military supremacy). Under this aspect, diplomacy has never and will probably never change. For instance, military actions, in case of humanitarian interventions, even though they aim to help citizens whose rights are violated by own states, still are labelled as coercive means.
Namely, states independently or in coalition try to influence effectively an intolerable behaviour of other state. Through the use of force some states try to make other state act in the way they would never do. This is not only the case of humanitarian intervention but also, more recently, the case of war against terrorism. In all of these cases national sovereignty is challenged by governments or by group of states which have concerns about how others manage their affairs. Indeed, this type of diplomacy can eliminate conflicts as well as it can create them.
Concluding, coercive diplomacy will continue to play a central part particularly in Western conflict management because the need to stop or undo undesirable actions remains a key challenge (Collins, 2007).

Sources:
Collins A., Contemporary Securities Studies, 2007, Oxford University Press
Kegley Ch.W., World Politics Trends and Transformations, 2008

Seminar Readings for week 2

Hey, this is my first blog so not sure if I'm doing it right!

I just wanted to recommend the David Davenport article from the Policy Review Journal, titled 'The New Diplomacy'. It is on the reading list under - Diplomacy Old and New, and can be found online through the library (there is a link on the page).
The article focuses mainly on the concept of new diplomacy and provides an easy-to-follow account of where it came from and why it was necessary, and also the differences between old and new methods; technology, NGO's, media etc. Also, it uses two case studies to illustrate the points being made - The Ottawa Convention and The Treaty of Rome. Of these two I found the Ottawa Convention the most useful in helping me to understand the role of new diplomacy (it also comes first in the article).
I'm not a huge fan of political jargon when trying to read academic texts, but I found this article easy to digest and interesting.
Hope this helps!
Alex