Trading on The Environment

In our globalised world environmental issues are now no longer restricted solely to individual states. With the increase of global warming and a decrease in biospheric equality every state is equally affected by the perils of environmental disasters.

Environmental diplomacy is based on controlling the use of natural resources and regulating pollution and this within itself is a great challenge that the world leaders have been unable to find a suitable resolution to combat the many environmental issues currently faced.

Trade has been beneficial to our localized world, however due to the large demands of contemporary society, no sustainable means have been developed. The lax response to healing our environment has not come without it troubles by having long lasting affects on our ecosystems, certainly you will find an argument for and against international trade.

Ecologist would have us believe international trade has put a great strain on our environment as it tirelessly requires great demands on our natural resources, whilst trade liberalist would argue that international trade will eventually cause higher income levels which will then cause a demand for better environmental policies to be put in place where there will be a greater will to purchase goods that have been produced in environmentally friendly manner.

The world has many environmental problems, these problems need to be dealt with as a collective, if not degradation will continue to spiral out of control. This is why there is an importance and significance for non-state actors when negotiating and making decisions related to forming a biospheric harmonious international society.

NGO’s have played a vital role in many global issues, one that comes to mind is illegal logging which has devastated many indigenous communities and developing countries by destroying the very essence of the way they coexist with the natural world. Illegal logging is not only an environmental problems, it in turn also cost the government billions of dollars in lost revenue and promotes high levels of corruption and has been know to finance war efforts of rebel groups. This is related to heavily to trade as large consumerist countries (mainly in the western world) have been know to import this illegal natural resource without carrying out the necessary checks to ensure the timber is legally sourced and imported. However, attitudes are now changing and greater attention and emphasis have been placed on this matter which has largely been bought to light from various NGO groups such as “Progressio” who have made it their business to try and put such illegal activities to an end.

The Timber Legality & Traceability Verification (TLTV) programme was set up to verify the supply of logs ensuring that they meet the legality requirements, however Greenpeace and other NGO’s have criticised their efforts as they believe there is a lack of transparency, auditing and governance procedures. However, it is important to note that illegal logging has fallen by a quarter since 2002 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science+environment-10642880) due to the media attention surrounding the issue.

Individual NGO’s are vital to their various causes as they have a greater knowledge within their specific areas and are therefore able to have a greater impact when negotiating, changing policies and educating the general members of public as well as the government. I think that there has been and always be a significance for NGO’s, without such organizations many people, communities and the environment would suffer in silence as NGO’s tend to be a voice for those who do not have one.

Please read the following articles, I think you will find them to be of great interest:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/23/india-environment-american-way-disaster

http://www.progressio.org.uk/search/node/logging

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science+environment-10642880

Cancun, MEXICO, December 7, 2010

Press Release: GEF and low-carbon cities of the future
The new town of Boughzoul AlgeriaThe Global Environment Facility (GEF), the leading public environment fund dedicated to developing countries, Tuesday unveiled a groundbreaking project in the planned city of Boughzoul, Algeria that will be built with an innovative clean energy focus designed to integrate climate change responses into urban development plans.
Under its new funding cycle the GEF will be working with Algeria and other countries to build “low-carbon cities”. Among these examples, the city of Boughzoul in Algeria is a landmark model of what is needed now in developing countries to address the challenge of meeting increasing energy needs without boosting harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
“Urbanization is a fact of life happening today in developing countries: right now about half of the world’s population lives in cities – and this share is projected to reach 60% by 2030, “said Monique Barbut, CEO and chairperson of the GEF. “ With this new migration come new environmental challenges and the GEF is ready to help. Looking at the global environmental benefits of this one project cumulative net greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by 3.4 million tons when construction of Boughzoul is finished. There are also social and economic benefits that we hope will encourage smart growth practices elsewhere."
GEF has already a strong portfolio on cities, especially on sustainable urban transport with 75 cities worldwide part of its portfolio. Boughzoul is a new city being developed about 200 kilometers south of Algiers that when complete in 2025 will be an administrative and business center with a population of over 400,000 and its own airport.
“The design and development of the new town of Boughzoul is an opportunity to introduce best practices in architecture, building construction and urban planning, as well as to promote research and development and business opportunities in response to climate change through the development of conditions favorable to the transfer of clean technologies that will benefit Algeria,” said Bernard Jamet, head of the Technology Transfer Unit of the Energy Branch, Division of Technology, Industry and Economics for the United Nations Environment Programme.
For this specific project the GEF will be committing $8.2 million, with another $22 million added from other sources to help introduce best practices on renewable energy, clean transportation and energy efficiency during the design and construction of the new city of Boughzoul. This will include the construction of zero-carbon buildings, street lighting using LED and photovoltaic systems, solar water heating systems, and a Center of Excellence for Technology Transfer.
"Boughzoul is the first in what we hope will be a new blueprint for cities of the future in Algeria and the world“said Mr. Chérif Rahmani, Algerian Minister of Spatial Planning and Environment. “This ambitious development project is part of a larger holistic plan to develop new, green cities throughout our country and to better balance population centers and economic development. With this low-carbon city, we will bring sustainable development to the Highlands region and beyond.”
Efforts like these in Algeria are part of a trend among city and local authorities to address climate change by monitoring, reporting and verifying their emission reductions. If present trends continue, the growth of cities, urban transport and building sectors are expected to generate even higher carbon dioxide emissions so the need for low carbon cities to help reverse this trend is acute. Similarly more and more cities are looking to make action plans to help adapt to the impacts of climate change that are magnified by their density and exposure. Most mega-cities are in coastal areas ---exposing even more of the poorest and vulnerable to floods and other natural disasters such as hurricanes.
###
About the Global Environment Facility
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) unites 182 member governments — in partnership with international institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector — to address global environmental issues. The GEF provides grants to developing countries and countries with economies in transition for projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants. These projects benefit the global environment, linking local, national, and global environmental challenges and promoting sustainable livelihoods.
Established in 1991, the GEF is today the largest public funder of projects to improve the global environment. The GEF has allocated $9.2 billion, supplemented by more than $40 billion in cofinancing, for more than 2,700 projects in more than 165 developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Through its Small Grants Programme (SGP), the GEF has also made more than 12,000 small grants directly to nongovernmental and community organizations, totaling $495 million.
For more information: www.thegef.org: Maureen Lorenzetti, spokesperson (202) 352 3572; mlorenzetti@thegef.org

Environment and development

The world environment suffered dearly in the last fifty years or more from the fast growing industrial activities in the world. Industrial disasters as the ‘Chernobyl’ nuclear reactor meltdown which led to exposing thousands of people in Ukraine and its neighbouring states to the nuclear radiations as a result of malfunction of the machines. Also the scientific discovery of the thinning of the ozone layer and its fatal outcomes on people, animals, and plants from being exposed directly to harmful radiation from the sun in the southern sphere states like Australia and southern America. And many other disasters related to pollution led to the degradation of the world environment. The world pollution became an international issue because like wild life, the pollution travels across borders without restrictions. It could affect many countries at same time as the examples that I already mentioned. This situation became the concern of the international community with more scientific studies suggesting that we are going through a global warming of the planet with it an alarming rise in sea water levels. Most recently in Cancun climate summit, the negotiations were held to find solutions to world environmental issues and save the planet from global warming. The UN pushed hard to get an agreement from the world emerging economies like India, Brazil, and China to cut their emissions but failed, however, an agreement on the creation of green climate fund with more than $100 billion a year promised to be raised by 2020 from the Copenhagen summit a year ago. Another important agreement was produced in Cancun Summit, a deal for developing countries to receive an aid to stop them burning and logging forests and prevent the destruction of the rain forests in tropical states like Brazil. The failure of Copenhagen Summit nearly undermined the Cancun talks because of the tensions about the emissions cuts.

Many NGO’s were invited into the climate change debate and confronted states like Japan, Norway, and Iceland for their continuo’s exploitation of the maritime resources, they still abusing the seas by over fishing. As the result of reckless industrial approach from some companies during last few years led to more disasters like what happened in Mexico Bay this year, oil spillage gone for months after the explosion of an off shore oil plant belonging to British Petroleum. It caused all kinds of damages, it was bad. The fear of a repeat of these disasters, made the international awareness of the ecological foot print of human on nature grew. However, not much has been done to tackle the environmental issues on large scale until the 1992 Rio conference on environment. It was the first world summit conference to discuss that matter led by the United Nation (UNCED). An international movement against the industrial polluting economies like the US, China, Japan, and many others. These countries agreed to make cuts on their Carbon Dioxide emissions and to move their economies towards more sustainable development. What it is meant by the concept of sustainable development stated by Bruntland Commission in 1987 is “the development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet there own needs” (Baylis & Smith, 2008: p. 355). However, lot of critics came to this concept or disagreement between developed and undeveloped countries. The reasons for this are the cuts of carbon emissions quotas. Another head of states meeting but this time it was held in Johannesburg South Africa, the world summit on sustainable development (WSSD) in 2002. The negotiations that took place between states were intense due to the huge pressure on this meeting to come out with good results. Groups negotiations, Diplomats, ministers, leaders, and NGO’s all participated in that meeting to find an equal solution to issue. However, that meeting did not live to its expectations, and leaders met again in Copenhagen in 2008 (Baylis & Smith, 2008: p.354).

However, single strong developed countries are doing better in their cuts of the CO2 emissions for example Germany. It launched an international project for the renewable energy. It’s called Desertec and will involve many countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MINA) region also the European partners. It will cost over 400 billion Euros and will generate 15% of the euro zone need of energy in the short term, going to 50% for long term. All that energy going to be clean energy produced from solar panels and Aeolian plants in the Sahara Desert. The most important about this project is the bilateral negotiation between Germany and the involved states, Algeria as a very important piece of this project from its strategic location in the middle of the North African states and its proximity to Europe have just agreed to be part of this project. By an invitation from the German chancellor Merkle, the Algerian president travelled to Germany last week to finalise the negotiations on the project after more than two years of long discussions and two opposite bilateral head of state visits, the two countries came to an agreement.

read more about the Desertec project and the Cancun Summit at:

http://www.desertec.org.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cancun-climate-change-conference-2010.

Environmental Diplomacy - Something Fishy?

Initially, my first instinct was to blog on trade diplomacy in general and then I stumbled upon an article about overfishing in Maine, USA.

I can't say I'm particularly keen on eating fish or seafood myself, however after some research it is evident that global fishing is a huge environmental issue. It is estimated by the UN SOFIA (State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture) report that over 50% of the world's fish population has been fully exploited and another 20% has been moderately exploited. If these extreme levels of exploitation continue then the world fishing population is in danger of collapse. There are several impacts to this overfishing crisis:

-not only are we at risk of eliminating entire species and ecosystems but the overall ecology of our oceans will be at risk

-as more and more of the most commercial fish are fished to the brink of extinction, fishermen are having to increase their efforts for a successful haul, this means catching (and killing) species like sharks and sea birds as a 'byproduct'. Therefore destroying species that they dont even want to catch in the first place.

The WWF explain that the global fishing fleet as it stands at the moment is 2.5 time larger than our oceans can sustainably support. Other factors causing overfishing are a distinct lack of efficient fisheries conservation and management, unfair fishery Partnership Agreements, pirate fisheries who blatantly disregard fishing regulations and in light of globalizationand increase in large commercial fleets whose haul's are huge and large amount of fish is disgarded. To add to this, coastal ond open water fisheries have been irreparably damaged meaning that the global fishing effort has had to shift to deep sea areas, hence endangering previously unexploited species.

What is perhaps more shocking however, is that despite all this research and claims by experts such as Dr Daniel Pauly (Director and Professor of University of British Columbia's Fisheries Centre) that the damage we have already caused is TOTALLY reversible if we act now, there has been no real push to address the overfishing issue in the global political agenda. Granted, some states have enforced local protectionist policies such as in Sri Lanka for example, but nothing much has been done to steadily decrease the amount of fish being caught. Sustainable fishing is instead being pushed by non-governmental actors such as the WWF and The Nature Conservancy.

The WWF aim to tackle the overfishing issue by working towards healthy and well-managed (and hence regualted,) fisheries through something called EBM - Ecosystem Based Management.

EBM aims to balance the social and economic needs of human communities with the maintenance of healthy ecosystems (http://wwf.panda.org/). One aspect for which the WWF deserve credit is that they acknowledge the human need for fish both in terms of a food source and for the economy 'EBM...recognizes the economic, social, and cultural interests of all stakeholders in a fishery and how these interests affect resource management. By managing human issues and imapcts, the EBM approach...is more likely to succeed where other initiatives have failed'. The EBM framework has also been praised by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation alongside their own fishery programmes.

The Nature Conservancy of Maine also has their own approach to the overfishing issue. They are developing a fishing net that has larger holes in it to catch less fish. This would mean that smaller species that are not commercial would be able to slip through the nets, but those that do meet commercial requirement will remain in the nets. As acknowledged by fisherman on the project, promoting a net that catches fewer fish to commercial fishers is no easy task, but as fisherman Gary Libby argues, its about promoting a net which affers the fisherman quality (fish) over quantity and he believes this can be done (http://www.nature.org/).

It is incredible that issues such as this are not particularly high on state agenda, particularly if we consider the long term effects. If overfishing continues, it is argued that in approximately 50 years the whole ocean ecology system may collapse and this will inevitably cause the complete collapse of the global fishing industry impacting on trade and economy as well as the social and environmental implications. The promotion of sustainable fishing programmes by non-governamental actors help to force the issues into the political arena and provide much needed publicity of the dangers of overfishing.

If the EBM programme, established by the WWF is effective, there is no reason for each state not to adopt their own similar systems and help protect our global fish population.

Full articles:

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/maine/news/news3627.html

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/conservation/marine/sustainable_fishing/

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/problems_fishing/

Picture:

http://see-the-sea.org/topics/commerce/overfishing.htm

Influencing Trade and Enviromental Diplomacy

Non state actors have become key proponents of regulated policies throughout the world. Government and non state actors have realized the importance of interacting with each other in all areas including trade and environmental issues.

There are so many issues of environmental of enviromental concern which constantly affects boundaries and core states. Key points of environmental diplomacy includes: conventions regulating the use of natural resources and conventions regulating pollution. In each case, the central problem is that, political boundaries rarely reflect biological boundaries, so that as national economies consume resources and produce pollution, they spread environmental problems far beyond their national boundaries. These are the key reason why non state actors are crucial in the solving of issues outside government terrain.

The power of non state actors become quiet relevant when Remington Kellogg single handedly excising his influence in the regulation of whaling. ‘The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was created in 1946 in Washington to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry’. This convention was strategically influenced by non state actors. http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm

Non state actors and conservationist groups worked towards the treaty on the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (CNP). Scientists and conservationists in the US created the CNP in the 1930s as an instrument to spread what they considered remarkable key analysis towards conservationism. In 1972, the United Nations organized a multilateral meeting on the conservation of nature. It was formulated as the: United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) and took place in Sweden. Delegates from 114 countries and surprisingly 500 strong nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) converged in 1972. 1979 played a critical role and has since been instrumental in nature conservation across borders. The convention to combat desertification recommended the setup of desertification fund a plan orchestrated and influenced by non – state actors. ‘ Chief executive officer of Gerber’s parent company who, after 2 weeks internal debate announced that it would drop suppliers using genetically modified crops’. http://www.polisci.colostate.edu/fac/mb/NGO%20Influence.pdf

The debate in the board room was triggered by Green Peace who had involved themselves in the quest of excluding genetically modified ingredients from baby food products. The influence exhibited illustrates that non – state actors are influential and significant in the negotiation process of corporatism or politics.

Trade diplomacy has also influenced globalization, spreading to the most isolated places on earth. Trade engagement is a focus area with non – state actors operating from the grass root level directing vital information articulated by local governments. I once gave an important point regarding how non – state actors have become instrumental in local and national governance in third world countries. My grandmother who has acres of cocoa plantation relied on government education and assistance. She could sometimes wait 3 – 4 months to receive word on how the prices changed regularly. With help from some NGO’s, she received vital information and valuable links through her mobile phone and internet access to determine her price according to International standards on the International market. She doesn’t rely anymore on government and this is a good indication that non state actors are crucial and plays significant role in this area. GATT and WTO policies were for example, heavily influenced by non state actors. Preferential trade, equitable growth, poverty reduction and etc have all been influenced by non –state actors to help developing countries in the global system.

Trade and environmental diplomacy

A new facaced has been added to the epistimology of diplomacy. Environment and its implications have formed a new and complex issue inmodern diplomacy.
Environment and its policies must be regarded as a urgent matter that cannot be postponned nor can it be ignored.
It has been estimated that "Every year, there is a net loss of 22 million acres of forest area worldwide. Every year, toxic chemicals, some capable of traveling thousands of miles from their source and lasting decades in the environment, are released into the earth's atmosphere." (//www.state.gov/g/oes/env/).
The ever interconected world of business and trade, the huge progress that has been made in the new and traditional technologies are all a major influence on the environment.
The creation of armament, nuclear weapens, the leading of wars have all great consequences on the environment.(www.envirosecurity.org).
Economy explains the concept that is behaind the scarcity and its resources and how this can create divergences among countries, limitations of products, inequalities that in our modern age when the population has increased considerably is very difficult to avoid. There fore goverments, NGO's and private representatives must reach a mutual understanding to provide and to promote the safe use of the environment.(www.state.gov/g/oes/env).
Trade has an impact on every aspect and mostly on the environment, there is a contradiction that is created by the concept of trade and environment, it is very difficult to find a middle line that can marry the two, for economy must disregard many aspects that ultimately affects environment.

Trade and environmental diplomacy

In a interconnected political, cultural, business, economic world it is difficult not to include environmental concerns that ultimately have a great impact globally with greater consequences then any other modern problem.

Due to the ever growing population around the world and the decrease in natural resources the governments are faced with a problem that must be solved immediately in order to avoid graver consequences.(Susskind,L.E.1994).
It has been estimated that every year a total of" 22 million acres of forest are lost world wide".(www.state.gov/g/oes/env)
In order to tackle this serious problem all the countries must take active part in the protection of the environment and must create and respect laws about the management of natural resources world wide.(www.state.gov/g/oes/env/).
Trade is an aspect of the economy that many times is over exploiting the natural resources in all areas, there fore it creates a conflict of interests in correlation with the environment.
The ever interconnected world of business and trade, the huge progress that has been made in the new and traditional technologies are all a major influence on the environment.
The year of 1989 has marked the beginning and the recognition of the environmental problems when it has been brought to an official level in the conference in Rio. However, the issues addressed then have been many, unfortunately only two treaties have been sign: a convention on climate change and a convention on biological diversity. (Susskind,L.E.1994).
The creation of armament, nuclear weapons, the leading of wars have all great consequences on the environment.("www.envirosecurity.org/ges/inventory").
Economy explains the concept that is behind the scarcity and its resources and how this can create divergences among countries, limitations of products, inequalities that in our modern age when the population has increased considerably is very difficult to avoid. There fore governments, NGO's and private representatives must reach a mutual understanding to provide and to promote the safe use of the environment.(www.state.gov/g/oes/env/").
Trade has an impact on every aspect and mostly on the environment. There is a contradiction that is created by the concept of trade and environment, it is very difficult to find a middle line that can marry the two, for economy must disregard many aspects that ultimately affects the environment.(/www.envirosecurity.org).

The New Diplomat

The new diplomacy plays an integral role in our global society, it is a clear reflection of our modern world and how we have attempted to integrate, develop and forge new relationships.

The new diplomacy creates a place for non-state actors and the public to get involved in various issues whether they be economical, humanitarian, environmental or social. These wide spread global issues need to be challenged multilaterally by a collective of states, as NGO’s and other private organisations tend to have raw knowledge concerning many of these problems. They are able to bring about strategic plans to combat various issues and in doing so have reformed international policy making.

To be frank…the role of theses non-state actors is vital to the work and the progression of the political leaders, however, Just as most things in life the very nature of the NGO does have it cons as well as it pros.

NGO leaders are not accountable to anyone and are not selected by its members, this is a grey area within the NGO “could” lead to bad practice that may go unnoticed.
In addition another matter facing the NGO is the lack of transparency in regards to their finances, as charitable organisations they do rely on donations from members and other external individuals or organisations so it is important to be assured that the funds are being used for good.

NGO’s are very single minded and passionate about the cause they are fighting for, so I believe that finances raised are usually used for good. But it is this single mindedness that Brown refers to as “undemocratic, unrepresentative, unaccountable, and irresponsible”.

Brown raises an interesting argument. He believes that NGO’s do play an integral role, within the same breath, he also believes that they are too “diverse, particularistic, and chaotic, to formulate, adopt, and implement policy on their own”.

This maybe one of the few issues with NGO’s, there is no official form of managing such organisatons and this could be a major problem, I think for the most part, NGO’s generally fulfill their roles very well. If institutions such as the United Nations were in total control of all NGO’s I think a power struggle would manifest, yes guidelines should be and have been set for all NGO’s to adhere to in order to promote an all round good practice.

“Many NGO’s…. previously welcomed into the UN system have criticized the accord as threatening the integrity and mission of the UN”.

Brown. E. Bernard, 2001, pg: 17

This is to me is a fundamental feature of the new diplomacy, smaller individuals coming together to organise a non governmental group in order to resolve problematic issues faced by society. Its about being able to take a stand and having the freedom of choice to do so whilst attempting to make the world a better place….very utopian I know, but this is the way I see the NGO, a replacement for traditional power politics.

“The increased importance of the private organizations and interest groups is also a normal feature of modern political systems”

Brown. E. Bernard, 2001, pg: 10

There are different variations of the new diplomacy, which have reformed the negotiation process totally, however the old diplomacy is still very much so relevant in today’s politics. The old diplomacy was in many respects rather ridged where as the new diplomacy (even though it has its own misdemeanors) is open to suggestion and willing to experiment with new ideas on how to develop and sustain international relationships and tackle international problems such as debt relief, crime and environmental issues amongst many others, anyone and everyone can be a game player, but of course there are always certain limitations.

To conclude, NGO’s and private organisations are a very important part of the new diplomacy. However, I believe that it goes beyond this. The new diplomacy is about new age thinking where everyone to some degree, can participate in the shaping of our world, with old diplomacy this was not possible. Causes that are for the people, by the people have a stronger hold in assisting the government to sustain the needs of the people it is representing. The work of NGO’s shed a bright light for political leaders of what the real problems are and challenge those in power to develop better channels to aid communities and combat conflict. The world just would not be the same without them.

New diplomacy is creative in pulling out all the stops, it even uses celebrities as ambassadors to bring particular causes to the forefront in order to gain strong public support and following.

(This link is a interesting read, it talks of our modern day diplomats in the celebrity form)

http://www.cigionline.org/articles/2008/03/stars-shine-diplomatic-circuit

Bad Practice of NGO's:

http://www.friends-partners.org/CCSI/resource/sins.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3502733.stm

The New Diplomacy at any costs?

A prime factor of the new diplomacy is its inclusive and open character. More actors, such as NGOs can take part in the diplomatic process and negotiations, or at least their results, are made open to the public through the mass media. As a result, it has been argued, the wider public is integrated and diplomacy becomes more democratic.

However, recent development might just go a step too far. Wikileaks, an internet platform on which anonymous documents can be published to reveal unethical conduct of governments, announced that starting today they will release a quarter-million of American diplomatic cables.

Over the weekend, The Guardian, the New York Times, and the German newspaper Der Spiegel already released some of information about the content of the documents, giving a premonition of what the US will face throughout the next days and weeks.

The White House already contacted its allies warning them about the release of the cables, stating “We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorised disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information” (New York Times).

The documents contain the daily communication between the US embassies around the world and the US State Department, most of them sent over the last three years.

Despite almost insulting descriptions of other leaders, such as Putin the “alpha-dog”, Afghan President Hamid Karzei as “driven by paranoia”, and Angela Merkel as “rarely creative”, the documents also comprise the US strategies and evaluations of sensitive contemporary issues in World Politics.

In the documents, Pakistan’s instability is discussed, as well as the US battle against al-Qaida in Yemen. So is highly suspicious behaviour indicating corruption in Afghanistan, as Vice President Massoud carried 52 Million Dollar in cash around when he visited United Arab Emirates last year. The US will also owe the United Nations an explanation, why Hillary Clinton signed a directive instructing 30 ambassadors to spy on UN officials and diplomats.

The next days will show how much the disclosure of these documents will really affect American diplomatic relations. Berlusconi, for example, seemed to have a good laugh reading about himself being incompetent, snobbish and ineffective. If other countries will share Berlusconi’s humour and treat the documents lightly is uncertain.

Nevertheless, it remains highly questionable if the inclusiveness of diplomacy should go that far. If diplomats are no longer able to act freely and if they cannot build on confidentiality, it might just come to diplomatic standstill. Secrecy, as much as openness, can be a bad and a good force. Secrecy can cover unethical conduct, but it can also be the only solution in situations of conflict to find a compromise which is saving everyone’s face and is avoiding diplomatic crisis.

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy

The face of diplomacy has changed with valuable constant face lift. The old doctrine is still existent in terms of secrecy but the field of employing diplomacy has gone through important transformations.

Diplomacy has gone through refined and inspiring channels to promote state interests in the 21st century.

Public diplomacy has for example: given a strategic definition of countries in the sense of rebranding, realignment and reconstruction. This particular type of diplomacy has shaped the perception of countries in the international system and continues to do so. Obama’s speech like I discussed last week was a practical tool to publicly reshape the perception of the Islamic world into a proponent of better cooperation with America stating: ‘America is not an enemy of Islam’. This in my opinion is a very critical statement at a time of Islamic fundamentalism. The Geo-political position of Indonesia was a suitable stage to declare a new form of American – Arab relationship. Analysts responded: ‘ this will be his most high-profile attempt to engage the Islamic world since a landmark address in Cairo in June 2009’. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11723440
There is no better way of declaring a new era of cooperation than the use of public diplomacy in this instance to avoid cultural and social anarchy as the world has become anarchic in theories of realist conceptions.

Multilateral diplomacy defines the fundamental interconnectedness of the global world. Multilateral diplomacy projects not only politics but relations and ethical barometer to measure and secure balances of mistrust, abuses and war critiques. This type of diplomacy has a human face as I always explain to my peers. It is has a functional capacity to provide hope and stability across boundaries.

Multilateral diplomacy has paved the way for the pursuit for peace, security and understanding key characteristics of functional aspects of different countries, indeed, the stakes are high but multilateral diplomacy is truly of great importance in a world of colliding cultures and constant changes. Asian migrant workers for example had been experiencing domestic abuses in Saudi Arabia but the use of multilateral diplomacy quelled off violent tensions. ‘President Yudhoyono of Indonesia expressed his anger and told his ministers that he wanted “all-out diplomacy.” And the article continues: ‘Diplomacy has multiple channels. Reaching bilateral agreements is desirable due to their direct nature, but since the odds are stacked against Indonesia, multilateral diplomacy should be the top priority’.http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/multilateral-diplomacy-is-the-key-to-protecting-the-rights-of-migrant-workers/408741. Track II diplomacy has also reshaped the new future of the new diplomacy.

Track II diplomacy in theory has changed the face of diplomacy in a humane way. This type of diplomacy involves retired military and civil officials, public figures, social activist and academic scholars. The in-depth skills/outcome attributed to this type of diplomacy is very effective but it lacks credibility as it operates outside official government parameters, many will argue. However, it should not be sidelined for lacking government influence. An article from the Clingendael institute’s Dalia Dassa Kaye gave constructive arguments for the ‘use of this kind of diplomacy to achieve the Oslo accords between the Israelis and Palestine’s’. http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2005/20050601_cdsp_paper_diplomacy_3_kaye.pdf

Adversaries could use this type of diplomacy and find lasting solutions to discuss issues affecting them in a personal way. Track II diplomacy plays a very vital role in the finding of solutions to regional conflicts. Greater appreciations for stakeholders are guaranteed through the use of Track II diplomacy in conflicts deeply rooted on ethnocentric or religious lines.

To conclude, open diplomacy has paved a very healthy path for all stakeholders including, NGO’s, Multinational co operations and social groups to interact with government on all levels for a better organized world. Secrecy in the old type of diplomacy indeed marginalized the international system, coherently, activating for example: Islamic Fundamentalism. I have always argued that, if the International system was quiet open like now, many stakeholders on the ground through the use of multilateral and Track II diplomacy could have long ago identified the up rise in factionalism and fundamentalism.

The new diplomacy

The very concept of the new diplomacy it seems to me has been formed with the intention of challenging the idea of(national) sovereignty exercised by the sates. The public has been given(apparently) the chance to have a say in the debates, decisions, human rights infringements. In other words to take active actions again ts all this. Nevertheless it must be mentioned that this liberty that has been given to the public it is very rarely taken into consideration and that it is merely an illusion rather then a exercisable right that can be put into practice by the public opinion( disagreement or agreement). The New Diplomacy is still evolving,it is far from being at its peak. From this concept of new diplomacy, the public opinion being given the chance to question,many issues are arising which are debating, questioning, doubting, criticizing the very idea of the legitimacy of a state s intervention in another states internal affairs and decision taking in matters of national security. Many argue that sovereignty is the only mean by which the international chaos can be avoided, some argue that behind the concept of sovereignty(national) many unjust acts are taking place and many infringements of human rights along with the abuses of power are taking place.( http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volume5/June-August2000/VolumeVN2EdwardFinn.pdf).
The concept of new diplomacy is but another way by which the media, news papers and television are controlling the public opinion.It is a concept that has at its basis the sharing of power between the state rulers and the ruled, a shared sovereignty between the public and the state representatives. Jean Jacques Rousseau has proposed that the only way that a society can function well and in the strict interest of their citizen is by educating their opinion and by allowing them to take active part in the state decisions.(Rousseau,2007). This concept of new diplomacy is also about making the knowledge and the access to information accessible to every single one of us with the ultimate goal of transparency in the political affairs and actions of a government.
Nevertheless another question is arising from this very concept of shared power, many argue that the public cannot nor does it have the proper interpretation of the political issues in order to decide effectively on the matter. The Norwegian play writer, Henrik Ibsen, in his play" An enemy of the people" , has challenged this very concept of the rightness of the majority over the rightness of the individual.
In his play, Ibsen suggest that more often the individual is more often right then the mass(the majority)of the people which are often easily influenceble and manipulated by propaganda. That fore it is very doubtful that the new diplomacy can have good results as more often the majority of the public opinion is more easily controllable especially in our modern days.


Ibsen,H(1997)"An enemy of the people".London:Faber.

Rousseau,J.J.(2007)"The social contract and Discourses".US:BN Publishing.

http://www.asil.org/ajil/jackson.pdf

http://eadi.org/gc2005/confweb/papersps/Fredrik_Soderbaum.pdf

http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volume5/June-August2000/VolumeVN2EdwardFinn.pdf

The new diplomacy

As a continuation of my previous posting i would like to clarify that i recognize the potentiality of a very strong influential public opinion.

The Multilateral Vs. Conference Diplomacy

Many people think that multilateral diplomacy and conference diplomacy is the same thing, they are conducted with some similarities through meetings and voting in some circumstances. however, they are two different practices diplomacy. Moreover, the multilateral is defined as the practice in which three or more groups are taking part in the negotiations. Therefore, head of states or states officials arrange a meeting to negotiate about an issue that involves a group of countries, states which form a Union like the (EU), or states that are part of a coalition like (NATO). They do meet in public and open to the all media like talks, votes, etc. However, most of the negotiations are conducted in secret in the corridors of the meeting venue, others during lunch breaks. As well, most of the lobbying is done before or in between the meetings where pressure groups attempt to influence decision makers. Therefore, like in the “old” diplomacy, secrecy still in use every time it is needed.
Now we talk about the conference diplomacy. It means, a large number of officials meeting. Not necessarily like in the multilateral diplomacy. The conference diplomacy meeting do not have to be between more than three states. Moreover, it could involve only two states but with large number of officials. As well, conferences could last for few days continually. Moreover, officials with the same work interests come together, not to negotiate issues as in multilateral practice but they come together to discuss their views about important topics that they have in common. Therefore, the state officials meet to have a formal discussion in order to find better solutions, which will then be advisable to executives in the states involved in such meetings to achieve good outcomes when applied in all aspects.
Conferences as well, are practiced openly in front of public and the media. However, the secrecy element is used a lot. Moreover, most of the decisions are taken behind closed doors. Where the discussions are may be less conferential but more bilateral, multilateral, etc. Moreover, officials give their views to each other more clearly and they do the lobbying either to pass or to stop resolutions. Jeff Berridge claims that officials cannot negotiate in the open and in public. However, they should negotiate in secrecy. Therefore, if they give concessions to the other parties, they do not get pressure from the public which could be unbearable in the posit situation.

Public Diplomacy

"Public Diplomacy is the modern name for white propaganda directed chiefly at foreign publics".( Diplomacy, Theory and Practice 4th edition, G.R. Berridge, page 179) I would like to mention that public diplomacy is something similar to propaganda, but it is not the same thing. About recent events which shows the importance of public diplomacy i would like to mention about the spread of Islamist thinking, which was mainly focused on influencing the West. Especially after 9/11 events the opinion about Muslism was hugely damaged, Al-Qaeda and its header Usama Bin Laden, then the London underground bombings 07/07/07 where lots of innocent people died and also 11 march 2004 train bombings in Madrid , after these accidents the opinion about Muslims changed dramatically, the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" was linked only with Muslims , and i think these associations were hugely impact by Internet resources, Internet spread information quickly and because of internet and television many people learned information about what did terrorists do. But its clear that media shows what it wants to show, and it does not show what it is not in its interests, so therefore it is obvious that USA influenced the media and regulating media. After watching what Al-Qaeda with Usama Bin Laden did to twin towers in New York and also bombings in Madrid and later in London, changed many peoples thinking about Muslim world, majority of people when heard word Muslim or something related with it automatically had bad association with it. And its all work of Media, media created notorious opinion about Muslims. So what i wanted to say is , that Public diplomacy had played role in some dramatic developments , examples are shown above . "The sudden increase of the workload of information officers in Denmarks embassies, especially in Muslim states, following publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper in early 2006, it is not difficult to imagine".( Diplomacy, Theory and Practice 4th edition, G.R. Berridge, page 189) Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten , the newspaper announced that that publication about Prophet Muhammad was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam. After these posting in Danish newspaper the world Muslims started to protest against this magazine, and many Muslim countries called back their embassy representatives in Denmark. "Public Diplomacy" is what we call our propaganda; "propagand" is what the other side does. It remains true that this activity , the aim of which is to influence foreign governments by trying to win over their own people, varies enormously in both its character and its targets". ( Diplomacy, Theory and Practice, 4th edition, G.R. Berridge, page 190).

The Legitimate Place of NGOs in Diplomacy

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) have an important role on International Relations in this era. their work vary from charities, associations, lobbying groups etc. In general, they are the pressure groups and the interest groups, which are independent from any governmental involvement in its running and finance. As well it is not profitable like companies and corporations. Therefore, these groups rely entirely from donations they receive from benefactors. Some NGOs are very successful economically like Green Peace, which it has offices in many countries and have a big work force. Moreover, NGOs like we already mentioned, do not accept funding from governments, political parties, or corporations. Their job is to investigate, expose and confront any abuses that occurs in any field they covered. It depends of each organisation speciality. They are recognised by the UN and they do consultative work for the international organisation departments. The UN laid the platform for them to grow in numbers, there is more than two thousands NGOs recognised by the UN now days. NGOs job varies from different fields of concern, they cover issues like the environment, world poverty, women’s rights, racism, etc.

Many oppressed minorities in the world rely on the help of NGOs to carry their concerns to the international community. Some groups depends entirely on them, like the Polisario in Western Sahara. They are the last colonised country in Africa. moreover, they have only minor representations in the big capitals and some countries know only what NGOs collect and report about them. The Tibetans matter as well rely on NGOs organisations which are concerned about them. NGOs are pushing and lobbying in their governments to put pressure on China for the release their oppressed people. The NGOs played big role in changing world regulations on environment, aid and refugees rights. They became very important, popular and much trusted by publics, therefore, many world organisations start to see their importance nationally and internationally, they seeking to build good relations with them to gain some of their legitimacy.

The UN definition of an acceptable NGO

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) statute and the way it has been applied embodies six principles:

• An NGO should support the aims and the work of the UN. However, it is very rare that objections are made to political purposes of NGOs.

• Officially, an NGO should be representative body, with identifiable headquarters, and officers who are responsible to a democratic policy-making conference. In practice, many highly prestigious NGOs, particularly development and environment NGOs, are not membership organisations.

• An NGO cannot be a profit-making body. Individual companies cannot gain consultative status, but trade federations of commercial interests are recognised as NGOs.

• An NGO cannot use or advocate violence.

• An NGO must respect the norm of ‘non-interference in the internal affairs of states’. This means an NGO cannot be a political party, but parties can, like companies, form international federations. Also, NGOs concerned with human rights should not restrict their activities to a particular group, nationality, or country.

• An international NGO is one that is not established by intergovernmental agreement. (Peter Willetts in Baylis and Smith.2008.The Globalisation of World Politics. Chapter 19. Pp.340)

Influencing The public through 'Propaganda'.

When world politics was conducted in the spirit of savagery and wars, many felt let down by policy makers and their cohorts. This formed the danger to appeal to the masses in a coherent dimension, directing world affairs unto the doorsteps of the population. Edward Gullion is thought to have coined the term of public policy and elaborated: ‘it is the manipulation of foreign public’. Public democracy could be described as one of the most fundamental pillars to reach out to foreign publics to consider or justify your actions. I strongly believe that, public diplomacy has strong values of propagatory characteristics which could be analysed as pure propaganda. This kind of diplomacy has changed world politics because, it has gradually shifted the strength of commercial diplomacy to the periphery. Fundamental thesis on this topic derives its understanding from 3 central tenets: 1. Identity creation 2. Managing reputation 3.Image projection. There has also been situations were public diplomacy was considered as an important mechanism in the following case studies: The Netherlands has always been known in global politics as a country with civil liberties and undisputedly championed human rights. The world condemned The Netherlands when they legalized: same sex marriage, prostitution, hard drugs, abortion and euthanasia. These critical issues hadn’t even been considered in the US where civil morality was perceived to be on all time low. The decision to legalize all these ‘taboos’ was criticized in conservative countries but, the Dutch had already masterminded how to explain and justify their actions through the use of public diplomacy all over the world, convincing foreign publics that, the existence of humanity comes with certain civil liberties which it had reflected by legalizing its policies. Austria in another case had distanced itself publicly from the Waldheim affair. Kurt Waldheim was active member of the SS during the rule of Adolf Hitler. Austria made sure it played politics of the masses by trying to appease them and their thoughts through public diplomacy. One surprising twist ensued in 1986 –1992 when he was elected President of the same country which had rejected him as UN Secretary General between 1972 - 1981. Wikileaks publications has also pointed out Pakistan’s staunch support for the Taliban and providing them with logistical support. After floods hitting Pakistan, most countries turned their backs on them for supporting the Taliban but Pakistan stepped forward and requested external support in exchange to battle terror networks, which I perceive as politics of opportunism to appease western public to change their mindset about Pakistan’s role in the war against terror. There are corrosive misapplications when the case of Pakistan is for instance mentioned. Long term use of public diplomacy tends to self-destruct in this case within a period of time, whilst short term public diplomacy identifies underlying issues in the fabric of this particular dispensation. Another thesis is the underestimation of self advertising, which could totally backfire at the hands of assertive post – modern publics. US policy has mostly failed in the Middle East because, it has failed to recognize a new generation who are deep rooted or traumatized through conflicts by US – Israeli alliance. President Obama reached out to the Islamic world, through a speech in Indonesia saying: ‘I have made it a priority to repair this relationship. United States is committed to human progress. America will never be at war with Islam’. This is a typical diplomatic outreach to a particular public by addressing their issues at heart knowing this carefully chosen public could catapult American public policy in a world where mistrust is key. Obama knew the crowd in Indonesia reflected Islamic moderatism and could use such audience to counter balance the power struggle with Islamic fundamentalism.

Obama, the "Softy" of World Politics?

Vast improvements of ICT and the spread of democracies enabled the media and other non-governmental organisations of society to communicate and reveal information about governments and their actions constantly. As Nye argued “information is power, and today a much larger part of the world has access to that power” (Nye, 2004, 105). In this context it has become crucial for governments to work on their reputation and to put more emphasis on soft power in order to enhance the image of their country for the domestic and foreign audience. Soft power does not include the use of force. Quite the opposite, through constant communication and the development of long-lasting relationships governments try to frame an “enabling environment for government policies” (Nye, 2004, 1007). The idea is that states are more likely to affiliate with another state when that state is appealing or attractive to them, creating a desire to be alike by following the same policies. Public diplomacy in one of the means through which soft power is applied. The aim of public diplomacy is to influence foreign governments by reaching out and win over foreign public opinion bypassing their government.

Especially since the events of 9/11 the US government recognised the need for public diplomacy. There was this overwhelming question “Why do they hate us?” and an attempt to answer it by a new approach: the long-term transformation of the Middle East. However, as Nye argued political leaders often mistake culture differences for a lack of information (Nye, 2004, 111). He argued it is crucial to understand the audience; therefore listening can sometimes be more effective than sending out a message. Even though Condoleezza Rice stated in her speech after her nomination as state secretary “If our public diplomacy efforts are to succeed, we cannot close ourselves off from the world... public diplomacy will be a top priority for me”, during the Bush administration the budget devoted to producing soft power remained only 4% of the national’s international affairs budget (Nye, 2004, 123). This was probably mainly because the Bush administration counted on close relationship only with the leader of states.

However, the real change to American public diplomacy came about by President Barack Obama, who is impersonating the soft power approach. He is addressing the public in foreign countries directly bypassing obstacles that the US government might have with foreign governments. Obama's address to the Iranian people on Nowruz, the Iranian new years, is an example of his approach to public diplomacy. In his speech, Obama is making a clear difference between the people and leaders of Iran. Whereas he highlights the communalities between American and Iranian culture in the value of family and the importance of religious holidays, he reminds the Iran leaders of their responsibilities to cooperate in order to engage in the international community.

In its public diplomacy the Obama administration is also using all the new means of communication brought about by the revolution in ICT. The White House has now a Facebook account , a Twitter account and a youtube account. So the public does not even have to buy a newspaper to get the latest on Barack and Michele Obama’s visit to India.

Even though, Obama most certainly has broaden the reach of his messages in terms of the audience and the means of communication, the benefits and the impact of his public diplomacy remain uncertain.

Public diplomacy by all means has its limits. If public diplomacy is not coherent with the policies of a country, the audience will quickly see through that and the country will lose its most important good in nowadays: credibility.

As Joseph Nye suggested, Obama has changed the tone of American policy, but the problems such as Afghanistan are not yet solved (see bbc-link). If his soft power approach will be successful in the long-run remains to be seen. In nowadays where it is almost impossible to keep information secret, public diplomacy is doing first and foremost one thing: it is making governments more accountable and more credible to the picture they are trying to create and sell to their own people, as well as to the foreign audience.

BBC Radio: Is soft power working for Obama?

A German Newspaper "created" Facebook profiles for Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Silvio Berlusconi and Mahmud Ahmadinedschad (to see the other profiles, just click on the picture):

http://sz-magazin.sueddeutsche.de/statisch/fakebook/1