What A Dream…My First Date With Diplomacy

As one who is a novice in the art of diplomacy, it has taken some time to get my head around the brunt of it all. The constant bellows of old diplomacy, new diplomacy…OLD DIPLOMACY…NO NEW DIPLOMACY required that I use a part of my brain that salaciously would otherwise be engaged in America’s Next Top Model…no need to comment, thank you.

After banging my head against the corner of the table and to MUCH deliberation, it turns out that diplomacy has been here all along, it’s an embryonic journey of states and its governments coming together to chant along to “All We Need Is Love”, well that’s the goal at least. As the world has become smaller with globalisation, it has become apparent that we actually need each other even if it is out of self-interest. It’s this dependency that shows the ever-changing face of diplomacy.

Discovering that the world is round was no match to one of the first accounts of a diplomatic conference being held in 432 BC. As the Spartans were laid back with beautiful maidens depositing grapes in their mouths a serious discussion transpired. A decision was to be made if they were to go to war with Athens only for some Athenian delegate to surface, who then came to address the Spartan assembly. This led to a vote allowing the delegate to reside in Sparta although they had made the decision to go to war with Athens. Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you, early diplomacy, although there are other accounts that pre-date this such as the cuneiform tablet dating from 2500 BC hailing from the Kingdom of Ebla.

However all things in this world do come to an end when reform is required, the First World War was a total knock out and devastated the world. In addition there was an outcry for transparency in future diplomatic agreements being made. So, one world war later followed by a global slice of humble pie we were presented with, the all loving, all caring, all war (stopping?) League Of Nations. Ok, I know the League’s shelf life was as short as George. W. Bush’s attention span, however, it was the beginning of new diplomacy with attempts to strengthen international relationships.

After several dates with diplomacy, I think we are beginning to understand each other a little better. Old diplomacy focused most specifically on overcoming conflict to preserve peace, new diplomacy still focuses on this aspect but the world is one that always changes and diplomacy is tailored to this change.

Living in a globalised world means that more is required of diplomats, conflict is not the same as yesteryear as the race to build WMD is growing, a world war in the 21st century would be catastrophic beyond our wildest dreams. For this we can look at the crisis over North Korea’s’ nuclear weapons, which rubbed most actors up in the wrong way. Moreover, China has presented itself as a key player in international relations and takes a well calculated approach to its global affairs.

I could not imagine a world without diplomacy; we need it to assist the sustainability of peace and development. Diplomacy has enabled the world to move forward, in an economic, cultural and political sense; it is a key factor in the way in which the world works. Transparency has been crucial in moving forwards in international relations and the use of the media has been a fantastic platform for this, but one should not fall to all of its allures...as I believe secrecy still plays a big part in the diplomatic underground.

The Contrast between Old & New Diplomacy

Most theorists divide diplomacy into two “old” and “new”, the 'Old' or the original practice played an important role for many countries mainly between Europeans in the 18th, 19th, and 20th century. It was conducted by skilled people from the rich houses and they famously used secrecy in the conduct of their negotiations, the Diplomats were regarded as the darkest of all officials of the states because they could run any situation to their own interest without being caught, also most of their work was behind closed doors negotiating very important issues which could affect their national security. However, they had the green card to use any method that could have been beneficial to their country. In the other hand we have the 'New' practice, mentioned by President Wilson to describe the new situation that occurred straight after the First World War and the creation of the League of Nations. Moreover, the world changed a lot after World War One with it the International Relations, the practice entered a new era and saw the creation of the league of nation council, an organisation where diplomats from all countries sat and discussed matters of that time openly and in front of all other representatives under one big ceiling. It was the first sign of the open negotiations and the multilateral Diplomacy. Many Diplomats met to discuss issues that concerned the whole world; new technologies were also used for the interest of states as leaders travelled by planes across oceans to meet other leaders, wherever the meeting was held, therefore, the distance between capitals was not an issue any more. Although the 'New' Diplomacy became more opened to the public and accessible through the media available at that time, however, the 'old' secrecy practice was still in use by many Diplomats and preferred because of its direct and self interest outcomes (Roberts, 2009: p. 12).

The diplomacy became more open after the second World War and the public got involved more with practice especially in conflicts that led or were leading to war . in our days the communication methods made huge impact on International Relations, with the speed that you have available to send a message and the Mass Media Worldwide, issues and goodwill’s messages between states are easy thing and could be read in seconds. As well the Media transformed the issues into public debates and then either positive or negative public reactions are they could be seen on the other continent at same time. The world is getting smaller and the technology is affecting the world politics much more than we think, the Diplomacy also evolved.
Moreover, politicians take decisions on international matters and then diplomats try to explain them to other parties in order to solve the problem or negotiate for the common grounds; a similar case happened not long ago, which was the air rules and the black list countries that they were subject to tougher security checks on their entrance to the United State. This is happened shortly after the arrest of a Nigerian citizen who attempted to blow himself on an American airlines flight to Detroit on Christmas day last year. A Congress statement announced the list which was pure act of politicians and then the reactions of the public, the media, and the politicians of those countries came straight afterwards. Algeria was in the list, its politicians called the US ambassador for explanations, furthermore, the crises were put in the hand of the diplomats of both countries and then few weeks later the list was dropped and cancelled. However,as a result of this diplomatic crisis, Algerian government did put strict conditions to get a passport in Algeria and imposed the Bio metric passport and national identity card on all its citizens.

From that example we could define Diplomacy as the first contact between states, block of countries, or international organisations which are in conflict, therefore, when issues rises between countries either friends or enemies the leaders acts to solve the crisis diplomatically by sending a representing messenger that have the best skills for that particular case. In the other hand diplomacy is used for strengthening relations between states by offering help and assistance, therefore, the diplomatic representation in this case promotes friendship amongst countries. However, diplomacy was first used by the Greeks synonym to an official documents, its importance grew in medieval Europe between the cities of Florence and Rome during the renaissance Italy. However, the most significant development of the practice came in the eighteenth century after the congress of Vienna, where the change from sending representatives to a permanent resident representative which is still used to now days. (Sir Ivor Roberts. 2009. pp. 12)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE60A3VS20100111

Who's a Diplomat?

Painting "The Ambassadors" by Hans Holbein













Greenpeace Activists at the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen

Who's a Diplomat?

The nature of diplomacy has significantly changed through a structural shift of the actors involved in diplomacy.

In its ‘old’ or traditional form, diplomacy was mainly about relations and communication between states. Diplomats, therefore, acted on behalf of their state’s or monarch’s interest. They were often part of the ruling, aristocratic class. As Roberts puts it diplomats “frequently had more in common with each other, across land sea frontiers, than with the majority of their own people” (Roberts, 2009, 11).

In the ‘new’ diplomacy, however, a range of new non-state actors is involved in the process of diplomacy. International organisations - intergovernmental as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) - have joined states and governments in negotiations. The changing structure affects also the process and the agenda of diplomacy. Whereas in the ‘old’ diplomacy most negotiations were bilateral, undertaken in secret, and the issues discussed mainly reflected the personal aims of the monarchs, in the ‘new’ diplomacy negotiations are often multilateral, more open, and concerned with a broader agenda including new issues, such as economic and social welfare.

The number and the influence of non-state actors, in particular of NGOs, at the global stage have increased immensely in recent years. Their appropriate role in diplomacy is, however, contested.

Even though NGOs often only have an observer role during international conferences, they gained a great ability of influencing the outcome of negotiations. By lobbying and catching the attraction of the media NGOs put states under pressure to act und keep up to time limits and promises. Through their presence at diplomatic negotiations and media coverage of the outcomes, NGOs make on the one hand diplomacy more open and accessible to the public and on the other hand states more accountable to their decisions. Their sphere of influence is often greater than the one of smaller states with poor diplomatic relations.

Nonetheless, NGOs are often only concerned with a single, special issue, such as the environment or human rights. They often represent a rather small and sometimes radical interest group. In the end, they are legally not accountable to anybody. Thus, their legitimacy is highly questionable.

So, who is a diplomat in nowadays?

The profession of state-based diplomats remains very important. It has even expanded due to the increase of international organisation, like the UN, where diplomats are needed to represent their country and communicate its interests on a regular basis.

Nevertheless, diplomacy is now more open to the public and not exclusive anymore. Interests and concerns of the civil society can be represented in international negotiations by non-state actors. NGOs can also observe and monitor negotiations and thereby force states to get to an efficient result. In addition, since NGOs are specialised in a certain field, they can be a huge help for diplomats, who now have to deal with a wider and more complex range of issues, to provide information and advice.

In conclusion, non-state actors could be identified as “paradiplomats” who “assist, support and complement the work of traditional diplomats” (Roberts, 2009, 20).

The Evolution of Diplomacy

The concise Oxford English Dictionary gives 8 definitions of evolution, of which 3 I would like to draw your attention to:
1. gradual development, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.
3. the appearance or presentation of events etc. in due succession.
6. an opening out (Thompson [ed.],1996: 468).

The word evolution for me completely encapsulates the nature of diplomacy, in the sense that it did indeed start as a simple form of political negotiation and has since evolved into something much more complex and a lot harder to define.

In such a cosmopolitan, globalizing world, we can look back now with retrospect and say that it was inevitable that the nature of diplomacy would change. As for the most significant change? I offer not a single event or moment in time but rather a chain of events that started after World War I.

White considers traditional or 'old' diplomacy as dating from the end of WWI and I am happy to accept this. Traditional diplomacy was very protectionist in nature, it was a bilateral proccess (involving 2 parties) and was very closed and secretive. This bilateral approach meant that it was much easier to keep diplomatic negotiations secret as there were no other parties to interfere or leak information either to the public (who at this time were not nearly as politically active as today's society) or to other political agents. Also at this time there were no international institutions or multi-national coorporations with any political influence who would perhaps oppose or attempt to influence diplomatic disscussion. In spite of all the secrecy, White does acknowledge that it was within the traditional diplomacy framework that diplomacy did start being regulated; there were procedural rules in place to protect diplomats as political negotiation could be extremely difficult at times. Traditional diplomacy did work in the time that it was developed, however after the First World War the global sytem began to change and evolve and new actors and issues would start to emerge on to the global political stage (White, 2005:390).

After WWI, globalization ushered in the dawn of the communications age across most of the world. Morgethau in his book Politics Among Nations actually blames the development of communications for the decline of dimplomacy:

'diplomacy owes its rise in part to the absense of speedy communications in a period when the governments of the new territorial states maintained continuous political relations with each other' (Morgenthau, 1985:569).

I disagree that the advances in communcations technology count for a decline in diplomacy, rather it pushed the nature of diplomacy to change and adapt. Rather than diplomats having to take a ship to a foreign land to discuss territory they can make an appointment over the phone and fly out the same afternoon. Communication also encompasses the internet and media, something which has forced diplomacy to stop being secretive and bilateral into something which can be nothing but open and multilateral. In our post WWI world, we have new actors such as NGO's, inter-governmental organizations as well as MNC's and TNC's that all now play some role as a political agent. We as a society are much more politically active and politically informed (its hard to turn on the tv without hearing a politcal quip from Stephen Fry and I can't seem to watch anything but Mock the Week* past 9pm on Dave - I'm not complaining!). It must also be pointed out that with all these changes since the end of World War I that the interests of states are changing and the need for diplomacy now extends to issues such as environment and humanitarian aid rather than just centering around a states acquisition of land or foreing policy.

Diplomacy no longer has the same meaning it had 200 years ago and this for me is a positive, diplomacy needed to develop in order to be effective in the world we live in now. I acknowledge that there are perhaps times when certain diplomatic negotiations would be more successful if they were kept secret, however this just is not plausible for today's international political system. Perhaps I can give you the single, most significant change in the nature of diplomacy - the answer has to be the end of WWI. The end of WWI sparked the chain of events which led to the evolution of the 'new' diplomacy that we have today.


* I would recommend Mock the Week to anyone who likes a more humerous look at the weeks current events but be warned that the language can be quite coarse!!

The evolution of diplomacy

It sounds like yesterday when Genghis Khan, the Mongolian emperor (1162 - 1227) set out his mission of conquest in the name of either failed or successful diplomacy. Genghis Khan’s power of uniting the Confederations of Central Asia Plateau with tribes like Mongols, Merkitsm, Tatars, Naimans and Uyghurs attest to a true diplomatic attribute of diplomacy. Great warriors have immerged and conquered, but the evolution of Diplomacy still stands tall amongst.

The Amarna letters corresponded between the great Pharaohs of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty and Amurru rulers of Canaan during the 14th century BC, following a battle of power in Kadesh (c. 1274 BC) where afterwards a peace treaty was signed in stone tablet fragments reflects another evolving nature of diplomacy.

Francesco Sforza illustrated in Renaissance Italy, how diplomacy should take a certain aspect of uniformity when he established permanent embassies in Milan. Different examples of Classical Greece (Proxenos), The Pope’s diplomatic missions through his Apocrisiarii to Constantinople where the Byzantine Emperor ruled, puts forward a supporting fundamental argument of how diplomacy has again changed for the past 1000 years.

I know u might ask your self: ‘why is he not giving the definition of diplomacy first and going about giving historic analyses'. Well, well, well. Diplomacy has no true definition, it preys on historic facts and evolves within theories of international relations where we have scientific interpreters who are much more involved in human nature and its correlation with the international system, whilst positivist sit on the side giving analysis of non scientific reasoning but historical facts. Power, economics, trade, war, culture has always been the key mechanism of balancing theories within this discipline.

There have been fundamental changes in the fabric of diplomacy where we use to have an old model of diplomacy which is contested to have been replaced by new diplomacy. The illustrations giving above from the times of the Pharaohs till contemporary times sums up an ironic thesis that, Aristocrats might have given up their strong opposition to changes in diplomatic circles when commoners where excluded from this upper class club. Another significant change in diplomacy is the open characteristic which has been embraced granting movers and shakers in decision making full access.

Non-governmental organisations are enjoying access to crucial diplomatic engagements where world issues are discussed and are occasionally invited to give assessments on various issues.

I believe changes that are been made in diplomacy will go a long way to strengthen our understanding of various ideas on not just regional level but internationally, However, politics and ideologies within this discipline might slow down the true characteristics of its evolving attribute.