A reflective group blog by some of the students on The New Diplomacy module at London Metropolitan University
Monday, 18 October 2010
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
Labels:
first one
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice write up, but it is not quite clear if you are in favor of the "Old" or the "New" form of Diplomacy.
ReplyDeletePersonally, for various reasons, I believe that the secrecy in the Old Diplomacy should be used in today's world. Imagine a world where a Wikileaks can freely release sensitive documents and claim that the public deserves to know the truth, when in the actual fact, its all about the money they can make from publishing such material, not withstanding the lives they are putting at risk by doing that.
There are no much evident so long as am concerned to convince me that complete Open Diplomacy should continue to be encouraged in the twenty first century.
Thank you
Thanks for your comment. However, in my writing I showed the difference between two approaches in diplomacy, therefore, I did not give my opinion. Although, I understand your concerns of the dangers that open to public diplomacy could create. However, public in democratic states must know what the foreign office is doing in daily basis like any other office in the government, therefore, a constant statements from there diplomatic body should be shared with public. Any country wants to know its enemies and be prepared physically as well psychologically.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting exchange of views. It appears that Ifesinachi had some prior knowledge of the WikiLeaks release of diplomatic cables, which happened just a few weeks after her prescient comments were posted.
ReplyDeleteI liked Alloui's opening illustration in his original post, but it wasn't really clear how that episode related to the discussion about old vs new forms of diplomacy. Perhaps he can say a bit more about that and really put the case study to work in the service of his general point.
As a student of IR I blieve on cyber Diplomacy because it's talks about the advancement in informatioin and communicatin technologies and its influences in diplomacy
ReplyDeleteNice debate. As a student of Diplomacy, I think that in as much as the nascent school claims that the old is now redundant and melting away into nothingness. The question that always remain unanswered is, Why does it continue o exist?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good piece. I also want to add that one of the major reason for the evolution of modern diplomacy is globalization.
ReplyDeleteNice writeup...
ReplyDeleteIt helped in my research
Lund khao
ReplyDelete