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.