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
you rightfully give the co-relation amongst statecraft and the use of diplomacy but I am worried about the contradiction in judgement u apply the thesis of (Jacques Rousseau)on educating and actively taking part in state decisions to your analysis of Henrik Ibsen's misconception.
ReplyDeleteDo you personally recognize the strength and reflective impact the public have on state decisions?
daniel! thank you for your comment.it is well received..nevertheless i have not yet decided if indeed the public opinion has a great impact...it may have potentially strenght and possibly influence, nevertheless it seems to me that half of the world has protested againts the war(all around the world), but the politicians still went on with their decisions.....so that makes me wonder...just to give this exemple...there are many instances in which the public opinion has been overlooked...more recently they are thinking of increasing the pay fees for uni...many people and students will protest, but will our voices be heard?( i am sorry my posting is very poor and full with flowes i will improve and elaborate on it againg,thanks)
ReplyDeleteYour original post makes some interesting points about the increasing importance of public opinion and the possible dangers that flow from it. I should like you to say a bit more about what that means for diplomatic practice. You tend to discuss it in general foreign policy and political terms; but what are the consequences for diplomacy?
ReplyDeleteYou could also go into a bit more detail about how you define the very idea of a "new" diplomacy and engage with some of the academic literature on this subject.
An interesting entry Meducu. I agree that the new diplomacy is supposed to be more open and gives civil society a more active role in politics and diplomacy, however in my opinion I don't feel you give enough credit to the 'public'. I feel that perhaps there is too much emphasis on the invidual vs. the majority as, after all, it is the collection of individuals that make up the 'public opinion'. I think civil society has become more engaged with politics and a large number of people are well informed of current affairs. Is it not up to the public to decide which issues/individuals promoted in these 'propaganda' campaigns are credible and those that are not? If we weren't able to determine this on some level, would for example Sarah Palin be in office now? And if public opinion is seldom taken into consideration, what role then do NGOs play as they often represent grass roots issues? I do however agree that some issues should be left to the experts!
ReplyDelete