Diplomacy has changed dramatically after the Cold War, due to fast technological advances diplomacy is improving very rapid." Technological development contributes significantly to the evolution of diplomatic method, particularly in the field of communication- and there is much more to come. Chief decision-makers are able to interact directly and almost instantly when the need arises". ( The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux, p 46) These facts shows that in our days "new" diplomacy improving too fast and in that process technological issue plays huge role. "Diplomacy today is made even more complex also by the advent of transnational actors, whose intervention potential is magnified by communication technology, which mobilizes support around the world and wields political power itself. Many NGOs intervene in the diplomatic process in international conferences or as mediators in international conflicts". (The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux, p 46) It is fact that new diplomacy began to emerge in the early 1990s when the era of internet began as well. I think the difference between the "Old" and the "New" diplomacy is in that "old" diplomacy policymaking was more under governmets control, usually governments decided what to do, but under the "new" diplomacy citizens have more rights and have a greater role in influencing the International agenda and the diplomatic relations between countries. Diplomacy was always changing it was always under improving, and developing process, i think that the "old" diplomacy has some relevance to the nowadays diplomacy, because if we look back to history for example: Ancient China, Ancient Greece, Rome and other ancient empires we would find that all that empires had regimes where they have had diplomatic representatives who were trying to establish diplomacy inside the country, and expand the good relationship with other countries, same we can see now in " new" diplomacy where modern diplomats are negotiating with each other in order to improve relationships between countries and also improve their political and economic relations, this is all diplomacy. Although in our days diplomacy improved very much due to the rapid technological investments , there are still something in common with the "old" diplomacy.
Some interesting points here and I like the photograph - although it isn't clear how it relates to the contents of your posting on the blog.
ReplyDeleteYou refer to "improvements" in diplomatic practice, associated with the so-called new diplomacy. However, that is a matter of debate - some commentators, such as Berridge, argue that the features and consequences of the new diplomacy are in fact regressive. It would be good to hear why you view these developments in a positive light. In addition, it is not universally accepted that the new diplomacy emerged in the 1990s. That too is a matter of much debate.
Finally, I think you might have articulated more clearly the key distinctions between the old and new forms of diplomacy. It gets a bit muddled in places.
Yes I agree with Steven, in what way do you think these technological advances have improved the diplomacy of today? You also say that 'new diplomacy is improving too fast' - what do you mean by that? In my opinion the ease of communication today could be a saving grace as any issues can be dealt with swiftly leaving less room for misinterpretation (at least amongst individuals anyway). I agree with you that old diplomacy was under stict government parameters and that new diplomacy is a lot freer and encorporates new and important actors such as NGOs who consider environmental issues and TNCs which consider economic issues. I also agree with you that our diplomacy today shares encorporates elements of both old and new diplomacy.
ReplyDelete