China- the ultimate real laboratory?

Environmental diplomacy has proven that it is here to stay. It is an uber-relevant issue that concerns every human being on this planet. It is said that President Obama discusses the issue of climate change with every political leader that he meets. The G-8 summit is not solid without an agenda item on the threats against our environment. However, many green activists argue that environmental diplomacy is a cause without concern (see http://www.aicgs.org/documents/environmentaldiplomacy.pdf).

I found an interesting journal discussing two processes of globalisation taking place at the sae time.

1. The process of economic globalisation that is induced by the worlds industrial corporations
2. The process of ecological globalisation pushed by world’s environmentalists (Ibid)

The first point is driven by the northern markets and those sources are now drained. This has subsequently put us in a position were we are desperate to find new markets.
The second point pushes states, NGOs, MNCs and green activists to find competitive advantages in large scales. This has been made possible by the explosive growth of technology.

At the same time, ecological globalisation is being pushed by the fact one’s production and consumption have escalated to the stage where what one does in one country can reap severe repercussions for someone in a neighbouring country.

China is dominating trade and has become a pivotal player to climate change. Innovation is key and Chinas increasing demand for energy is growing at a faster speed than ever before whilst the US worries those greenhouse gas regulations will stand in the way of an already fragile economic growth.
New and innovative clean technology is building great hope for future low-carbon growth but most has yet to reach the public and once they do that introduces a new task of making them lucrative in order for them to drive down costs. This results in them doing very little to compete with traditional fossil fuels.
Chinas unprecedented domestic market provides the basis in which they could be the ultimate real world laboratory for experiments in clean energy innovation with potential winning ideas reproduced on a scale large enough to drive down costs worldwide (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-firger/hus-washington-visit-and-_b_809134.html).

Now to bring it back to diplomacy, it is the responsibility of worldwide diplomats to work as pressure groups to further encourage China to take their responsibility serious. There are discussions regarding potential sanctions if China does not fully engage in its potential to help fight climate change.



Also see: http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/EnvironmentandStatecraftbarrettJune9th.pdf

Go NGOs!

The word 'diplomacy' has historically refered to negotiations on behalf of sovereign mainly covering goverment to government negotions conducted by aristocrats but has over the last 60 years evolved.
It is difficicult to evaluate the evolution of diplomacy as it is an ongoing matter still very much open to scruteny and debate. The most significant alteration to the conduct of diplomacy in my opinion is the emergence of non governmental organisations and multinational corporations and their growing importance on the stage of global politics.
It is however important to note that the importance of multinational corporations in diplomacy stem back to the rise of liberalism as business and economi inevitably have layed at the core of governmental negotiations.

With that said I believe the most significant change to diplomacy is the emergance of NGOs from low politics to high politics and I believe the evolution can be illustrated by the different classifications. Today there are three statuses achievable by NGOs:

General consultative status- In 1946 ECOSOC granted 41 NGOs with consultative status. These organisations covered a majority of the agenda items of ECOSOC and were large and established with significant geographical reach. The number of consultative NGOs have steadily grown since the 40s.
Special consultative status- given to NGOs is more of a recent phenomena. This status is not easily aquired and is granted to organisations with expertize within a one or a few economic or social area.
Roster status- is given to organisations that do not fit the above mentioned but are deemed to occasionally be useful within the narrow remit of expertize that they possess.

The only thing that is growing faster than the number of civil society actors is their influence. These actors are not only more visible in the political west but are steady gaining grounds in the Global South and Soviet bloc.
In Transnational Associations Kerstin Martens argues that it was the end of the Cold War that gave the opportunity for NGOs to enter center stage with states on the global and political platform (2003, p1)

In some instances NGOs as independant organisation hold governments to account but NGOs are not always opponents to governmental institutions and do not always challenge their policies. Rather, they are often directly involved in the design of policies and may shape political processes from inside the official arenas. For example, at the United Nations, NGOs are significantly involved in the activities and performances of the intergovernmental organizations (Ibid).
Their ability to aquire, detailed and accurate information, mobilise big crowds, raise awareness, network across borders and stay current and up to date makes up for their lack of legal enforcement rightfully give NGOs a essential role in 21st century politics.




The link takes to to the memoars of former diplomat WR Roberts where he talks about the evolution of diplomacy from a diplomats perspective:
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=7&paper=2712

Videos on the importance of NGOs
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=importance+of+ngos&hl=en&sa=X&prmd=v&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=VIP6TIWQMMWXhQe14u2dCw&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=7&ved=0CCcQqwQwBg
Journals
Transnational Associations Kerstin Martens, 2003, p1

Diplomacy for me Today

The first association my mind makes when it hears the word 'diplomacy' today is- the art of negotiations. The ability to achieve high-stake goals with an evidence based approach to the matter by a charismatic and confident person or group. A country is represented by multiple entities; its flag, currency, culture, sitting government, national anthem and sport etc. But individuals residing outside state boundaries carry a notion of representation- whether they want to or not. The power of the individual has been acknowledged since the beginning of civilisation and hence the state desire for diplomats.
They are individuals just like you and me but with skills of persuasion and expertise. That I believe has not and will not change. However, the way they conduct their business, the means they adopt to chief their goals has changed. This I believe is a natural transition as the state threats have changed. With the end of the Cold War the world saw a significant alteration in security threats, with phenomenas such as state-sponsored terrorism and terrorist franchise, we saw the phenomena that is globalisation introduce new depths of interdependence and the explosive emergence of the internet that made the impossible possible and that brought the far near and we saw free trade zones.
With this said the transformation of diplomatic conduct from 'old' to 'new' I believe was called for. The previously stated phenomenas has made it possible for the average Joe to stay up-to-date with the latest international/national news and this has breeded a generation of people that want to be involved, that want to be consulted and that oppose secrecy. This generation has with the help of the internet and the media turned itself into a governmental pressure group and a force to be reckoned with- the Wikileaks showed us that.

The significant increase of summits and international forums come as an answer to the publics demand to remain in the light of whats is going on politically and whether or not the real decisions are being made in the public eye or not I believe is irrelevant- the fact that they exist is the point. Heads of State and their respective governments are making huge efforts and spending a lot of resources to maintain the illusion of public involvement. This does however not change the fact that secrecy and private portals remain at the core of decision making and this I believe will not change.

Exploitation of Natural Resources

The exploitation of whales has been a fact for many centuries, from coastal to international waters, from one side of the pole to the other. Despite excessive devastation of species it was not until quite recently that states and non-governmental organisations attempted to regulate whaling on an international level.
Intergovernmental agreements closely followed the 1930s competition between whaling companies that competed in the Antarctic. These agreements together culminated the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in 1946 which created the International Whaling Commission.


The term ‘common interest’ appeared quite early in international treaties and mainly dealt with the exploitation of natural resources. The Convention for the Regulation of Whaling states in its preamble “the interest of the world in safeguarding for the future generations the great natural resources represented by the whale stocks” and that it is beneficiary for all of mankind to achieve restore the level of whale stocks as rapidly as possible (Segger, 2004:121).
The exhaustion of fish resources started off as a local issue, but in the late twentieth century it gained ground and grew in dimensions and has since then caught the attention of the states whom have acknowledged that it is in the interest of all to measure and maintain a maximum sustainable yield (Ibid:122).
The Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes states that “water resources shall be managed so that needs of the present generation are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

The Law of Sea Convention 1995 (LOSC) brought with it a number of radical elements its’ core purpose was still to implement the 1982 Convention. Article 117 imposes on all member states the individual and joint duty to take the necessary measures for the conservation if the living resources of the high seas.
Article 118 imposes a correlative duty on states to cooperate in the conservation and management of high seas living resources.
There is a general consensus that the position of the duty in conservation is a primary duty. This is strengthened by Article 119 which provides the means and structure for the member states to act in a way which is compatible with the primary obligation (Boyle, 1999:146). This same Article requires the member states to take measures to ‘maintain and restore populations of harvested species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield’. The problem with this is that these measures are based on the scientific evidence, which at its best according to E.D Brown is “rather vague figures” (Ibid: 147).

Statistics show that whales reproduce between 1 per cent and 4 per cent of the total population every year, while the money from a dead whale would most likely reap approximately 10 per cent interest in the bank (Gillespie, 1997:58).

If we were to look at this purely economically, it would be more logical for the whaling industry to hunt and kill as many whales as possible, reinvest the proceeds and with that maximise the profit, sustainable harvesting could not compete (Ibid.).
Therefore in striking a balance one could not look to the heads of the commercial industry for incentives for conservation as the outcome would at its best be minimal.
Furthermore, there is a major problem with ecological economies that result in ‘interchangeable natural capital’ de to fluctuating economic value. Such problems highlight the reality that ‘nature’s services will be at times made redundant or substituted’ (Ibid: 50).
Fluctuation in economic value may also be damaging in other ways, an example is; in the mid 1980s when the whaling moratorium entered the market the price of whale teeth went from next to nil to over two hundred dollars each and it is these prices that are the driving force behind the process of extinction (Ibid.).


The protection and maintenance of culture is recognized as a legitimate pursuit by the international community (ibid: 99). Notably, the international community and their representing diplomats have openly promoted widening participation within culture and gone further to demand respect for diversity and its enhancement. It has strongly been argued that as the result of cultural consideration, special arrangements should be made to exempt certain states from environmental objectives. This has mainly been argued by the Inuit, Norwegians and the Japanese in the area concerning whaling (Ibid: 100).

Japan has accumulated a questionable reputation and created protest within the international community due to its whaling program in the Northern Pacific Ocean. It is anticipated that a full scale trade war will set off as a response to Japans refusal to reform its whaling practises. The conservationists alongside the international community allege that Japan is violating the conventional and environmental regulations/laws. Japan is denying defiance and is defending its whaling practises as compatible with the regulations set by the International Whaling commission which is the body that has been given the role to govern international whaling policy.
In September 2004 the US responded to the public outrage by attempting to pressure Japan to re-examine its whaling policy by limiting Japanese fishing rights within the American exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The US went even further and considered imposing trade sanctions but never enforced it; the suggestion is however still on the table. The Japanese diplomats have contested the potential US sanction and have argued that it would be in breach of the requirements of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

If a party state grants permission for scientific whaling research, the IWC does not explicitly need approve. However, the IWC has passes numerous resolutions criticizing Japans whaling activities. Japanese diplomats stick to their early justification that the main purpose for whaling is to examine the impact of whales on the resources of fisheries in the North Pacific where whales and humans compete for the same fish. They claim they have legitimate claim as it is interfering with the business of human resources for food. Furthermore, they argue that non-lethal tests and photography would not provide them with the sufficient data required to carry out that research. Japan has continued to object the critique regarding its whaling practises by stating that bryde’s whales and a small take of sperm only will have a negligent impact on the whale stocks.

Public Diplomacy or Propaganda?

"Public diplomacy . . . deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies. It encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with those of another; the reporting of foreign affairs and its impact on policy; communication between those whose job is communication, as between diplomats and foreign correspondents; and the processes of inter-cultural communications. Central to public diplomacy is the transnational flow of information and ideas."

This was the definition given by The Murrow Centre in one of its earlier brochure when defining 'public opinion'. The interesting buzz surrounding updates on public diplomacy has been differentiating it from propaganda. The fact that propaganda can be evidence or fact based blurres this distinction. Therefore state sponsored diplomacy using ideas, information, or other material to win people over to a given doctrine can and should be viewed critically. That’s why it does not come as a surprise to me that a lot of my fellow students view the use of public diplomacy with scepticism. I found two interesting cases that illustrate the potential similarities between public diplomacy and propaganda:

• In 1955, Oren Stephens, author of Facts to a Candid World: America's Overseas Information Program, called such programs (now known as "public diplomacy"), "propaganda." He referred to the Declaration of Independence as being "first and foremost a propaganda tract."

• In 1961, Wilson Dizard, in the first book to be written specifically about USIA, which was then about eight years old, wrote: The United States has been in the international propaganda business, off and on, for a long time . . . propaganda played a crucial role in the war of independence." (see http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/07/internet_diplomacy)

Unlike traditional diplomacy that mainly dealt with state-state business contemporary diplomacy is forced to encompass the newly emerged actors on the political stag. It deals not only with governments but essentially with non-governmental organizations and individuals. I believe a key feature to public diplomacy is the flow of information. The internet has taken away g

over government monopoly on what information actually reaches the public and I believe a good and recent example of that is the WikiLeaks and the leakage of diplomatic confidential information. Before the press and the respective editors controlled what information they wanted to leak and what data would be too sensitive to give to the public- now 22 year old hackers can choose to publicise highly confidential information regading corruption in Kenya, Sara Palin's, financial improprieties in Iceland, procedures of detainees in Guantanamo Bay as well as secret footage from Iraq (see http://www.economist.com/node/16335810).

Another good illustration of the growing relevance of public diplomacy is the American proposition of 'Radio Free Europe' which was thought of as a forum for the government to give out accurate and relevant information by the US government, which was originally paid for by the CIA. But now, just as during the Cold War it is highly difficult to fund a state broadcaster without jeopardising its credibility.

After the election in Iran last summer the State Department asked twitter to postpone a scheduled service interruption and either State or Twitter leaked the request (see http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/07/internet_diplomacy).

''…the kind of message that it sends to the rest of the world—i.e. that Google, Facebook and Twitter are now just extensions of the U.S. State Department—may simply endanger the lives of those who use such services in authoritarian countries. It's hardly surprising that the Iranian government has begun to view all Twitter users with the utmost suspicion; everyone is now guilty by default''

(see full quote on http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983004575073911147404540.html

Alec Ross, senior advisor for innovation to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is a candid speaker on public diplomacy and he said this about (check out the youtube link below for full speech):

...even last year, in this age of rampant peer-to-peer connectivity, the State Department was still boxed into the world of communiqués, diplomatic cables and slow government-to-government negotiations, what I like to call “white guys with white shirts and red ties talking to other white guys with white shirts and red ties, with flags in the background, determining the relationships.”

You don’t get it, old man. This is the internet. Everything’s different now.

Check out Alec Ross, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen debate 21st Statecraft and public diplomacy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C6_uRGSqtM

My understanding of Diplomacy today

What i understand under Diplomacy. First i would like to give a short definition of Diplomacy. Actually there is not exact definition of "Diplomacy" but i will try to explain in my own words. Diplomacy is the area of politics where negotiations play a key role in order to resolve all tiny and big problems between governments. My understanding of Diplomacy is wide, there are too many factors and issues in diplomacy. If we compare the diplomacy in previous times , for example about 40-50 years and now, there is big difference, and it is because of the technological advances, technology innovate new things due to which , diplomatic relations became more mobile and easy accessed. Computers,mobile phones are all made life easier, but they have disadvantages as well as advantages. For example : electronic spying. "British spying on UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was revealed in late February 2004 in an interview with Clare Short, an outspoken former member of the Tony Blair cabinet who resigned in the summer of 2003 and who has called on Blair to do the same". (Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 94) This fact shows us that technological advances could damage politicians reputation as well, spying issues could easily be hidden in all buildings. Another example is the US embassy in Moscow. "In 1985 , after a further 7 years , when the building was nearing completion, the whole project came to a shuddering halt: US security experts discovered tens of thousands of microscopic listening devices embedded in the concrete walls of the eight-story structure".( Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 95) Now i would like to move to the role of non-state actors such as NGOs and MNCs in diplomatic relations, NGOs has its influence on governments decisions and also may affect the diplomatic processes as well. NGOs at the same time doing good job in establishing relationship with states, but it depends on NGOs not all of them want to participate and negotiate with governments. "When NGOs could not reach an agreement , they served as invaluable back channels, letting both sides know where problems lay and where a compromise might be found". ( Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 107) NGOs also participated in UN conferences and to some extend succeeded there. In short, NGOs has its bad and good sides for Diplomacy. "In the countries in which they operate , MNCs provide new technology" MNCs also provide jobs: they employ more than 73 million people". ( Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 115) International organizations and groupings also are key actors in International relations and in diplomatic relations. Today diplomatic relations are existed in order to create opportunities and chances for negotiations between governments and countries , in order to establish strong political and economic relations.

The New Face: Public Diplomacy

The technological advances over the last decade ushered in the start of the communications age. This was significant for diplomacy as it had a new tool to utilize, and suddenly the notion of ‘soft power’ became attractive and obtainable. This new public diplomacy consisted of created a brand for a state or individual and incorporated a role for the public which would be to determine the credibility of the actor being branded. If we look at Barrack Obama’s election campaign, he seemed to strike the perfect balance of hard and soft power, creating a brand for himself unlike any other presidential candidate before him. He was kind, fatherly, patriotic but from a mixed religious background – something which worked both in his favour and against him. He was an eloquent speaker and well educated and spoke in a language which everyone could understand. He represented hope and progress and his face was adorned on billboards, badges and even t-shirts worn by Beyonce and Katy Perry. He had actors, singers, politicians and civilians singing his praises – he epitomised what successful public diplomacy should look like. Unfortunately for Obama however, it seems that once in office, he has relied a little too much on his brand and use of soft power and has since found himself heavily criticised. Obama was credible to start, however as his term continues, he is viewed to have made little real significant change and his image is slowly beginning to tarnish (www.whitehousedossier.com).

Joseph Nye acknowledges the potential problems with public diplomacy. He explains that the chain of communication can have a Chinese whisper effect, as he puts it ‘its weakness is its inability to influence how the message is perceived’. Nye also asserts that public diplomacy can be used in the wrong way, in the instance of China for example, who attempted to use public diplomacy as a tool for damage control. China tried to boost its soft power image after the widely publicised repressive action in Tibet by holding the 2008 Olympics. The conflict in Tibet saw Tibetan monks being assaulted leading to the involvement of Tibetan civilians. Chinese state officials and media vowed to ‘resolutely crush’ any pro-independence protesting or campaigning, this use of harsh vocabulary doing nothing for their image (http://news.bbc.co.uk). However as many academics would agree, one of the limitations of public diplomacy is that it is nearly impossible to sell a bad or problem product, this being such a case. Public opinion of China and its human rights abuse record remained unchanged after a spectacular Olympic show.

Nye believes that for public diplomacy to work, the use of ‘smart’ power is favourable. This smart power, he believes, understands when soft or hard power is needed but also acknowledges the importance of promoting something credible and the importance of the role of civil society in helping to generate soft power. Nye uses terrorism as a clear example of when smart power should be used. As Nye argues, military power is not enough to combat terrorism, instead what is needed is to target the minds and hearts of these individuals to prove you to be credible, introspective and empathetic. Ultimately, military power beats machines, not minds and opinions.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7299221.stm (2008), China and Tibet, accessed 12/01/2011.

www.whitehousedossier.com/2010/10/20/obamas-attacks-fail-brand-ruins/ Koffler. K, (2010), Obama’s attacks fail, and his Brand is in Ruins, accessed 12/01/2011.

www.project-syndicate.org Nye. J, (2010), The New Public Diplomacy, accessed 08/11/2010.

Image 1 'Fail', accessed on 12/01/2011 at roguejew.wordpress.com




Image 2 'Con-Man', accessed on 12/01/2011 at: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/


Image 3 'Conflict Olympics', accessed on 12/01/2011 at: http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/39000/Conflict-Olympics-39248.jpg

The New Diplomacy

The new diplomacy itself is very important issue. Nowadays diplomatic relations plays very huge and irreplaceable role in relations between countries, not only in political issues and aspects but also in economic relations as well. In previous times diplomats of different countries have had some difficulties in negotiations and one of the reasons were language barrier, but now "English language" is almost known worldwide , in every part of the world it is possible to meet people who speaks English language, and technology of course is the great advantage nowadays in diplomatic relations, due to rapid technological improvements many diplomats are negotiating via telephones, or even computers, it is now very accessible and easy, the world is improving very fast and with the world diplomatic and international relations are going ahead as well. There are many important aspects of New Diplomacy. In my opinion the non-state actors are playing very huge role in diplomatic relations and especially NGOs. " The effect of NGO activity on the diplomatic process varies enormously with the issues at hand, the NGOs involved , their leadership, their networking proficiency, and the forums in which decisions are made. Nation-states and international organizations remain the major players in the diplomatic process, but the role of NGOs has greatly expanded". ( The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 105) Actually NGOs has right to take part in diplomatic process and also has right to participate in UN General Assembly and many other organizations. " NGOs may affect the diplomatic process when they succeed in rallying public support behind diplomatic initiatives or, contrariwise, in generating massive opposition". ( The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 106) NGOs also participated in UN conferences and succeeded. I would like to mention Multinational corporations role in New diplomacy as well. they also have their impacts on diplomatic issues. "MNCs have engaged in diplomacy of their own, aside from their lobbying and other political activities in their countries of origin" ( Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux, page 115) MNCs same as NGOs participated in UN conferences and also have connections with government in order to establish and improve their economic and business views and interests.In my opinion it is very difficult to define what is the most important aspect of diplomacy, because less or more all of them have their impacts and has their roles in Diplomacy. Nowadays diplomatic relations are standing at the top in governments international plans.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF DIPLOMACY TODAY

The concept of diplomacy is still unclear to me to these days, as i think that diplomacy can only be defined and perceived in the context of the modern political environment. However the implications that the concept implies are far greater then just defining diplomacy.At the present time, although more acquainted and more certain of my knowledge of diplomacy, i could not assert to conclude that i have a very good insight on the matter.

The political environment in which the modern diplomacy has developed and has taken new turn, from the secrecy that defined the traditional diplomacy to the transparency of the new diplomacy has been determined by the political actions and the global political state of affairs.
A short introduction of the present state of affairs will afford more clarity on the concept of new diplomacy today.
Budrillard has refers to our modern era "as being an age of media over simulation amid copies of reality so intense that they put the real to shame."(Baudrillard,1983). Having said that, i am trying to underline the fact that regardless of the events that are taken place in the world, the public opinion as the media are subjected to a serious of interpretations that are not always reflective of reality.
The access to information and the lack of control by the state as far as conception, political ideas, diplomacy is conducted are the ones defining the way the political environment is shaped. It is very difficult to reach a conclusion that will indeed provide a clear understanding of the concept of diplomacy. I can only assume that diplomacy is a way in which things, state interactions, agreements, political acceptance are achieved, other than that is very little that i can assert on the subject of diplomacy. It is ever so complex and as everything that is multi-layered is difficult to summarize in a few words and especially in such a short time.
Diplomacy is a far complex concept and i think requires longer time and an in depth research in order to be able to reach a more accurate understanding of it.

Diplomacy revised

Looking back at my first impressions of diplomacy at the beginning of the module, I realise that I had a rather narrow perception of diplomacy and the role of diplomats. I thought diplomats would mainly engage in “high politics” and the only “new” factor in the conduct of diplomacy would be that negotiations are less secret and more open to the public.

Throughout the module I learned that “high politics”, in terms of power politics, have become less and less important due to high interdependence between countries especially within the developed world. Diplomats are now more concerned with “low politics” issue areas such as trade diplomacy and public diplomacy.

The attention countries give to the latter has been nicely highlighted during the visit of the Dutch embassy. Our host at the Dutch embassy, who actually was the Cultural & Public Diplomacy attaché if I remember it correctly, emphasised that Public Diplomacy and the promotion of Dutch values has become one of the paramount factors of their work. He explained that culture is the best way of building and fostering relationships with other countries, as it is less political but more about common values and norms. The Dutch embassy is therefore in constant contact with cultural organisations and takes part in a variety of education, arts and sports programmes.

This highlights an vital component of the new diplomacy: diplomats do not only talk to and negotiate with other diplomats, but they engage with a variety of actors and directly with the public. In this regard diplomacy has become more open and accessible to the wider public, but it also has become more inclusive in terms of the actors participating in diplomacy. In some issue areas, particularly in trade and environmental diplomacy, NGOs have become a crucial part in the diplomatic conduct. Their expertise, their networks and their reputation makes them useful partners for diplomats to deal with increasingly complex agendas.

Interestingly, however, as much as diplomacy incorporates new factors of openness and inclusiveness and adapts to the changing environment of world politics, some characteristics of the “old” diplomacy remain persistently.

For example, even though NGOs increasingly participate in negotiations they often remain in the lobbyist or observer position, the exclusive status and the privileges of diplomats remain. Diplomats still enjoy protection and privileges which will probably never be accredited to non-state actors, as they will remain in a crucial, but supplementary role. Also the role of embassies remains essential for diplomacy, even though advances in ICT and transport could make resident embassies redundant. Again the visit of the Dutch embassies offered some interesting insights on this topic, which confirmed the literature by Hocking on EU-oriented bilateralism. Our host explained that through the increasing importance of the European Union bilateral embassies within the EU have become more significant. Since policies when presented in Brussels are often already fixed, the lobbying and the alliance forming process to influence decisions and policies made in Brussels has to take place prior to the negotiations within the bilateral embassies of the member states. Furthermore, in the case of crisis diplomacy the characteristics of the “old” diplomacy, i.e. secrecy, threat of force and high politics, still prevail.

Diplomacy has become increasingly complex as world politics has become more and more complex. In some issue areas the factors of the old diplomacy are dominant, in others characteristics of the new diplomacy prevail. Diplomats had to transform themselves from messengers and negotiators on high politics to communicators with the public and to lobbyists in all kinds of issue areas.

This module has broadened my understanding of diplomacy. Due to the prestigious profession of diplomats, their work often seems far away from the ordinary citizen. However, studying the diversity of diplomatic conduct I can now identify diplomatic practices in the political day-to-day life. Diplomacy is a vibrant and constanly evolving area of world politics, which links changes and events of International Relations to the practice of dealing with them.

The End of the Beginning

Months, weeks and days have gone by when I first engaged myself identifying characteristics of new and old diplomacy. I remember when we had to write on pieces of papers to explain what we knew about diplomacy. Many people wrote a lot about stuff that didn’t have any relevance to diplomacy.

Arriving at the final crossroad, I have realized that the effort taken in the old diplomacy was effortless but it couldn’t stop the acts of war and terror. The new diplomacy has opened a new chapter which illustrates better ways to engage in unilateral, bilateral and multilateral issues affecting national or global politics.
Globalization has drawn us closer to understand each other. Old diplomacy consisted of hard bargainers (liners) who conducted close door meetings on the verge of war, expansionism, militarism and conquest.

Diplomats met knowingly that their decisions or failure to agree could trigger major upsets resulting in total war. The following example from the Voice of America news network news before the Second World War, shows how power politics was played without third party negotiations: ‘Wilson's top adviser at the Paris peace conference was Colonel Edward House. Colonel House had continued negotiations while Wilson was back in the United States. House agreed with Wilson on most issues. Unlike Wilson, however, he believed the Allies' most urgent need was to reach agreement on a peace treaty with Germany. To do this, House was willing to make many more compromises than Wilson on details for the League of Nations.

Wilson was furious when he learned what House had done. He said: "Colonel House has given away everything I had won before I left Paris. He has compromised until nothing remains. Now I have to start all over again. This time, it will be more difficult." For Woodrow Wilson, the most difficult negotiations still lay ahead. That will be our story next week’. http://www.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/a-23-2006-04-12-voa2-83130452.html

The New diplomacy is engaged with checks and balances (Non state actors) which could provide facts and fundamental cases to prevent conflicts. Non state actors in my opinion operate between two parties and are effective because of the facts they present on the negotiation table. Non state actors are closer to the burning fire and understand issues raised at the grass root level. They have a bigger local constituent outreach than government officials from embassies have.
The seminar has given me a clear insight of the various engagements in diplomacy. I have come to realize that, for peace to persist, diplomacy needs to go through a compulsory evolution of unsurmountable heights. The most crucial area diplomacy will have difficulty would be the area of economics because it consists of environmental diplomacy, a complex area which involves the negotiations of cutting back on carbon emissions.

A significant focal point which would proof difficult in having future agreements wouldinvolve the position of developing countries who need more energy, food solutions and water to survive. These factors are likely to trigger new tensions and I strongly believe the new diplomacy has the strength and ability to eradicate serious tensions.

A Better Understanding

When I think back to my first thoughts on diplomacy I am actually shocked at myself. For someone who considers themself to be aware of current affairs and aware of the immense impact that globalization has had on global politics, I cant believe I was ever so narrow-minded. I used to think there was only really one format for a diplomat, that being a person employed by the government of a state who would uphold their states reputation and discuss state business through discourse (mostly in private) with a representative from another state.

The biggest challenge for me was the notion of 'celebrity' diplomacy (see Andrew Coopers book 'Celebrity Dimplomacy') which was hotly debated in one of my seminars. I was arguing that being a celebrity does not qualify someone to represent their country within a political framework. Another student retorted that she did not feel it mattered, so long as the celebrity was furthering a good cause irregardless of any personal gain they would receive. What I found even more surprising is that there is actually a good deal of material on the subject matter as well, obviously this phenomenon is not new and is something which is actually well documented and debated.

It shocks me that some academics still argue over the significance of diplomacy, whether it be the 'old' diplomacy or the 'new'. The idea that the role of creating and maintaining relations with state and non-state actors across the globe is ineffectual as suggested by academics such as Waltz stuns me. I think it is true to say that the face of diplomacy has changed much from the traditional kind and I can understand why, from a realist stand-point concepts such as 'celebrity' diplomacy may not hold much merit. Nevertheless, this new diplomacy seems to work for our global political system in the twenty-first century. I remember my reading for the first week was from Morgethau's 'Politics Among Nations' and I found his argument so convincing. I was completely sold on his idea of the 'four tasks of diplomacy' but now I look back over my notes I realise I'm not the believer I used to be. Morgethau believed a state would fail to achieve its goals under certain conditions - I would argue that diplomacy is not neccessarily restricted to state-to-state parameters. Condition one for failure - not enough power to achieve the ultimate goal. To this I would argue that it is not the solely strength of power that is needed but instead the level of influence. Condition two for failure - the wrong assesment of another states objectives and the power at their disposal. This to me, does not encompass such topics as environmental diplomacy which has to be treated differently to say foreign policy diplomacy. Morganthau also argued that for a diplomat to be successful he/she would need to use a combination of persuasion, compromise and the threat of force. Can you imagine an ambassador for Amnesty International threatening the life of a politician in order to stop the torture of individuals in Guantanamo Bay? The mere thought of it is almost comical! I'm not trying to disagree with Morgethau rather I think his model of diplomacy is more suitable to a very traditional form of diplomacy which does not apply to us today. I will give Morganthau credit, he does highlight what he calls the 'decline' of diplomacy ( I would rather use the term 'evolution') where he notes the end of World War II and the rise of the communications age as the major changing point in diplomacy.

The definition of diplomacy for me has changed greatly since I first started the module all those months ago. Instead of imagining 2 ageing men conversing over politics with a pipe and glass of whisky, I can now look at NGO's promoting fair trade policies or young celebrities speaking of their time helping orphaned children in Haiti. It is with this new insight I am hopeful that individual citizens like you or I may too, in the future, help to shape our world through diplomacy.

My conclusion

Looking back to my first impression on what was my understanding of the title “Diplomacy”, I had a little to say because my knowledge of the subject was very narrow and limited to the general idea of the official representation between countries or the government face of one country in another country. However, going through the module topics I started to have a bigger view on the role of diplomacy in world politics and the changes that occurred to this practice over the time. My knowledge of the subject started to develop from the first topic we tackled and with it my understanding of the difference between old and new ways of conducting Diplomacy, from the old Bilateral residential representation which was conducted in absolute secrecy to the new practices like the Multilateral and the Conference diplomacy which they started to be an important practice of Diplomacy only after the World War One with the creation of the League of Nations. Trade and environmental diplomacy also became vital to the security and stability of the nations. Due to the complexity of trade and environmental negotiations between states and the impact of the different philosophical perspectives that are connected to them, it became imperative at the high level of the international relations to set up new world organisations to control and to regulate both issues especially after the claims about the economical disagreement between Europeans was the cause that led to the start of the First World War. Also one of the big debates we are witnessing at the present time about who to blame for the deterioration of the world environment, also what have to be done to tackle the environmental issues of development. The Public diplomacy is another new practice of Diplomacy, there is different views on this practice as some groups claim that public diplomacy is a ‘propaganda campaign’ by states, they spread lies in order to obtain beneficial gains like the promotion of the state image abroad. other groups disagree with the ‘conspiracy theory’ behind the propaganda claim and have a different view on how public diplomacy is conducted and what is aiming to achieve, moreover, this group see the practice as publicising cultural, economical, historical, and political gains of one state abroad.
Not only I learnt how the methods in the practice are highly controversial, like the secrecy around the negotiations, the lobbying in the corridors, and the propaganda view on some of the practice, but also I learnt how positively Diplomacy evolved in many ways. The amazing speed of technological advances and the breakthrough in the different fields especially of transportation, communications, the media, and many others led to big changes in the conduct of Diplomacy. For example the so cold ‘shuttle Diplomacy’ in which high officials travel from a capital to another in very short period and uses their planes as their offices like with US Force one plane which have an office equipped with the best communication technologies and have everything the president needs from very comfortable bedroom and bathroom to on plane cooker serving him freshly cooked meals, this is to help the president or his foreign minister to deal with the long spells of Diplomatic missions abroad. Also I have to mention the use of new technological devices to communicate between states like the electronic mails and the voice and image speeches like the one made by the president Obama to the Iranian people which was released on the Internet to be easily accessed by the broadest Iranian audiences.
Although all the changes in the conduct of Diplomacy from the ‘Old’ to the ‘New’ were important, however, Diplomacy was affected also by the international political developments like the economical integration areas like the EU and its innovative practice of diplomacy, as the newly created European foreign minister led by Baroness Catherine Ashton which is the first European foreign minister and represented 27 European countries in Haiti after the earthquake disaster that happened in that Caribbean island last year. Another important political development occurred and is growing within the Diplomacy practice. It is the rise of number and importance of non- state actors in the international relations field. Not only their interaction with governments and world organisations led to many changes in the international political and economical system and laid the platforms to solve many issues like environmental summits, but also they forced rich countries to look and poorer countries and help to elevate world poverty in their meeting like the (G8).
To conclude, I must say that my knowledge of the subject has broaden and became wider, also I could see and read clearer than before in the foreign political approach of states and what aspects of Diplomatic are used during conflicts or negotiations.

Au Revoir...

It surly has been a roller coaster, I never knew that old diplomacy entailed so much or rather that it was so varied. Surprisingly I did find it to be a interesting and informative module, there were moments when it felt like “information overload” but none the less it was enjoyable. It was also a surprise to me that diplomacy was so; well so multifaceted and so very crucial it is in our modern society.

One of the subject areas that I enjoyed the most was that based on the non-state actor and the impact they have in diplomacy, it is quite amazing when you think about their significance and the influence they have in modern politics. During the task of attempting to compile my essay I read quite a bit on track II diplomacy, this was definitely an eye opener for me, until this module…call me naive I never knew that so many ‘regular Joes” were so influential in the political sphere to the point that they were called upon to help assist in political discussions, confidence building measures and peace building measures. The world relies heavily on informal political actors, they play a very important role within our international community during times of crisis, in its entirety diplomacy is no longer restricted to particular group of individuals, so many other individuals or groups can take on the diplomacy challenge within their own right.

From the various classes that I have attended, I can clearly see how the new diplomacy differs from the old, but this is inevitable. We live in a globalised world, we interact closely with each other and in this modern world things change quickly and the style and manner in which we deal with international relations will continue to change as it has been doing over the centuries.

The subject of diplomacy is more interesting than I thought and my perceptions of diplomacy have totally changed, watch out everyone I may even become a diplomat myself…..how scary....