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.