The New Diplomacy at any costs?

A prime factor of the new diplomacy is its inclusive and open character. More actors, such as NGOs can take part in the diplomatic process and negotiations, or at least their results, are made open to the public through the mass media. As a result, it has been argued, the wider public is integrated and diplomacy becomes more democratic.

However, recent development might just go a step too far. Wikileaks, an internet platform on which anonymous documents can be published to reveal unethical conduct of governments, announced that starting today they will release a quarter-million of American diplomatic cables.

Over the weekend, The Guardian, the New York Times, and the German newspaper Der Spiegel already released some of information about the content of the documents, giving a premonition of what the US will face throughout the next days and weeks.

The White House already contacted its allies warning them about the release of the cables, stating “We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorised disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information” (New York Times).

The documents contain the daily communication between the US embassies around the world and the US State Department, most of them sent over the last three years.

Despite almost insulting descriptions of other leaders, such as Putin the “alpha-dog”, Afghan President Hamid Karzei as “driven by paranoia”, and Angela Merkel as “rarely creative”, the documents also comprise the US strategies and evaluations of sensitive contemporary issues in World Politics.

In the documents, Pakistan’s instability is discussed, as well as the US battle against al-Qaida in Yemen. So is highly suspicious behaviour indicating corruption in Afghanistan, as Vice President Massoud carried 52 Million Dollar in cash around when he visited United Arab Emirates last year. The US will also owe the United Nations an explanation, why Hillary Clinton signed a directive instructing 30 ambassadors to spy on UN officials and diplomats.

The next days will show how much the disclosure of these documents will really affect American diplomatic relations. Berlusconi, for example, seemed to have a good laugh reading about himself being incompetent, snobbish and ineffective. If other countries will share Berlusconi’s humour and treat the documents lightly is uncertain.

Nevertheless, it remains highly questionable if the inclusiveness of diplomacy should go that far. If diplomats are no longer able to act freely and if they cannot build on confidentiality, it might just come to diplomatic standstill. Secrecy, as much as openness, can be a bad and a good force. Secrecy can cover unethical conduct, but it can also be the only solution in situations of conflict to find a compromise which is saving everyone’s face and is avoiding diplomatic crisis.

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy

The face of diplomacy has changed with valuable constant face lift. The old doctrine is still existent in terms of secrecy but the field of employing diplomacy has gone through important transformations.

Diplomacy has gone through refined and inspiring channels to promote state interests in the 21st century.

Public diplomacy has for example: given a strategic definition of countries in the sense of rebranding, realignment and reconstruction. This particular type of diplomacy has shaped the perception of countries in the international system and continues to do so. Obama’s speech like I discussed last week was a practical tool to publicly reshape the perception of the Islamic world into a proponent of better cooperation with America stating: ‘America is not an enemy of Islam’. This in my opinion is a very critical statement at a time of Islamic fundamentalism. The Geo-political position of Indonesia was a suitable stage to declare a new form of American – Arab relationship. Analysts responded: ‘ this will be his most high-profile attempt to engage the Islamic world since a landmark address in Cairo in June 2009’. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11723440
There is no better way of declaring a new era of cooperation than the use of public diplomacy in this instance to avoid cultural and social anarchy as the world has become anarchic in theories of realist conceptions.

Multilateral diplomacy defines the fundamental interconnectedness of the global world. Multilateral diplomacy projects not only politics but relations and ethical barometer to measure and secure balances of mistrust, abuses and war critiques. This type of diplomacy has a human face as I always explain to my peers. It is has a functional capacity to provide hope and stability across boundaries.

Multilateral diplomacy has paved the way for the pursuit for peace, security and understanding key characteristics of functional aspects of different countries, indeed, the stakes are high but multilateral diplomacy is truly of great importance in a world of colliding cultures and constant changes. Asian migrant workers for example had been experiencing domestic abuses in Saudi Arabia but the use of multilateral diplomacy quelled off violent tensions. ‘President Yudhoyono of Indonesia expressed his anger and told his ministers that he wanted “all-out diplomacy.” And the article continues: ‘Diplomacy has multiple channels. Reaching bilateral agreements is desirable due to their direct nature, but since the odds are stacked against Indonesia, multilateral diplomacy should be the top priority’.http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/multilateral-diplomacy-is-the-key-to-protecting-the-rights-of-migrant-workers/408741. Track II diplomacy has also reshaped the new future of the new diplomacy.

Track II diplomacy in theory has changed the face of diplomacy in a humane way. This type of diplomacy involves retired military and civil officials, public figures, social activist and academic scholars. The in-depth skills/outcome attributed to this type of diplomacy is very effective but it lacks credibility as it operates outside official government parameters, many will argue. However, it should not be sidelined for lacking government influence. An article from the Clingendael institute’s Dalia Dassa Kaye gave constructive arguments for the ‘use of this kind of diplomacy to achieve the Oslo accords between the Israelis and Palestine’s’. http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2005/20050601_cdsp_paper_diplomacy_3_kaye.pdf

Adversaries could use this type of diplomacy and find lasting solutions to discuss issues affecting them in a personal way. Track II diplomacy plays a very vital role in the finding of solutions to regional conflicts. Greater appreciations for stakeholders are guaranteed through the use of Track II diplomacy in conflicts deeply rooted on ethnocentric or religious lines.

To conclude, open diplomacy has paved a very healthy path for all stakeholders including, NGO’s, Multinational co operations and social groups to interact with government on all levels for a better organized world. Secrecy in the old type of diplomacy indeed marginalized the international system, coherently, activating for example: Islamic Fundamentalism. I have always argued that, if the International system was quiet open like now, many stakeholders on the ground through the use of multilateral and Track II diplomacy could have long ago identified the up rise in factionalism and fundamentalism.

The new diplomacy

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

The new diplomacy

As a continuation of my previous posting i would like to clarify that i recognize the potentiality of a very strong influential public opinion.

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.

Public Diplomacy

"Public Diplomacy is the modern name for white propaganda directed chiefly at foreign publics".( Diplomacy, Theory and Practice 4th edition, G.R. Berridge, page 179) I would like to mention that public diplomacy is something similar to propaganda, but it is not the same thing. About recent events which shows the importance of public diplomacy i would like to mention about the spread of Islamist thinking, which was mainly focused on influencing the West. Especially after 9/11 events the opinion about Muslism was hugely damaged, Al-Qaeda and its header Usama Bin Laden, then the London underground bombings 07/07/07 where lots of innocent people died and also 11 march 2004 train bombings in Madrid , after these accidents the opinion about Muslims changed dramatically, the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" was linked only with Muslims , and i think these associations were hugely impact by Internet resources, Internet spread information quickly and because of internet and television many people learned information about what did terrorists do. But its clear that media shows what it wants to show, and it does not show what it is not in its interests, so therefore it is obvious that USA influenced the media and regulating media. After watching what Al-Qaeda with Usama Bin Laden did to twin towers in New York and also bombings in Madrid and later in London, changed many peoples thinking about Muslim world, majority of people when heard word Muslim or something related with it automatically had bad association with it. And its all work of Media, media created notorious opinion about Muslims. So what i wanted to say is , that Public diplomacy had played role in some dramatic developments , examples are shown above . "The sudden increase of the workload of information officers in Denmarks embassies, especially in Muslim states, following publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper in early 2006, it is not difficult to imagine".( Diplomacy, Theory and Practice 4th edition, G.R. Berridge, page 189) Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten , the newspaper announced that that publication about Prophet Muhammad was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam. After these posting in Danish newspaper the world Muslims started to protest against this magazine, and many Muslim countries called back their embassy representatives in Denmark. "Public Diplomacy" is what we call our propaganda; "propagand" is what the other side does. It remains true that this activity , the aim of which is to influence foreign governments by trying to win over their own people, varies enormously in both its character and its targets". ( Diplomacy, Theory and Practice, 4th edition, G.R. Berridge, page 190).

The Legitimate Place of NGOs in Diplomacy

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) have an important role on International Relations in this era. their work vary from charities, associations, lobbying groups etc. In general, they are the pressure groups and the interest groups, which are independent from any governmental involvement in its running and finance. As well it is not profitable like companies and corporations. Therefore, these groups rely entirely from donations they receive from benefactors. Some NGOs are very successful economically like Green Peace, which it has offices in many countries and have a big work force. Moreover, NGOs like we already mentioned, do not accept funding from governments, political parties, or corporations. Their job is to investigate, expose and confront any abuses that occurs in any field they covered. It depends of each organisation speciality. They are recognised by the UN and they do consultative work for the international organisation departments. The UN laid the platform for them to grow in numbers, there is more than two thousands NGOs recognised by the UN now days. NGOs job varies from different fields of concern, they cover issues like the environment, world poverty, women’s rights, racism, etc.

Many oppressed minorities in the world rely on the help of NGOs to carry their concerns to the international community. Some groups depends entirely on them, like the Polisario in Western Sahara. They are the last colonised country in Africa. moreover, they have only minor representations in the big capitals and some countries know only what NGOs collect and report about them. The Tibetans matter as well rely on NGOs organisations which are concerned about them. NGOs are pushing and lobbying in their governments to put pressure on China for the release their oppressed people. The NGOs played big role in changing world regulations on environment, aid and refugees rights. They became very important, popular and much trusted by publics, therefore, many world organisations start to see their importance nationally and internationally, they seeking to build good relations with them to gain some of their legitimacy.

The UN definition of an acceptable NGO

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) statute and the way it has been applied embodies six principles:

• An NGO should support the aims and the work of the UN. However, it is very rare that objections are made to political purposes of NGOs.

• Officially, an NGO should be representative body, with identifiable headquarters, and officers who are responsible to a democratic policy-making conference. In practice, many highly prestigious NGOs, particularly development and environment NGOs, are not membership organisations.

• An NGO cannot be a profit-making body. Individual companies cannot gain consultative status, but trade federations of commercial interests are recognised as NGOs.

• An NGO cannot use or advocate violence.

• An NGO must respect the norm of ‘non-interference in the internal affairs of states’. This means an NGO cannot be a political party, but parties can, like companies, form international federations. Also, NGOs concerned with human rights should not restrict their activities to a particular group, nationality, or country.

• An international NGO is one that is not established by intergovernmental agreement. (Peter Willetts in Baylis and Smith.2008.The Globalisation of World Politics. Chapter 19. Pp.340)