The Contemporary Relevance of the Old vs. the New Diplomacy in Conflict Prevention and Resolution

Kofi Annan successfully re-establishes stability in Kenya, 2008

Traditional diplomacy: Do you think the ‘old’ diplomacy has any contemporary relevance? Explain why you hold your view and refer to contemporary or historical events, with links and images, to illustrate your argument.

Living in a globalised world where information and communication is instant, it has become increasingly difficult for diplomats to carry out their work in accordance with the traditional diplomacy’s ways of secrecy and bilateralism. Even though one cannot help but sympathise with the transparency and inclusiveness which the New and Public Diplomacy brings about, it soon becomes evident that the subsequent multilateralism indeed gives rise to certain complications in international conflict negotiations and that the concept is somewhat of a double-edged sword.

In certain situations of arising or ongoing conflict, direct and bilateral communication between the disputing sides may be argued to be rather counterproductive, as the negotiations often will remain stagnant with the two parties refusing to compromise or trust the intentions of each other. In these cases, involving a third party as a mediator, who openly and transparently works towards a resolution which meets the wishes of both sides, can arguably resolve seemingly unsolvable disputes (www.colorado.edu.)

We saw this form of New Diplomacy function efficiently in Kenya as widespread violence, following the presidential election in December 2007, swept through the country. Former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan mediated between the fighting parties and successfully re-established stability within Kenya as a power-sharing deal was reached (www.bbc.co.uk and www.cbsnews.com.)

On the other hand, one cannot help but consider the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and especially, in this context, the way in which negotiations and action arguably were immensely destructed by multilateralism.

The United Nations Security Council found agreeing on any kind of action plan, in response to the violence taking place in the small Central African country, to be a serious difficulty, and it is very arguable that the international community’s incapability of co-operating can be directly blamed for causing the unbelievable extent and severity of the human rights abuses which took place (www.globalpolicy.org.) This is an argument which was confirmed by Kofi Annan, who was in charge of the UN’s peacekeeping operations during the genocide, as he years later apologised for the way in which the international community turned their backs on Rwanda (www.cbc.ca.)

So we had the same diplomat, Kofi Annan, striving towards achieving peaceful negotiations in two very different diplomatic situations. Both fit the characteristics of the New Diplomacy but one was successful and one was catastrophic. One may argue that the dividing factor between the two arguably was the number of actors involved in the negotiations, and therefore it may be arguable that few negotiators equal more, desirable, negotiations.

Personally I am a big supporter of inclusiveness in diplomacy in this era of globalisation, and therefore cannot argue completely for the Old Diplomacy as I believe that people are now so aware of the world surrounding them that bilateralism and exclusiveness to an extent is discouraged. However, I cannot help but also suggest that multilateralism and the New Diplomacy, in certain situations of conflict, might hinder a desirable and rapid solution to the violence.

One may remember the saying “Too many cooks spoil the broth.”

Shuttle Diplomacy/Mediated Communication (Date Unknown), University of Colorado

http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/shuttle.htm

The Hidden Veto (2004), Global Policy

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/196/42656.html

Deal-broker Annan leaves Kenya (2008), BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7273605.stm

Kofi Annan takes over Kenya Mediation (2008), CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/10/world/main3695650.shtml

Kofi Annan – Gentleman Diplomat (2009), CBC

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/annan_kofi/

Wrestling Diplomacy From the Elites

The arrival of the new diplomacy, ostensibly at the conclusion of the First World War with the creation of the League of Nations, has supposedly, moved the art of diplomacy from behind closed, (mahogany) doors and into the light of day. Certainly it is far more inclusive and open than it used to be. It is far more difficult to suppress the out come of talks attended by 192 nations at the UN or even more difficult to be secretive at the G20 rather than the G8. This also empowers the weaker states, as they can pool their meagre influence to stand up to the intimidation of the stronger nations, as demonstrated by the walkouts at the WTO talks at Cancun in 2003 and the 2009 Copenhagen Climate talks.
Undoubtedly, backroom deals are done within these forums, and as this recent article in the Guardian illustrates, clandestine deals are still very much the order of the day in international diplomacy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/iraq-government-iran-tehran-deal

The rise of NGO’s and their apparent ability to circumvent official government policy on international relations is an interesting development. An individual, or small group of individuals with a vision, can now engage in international relations to a great extent. Being non-governmental, they can often overcome suspicions inherent in inter-governmental interactions. In “Devolving Responsibilities: A Framework for analysing NGO’s and Services”. (Gordenker, L. & Weiss, G. 1997. p453) the authors go as far as to suggest, “In the process, NGO’s might pioneer the formation of a new kind of transnational society in which individuals and their voluntary associations replace IGO’s and governments as the immediate sources of various social services now usually associated with the territorially based state.”

The internet offers enormous scope for the democratisation of diplomacy. The online pressure group avaaz.org is a good example. It allows millions of individuals the opportunity to bypass the political expediency inherent in traditional diplomacy and influence governments around the world. This recent press release illustrates the enormity of their recent achievements:

• Canada (420,000 Avaaz members), we just took on an alliance of a media empire and a prime minister to subvert the independence of the country's media in their favour, and won.
• Brazil (730,000 members) we took a civil society movement online and drove an anti-corruption law through congress that is putting large numbers of corrupt politicians out of a job - widely hailed as a political revolution.
• Italy (240,000) we rallied opposition to the Prime Minister's bill to tie the hands of Italy's corruption investigators - commentators hailed the victory as the first time in Italian history online mobilization had shifted the parliamentary agenda.
• Argentina (60,000) we surged to protect crucial glaciers from what looked like certain destruction by mining companies, and won.
• South Africa (70,000) we built a massive public outcry against sweeping new censorship powers over the press, forcing the government to alter its media regulation law.
• Germany (480,000) thousands of last-minute phone calls from our members helped stop the government from drastically cutting its aid budget.

The rise of the individual in global diplomacy is a force to be reckoned with. Perhaps by extension, the future role of the state diplomat will be to influence the individual.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/global_victory_report/?cl=785524115&v=7357

Gordenker, L. &
Weiss, T. G. Devolving Responsibilities: a Framework for Analysing NGO’s and Services. Third World Quarterly, vol. 18. no. 3 (1997)

THE WONDERS OF TECHNOLOGY?

“Technology… is a queer thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other.”

C. P. Snow

Having the task to consider the most significant changes in the nature of diplomacy I immediately set my mind in the aspect of technological development. From my childhood I can still clearly remember my great-grandfather telling me how in his youth it was rather impossible to get to school on time, as there was not a single clock in his home. When he passed away a few years ago, the world had gone through some amazing transitions. Considering the effect these transitions had in one man’s life, I could not but wonder the scope of transformation that the art of diplomacy must have gone through. That was only a few days ago, however, I now know that the truth is no way near as simple as my original thesis suggests.

Let me explain. From ancient times until the 19^th century diplomatic messages were carried by hand. Now different forms of telecommunication carry these messages. Electric telegraph was the first one to have a major impact on diplomacy, followed by radio telegraphy, telephones, fax machines, electronic mail, mobile phones and today we even have the possibility of multi-media video-conferencing, although the last one is still rarely used. (Berridge 2010:192-3, 201)

Now, telephone is the easiest and fastest way to reach some one miles away. Telephones are easy to use, misunderstandings can be corrected immediately and the tone and volume of one’s voice can help to send signals and add personal touch. Even President Barack Obama is known to wear a BlackBerry on his hip. Telephones can be very useful during times of major crisis. But this is mainly the case with allies, when there are no language barriers and no worries of misuse of possible slips of the tongue. (Ibid.195-202)

However, according to G. R. Berridge there are major problems with the use of telecommunication as a tool of diplomacy. For example the lack of non-verbal communication is apparent. There is no way to add nuance to an oral message by the use of body language, dress and venue or to ‘say one thing but mean another’. Also, with telecommunication there is no time for consultation, which might lead to either hasty decision, or no decision at all. In addition there is always the risk of eavesdropping. (Ibid.193-4)

The problems of telephone diplomacy mentioned above might be some of the reasons why the famous hot line between the White House and Kremlin, set up in 1963, is not a telephone connection but a telegraph link. Haraldur Pór Egilsson’s The origins, use and development of hot line diplomacy explains in depth the origins of the hot line and the reasons for never adding speech facilities even though other modifications have been made. Telephone has become an important channel for the conduct of diplomacy but there are major risks and limits involved.

Out of even more resent technology, email has achieved a firm position as the modern written mode of telecommunication but there are security risks because of highly talented hackers. (Ibid. 203)

Technological change is also responsible for the development of fast and easy international travel. Gone are the days of long ship journeys to distant countries. Instead it is possible to travel just about anywhere in this planet within 24 hours. This has affected the roles of ambassadors, as heads of states and ministers no longer have to rely purely on their services. Yet another feature of change technology has created, is the amount of information available through the electronic media. Today the practitioners of diplomacy have to face the general public (under the influence of the CNN effect) and the increasing possibility of public debate. (Riordan 2003: 58-62)

Even if all this new technology has not revolutionized diplomacy, it has been a helpful (though at times unreliable) tool in the conduct of negotiations and brought people separated by great distances a lot closer.

Lastly, Haraldur Pór Egilsson points out how popular culture shapes people’s conceptions of diplomacy and diplomatic instruments. He focuses on the Washington- Moscow hot line and how such films as Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove have created the false belief of it being a telephone line. Here is a clip of the delusive, yet absolutely fantastic film!

References:

Riordan, Shaun, 2003 The New Diplomacy

Berridge, G. R. 2010 Diplomacy Theory and Practice, 4th Ed

Egilson, Haraldur P. The origins, use and development of hot line diplomacy http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2003/20030500_cli_paper_dip_issue85.pdf

The evolution of diplomacy

Berlin conference 1884
"The scramble for Africa"




Write about what you consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy. Give your reasons and provide illustrations!

First and foremost, one has to understand that there is no specific time in history where diplomacy was created nor founded by an individual or a state. Its roots can be traced back to the early centuries until it was later given the title diplomacy to describe the negotiations of representatives of each state.
Since then, the notion of diplomacy has changed tremendously which can be associated with the many issues countries had to face.

I consider the most significant change in diplomatic history the approach of diplomatic negotiations made between European powers in comparison between the late 19th century and modern day diplomacy.

A great example of how diplomatic negotiations were handled in the 19th century was the Berlin conference known as the “Scramble for Africa” in 1884 where European imperialists decided the apportionments of African states. This helps us understand that diplomacy in the past was carried out in a more realist way as greed and hunger for rich resources led to forceful colonisation and enslavement of African Nations. It is quite frankly a significant moment in diplomatic history as it is now
unimaginable to accomplish anything else similar to the events which happened at that moment of time; it is fundamentally inconsistent with the diplomatic ideals of contemporary time. (Alexandroff, pp. 43-60)

It could be argued that the profound global change in the nature of diplomacy arose with the reconstruction of the European Nations by the end of World War 2 and the founding of the United Nations which was established not only to end human rights abuses and promote equality but to improve diplomatic relations between states through the implementation of International law.

Considering these fundamental changes in diplomacy, delegates from over 191 states participate in proposals and solution making in global issues in an altered way of negotiation. Under the United Nations charter every nation’s sovereignty is protected, therefore in the example given with the Berlin conference European states are prevented from repeating such actions again. Furthermore, African countries in contemporary time have equal rights to engage in decisions that affect the global community.


Bibliography:
Alexandroff Alan, 1981, THE LOGIC OF DIPLOMACY, SAGE Publications Inc., California

Diplomacy – technology and increase role of NGO’s

“Over 20,000 transnational non-governmental organization (NGO) networks are already active on the world stage, of which 90 per cent were formed during the last thirty years.”

(Riordan, 2004, p. 12)

International Relations are in constant mutation and evolution. In parallel diplomacy evolved in many different ways. Plus, Globalization brought innovation, closeness and information together worldwide connecting people. Due to this phenomenon, one of the main changes in diplomacy was within the close circle of international players who saw the rise of non-state actors. Though, Non-Governmental Organisations have existed for two centuries their role in the world stage has increased drastically particularly caused by the development of technologies of information and communication which influence public opinion. Who has not yet seen heartbreaking images of starving children, around the world? Images which are shown through the media to touch our hearts and therefore make us react.

Diplomacy suffered in recent decades increased media attention which occurred due to the development of technologies in the past century. A good example of this is The United Nations Climate Change Conference. A major political event which had worldwide news coverage.

Another characteristic of modern diplomacy are multilateral negotiations between states which now include the presence of NGOs, which predominantly exist because of charity donations.

NGOs like to call themselves representatives of civil society and take advantage of the mass media to promote their organization, goals, and draw attention to actions of governments and multinationals. The controversy around Shell and the extraction of oil in Nigeria illustrates their power. The video below was used by Amnesty International to cause public awareness regarding the lack of human rights and the environmental devastation caused by this transnational.

Obviously 50 years ago people would never know about this issue or at least it would not cause so much impact. Due to the media attention the company was publicly embarrassed and for the same reason Shell changed its policies regarding human rights standards and the environment. As Riodan states “The impact of these campaigns is indisputable, as is the greater political power new technology has given NGOs” (Riordan, 2004, p.89).

The previous reasons demonstrate how technology increased media’s attention in diplomacy and also the power of NGO’s in politic affairs in recent years. NGOs use the media to influence the public’s opinion and consequently the government to change their policies or even transnational’s procedures as shown above. There are many campaigns in which NGOs use media to influence us: advertisements in TV, mailshots, networking via internet, printed press and mobile telephones. We are surrounded by their attempts to make us act and help their causes.

But can NGO’s make people and governments react?

They surely have been proving that in the last years...

References

Riordan, S. (2004) The New Diplomacy

Polity Press, Cambridge

The Emergence of Development Diplomacy

OR








???

The evolution of diplomacy: Write about what you consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy. Give your reasons and provide illustrations

The Emergence of Development Diplomacy

As diplomacy, defined as being a process of communication which is central to the workings of the global system, fundamentally is applied to world politics in order to secure global order, peace and stability, it may be interesting to look at the ways in which diplomacy has evolved continuously as the perception and definition of human security has changed, particularly throughout the past century (Baylis and Smith, 2005, 388.)
In traditional diplomacy, governments were to a great extent mainly concerned with the physical security of their citizens. With the emergence of the new diplomacy after the First World War however, governments, highly influenced by the Inter-Governmental and Non-Governmental Organisations which continuously increased their role in diplomacy and international decision-making, broadened their views on the importance of the different aspects of human security and soon looked to the social and economic well-being of people, in addition to the very safety of their lives, as crucial features of diplomacy (Baylis and Smith, 2005, 389-392.)
Throughout the Cold War, the main agenda of diplomacy was to avoid a global nuclear catastrophe and one may argue that human development and progress was only of little concern to the international community. The fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 however, marked the emergence of Development Diplomacy, as the world witnessed a significant humanitarian consciousness arise. Now the agenda of issues was wider than ever before, and with both bilateral and multilateral actors at work, concerns of poverty and development played a central part in diplomacy (Baylis and Smith, 2005, 392-394.)
Development Diplomacy has now developed into an essential component of foreign policies, so much that the government of the United States of America recognises the importance of international development and diplomacy in securing a peaceful and stable world on equal grounds with military force. In this way, they have shown a commitment to cooperating with both Non-Governmental and International Organisations in the name of Development Diplomacy, effectively dismissing the ways of the traditional diplomacy with its solely bilateral approach, exclusiveness and secrecy (www.state.gov, www.usaid.gov and geneva.usmission.gov.)
In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has stated, while speaking at “The first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review” (QDDR) in 2009 that the current American administration sees development to be
“...one of the most powerful tools we have for advancing global progress, peace, and prosperity.”
(http://www.usaid.gov/press/frontlines/fl_aug09/p1_clinton080902.html)

Keeping in mind that global progress, peace and prosperity are the very goals of diplomacy, Clinton stresses the upmost importance of Development Diplomacy today. - An opinion I most certainly share as I believe that an open and inclusive diplomacy, which caters to all people, must be considered of paramount significance in a globalised world.


American "Smart Power": Diplomacy and Development Are the Vanguard, U.S. Department of State, 2009
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/scp/fs/2009/122579.htm

Clinton Announces Development Diplomacy Strategic Review, US Aid, 2009
http://www.usaid.gov/press/frontlines/fl_aug09/p1_clinton080902.html

Secretary Clinton: Development And Diplomacy Core Elements of Foreign Policy, Alongside Defense, United States Mission, 2010
http://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/05/09/clinton-foreign-affairs-day-2010/

The evolution of diplomacy

Diplomacy has a long tradition in the history of mankind. Diplomacy has usually been understood as a negotiation between governments or diplomats. However, due to the evolution of information technology and the process of globalization today’s diplomacy has undergone considerable changes. First of all the most significant change is that  it is not just states but also non-state actors who are shaping the nature of today’s diplomacy.  The number of actors in international relations is rapidly growing.  This is caused by globalization, more accessible information, technology and by the increasing mobility of capital – the world political economy has eroded the ability of government to make policies that constrain activities of transnational corporations within their jurisdictions. ( Higgott, 2000, p 51)

Also the events in the 20th century had influence on the changes in the diplomacy. The end of first world war, the creation of League of nations, The formation of United Nations, the Cold war, the aim of World bank to help third world with sustainable development have influenced the nature of international relations and the nature of diplomacy today.

Diplomacy has undergone also other changes. In recent years it can be seen that there is a shift from government to government diplomacy towards public diplomacy.  As Benno Sighnitzer in his article explains : Public diplomacy is a way in which government or individual or group influence directly or indirectly the public attitudes and opinions which bear directly to another government`s foreign policy ( Sighnitzer, Public relation review, volume 18, 1992, p 137 – 147)

Communication has a crucial role in diplomacy. The communication between diplomats is important but in public diplomacy also the government – public communication plays a significance role. Due to the information technology and mass media, information is easier to access.

I would suggest that diplomacy should be looked at as an evolutionary process.  The nature of diplomacy has significantly changed, however, those changes can be understood as a natural reaction on previous. Diplomacy is similar to natural world. It still develops and adapt to new conditions and environment.  At the beginning it was the high politics. Now the conditions have changed and the diplomacy has opened to public and is willing to involve non-state actors.

The interesting question is what will come next? What will be the next changes in the diplomacy? Maybe diplomacy will involve so many actors that it will not be possible to understand anymore and it will have come back to its beginnings, where just the legitimate power has the right to negotiate on the international scene. Or is there a danger that two world would be govern by non-governmental organizations???