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???
Some well-made points here about the changing nature of diplomacy. I liked your idea of diplomacy being like an organism responding to changes in its environment. I think that is basically true. However, is it also possible for diplomacy to change the environment, or does the direction of causation only point one way?
ReplyDeleteI think you could have done more to identify the ONE single change you consider to be the most significant. You review a number of developments, but don't say which one is most fundamental.