Thursday 21 October 2010

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 19th 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

2 comments:

  1. You make some very good points here. I especially liked your discussion of the "hot line" and how it is frequently misrepresented in popular culture.

    You provide a balanced account of the benefits and limitations of the new technology. Is that how you feel yourself, or do you agree with Berridge - and Nicolson before him - that the significance of new means of communication is over-rated?

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is true that technology reshaped the way diplomacy is perceived today. It has many more possibilities of achieving its original aims then ever. nevertheless, I am convinced that there is nothing that could replace live contact with people. I consider it to be the most important thing about diplomacy- art of holding back emotions and using the body language. Therefore a real diplomat must be an actor in some respect, as well.

    ReplyDelete