My view of diplomacy today

Some time last October we had our first lesson about diplomacy and we were asked to write down our first impressions about what “the new diplomacy” might mean. Today our answers were handed back. I can still remember how difficult that tiny task was and to be honest I sat at least half of the allocated time staring at an empty paper, but to my great surprise I had actually managed to write down something (I had completely forgotten this and thought I had handed in an empty paper) and here is what I thought back then;

“…the concept of diplomacy is changing or has changed from what it traditionally used to be. The new part being the emergence of new actors including international organisations and trans-national corporations, which have such a huge importance in the modern world that they cannot be ignored…”

It was far from a complete or perfect answer (!) and after twelve weeks of intensive lectures about the subject, plus the seminars and numerous chapters from various books accompanied by a pile of articles I would not be so sure about the changed nature of diplomacy. It seems that in both, in my first impression –note and also in my original ideas for the first blog post (about the most important change in the nature of diplomacy) I was hoping to find some massive and radical changes if not a complete revolution. However, today I am willing to conclude that even though diplomacy has evolved a lot (and as a result of this the term new diplomacy might be beneficiary in describing the point where it is today) it has also kept many traditional aspects. Thus I am not even sure that there is such a thing as the new diplomacy, instead we are at the phase of diplomacy that is suitable for today’s world order and as long as the world keeps changing, diplomacy keeps evolving in response. Even the “new” actors, namely non-state actors including international non-governmental organisations (not just any organisations!) are simply a part of this process and maybe one of the catalysts for the changes in the very nature of diplomacy. In the beginning of the course I was expecting the “old” and “new” diplomacy to be radically different but instead they seem to co-exist peacefully and means of both are used when needed.

During the twelve weeks I have managed to learn a great deal about diplomacy and broaden my perspectives about it. I must admit that conference and summit diplomacy had rarely passed my mind, with their advantages of openness and inclusiveness of most (if not all) of the states as equals in negotiations. But next to this openness still remains the need for back channels and a great deal of secrecy, a traditional parts of the “old diplomacy” that seems to be as necessary as before, especially in times of crisis. However, what I found most interesting topic of the course was the area of public diplomacy, which some argue is simply a fancy new name for propaganda. I do not completely agree with this view and believe that there is much more to it, from promoting once country to actually aiming to achieve long lasting friendly relationships. It is thus important to remember, that selling a bad product (as would be the case with propaganda) will not work in the long run!

Funnily enough, when I was about 7 I once told my aunt that when I grow up I wanted to become a diplomat and I would love to know what the 7 year old me thought was the concept of diplomacy! While diplomacy might no longer remain my dream career it has definitely been a fascinating area to study, not least because of its complexity and at times I still find it hard to define what is actually within the discipline and what is not. I cannot but wonder for example whether Bono is a diplomat (of some sort) when travelling around the world and meeting with some heads of states or simply a star on a fascinating journey. There obviously is no clear answer.