My understanding of diplomacy today

My initial thought of a diplomat was that of a person who would sit and manage his countries interests and engage in “power politics.” I was always under the impression that diplomats are there to stop wars between countries. Through the course of the module, I understood the different aspects and players of diplomacy.

I understood the meaning of power politics and I also understood how diplomacy has evolved through the ages. I understood that earlier, diplomats were engaged heavily in secret diplomacy and the public and the media were excluded during theses talks. Diplomats are now days more concerned with ‘low politics’ and they concentrate more on trade and public diplomacy.

During the visit to the Dutch Embassy, I understood that diplomats are not only in charge of maintaining politically good relations with countries, but they are also responsible to promote their own culture among others. I also understood, that today Public Diplomacy plays a huge role and that diplomatic talks are now held freely and are open to public and media discussion and scrutiny. Cultural diplomacy has also gained prominence in the diplomatic arena. Embassies are actively in touch with cultural organisations so as to promote their culture and also to understand the culture of others. in order to foster their relationship with other countries, embassies promote education and trade in different countries.

This shows that there has been a change in diplomacy. Gone are the days when diplomats would only engage with other diplomats regarding key issues that could affect their countries. Today’s diplomats are actively involved with diplomats, non-state actors, and most importantly, the public. We can thus see that diplomacy has become more open and inclusive over the year. Today, non-state actors play a huge role in framing countries policies regarding trade and environment issues. NGOs play a great role to influence government policies. They have the means and the resources to take up key issues, thus providing a voice to those who’s voices can’t be heard otherwise. For example, we can always look at AMNESTY International as an NGO that keeps bringing up key issues such as human rights abuses. NGOs provide a great sense of relief to the people facing such atrocities, as they become the people’s voice by bringing up the conditions under which they are living. Another example of an NGO is Oxfam. Oxfam constantly tries to change countries’ policies in favour of the climate. Oxfam is instrumental to create awareness about climate change among the masses. Thus, even if embassies do not wish to address issues such a human rights abuses and climate change, NGOs like AMNESTY International and Oxfam force them to speak up.

Despite the evolution of diplomacy, I believe that it is imperative that diplomats carry out secret talks with others and not make every single detail known to the public. I feel that a certain level of secrecy is essential even today so that relationships between countries do not turn sour. We have to remember, that the world today works solely on the basis of interdependence and that we cannot afford to sever ties with any country. This just shows us how complex diplomacy is.

This module has definitely opened my eyes to the different avenues of diplomacy and has also broadened my outlook towards diplomacy. I personally feel that the field of diplomacy is one of the most challenging fields in International Relations. It is not easy for anyone to grasp the complexity of this field.

The Highs and Lows of Diplomacy

My initial thoughts on diplomacy were based around the old school vision of the diplomat; leather backed chair in a mahogany paneled room, somewhere out in the vast reaches of a fading empire, helping British interests with a light touch here, a word in the right ear at cocktail parties. I was well aware of the vast array of multi-lateral conferences and institutions, aware of the role of NGOs throughout the globe but had somehow not related them to the institution of diplomacy.

The image I had was, of course that of the old diplomacy. Having studied the new diplomacy, my overwhelming impression is that of voices and many of them. Voices bring power. The louder the voice the more power the speaker has. Whereas, once upon a time, the great powers had tremendous voices that drowned out everything around, now there are a multitude of voices. You can still hear the great powers, but those other millions increasingly swamp them.

Multilateral diplomacy has allowed poorer countries to pool their power, as we saw by the walkouts in Cancun and Copenhagen, resisting the dominance of the powerful. NGOs allow small groups with a vision to engage the injustices they encounter in the world, even if that might be counter to their nations immediate interest. The internet has enabled like-minded people to congregate in cyber-space, coming together to fight on a political platform, to tremendous effect, for virtually no financial outlay what so ever.

There are darker sides, however. This dispersal of power has left the nation state incapable, in many instances, of reining in the larger multi-national corporations, who have in turn, gained from the power dispersal, increasing their influence through the media of public diplomacy, advertising and the lobby system. Perhaps it will fall to the NGOs to set the moral agenda using the currency of public opinion.

The most lasting impression for me is a possible vision of the future of diplomacy, given to us by Gordenker & Weiss, (sorry to quote this again). “In the process, NGOs might pioneer the formation of a new kind of transnational society in which individuals and their voluntary associations replace IGOs and governments as the immediate source of various social services now usually associated with the territorially based state.” I suppose the reason I embrace this quote is the potential I see in its enactment, coupled with the very real possibility of it coming to pass.

Gordenker & Weiss, Devolving Responsibilities: A Framework for Anylising NGOs and Services. (1997) pp. 453

The Highs and Lows of Diplomacy

My initial thoughts on diplomacy were based around the old school vision of the diplomat; leather backed chair in a mahogany paneled room, somewhere out in the vast reaches of a fading empire, helping British interests with a light touch here, a word in the right ear at cocktail parties. I was well aware of the vast array of multi-lateral conferences and institutions, aware of the role of NGOs throughout the globe but had somehow not related them to the institution of diplomacy.

The image I had was, of course that of the old diplomacy. Having studied the new diplomacy, my overwhelming impression is that of voices and many of them. Voices bring power. The louder the voice the more power the speaker has. Whereas, once upon a time, the great powers had tremendous voices that drowned out everything around, now there are a multitude of voices. You can still hear the great powers, but those other millions increasingly swamp them.

Multilateral diplomacy has allowed poorer countries to pool their power, as we saw by the walkouts in Cancun and Copenhagen, resisting the dominance of the powerful. NGOs allow small groups with a vision to engage the injustices they encounter in the world, even if that might be counter to their nations immediate interest. The internet has enabled like-minded people to congregate in cyber-space, coming together to fight on a political platform, to tremendous effect, for virtually no financial outlay what so ever.

There are darker sides, however. This dispersal of power has left the nation state incapable, in many instances, of reining in the larger multi-national corporations, who have in turn, gained from the power dispersal, increasing their influence through the media of public diplomacy, advertising and the lobby system. Perhaps it will fall to the NGOs to set the moral agenda using the currency of public opinion.

The most lasting impression for me is a possible vision of the future of diplomacy, given to us by Gordenker & Weiss, (sorry to quote this again). “In the process, NGOs might pioneer the formation of a new kind of transnational society in which individuals and their voluntary associations replace IGOs and governments as the immediate source of various social services now usually associated with the territorially based state.” I suppose the reason I embrace this quote is the potential I see in its enactment, coupled with the very real possibility of it coming to pass.

Gordenker & Weiss, Devolving Responsibilities: A Framework for Anylising NGOs and Services. (1997) pp. 453

The Highs and Lows of Diplomacy

My initial thoughts on diplomacy were based around the old school vision of the diplomat; leather backed chair in a mahogany paneled room, somewhere out in the vast reaches of a fading empire, helping British interests with a light touch here, a word in the right ear at cocktail parties. I was well aware of the vast array of multi-lateral conferences and institutions, aware of the role of NGOs throughout the globe but had somehow not related them to the institution of diplomacy.

The image I had was, of course that of the old diplomacy. Having studied the new diplomacy, my overwhelming impression is that of voices and many of them. Voices bring power. The louder the voice the more power the speaker has. Whereas, once upon a time, the great powers had tremendous voices that drowned out everything around, now there are a multitude of voices. You can still hear the great powers, but those other millions increasingly swamp them.

Multilateral diplomacy has allowed poorer countries to pool their power, as we saw by the walkouts in Cancun and Copenhagen, resisting the dominance of the powerful. NGOs allow small groups with a vision to engage the injustices they encounter in the world, even if that might be counter to their nations immediate interest. The internet has enabled like-minded people to congregate in cyber-space, coming together to fight on a political platform, to tremendous effect, for virtually no financial outlay what so ever.

There are darker sides, however. This dispersal of power has left the nation state incapable, in many instances, of reining in the larger multi-national corporations, who have in turn, gained from the power dispersal, increasing their influence through the media of public diplomacy, advertising and the lobby system. Perhaps it will fall to the NGOs to set the moral agenda using the currency of public opinion.

The most lasting impression for me is a possible vision of the future of diplomacy, given to us by Gordenker & Weiss, (sorry to quote this again). “In the process, NGOs might pioneer the formation of a new kind of transnational society in which individuals and their voluntary associations replace IGOs and governments as the immediate source of various social services now usually associated with the territorially based state.” I suppose the reason I embrace this quote is the potential I see in its enactment, coupled with the very real possibility of it coming to pass.

Gordenker & Weiss, Devolving Responsibilities: A Framework for Anylising NGOs and Services. (1997) pp. 453

ROYSTER

I'VE REMOVED THE VIDEO ABOUT NGOS IN HAITI BECAUSE IT KEPT PLAYING EVERY TIME YOU LOGGED ON WHICH WAS BEGINNING TO ANNOY ME. I SUSPECT YOU'VE ALL SEEN IT BY NOW.

Diplomacy in Theory and Praxis

My understanding of diplomacy today: How have your opinions about the role of diplomacy in world politics changed since the start of the module? Looking back on the ‘first impressions’ you wrote in the first lecture, how has your knowledge of this subject developed?

When I wrote my “first impressions” of the module The New Diplomacy in early October of 2010, it was with certain modesty as my knowledge of the subject was rather limited. However, I expressed a desire to obtain an understanding and appreciation of the work which diplomats and embassies perform. Furthermore, I recognised that diplomacy has changed throughout the years, even though I did not realise to which extent.
Three months have gone by and as the module is coming to its end, I have obtained a broad knowledge of a whole variety of different aspects which diplomacy holds.
With the lectures and seminars, I recognised the differences between “old”, being secret, exclusive and revolving around high politics, and “new” diplomacy, being open, inclusive and embracing low politics. Furthermore, I was surprised, yet happy, to learn that the term “diplomat” arguably now can be applied to non-state actors, including non-governmental organisations, religious actors and individuals. I do indeed believe that these actors may be instrumental to international negotiations as they arguably have the capability of reaching audiences which states and state leaders are not.
The module opened my mind and allowed me to watch the news on television and read beyond the mere words and actions displayed. In this way, it was striking to witness the extent to which public diplomacy, branding one’s nation through presenting a certain image, is prominent and indeed practiced without the audience necessarily realising, as was arguably the case with the Chilean miners. In this way, I have also been made aware of the thin line which separates public diplomacy and propaganda.
Beside the theory, we had the opportunity to experience diplomacy implemented in praxis, as we visited two embassies in the course of the semester, effectively highlighting the differences and commonalities between “old” and “new” diplomacy. I found the visits to be very interesting and informative as the ambassadors explained their personal experiences with both bilateralism and multilateralism, setting forth the issues which come with the new diplomacy in terms of it being difficult to reach agreements when a large number of states are gathered.
At the end of the module, I have indeed obtained the understanding and great appreciation of diplomats, governmental as well as non-governmental, which I wished for.

My understanding of diplomacy today

The work of a diplomat in the international arena is broader than I thought when I first started this module. The more I have learned and read about the history and diplomatic activities in International Relations the more I enjoyed it. I like the idea of the diplomatic society and I think it is very important, especially in contemporary time. Diplomats represent their own country in several ways, thus, US Information Agency (USIA), for instance, spends millions of Dollars to promote their own country through e.g. exchange program overseas, media etc.
Representation of one country is regarded as very important.

I support the idea of NGO's involvement in different areas (e.g. Human Rights, Environment, Child labour etc.). NGO’s are involved in talks and negotiations which ‘can’ shape decisions and contribute or propose new ideas in regards to agreements (e.g. tackling environmental issues).

Another interesting topic was public diplomacy whereas different students had different conclusions in regards to the term. For instance, one half supported the idea that public diplomacy is a synonym for propaganda. The other half supported Joseph Nye’s (soft power) idea

“Soft power works by convincing others to follow, or getting them to agree to, norms and institutions that produce the desired behaviour. Soft power can rest on the appeal of ones’ ideas or the ability to set the agenda in ways that shape the preferences of others “(Riordan, p.120)


My knowledge and ideas developed very fast as the more seminars I attended the more I understood the role in specific aspects and events. Furthermore, I think that the different blog entries with different topics we had to submit online, as one of the modules assessments helped me to develop my understanding of diplomacy. The comments of students were very helpful, too.

I can say that this module (including preparing for seminar, research and readings for Blog,) benefited me in regards to further my knowledge base and understand different ideas from different perspectives.

• Shau Riordan, 2004, The new diplomacy, Polity press Ltd. , USA

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.

McVictory for NGO's

“By 2006, an estimated 17 percent of Brazil's original Amazon rainforest cover had been destroyed, an area larger than France” ⁶

Due to sudden increase in the practice of agriculture in Brazil, the Amazon rainforest has been decreasing drastically in the past 40 years. In the website of the Earth Observatory of NASA it is possible to examine the increase of deforestation in Amazon since 2000 and 2009¹. This issue has been highlighted for many years but since Brazil is a large-scale exporter of agricultural products it has been ignored. However, in the past decade the interest in climate change grew among Brazilian NGO’s and they established a plan to fight this environmental issue².

NGOs had to establish a strategy to end multinational corporations’ activities in Amazon which were negative for environment and raise awareness of the situation and consequently obtain a governmental response. In the beginning of the millennium many Brazilian NGOs established a network to influence climate change policies. The creation of the Climate Observatory alerted the national and international community for the dreadful future of Amazon. Consequently, the government increased its efforts in decreasing deforestation. In addition, the international community established a fund to aid the Amazon rainforest, more specifically in 2008 Norway pledged $1 billion to a Amazon’s protection fund³.

Plus, in orders to fight the problem is necessary to find its root. Therefore, it was necessary to indicate the people responsible for the deforestation and also the multinational corporations that are financing them. For instance, in 2006 Greenpeace linked McDonalds to illegal deforestation⁴. Thus, the bad marketing caused by these allegations raised many protests by activists who dressed as chickens. Consequently, McDonalds stopped selling chicken fed on soy grown in newly deforested areas of the Amazon rainforest, and the big food retailer started to cooperate with Greenpeace to protect Amazon⁵.

Despite of the struggle to alert people for the environmental problem occurring in the Amazon, now NGOs are finally noticing the improvements made in the last decade. It was revealed “6,450 sq km of (2,490 sq miles) of rainforest were cleared between August 2009 and July 2010, a drop of 14% compared with the previous 12 months”⁷.Consequently, Brazilian NGOs recently announced prospects of completely abolishing deforestation of the Amazon.

Concluding, NGOs have a significant role in environmental diplomacy. Their influence is of greater importance to alert government which are usually lobbied by corporations. In this way, they are the main agents who can initiate action by the governments.

Sources:

1

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/deforestation.php

2

http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext/index_e.aspx?id=1953

3 http://www.norway.org/ARCHIVE/policy/environment/regnskogen_i_brasil_en/

4

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0406-greenpeace.html

5

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/news/mcvictory/

6

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007413.html

7

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11888875

Three Different Responses to Public Diplomacy

Hugo Chavez, President of Venezeula, gained a public diplomacy coup in reaction to the recent flooding in Venezuela. He moved himself and his entourage out of their home in the Miraflorres Palace to make room for homeless flood victims, while he moved into a tent given him by the Libyan leader Gaddafi. He ordered that the military make room for more homeless in the military nerve centre of Tiuna Fort and forcibly leased many tourist hotels to cope with the problem. (1)

"Nicolas's Yellow House is pretty big," said Chavez referring to the building where Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro has his offices. "A lot of people can live in there." (2)

Compare this reaction with that of Pakistan’s President Zardari, who left Pakistan to visit the West while his country was inundated with similar floods.

“Osama Sadoon Memon, from Lahore, told the BBC: "This visit should have taken place weeks ago. He needed to be here rather then enjoying cocktails in luxury hotels abroad at the government’s expense.”

Again, President G. W. Bush managed to engage in negative public diplomacy in his reaction to the flooding in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina:

“Mr Bush disclosed in extracts of his new book, due for release next week, that it was "the worst moment of my presidency" when the rapper said "George Bush doesn't care about black people", during a televised concert to raise money for victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.” (4)

It is astonishing that Bush, in particular, with all the sophisticated public relations apparatus surrounding him, could make such a basic diplomatic error.

(1) - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/venezuela-flood-victims-hugo-chavez 2/12/10

(2) - http://www.france24.com/en/20101211-chavez-trades-office-tent-aid-flood-victims 11/12/10

(3) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10960094 13/8/10

(4) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8112149/Kanye-West-regrets-George-W-Bush-Hurricane-Katrina-outburst.html 5/11/10

NGO`s and Environment.....

The interest about environment and its issues as climate change and global warming is significantly growing not just between scientists, however, environment is becoming one of the central issues of politics between states,

nevertheless, there is a significant dominance of specific interest about presentation of environment, that environment

needs and has to be taken seriously.

According to the view of climate scientists, world has to stop the growth in greenhouse gas emissions and start to make them fall from aroun

d 2015 to 2020, nevertheless, states tend to refuse or go around the facts about future of environment. The Chinese officials’ claim that China has moral right to develop, what also means that the carbon emissions will increase. Also China, India and developing countries very often and mainly for economic reasons claim that industrialised and wealthy states (Europe and USA) are responsible to set up ‘a clear example’ to cut carbon emissions.

When take place environmental negotiations, the nation-states are not the only components, however, the a

ctivist and NGO`s,as important component of civil society, which represents people from around the world, are involved as well. Mainly are apolitical, nevertheless, their impact on diplomatic issues increased significantly in last decades, but their possibilities are more – less limited. During the environmental negotiations are not component of crucial decision making process, because the major player are still s states, but they are present as source of independent analysis, advisers and conscience of politicians.

In the first half of December 2009, Copenhagen (Denmark) became a place were representatives from 120 countries met for the United Nation climate conference to replace the Kyoto Protocol, aimed fighting global warming, expires in 2012. The official name of Copenhagen Summit was COP15 (15^th con

ference of parties) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). NGO`s and activist got just bounded access to the Conference. For the COP15 was registered

around 45,000 of civilians, 7,000 were allowed to entrance but just 90 were allowed in conference during the final day of crucial decision making.....Result of Copenhagen Summit was failure and ended without significant agreement for cutting of carbon emissions.

Argument that NGO`s are crucially influential in environmental issues is highly polemic. Are source of information about climate change caused by carbon emissions and are important as advisers for environmental issues; unfortunately economy is likely to dominate. Cutting of carbon emissions has major influence on development and economy of all states around the world. Significant cut of numbers of emissions for all states means, that they have to find alternative sources of energy – green energy. Alternative energy is in process of development and is not effective enough to change `traditional` source of energy. And what is crucial, mainly for developing countries and weak economies alternative source of energy is not affordable.

RESOURCES

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/ngo_activists_at_odds_in_copenhagen

http://envirothink.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/copenhagen-summit-severly-limits-ngo-participation/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/01/q-and-a-copenhagen-summit

The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux

Global Warming or Global Manipulation?

This blog started life as a response to Demdem’s posting, Adressing Global Warming, and his (her?) great praise for the diplomatic skills of Al Gore, a politician I have little trust in. There are, of course, arguments against climate change and Al Gore in particular. The following article apeared in the Daily Telegraph on 25^th October 2009, by Christopher Booker, from which I have extracted the following passages:

“The IPCC, through its series of weighty reports, was now to become the central player in the whole story. But rarely has the true nature of any international body been more widely misrepresented. It is commonly believed that the IPCC consists of “1,500 of the world’s top climate scientists”, charged with weighing all the scientific evidence for and against “human-induced climate change” in order to arrive at a “consensus”.

In fact, the IPCC was never intended to be anything of the kind. The vast majority of its contributors have never been climate scientists. Many are not scientists at all. And from the start, the purpose of the IPCC was not to test the theory, but to provide the most plausible case for promoting it.”

Later in the article Booker proclaims of the, now famous, hockey stick graph:

“One of the hockey stick’s biggest fans was Al Gore, who in 2006 made it the centrepiece of his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth. But it then turned out that almost every single scientific claim in Gore’s film was either wildly exaggerated or wrong. The statistical methods used to create the hockey-stick graph were so devastatingly exposed by two Canadian statisticians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (as was confirmed in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress) that the graph has become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.” (1)

The following quote, taken from a 1993 report by the influential Club of Rome, must inevitably lead one to question the agenda of the social engineers and propagandists:

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." (2)

It’s not that I completely reject the concept of global warming, its more that the influential governing bodies of this globalised world, (not necessarily to be confused with national governments) now employ public diplomacy, propaganda, public relations and media manipulation on such a collossal scale that it is no longer possible for the individual to easily determine truth from fiction. While governments are eagerly engaged in nation branding and public diplomacy, they forget that populations will instinctively understand that they are being sold a construct rather than a truth. This must eventually lead to an undermining of trust and authority. I don’t possess the technical knowledge to make an informed decision on the veracity of climate science, (I know, I have tried) I wish I could trust in my government, my leaders and an un-biased media to make the aguments clear to me, but you know, I don’t trust them an inch!

(1) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change- catastrophe.html

(2)— in The First Global Revolution, pp.104-105 by Alexander King, founder of the Club of Rome and Bertrand Schneider, secretary of the Club of Rome, Orient Longman Ltd., Hyderbad, (1993)

A Case Study of Ivory Trade Ban

Non-state actors are significant in both spheres, trade and environmental diplomacy. In case of trade, two types of non-state actors are of utter importance, namely trans-national corporations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The first ones today often conduct their own diplomacy in order to advance their economic goals and no longer rely on diplomatic services provided by governments. The latter, NGOs usually have a somewhat contrary role and their diplomacy aims to ban trade in areas that harm local livelihoods, fauna or environment in general. Often state diplomacy and states themselves can be seen as “obstacles to change, not proponents of change” (Princen and Finger, 1994: 31) aiming to maintain order and stability. Thus, even if trade often leads to increasing environmental and other severe threats, governments as “defenders of the status quo” are not the likely actors involved in reducing those threats. (Ibid.)

A further problem of the traditional diplomatic ways of handling matters is “the nature of the actors themselves”. Diplomacy has been conducted for a long time “by an elite corps of diplomats”, which today have been complemented by political leaders and other bureaucrats. (Ibid.) Their work still remains vital, but diplomacy has become much more complex and new issues have risen to the agenda and even trade negotiations, a part of traditional diplomacy have become complex with the increasing powers of the companies themselves and the growing participation of other non-state actors aiming to interrupt for reasons of their own. Today professional diplomatic actors “trained in international law, diplomatic protocol, the art of negotiations…interstate relations, and…maintaining the status quo” find it increasingly difficult to handle all the new issues alone. (Ibid.)

The case of ivory trade is an eminent example of a case where trade that is beneficiary to many also produce irreversible harm to others, which makes it hard to reach any agreements by state negotiations alone. Trade in ivory has a long history, but this has meant that where as 500 years ago there might have been up to 10 million elephants in Africa but in 1979 only about 1.3 million, with 625 000 left in 1989 according to estimates. (Ibid. 121) Obviously, ivory trade was not the only reason also droughts, hunting, loss of habitat to humans and natural deaths were partly responsible for the decline. However, the most significant immediate cause of death has been poaching encouraged by the increasing demand and price for ivory after the World Wars. In Hong Kong, Europe and Japan the price of raw ivory rose from approximately $3-10 a pound in the 1960s to $200 a pound in the 1980s. Around the same time the ability to mass produce ivory carvings improved leading to ever increasing elephant killing and according to some estimates 200-300 elephants were killed by poachers daily. (Ibid. 122)

The response began with Ghana listing African elephants on appendix III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1976. Elephants were uplisted to appendix II in 1978 and in 1985 the parties to CITES established the first export quotas and trade control systems.(Ibid.125) CITES, the intergovernmental institution could do but little to handle the wider elephant problem, there was need for non-state actors to get involved. Until this NGOs had mainly documented the decline and lobbied for a ban, but had mainly been ignored by CITES and its member states. However, in the 1980s NGOs managed to get a voice hard to ignore. After impressive lobbying and negotiation the United States African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 was passed, forms of public diplomacy were used to heighten the public concerns for the elephants.

In 1989 the appendix I was finally agreed on with an international ban. (Ibid.127) In achieving the ban it was necessary to influence consumer behaviour in order to stop the trade, this could not have been done by states and their organizations because after all "states pursue economic growth through the promotion of production, consumption, and trade” and thus, international NGOs have stepped in to fill the “diplomatic niche”. (Ibid.134) These NGOs have the knowledge and can operate over state boundaries and have had huge impact in pushing the one hundred plus CITES member countries towards the ban agreement, which might not have been possible through traditional diplomatic routes. (Ibid.135-6)

In relation to CITES itself, CITES secretariat seems to turn to international NGOs in numerous cases as they “hold a peculiar advantage” as they are not bound by state boundaries and can conduct diplomacy that does not need to be nice or fawn anyone and governments can only retain good diplomatic relations through compromises. (Ibid. 142)

In general the importance of NGOs in both environmental and trade negotiations is the “influence achieved by building expertise in areas diplomats tend to ignore and by revealing information economic interests tend to withhold”. (Ibid. 41) Thus, it is important to remember that “[b]ad policies do not remain in effect simply because an absence of good ideas but also because powerful forces block the adaptation of those ideas” and non-state actors often are the most powerful counterforce of these enhancing the possibility to adapt some new ideas. (Ibid. 37)

Sources:

Princen, T. and Finger, M. (1994) Environmental NGOs in World Politics: linking the local and the global. London: Routledge

Addressing Global Warming

With the rise of the economic globalisation of powerful states, many find the significant process of ecological globalisation pushed to the limits from environmentalists in contemporary time. Both economy and environment is important for every state and individual, thus it is difficult to negotiate sufficient results in regards to reduce environmental issues because of the negative economic effects it would have had as a consequence.
Leaders of states are well aware of the dimension of environmental issues, thus, they pretend to be blind.



Al Gore, former vice president in the Clinton Administration, is a supporter of environment awareness, author, multiple award winner, business man and a member of a nongovernmental organisation. He is present in talks and negotiation. Al Gore's former position in the White House enabled him to build a good network with powerful people; his concerns are being heard and considered in Climate Change talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, Kyoto Global Warming conference, in the Congress and many more other meetings.
In his lifetime, he was very active in chairing and negotiating agreements; he accomplished many things in regards to climate change. He, for instance, chaired the congressional delegations on Global Warming in the US whereby 40 nations agreed to cut Greenhouse gas emission, he was a member of many who drafted the limitation of Greenhouse and Carbon dioxide release in the Kyoto Global Warming Conference for 150 nations and many more other things.
He once said

“For a long time, the scientists have been telling us global warming increases the temperature of the top layer in the ocean, and that causes the average hurricane to become a lot stronger. So, the fact that the ocean temperatures did go up because of global warming, because of man-made global warming, starting around in the seventies and then we had a string of unusually strong hurricanes outside the boundaries of this multi-decadal cycle that is a real factor; there are scientists who point that out, and they're right, but we're exceeding those boundaries now.”

It is very important, for every individual and for every state, to participate and take action against the damage of the environment. I think Al Gore is doing a good job in using his power to reach out to people and make them aware,educate them with public talks, documentaries, books and many other ways.


http://algoresupportcenter.com/accomplishments4.html
http://www.algore.com/
http://www.polisci.colostate.edu/fac/mb/NGO%20Influence.pdf

NGOs: Filling the Void

Power has slowly seeping from the Nation state. Embroiled in multilateral treaties, particularly since the Second World War, with the initiation of the Bretton Woods Agreement, GATT, NAFTA, ASEAN, the European Union, WTO, WHO, etc. all of which has eroded the nation state’s sovereign ability to act unilaterally. In parallel with this trend, we see the rise of the Multinational Corporation. It is generally accepted that these corporations are beholden only to their shareholders and, ultimately, to profit margins. By their very essence of being Multinational, who now regulates and monitors them? Many have annual turnovers in the multi billion range, giving them more economic leverage and, through the lobbying system, more diplomatic influence than many nations.

“The result of that has been the emergence of a wide range of

human activities which owe little or nothing to geographical location, time

of day and, most important of all, to government permission or regulation.” (1)

Even those companies, ostensibly still beholden to a nation state, such as BAE Systems, Britain’s largest arms manufacturer, can exert enough influence over the government to have a recent criminal investigation into corruption and bribery halted in its tracks. No lies were told to the public, no one pretended the charges were false; the investigation was simply not allowed to continue because the government deemed it so. If governments no longer have authority over these companies, it can be left to NGOs to set the moral agenda.

Jody Williams, the co-ordinator of the International Campaign to Ban

Landmines, wins the 1997 Nobel prize for Peace. In a subsequent interview

she announces that not only had: “We won the Nobel prize [but] we changed

the way diplomacy is done”. (2)

Greenpeace has become very active in fighting against the unaccountable multinationals with recent campaigns “ranging from the effort to stop the forestry “clear-cutting” in Canada, the scaling of the BP offshore rig the Brent Spar in the North Sea, and the boycott of Shell because of the execution of the imprisoned Ken Saro-Wiwa and the “Ogani Nine” in Nigeria, caught Western governments in the

crossére.” (3)

While there is an unfortunate time lag, NGOs seem to be stepping into the void, taking the Multinationals to task and replacing the dated concept of government reproach with the force of public opinion, seizing their authority from a “vacuum of responsibility”. (4) Save the Children, Amnesty International and Medecin Sans Frontiers, are all expanding their offices and diplomatic efforts at the UN, The director for Greenpeace UK said,

“It’s a completely natural evolution. It’s not enough simply to say there’s something happening to the environment. You now have to say what needs to be done to solve the problem”. (5)

(1) Langhorne, R Diplomacy of Non-State Actors, Diplomacy and

Statecraft, vol. 16, (2005) pp 332

(2) Hocking,B. & Governments, NGOs & the Recalibration

Cooper, A. F. of Diplomacy, Global Society, vol. 14, no. 3

(2000) pp 365

(3) Ibib.

(4) Ibid. pp 368

(5) Bandler, J. Boston Globe, (7th June 1998) in: Hocking &

Cooper, Governments, NGOs & the

Recalibration of Diplomacy, , Global Society,

vol. 14, no. 3 (2000) pp 365

The New Diplomacy

When a person just hears the word ‘diplomat’, he thinks of representatives of countries looking all serious and intelligent, holding giant folders containing vital documents of their own countries and sitting at a round table and discussing the economical and political future of their own countries held at hushed places around the world behind closed doors. This was how old diplomacy worked. The new diplomacy has been more inclusive and open. Earlier, NGOs and the media haven’t had a lot of representation in the diplomatic processes. Nowadays, there is a lot more involvement of NGOs in diplomatic processes. Even if they don’t always get a say in the negotiation processes, they can at least help to stir the negotiations in the direction that would benefit the public, if not the state. Moreover, the involvement of the mass media has also helped diplomacy to me more open in nature and it has helped to include the people as well, thus making it more democratic. The Internet also plays a major role in diplomacy. Since the Internet reaches every nook and corner of the world, it is possible to get every person’s opinion regarding a particular issue.

However, recent developments might have taken this “new diplomacy” a step too far. WikiLeaks, an Internet platform responsible for the leaking of sensitive documents and reveling the unethical conduct of governments, began releasing 250,000 classified United States embassy cables from the 28^th of November 2010. “These documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight in to US government foreign activities.” (Wikileaks). This catapulted the US in to a worldwide diplomatic crisis.

The Guardian is one of the leading newspapers that have already released some information. One key secret that has been leaked is that Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran and that US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN leadership. This is the most sensational piece of leaked information that will definitely cause uproar internationally. The rest of the leaked cables disclose details of Washington’s grave fear over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program due to the rising instability in the country, the inappropriate remarks by Prince Andrew about a UK law enforcement agency and a foreign country, suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government, with one cable that alleges that vice-president Zia Massoud was carrying $52 million in cash when he was stopped during a visit to the UAE, and devastating criticism of the UK’s military operations in Afghanistan by US commanders. (The Guardian)

Despite of containing all the sensitive issues in world politics as well as the US military strategies to react to an imminent threat, the cables provide insulting descriptions of other leaders. Putin is described as an “alpha-dog”, Karzai is described as being “driven by paranoia”, and Angela Merkel allegedly “avoids risks and is rarely creative”. Furthermore, the cables name Saudi donors as the biggest financiers of terror groups, and provide a detailed account of an agreement between Washington and Yemen to cover up the use of US planes to bomb al-Qaida targets.

The cables also show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in “client states”; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations’ and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.

After these cables were released and published, Washington had a field day to get in touch with the leaders of the countries mentioned in the cables. The White House also released a statement condemning their release: “Such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the US for assistance in promoting democracy and open government. By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and works of these individuals.” (The Guardian)

Thus, we can see that the inclusiveness of diplomacy is a highly questionable and debatable topic. Every diplomat from every country will act and behave differently with diplomats from other countries. It is important to understand that if diplomats cannot act freely without the fear of scrutiny by the media, it is going to be difficult for them to do their jobs, thus resulting in halting relations with other countries. Always including the public and the media in diplomacy may not necessarily be a good thing. It is important for certain aspects of diplomacy to remain secret. This secrecy at times can also help cover any unethical doings of countries away from the media glare and this could cement the relations between the two countries. However, secret diplomacy has its pros and cons as well. It is important that the diplomats try and understand when they feel it right to include the media and public and when they should hold secret talks. Therefore, to avoid any diplomatic crisis, I feel it is important that diplomats should talk freely with one another so as to understand the point of view of each and every person.

The uprising power of Non Governmental Organisations

According to the Worls Banks description of Non Governmental Organisations (NGO), they try to pressure policy outcomes in the name of the poor, environment and basic social services.
NGO's are non profit organisations who work independently from governments and they exist in a variety of categories.






NGO's are becoming more powerful in changing policies and promoting for what they are standing for which is Human rights for all and other fundamental rights for Human around the globe. They are, especially with the help of the media, becoming more and more powerful.
Amnesty International for instance finds itself more often lobbying in the international stage promoting Human rights and campaigning for International criminal court and UN Torture treaty. It has 2.8 million supporters around the globe, so NGO'S are, indeed, becoming an important instrument in new diplomacy.
Some would argue that the balance of power is shifting and therefore the sovereignty of states are challenged. The excecutive director of NGO Monitor said that the annualy published Human Rights report is a very important and reliable information source for journalists, diplomats, political activist, policy advicers and citizens around the globe as many of the claims were provided by eyewitnesses and victims.
Critics would say that those informations provided by eyewitnesses might be just a chance to revolt against their opressive countries, nevertheleness it is a significant source of information for politicians.
Enviromental NGO's participate in different ways. They, for instance, receive documents, propose and advice diplomats which in turn could have an effect on their decisions. They were highly successful in the support of protecting the ozone layer and other climate change issues.


Norwegian NGO's were part of the Copenhagen summit in 1995. The New York Times editor Alejandro stated that the uprising participaion of NGO's is like a second superpower.
In my opinion NGO's are the most important factors in new diplomacy, as their voices are being heard by influence people e.g the World Bank which interacts with NGO's who have projects in developing countries and who lobby policy decisions to promote or advocate outcomes.

Non-state actors.. Their/Our role in diplomacy

As we discussed during the previous weeks, many changes occurred within diplomacy. Diplomacy suffered a radical change particularly in the 20^th century from multilateral negotiations, open discussions, increasing presence of non-state actors until the enhanced importance of public diplomacy. Although it has occurred many changes in diplomacy, I believe non-state actors are the most important achievement of modern diplomacy. The social, historical and technological developments of the past century allowed the formation and improved importance of non-state actors. Moreover, during the lecture related to these actors it was distinguished six non-state actors: religious actors, sub-state units and international organizations, terrorist/rebel groups, multinational corporations, non-governmental organisations and individuals. Despite of the presence of many non-state actors in diplomacy I consider the last three more relevant in its radical change. Therefore, the last three will be developed throughout the blog entry. Furthermore, these actors are crucial to raise awareness regarding critical issues involving society. For that reason they gain credibility and support from the public which confers them power against governments.

Multinational corporations’ importance within politics has been increasing due to their expansion across the world. Consequently, nowadays some of these corporations have more resources than some states. Nevertheless, these corporations lobby governments influencing them on their policies. This influence can be used for their own self-interest (which frequently it is) but also for good causes. Also, business can have an important role to avoid international conflict, since usually countries that trade with each other do not resort to war. In a speech given by a representative of the German business community in a UN Security Council meeting he stated business in partnership with public partners has a critical role in battling violence, anarchy and terrorism all in favour of civilization, freedom and prosperity. (2007:53). This is a positive change of mindset in multinationals. Recently, there has been a rising cooperation between NGO’s and MNC’s to standardise corporations’ policies, their intention is to avoid lawsuits or other consequences that could harm the companies’ reputation. A few years ago in a lecture the Attorney Owen Pell gave an example regarding the new alliance between NGO’s and MNC’s:

“In the case of the Cocoa Harvesting Accord, NGOs united companies representing 99 percent of cocoa buyers to form a cartel to negotiate child labor practices. The MNCs agreed to buy cocoa only from areas with minimal use of child labor, as determined by a survey of local labor markets funded by the MNCs. Ultimately, around 20 African states agreed to participate in the program.”

For the previous, reasons I believe it is important to mention MNC’s role in diplomacy not only for their negative actions (as usually they are) but also for their recent positive contributions in world affairs.

Furthermore, non-governmental organisations are one of the most important non-state actors in world politics. They are usually specialized in different issues such as human rights, environmental issues, and so on. Usually these organisations have some advantage over states since they have credibility, expertise in specific issues, resources and representation in many places. Their importance has been rising in the last century, especially because globalization allows them to reach people faster. Therefore they can easily persuade public opinion and important issues related to civil society. Due to the increased importance of these organisations they are now accepted by states to provide information about specific issues of their expertise. Some even argue they are absolutely crucial to help states in particular issues such as environmental problems (2007:55).

Nevertheless, individuals are also very important non-state actors. There are two types of individuals involved in diplomacy: the common citizen or celebrities. Celebrities are a new trend within diplomacy. They use their influence to support causes and influence governments. Usually politicians like to be photographed with them to improve their image and also for public diplomacy. For example, George Clooney had the honour to address the UN Security Council regarding the genocide occurring in Darfur. It is rarely given access for common citizen to approach the supreme body of UN but an actor has a status and connections which allows him to do it. Nonetheless, organizations use these people to be “the face” of their causes raising people awareness of different issues. Therefore, celebrities often represent organizations and raise supporters for their causes. Furthermore, celebrities are important in shaping diplomacy but nevertheless non-famous citizens have the power to change diplomacy. Although sometimes people’s demonstrations have no influence in changing policies made by the government (the demonstrations against the Iraq War around the world are a good example), there are some crucial individuals that were successful in fighting for their causes. These people made themselves heard around the world due to their persistency and some examples are Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King. These people were common John Does who became known for their actions and values. Therefore, despite of the importance of celebrities as non-state actors, common citizens can also fight for their causes and principles.

In conclusion, there were many changes within diplomacy. However, I believe the emergence of some non-state actors was the most important change since it raised awareness of issues that we would not be aware otherwise. This encourages us to practise an active role as citizens within world affairs.

With effort from these non-state actors the world is gradually changing...

I found this video online and decided to share with you. Great example.

.

The Earth Summit - 1992 - Brazil

This link provides a webpage where you can listen to George Clooney’s speech addressed to the UN Security Council.

Reference

Bolewski, W. (2007) Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations

New York : Springer

Others: some parts where referenced with links to its webpages.