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