Oxfam Climate Change Ad

Trade and environment diplomacy

UN Climate Change Conference: Cancun

It is transparent that the significance of non-state actors in negotiations within the international arena has grown. Increasingly states are reliant on specialist information and new content in areas of policy, which are critical. Some areas include: economy, environment, security, and trade.

An example of the significance of non-government organisations within negotiations is the recent United Nations Environmental Cancun Summit. On the third day the summit entailed Proposals to reform the global carbon market dominated the third day of the international climate change. The summit turned to deadlock due to that negotiators such as Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing states stepped up calls for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects to be granted the right to issue carbon credits under the CDM – a proposal fiercely opposed by Brazil and a number of countries.
Negotiators from non-profit organizations where present to put pressure on countries such as Saudi Arabia to comply and understand the important cause.

The negotiations prompted calls from carbon traders for diplomats to urgently reach an agreement on the future of the scheme or risk fuelling fears the CDM will fold in 2012.

Henry Derwent, president and chief executive of the International Emissions Trading Association, in a statement.
"It is in no one's interest to let the future of the most successful mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol become a bargaining chip in these negotiations. And it would be tragic if mixed signals about how the CDM could be used across the world in the future deter desperately needed investment in developing countries."

This demonstrates the significance of non-profit organizations not just in relation to the cause but also to developing states, which do not hold as much power when in negotiations.

This is one example of such necessity for non-profit organizations, without such actors the powerful states may manipulate multilateral instances.

The Transparent Actors

In the context of the technological revolution the diplomatic stairway has undergone elaborate renovation to an extent where it appears almost unrecognisable. Methods of communication, the code of conduct and the nature of negotiations all account for great contributions to the list of change. But the diplomatic stairway has simultaneously added additional steps on which we recognise new actors such as NGOs and MNCs whose influence, albeit its degree remains disputed, has grown in both quantity and quality.
Its explanatory power surfaces with the expansion of global issues whose remedies are often explored across borders and with increasing international cooperation to which NGOs posses knowledge gained on a specific area in question . Rahman and Roncerel point to an exchange of expertise thrown from the global North to the global South and vice versa, enhancing their ability to comprehend environmental issues outside their immediate attention . Their engagement often exceeds their governmental counterparts whose focus is split on the overlapping consequences of trade, environment and the political economy.
However, Cooper and Hocking initially treat the problem of exclusion of NGOs in the major negotiations of trade and the environment where government representatives still hold the final vote. Their significance should, nonetheless, not be underestimated because, as Carpenter mentions himself, the relevance of governments is in decline combined with NGOs who may appear more legitimate in their ambitions and more likely to speak with the voice of civil society. They raise awareness among citizens and governments and pressure the agenda to encompass issues which, perhaps, would otherwise be ignored. Rahman and Roncerel mention examples where NGOs have actually been rather influential in the development of environmental national policies and negotiation positions and have been adequately recognised to observe high-level discussions. Moreover, negotiators may be directly dependent on non state actors for their exclusive expertise.
The examination of the role of non state actors in negotiations leaves the impression that although it is growing, often in the cases when problems exist beyond the control of governments, they remain observers and organizations of initiative and suggestions. Their direct participation is still missing despite their indirect influence which has indeed added pivotal issues to the international agenda and increased the pressure- a tendency which has spread to the civil society, witnessed in the Battle of Seattle. Nevertheless, it appears to be this indirect position which allows them to encircle governments in the decision making process in their demand for openness and transparency and last but not least, the support of those governments in a less favourable position around the negotiation table. Both labour organizations and environmentalists were present in Seattle and the mutuality and common ground found in this chaos suggest determination to confront – and disturb- the talks taking place behind closed doors . Richard Langhorne focuses on the lack of sufficient representation of non state actors explained by uncertainty regarding the credibility of their role and their actual representatives . As they simultaneously challenge the legitimacy of the state, a diplomatic hole will consequently emerge which must be filled by either the state or NSAs- or both.
There is no doubt that globalization has carried with it a legacy of multiple actors on the international stage, but given its relatively short existence, NSAs still have unfinished homework, which, once completed, may find themselves more involved in the negotiations of both trade and the environment.

Trade diplomacy of non-state actors

It is not disputable that the significance of the non-state actors' role in trade in nowadays greater than it used to be, however, it still remains limited comparing to the states' impact. The area of activity of NSAs in trade is quite broad and extends from local to international level (Milner, Moravcsik, 2009). Some NSAs and NSA alliances work on issues including financing and training of businesses, trade policy and negotiations and economic development. Nonetheless, their biggest importance lays probably in the ability to trasfer the public opinion to the international negotiations, as well as in being kind of a "watchdog", controlling what is happening behing the doors closed to the public and "governing the governors". NSAs were recognized as significant global figures for example by being given the right to submit amicus curiae briefs in WTO disputes (Lopez, 2001).
 The capability to reshape global governance patterns and the importance of the non-state voice was particularly visible in the Seattle protests in 1999, where the Millenium Round was abandoned partly because of the public demonstrations, but also because of the NGOs opposition. Moreover, a year earlier, NSAs played a significant role in trials to inhibit the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. Lobbying by NGOs and 'reform oriented' think tanksbrought attention of more influential global institutions to alleviating the social costs of economic restructuring Scholte, 2000). Also under the pressure of non-state actors, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank have increased public relations and disclosures regarding their policies and decisions (ibid.).
An example of the NSA involvement in trade and aid negotiations can be the Cotonou Agreement in 2002, which introduced a new participatory approach. The Agreement defined the NSA participation as a fundamental principle of the cooperation between the EU and African Carribean and pacific countries. It was supposed to encourage integration of all sections of the society, however, the NSAs' participation was meant to be limited to information and consultation, while, the decision-making process is left to the State actors.
The issue of aid packages or aid offset agreements for some specific states or groups of states are just one of the many areas in multilateral trade negotiations, but thanks to organizations like for instance, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) the problem can be raised on the level of WTO. The immediate effect of participation in WTO disputes is the demonstration of the livelihood concerns, but the long term effect is influencing economic governance and policy-making processes to focus more on people, therefore the growing importance of NSAs participation in global trade, in the times of democracy and cooperation.

evolution of diplomacy

Diplomacy in one form or another has had a long history, dating back to the beginning of political states. Since the nature, size, and composition of these states varied, so did the system of relations between them. Usually such relations were simple and personal, but in time they became more complex as the political entities became better organized and more tightly controlled. Furthermore, diplomacy was conceded to be irreplaceably useful. The nature and functioning of the diplomatic machine at any particular historical moment could of itself shape the way in which principals conducted their exchanges. Thus it has occasionally occurred that functions which had developed within diplomacy came to create a particular international activity simply because they existed. Those international activities had a different features, own beginnings and the end, but all of it is connected between. For example the Vienna Convention of 1961 begins: “Recalling that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognized the status of diplomatic agents…” (McClanahan, G., V. 1989,18). How far back do these ancient times extend? Probably it extends into prehistory. There are two statements, which belong to Thucydides (Ancient Greece) and Cardinal Richelieu (17th century, France) what emphasizes common features between two different representatives, different environments and centuries:

“In matters of state,” wrote Richelieu in his Political Testament, “he who has the power, often has the right, and he who is weak can only with difficulty keep from being wrong in the opinion of the majority of the world” <…>

(Kissinger, H., 1994, 65)

According to Thucydides:

“The standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept… this is the safe rule – to stand up to one’s equals, to behave with deference to one’s superiors, and to treat one’s inferiors with moderation.”

(Jackson, R., Sorensen, G., 2007, 63)

It can be assumed that some features of diplomacy have not been changed from ancient centuries and takes a place in area of modern diplomacy. Only environment and instruments are different. The main player in diplomacy is still the same as it was ages ago – power and influence. Furthermore, the origins of diplomacy could reach the dates where are no written historical records, when people started to negotiate with each other instead of killing each other. The diplomacy we have today is formatted by past experiences and environmental atmosphere which is inescapable related with each other.

Bibliography:

Jackson, R., Sorensen, G., (2007), Introduction to International Relations, Theories and Approaches, Oxford University Press, New York

Kissinger,H.,(1994), Diplomacy, Simon&Shuster Rockefeller Center, New York

McClanahan, G., V., (1989), Diplomatic immunity: principles, practices, problems, St. Martin’s Press, New York

NGOs and environmental diplomacy

Recently, the influence of non-state actors on resolving issues of international importance has gradually increased. Their role in conducting diplomacy with other state actors has become more powerful than ever. Being politically independent, NGOs may get involved in any matter they wish and introduce their own solutions. This fact makes NGOs’ diplomacy much easier and simply unlimited.
I would like to give an example of an environmental case where the contribution of non-state actors was of a great importance. Unquestionably, their work proved to be efficient enough to make the world hear about the problem. It is the bottom trawling issue that I am going to mention. This practice caused huge destruction to the marine biological life. In 2004, the United Nations General Assembly launched an Informal Working Group (Nao Iwamura 2009;49) to discuss the problem and look for any possible solutions. There were many actors participating. Among governmental representatives , UN agencies and fishing industry’s delegates, various NGOs were involved, as well. The non-state actors were strongly opting for implementing a ban on trawling on high sea bottom. In order to strengthen their position and make their arguments more persuasive, they set up the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition in 2004. The idea was supported by several NGOs: Conservation International, Greenpeace international, World Conservation, The Marine Conservation Biology Institute, the Natural resources Defense Council, The New England Aquarium and many many more (BBC News, 6th Oct. 2004). The biggest success of the mentioned Coalition was that it enormously persuaded the UN to proclaim a global moratorium on bottom trawling. Some NGOs were really engaged into implementing the commitments stated in the moratorium. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural resources were given the Permanent Observer status from the UNGA. They tried to take some legal actions and publicly disapproved of numerous states’ behavior. It was in the wake of lack of obedience from some countries towards the new moratorium. Unfortunately the 2004 resolution is the only document that NGOs may refer to when pushing for any major revision in member states’ policies.
Presenting the above case I intended to demonstrate that today, NGOs are recognized as equal members of dynamic political negotiations and take active role in conducting diplomacy. They promote diverse issues and very often have a grand impact on the pace of implementing any amendments and declaring resolutions . Their great influence and dominant position, unquestionably, results from financial support, having many international agencies and no political ties. These allow them to act independently using diverse methods and adopt preferred attitudes.

The most important aspect of the New Diplomacy

Firstly it must be noted that public diplomacy and Diplomacy of NGO’s are significant factors within New Diplomacy. However, I feel that the most prominent factor is the fashion of multilateral diplomacy.

G. R. Berridge defines the new fashion as ‘diplomacy conducted via conferences,’ he further states that they can vary in size, level of attendance and wide ranging agendas. This allows the element of inclusiveness to flourish, as more states can be represented. Especially in such conferences such as the United Nations: the general assembly allows 192 member states to participate in discussion of a large forum.

A problem: ‘Only about one third of all possible directed country pairs show evidence of diplomatic representation.’ (Neumayer 2008:230) This statement signifies that not all states such as Gahanna can hold permanent missions in all countries across the world. For many developing and underdeveloped states such representation is not feasible to exist. For states that are developed, such as Denmark, there are simply not enough resources for all permanent missions to exist. Power states such as the United Kingdom and the USA do not have this problem and can represent themselves in nearly all countries across world. Multilateral diplomacy allows all states to interact, build relationships and network.

The vital reason that multilateral diplomacy is the most important aspect is the reality of inclusion.
All 192 members of the United Nations are included in debates and voting on matters of peace and security, admission of new members and budgetary matters. Even states with little resources are included in making decisions of matters on a global scale.
A second reason why I feel multilateralism is the most important aspect of the New Diplomacy is the factor of rising extreme global issues. Theses issues include: AIDS, climate change, children, development, human rights, peace and terrorism. Due to multilateral diplomacy, Programmes have been created in tackling some of the major problems that the world faces. For example, UNAIDS was created as a joint United Nations programme which Unites ‘the efforts of the United Nations system, civil society, national governments, the private sector, global institutions and people living with and most affected by HIV’ (UNAIDS 2010: 1) Without these multilateral instances many of the problems which are tackled could spiral from a state control.

Moreover, in a globalized world in which all economies are more interdependent than ever, there is a requirement for multilateral focus within the international arena. The G20 is a prime example of this: during the world financial crisis in 2009, 20 states arranged a forum to discuss the key issues of the global economy. If this type of meeting was not held, intentions and agendas of states affected by the crisis may not have been heard and ultimately the financial crisis could have been a reoccurrence of the 1930’s great depression.

Transparently, there is a consensus that multilateral diplomacy is required in the contemporary world system. It creates and allows states with fewer resources to have recognition within the international stage. Furthermore, multilateral diplomacy allows countries to address global issues that affect all ranges of people.

References:

About UNAIDSUNAIDSTODAY | UNAIDSTODAY. 2010. About UNAIDSUNAIDSTODAY | UNAIDSTODAY. [ONLINE] Available at: http://unaidstoday.org/?page_id=703. [Accessed 17 December 2010].

Berridge, James, A dictionary of diplomacy: 2nd edition (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003)

G. R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 4th edition Diplomatic Theory and Practice Fourth Edition, G.R Berridge, 2010.

Neumayer, E., 2008, Distance, Power and Ideology: Diplomatic Representation in a World of Nation-States. Article, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Geography and Environment, 228-236.

United Nations Global Issues - Home. 2010. United Nations Global Issues - Home. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/. [Accessed 17 December 2010].

G20 | World news | guardian.co.uk . 2010. G20 | World news | guardian.co.uk . [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/g20. [Accessed 17 December 2010].

Soft Power Public Diplomacy: Joseph Nye and why China gets it but the neocons don't

'Rumsfeld said, “I just don’t understand what it (Soft Power) means.” And my reaction to that is, it’s part of the problem.' Joseph Nye

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/joseph_nye_on_global_power_shifts.html

In this talk given by Joseph Nye he weaves his arguments in favour of the deployment of more effective 'Soft Power' into the fabric of current global shifts. In particular the predictions surrounding the rise to power of China. He points out that the predictions are inherently linear when in fact it is oversimplistic to look at economic indicators and say 'China will overtake the US in economic terms' by a certain date. These trends have to be attended to by politicians and diplomats in their 'Smart Power' assessments of current and future outcomes. 'Smart Power' is a development of  'soft power'. It is said that when 'Donald Rumsfeld first heard the phrase ('Soft Power') he didn't know what it meant' (Joel Whitney 2008). Furthermore China need not be the threat to world stability that she is sometimes portrayed in recent times. The key to how she is seen lies in cooperation and discussion around the table at the higher levels. This must also be coupled with the understanding that China's gain need not mean our loss. The 'zero sum game' obsession that some people like to vocalise internationally is becoming less applicable- I think this would be disputed between those with weight on the international stage.  So Nye is saying  to use part of the oft quoted Ethelbert Talbot saying; “The important thing... is not so much winning as taking part.” Nye states that recent discussions about the waning of US power are part of  a periodic and ongoing discussion which has recurred with some regularity since 1958. He refers to the 'privatisation of war' almost casually as if this is a neo-liberal trend we will have to accept almost without question which I find contentious.

"We rarely speak of the soft power of attraction, of persuasion. Soft power is an analytical term, not a rallying cry, and perhaps that is why it has taken hold in academic and business discussions, and in other parts  of the world like Europe, China, and India, but not in the American political debate." (How soft is smart, Joel Whitney interviews Joseph Nye, October 2008)

In this way Nye points to 'Soft Power' being a tool or instrument of Public Diplomacy. The minimal use of coercion with 'carrots' and 'sticks' and the hidden powers of persuasion and attraction with the occasional political 'nudge' thrown in. The last is my addition to the lexicographical pantheon. (The current UK government are convinced that we can be behaviourally 'nudged' into doing the states bidding at home and abroad.) Nye is also stating in benign patrician tones that this has been the way forward for the US role in international affairs since the dark napalmed mornings of Vietnam and so far when Presidents have been aware of the term it has served the US better. Obama's soft power weapon from the outset was his ability to restore America's image internationally. However his success abroad in 'soft power' terms has been perceived by some at home in the US as a weakness by the gung-ho 'hard power' Neo-Con enthusiasts.

 "It struck me that there was something intangible—ideas, values—and it struck me that humans are moved by ideas and values, and it may not be tangible or hard, but it’s still a form of power, and that led me to the idea of soft power." (Nye to Whitney, 2008)

HD VIDEO UNICEF: Goodwill Ambassadors : Ewan McGregor

In the last few weeks we have seen that many aspects of diplomacy have changed. Although some traditional aspects remain, new forms of diplomacy have appeared and have shaken the way negotiations have been done. First, let’s look at the new information technology revolution at the end of the twentieth century, how it has re-shaped the world we live in and the way the flow of information has changed diplomacy forever. Consequently we can then see how globalization might have changed diplomacy and look at the importance of economic diplomacy. Thirdly we will see the rise of NGOs and the place they now occupy along side state actors. And finally we will look at celebrity diplomacy, is it a new diplomatic way per se?

The apparition of the World Wide Web has without a doubt change the way people communicate and gather information. When states wanted to know what was going on in the other side of the world, they used to rely on their ambassadors to gather information and report back to them, which might have taken a while… Now you receive information in minutes via Internet and live broadcast keep people informed wherever they are. Any information is available on the Internet for everyone to see. E. Gilboa explains that the media is used in three different ways in diplomacy. He argues in “Diplomacy in the Media Age: Three Models of Uses and Effects” that the new diplomacy is “exposing diplomacy to the media and public opinion”. He first mentions public diplomacy or how states and non-state actors use the media and choose the information to promote a certain image abroad. The media is used as a mean to influence citizen opinions to then influence their government. He then goes to the concept of “media diplomacy”, often mixed up with public diplomacy but different in the way that the media is used to promote foreign policy and conflict resolution. Media diplomacy is more politically orientated. His third point “media-broker diplomacy” concerns journalists and how they can themselves in some situation have the role of diplomats in “pre-negotiation” stages and “track-two diplomacy”. In this last argument the media is used as a third party in international conflict (Gilboa, E., 2001, pp1-28). New technologies have revolutionized diplomacy, if the Internet carry messages, it might be seen as a global ambassador…

One of the other achievements of the Internet in bringing the world together is often described as the concept of globalization. Another aspect of the changing diplomacy in that regard is as Wiseman argues a shift from “national interests” only to “global interests” (Wiseman, G., 2004, p37). National interests are still very much the main goals of diplomacy but global interests have to be considered. The main concern for every country is trade. An article in Le Monde Diplomatique describes the phenomenon as “economic diplomacy”. It shows how diplomats have become salesmen and how it is now all about the market. The world depends on the meetings of the WTO, the G8 and the IMF (Ross, G, 2000). Economic diplomacy implies a money-orientated business and adds a bit of a negative notion to diplomacy.

The rise of IGOs and NGOs is a direct effect of the utilisation of new technologies and is an important feature of the so-called new diplomacy. IGOs and NGOs have a growing role in international relations. The first ones are the continuation of the state and its policy although working multilaterally, but here we will focus on the importance of the second ones. The figures show that in fifty years the number of NGOs went from 997 to 7261 (Saur, 2005). Such a rise especially since the 90’s has proved the efficiency of the use of new technologies. NGOs bring together citizen networks from around the world and together they can have a voice in some negotiations. Cooper and Hocking have shown that the states have less means to gather information (financial, time, training) and that is where the NGOs have filled in. They are better at using the new technologies and are now used as an official source of information gathering. NGOs have the expertise in the domain they specialise in and consequently can bring something to the states. In their article Cooper and Hocking quote Sir Peter Marshall (a former diplomat): “good governance depends increasingly on non-governmental factors”. Indeed states can no longer ignore non-state actors but have to work along side with them. Governments often have to work with them since NGOs mobilize public support. NGOs have different roles and even if they are not diplomats they nevertheless have a place on the world stage, sometimes more important than governments, notably on Human Rights matters (Cooper, A., F., 2000, pp361-371).

Celebrity diplomacy is another new trend in diplomacy. It is not completely new, but it has a growing importance and more and more celebrities are having a go at defending good causes or representing their country. An article in The independent ironically points at the number UNICEF goodwill ambassadors, so many celebrities are doing it, we don’t even know most of them! Although the article argues that the celebrities don’t have the legitimacy of diplomats, it shows that they clearly have an influence on world affairs. The European Director of Data said: “celebs don’t have national interests to represent, they are seen to represent the voice of the public, and they amplify it”, (Vallely, P., 2009). Well he does work for Bono so that’s what he would say. Some might argue that the VIP might have ulterior motives but they have a certain transparency being in the public eye and being rich already. We have to acknowledge that Bono and Bob Geldof have pushed the agreements on debt reduction at the G8 summit in Scotland and achieved something when meeting with leaders. If they weren’t celebrities and hadn’t the media and popularity among the public that probably wouldn’t have been the case.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QWKpzlf3vUw&feature=channel

The new diplomacy is a direct consequence the new media and Internet technologies. While the Internet has changed the way people communicate, information is conveyed in minutes via e-mails, international broadcasting has definitely transformed diplomacy. In one hand, the mass communication has brought diplomacy to the public and in the other hand states are using public diplomacy through the media to promote themselves. Economic diplomacy, NGO diplomacy and celebrity diplomacy are all showing how diplomacy has changed with Internet and the Media and seems to have become much more open.

Cooper, A.,F., Hocking, B., “Governments, Non-governmental Organiations and the Re-calibration of Diplomacy” in Global Society, Vol. 14,No.3 (2000), pp361-376, assessed online: http://0-web-ebschost.com.emu.londonmet.ac.uk/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=105&sid=78f3214b-87a2-4efa-881c-ec08955

Gilboa, E., “Diplomacy in the Media Age: Three Models of Uses and Effects” in Diplomacy and Statecraft, Vol.12, No.2 (June 2001), pp1-28, assessed online: http://0-web.ebshost.com.emu.londonmet.ac.uk/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=105&sid=e5197ea7-7efc-4526-ac41-4f7f548f

Ross, G., “Business is our only business” in Le Monde Diplomatique, August 2000, assessed online: http://mondediplo.com/2000/O8/09ross

Saur, K., G. in Berridge, G., R., Diplomacy theory and practice, 2005, third edition, Palgrave Macmillan, p152

Vallely, P., The Independent, 17/01/2009, assessed online: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/from-alister-to-aid-worker-does-celebrity-diplomacy-really-work

Wiseman, G., “Polylateralism and new modes of Global Dialogue” in Jönson, C., and Langhorne, R. (eds), Diplomacy: Volume III: Problems and Issues in Contemporary Diplomacy, assessed online: http://www.un-ngls.org/pdf/polylateralism_and_new_%modes_of_global_dialogue.pdf

Polylateralism: the new music of diplomacy

Polylateralism is central to any understanding of contemporary or New Diplomacy. This is the relationship between the state and other entities. The importance of transnational organisations in the mix of modern state affairs is increasingly important. Geoffrey Wiseman mentions that the United States has, on the face of it, differing diplomatic accentuations in Los Angeles, New York and Washington DC which is due to emphasis and centres of power. New York is host to the UN and other institutions so is polylateralist, Washington DC is bilateralist by nature because many embassies are bilateral and exhibit an older diplomatic raison d'etre. Los Angeles is modern and scattered and has strong links to big transnationals so is polylateralist. However one cannot make this an easy case for explanation because as it happens the World Bank and the IMF are in Washington and a plethora of institutes, think tanks and lobbysists. On closer examination though bilateralism dominates Washington they are all examples of complex polylateral networks. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the gradual emergence of developing states as regional powers the idea of polylateralism has taken root.

Four models have grwon out of these trends:
1)Non state actors: NGO's
2)Deregulation across borders
3)Ethnic and religious tensions have emerged within states as forms of conflict
4)Information based and technological advances have accelerated

(Wiseman)

These developments have shunted bilateral and multilateral methods into the background. The lines of demarcation have become blurred as the state sovereignty has become diffuse. This posits the idea that we are now in a Post-Westphalian world of governance because of the influence of trans-national actors.

This has given rise to a multitude of new diplomatic labels and has seen like modern music a fracturing of genres of diplomacy:

1. “triangular diplomacy” (statestate,

state-firm, firm-firm relations);

2.“multilayered diplomacy” (involving

noncentral governments);

3. “second track diplomacy” (methods of diplomacy

outside the formal governmental system, often initiated by nongovernmental

actors and involving diplomats in their personal capacity);

4.“multitrack diplomacy” (an extension of the second-track concept, which

includes a wide range of societal groups engaged in peacemaking activities);

5.“niche diplomacy” (the ability of small and middle powers to provide

initiative and leadership in specific international areas);

6.“preventive diplomacy” (action designed to prevent existing disputes from escalating

into military conflicts);

7.“virtual diplomacy” (a process of direct global

and transnational communication and bargaining between non-state

groups and individuals made possible by new technologies, such as the

Internet).1.

To further stretch the music metaphor further it was appropriate that a baby boomer American president William Jefferson Clinton, who could play the saxaphone, emerged just after the Cold War ended and just as these changes were taking place to take advantage of the winds of change. Bill Clinton was also forced to change direction in his first term of office which kept him sailing into a second term. A polylateral President emerged into the polylateral age.

So where now will these powerful winds of change take diplomacy now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4RjJKxsamQ

 International Affairs, vol. 68, no. 1Localizing Foreign Policy: Non-Central Governments and “Polylateralism” and New Modes of Global Dialogue 53

final_chap43.qxd 18/05/2004 6:44 PM Page 53

Multilayered Diplomacy

, London: Macmillan, 1993; Louise Diamond and John McDonald,

Multitrack Diplomacy

(ed.),

Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy

Institute of Peace Press, 1996; Kevin M. Cahill (ed.),

Before They Start

Advent of Netwar

on “virtual diplomacy” in Washington DC in April 1997. The keynote speeches are

available on the Institute’s web site, www.usip.org. For a sceptical view of the impact of the

internet, see George P. Shultz, ‘Diplomacy, Wired’,

adapted from Shultz’s keynote speech delivered at the USIP conference.

, 3rd.ed., West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1996; Andrew F. CooperNiche Diplomacy, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997; Michael S. Lund, Preventing, Washington, DC: United StatesPreventive Diplomacy Stopping Wars, New York: Basic Books, 1996; John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, The, Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1996. The US Institute of Peace convened a conferenceHoover Digest Selections, no. 1 (1998),(

Wiseman

 1. Susan Strange, ‘States, firms and diplomacy,’

(January 1992); Brian Hocking,

Evolution and Change: Wikileaks, Diplomacy gets skinned

 http://gu.com/p/2ye3m 

The age of the internet has heralded in a fragile element to the process of diplomacy. Voluntary board member of Wikileaks Julian Assange is the front of house spokesman for the company that releases leaked  internet documents  belonging to governments. The agency has released sensitive documents which are getting the headlines and feeding the world press. So far this has been at the major expense of the US administration. 'There are no fewer than 251,287 cables from more than 250 US embassies around the world, obtained by Wikileaks.' The Guardian 29/11/2010

This is a factor in the development of Diplomacy which is acutely sensitive. One can be sure that character assassinations in print are quite normal in diplomatic circles but what is new is the escaping of this information in a flawed security system that is meant to protect politicians, diplomats and government agents. It covers documents covering the sensitive subject of Iran's nuclear programme and what strategy should be employed to deal with the crisis. Israel saying they want to knock out the Iranians nuclear plant and the Saudi Arabians wanting the same approach.

 After all I have experienced identity theft myself. In this instance the raison d'etre of the diplomatic establishment itself is being 'stolen' with the aid of mischievous elements or weak security. It is unfortunate when subversive elements get hold of it to aid the pricking of the delicate levels of diplomacy. In this instance we are reading information that relates to America's allies, puppets and enemies. It would be interesting to be the fly on the land line listening in to the apologetic diplomats.

'The leaked cables range up to the "SECRET NOFORN" level, which means they are meant never to be shown to non-US citizens.' The Guardian 29/11/2010

These original documents were leaked by a young soldier called Bradley Manning who is quoted in todays Guardian as saying:

"Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public ... Everywhere there's a US post, there's a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed. Worldwide anarchy in CSV format ... It's beautiful, and horrifying."

He added: "Information should be free. It belongs in the public domain."
It was said to be easy.
"I would come in with music on a CD-RW labelled with something like 'Lady Gaga' … erase the music … then write a compressed split file. No one suspected a thing ... [I] listened and lip-synched to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history."
I wonder which track he erased to do this! But seriously how can security services be so lax as to put peoples lives, ie agents and spies. at risk by being so incompetent with such important information.
The consequences for security and its ability to shield diplomats are serious. The content is revelatory and great material for a student of diplomacy. The New Diplomacy is having its skin pulled inside out in the process rather like a rabbit being skinned.

Link to 'Yes Prime Minister'. Sir Humphrey Appleby on Britain, Europe and Diplomacy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZUOkGxGUVs

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy

There is no doubt that the "new diplomacy" brought about many phenomena completely new to the traditional perception of diplomacy. It would be too far- fetched though to say that the old diplomacy is obsolete now, Putting it colloquially, it would be more accurate to say that if films went 3d then diplomacy went multi-d. One of the dimensions that I consider to be of significant importance is public diplomacy.
One of the reasons for my view is tht public diplomacy offers something that on such a large scale and in such direct ways was absent in traditional diplomacy: a dialogue with foreign public. The new public diplomacy engages in a chain of interactions with its target audience and transforms according to public's reactions. It allows a long- term relationship (either good or bad in some cases) to be created which always allows a better understanding of the agent's (wheter it's a state or not) policy or cultural heritage (in case of states).
Here another reason is revealed: in the times of globalization, public diplomacy makes the network system of states' promotion easier, especially the promotion of cultural diversity. As James K. Glassman decribes it in his speech as U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs in 2008 (can be accessed on: http://www.cfr.org/publication/16719/public_diplomacy_in_the_twentyfirst_century.html), nowadays the most important public diplomats are actually the citizens of the state themselves. That is an immense transition in comparison to diplomacy's roots of secrecy and aristocracy.
Exchange programmes, language and teaching programmes are just a few examples of wht Glassman mentions as the new strategies for U.S.'s public diplomacy. What is more, I think public diplomacy is an excellent example of how many new tools were possesed by diplomacy on the spectrum of years. Complex websites or also mentioned by Glassman video conferences providing information about state and sending abroad groups of well- trained experts from various fields are the common means of contemporary public diplomacy.
Another important aspect of public diplomacy is its war on terror, also known as The Long War which started directly after the 9/11. I do not think that any other aspect of the new diplomacy played such an important role in the process of "fighting" the terrorism. So far, it was not highly successful, even though the struggle lasts longer than World War 2 but many theorists claim that it is the fault of the nature of democratic politics in contemporary world (Taylor, 2008). However, public diplomacy remains the vital element of the war on terror and it is very unlikely that it will be dropped, it is rather going to evolve and develop more but this is for the future to show.

The Public Diplomacy

We may find a few significant methods used in conducting The New Diplomacy. These are ,for instance, The Public Diplomacy, The Multilateral diplomacy and The Paradiplomacy of Non-State Actors. Each of them plays an important role in striking the balance in the international politics and developing the relations among states. It is difficult to indicate which aspect of The New Diplomacy is the most influential one. Still, I personally consider The Public Diplomacy to have the greatest meaning for the civilization of the 21st century.

First and foremost, nowadays, when the media seems to be extremely powerful in terms of shaping people’s opinion, the fact that so many issues of worldwide importance are broadcast by Television, radio, Internet and newspapers is quite risky. Nevertheless, it proves of a huge progress in relations between political institutions and public opinion. Therefore, as citizens, we are given an enormous opportunity to get involved into world’s politics. It allows us to express our stance freely, to judge decisions and criticize measures. Today, unquestionably, the public participation has a huge power which can easily contribute to decision-making processes at each political level.

Yet, not only is the public diplomacy about facilitated accessibility of information but also about the ability of a state to promote itself. Numerous official institutions are strongly backed up by the PR agencies. That may question the creditability of particular politicians and their statements. They not seldom do both conceal and reshape some information and facts. There appeared several critical statements condemning public diplomacy for its propaganda-style character. On the other hand, though, undoubtedly it is extremely useful in building long-term relations in the international field.

Moreover, I need to emphasize the increasing role of embassies. Their work on creating the best possible image and publicity of their home state is significant. They do that using various methods. One of the most popular one is simply spreading the culturalattractiveness , meaning educational possibilities, travelling, art and many other. The Foreign Affair policy is much more efficient when conducted through means ensured by embassies. They are placed in the receiving state, therefore they can maintain friendly relations on a daily basis and quickly response to any confusing situations.
To conclude the above arguments, I am convinced that The Public Diplomacy is an inseparable feature of modern civil societies. Its effectiveness depends on the scope of participation of people. Fortunately, more and more citizens want to have impact on local, state and world politics. Thanks to this kind of diplomacy we can get truly involved in worldwide issues, influencing the direction of world’s development. This proves that despite some noticeable flaws, there is a considerable need for conducting The Public Diplomacy.

The Multilateral Umbrella

The technological revolution in the 1970’s has, indeed, carried with it a range of legacies whose impact on world affairs can hardly be adequately emphasised.
However, it is within these legacies, or an elaborate combination of them, that leap out and communicate the very essence of the new diplomacy, that of multilateralism. Although I continue to recognise the necessity of bilateral negotiations and agreements, under the global umbrella of economic interdependence and political overlaps, it appears that multilateralism has once and for all changed the very nature of diplomacy.
My reasons are deeply embedded in the international events that have made the headlines worldwide within a remarkably short period of time. It ranges from the negotiations in the trade war between the United States and China at the G20 Summit in Seoul (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328995/G20-Seoul-Summit-World-leaders-pledge-ceasefire-currency-war.html) to the historical line-drawing between past and future in the partnership between NATO member states and Russia (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_68876.htm), removing the iron curtain by the roots.
It seems that multilateral cooperation has been recognised as mutually beneficial resulting in constraints on unilateral behaviour.
Nevertheless, multilateral diplomacy still deals with dominant actors- strong states- in the process of negotiations and it is fair to say that weaker states are constraint in their influence on the outcome, a suggestion that power politics remains a producer of unfavourable outcome for those who are less powerful (Walker, 247). However, it is a problem that demands to be addressed by those in charge and ought to find its remedies in reforms of international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) (www.hks.harvard.edu/visions/publication/keohane_nye.pdf) and the United Nations (articles) and adjustment in the cooperative behaviour of states.
The trade war between the United States witnesses the downside of multilateral diplomacy evident in the deadlock in negotiations whose reason relates to previously mentioned power politics. The reluctance by both states to compromise on such an essential matter finds its explanatory power in the economic power that is more or less equally distributed.
I substantiate my argument for the crucial existence of multilateral diplomatic resolutions, partly, in its inevitability in the presence of political and economic integration, but mainly because security issues and peaceful solutions are only appropriately met in a global cooperative manner.
Furthermore, multilateral diplomatic trends of increasing, although not carried out to completion, transparency, which has allowed for the vigorous participation of NGOs and civil society, encourage future prospects of the legitimacy- the ingredient international regimes are often accused of lacking.

I believe there exists a mutually reinforcing power between states and international regimes, because the latter is impossible without the former, but that the latter, simultaneously, operates as a cooperative educator to the former and, thus, represents the slow, but steady, adjustment process the former will need to follow.
Few changes are painless affairs and backsliding can only be expected. But multilateral diplomacy is here to stay, despite the many lessons ahead.

The new diplomacy: what in your opinion is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy? Explain your reasons.

Contemporary diplomacy is a diverse network of negotiations and communications between states and non-state actors. It still maintains traditional features like secrecy and bilateral diplomacy as essential foundation, however, since the world has become more globalised in different aspects, there is a necessity of global solutions to deal with the increasing number of global issues. Therefore, the most important aspect of the new diplomacy is the emergence of multilateral and conference diplomacy. The evolution of technology and communication in diplomacy, the growing number of international organisations and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), development of public diplomacy and global concerns on security and environmental issues, all these factors have reflected the importance of multilateral diplomacy in world politics. This entry will provide the main reasons in order to explain why the new diplomacy would be ineffective without multilateral diplomacy.

Typical models of multilateral and conference diplomacy are international organisations such as the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or the  Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). All these organisations have a large membership and significant influence on the international relations. Each of them aim for different objectives, for instance, the UN aims to maintain international peace and security, the EU to peace and prosperity for their citizens while the WTO seeks to support international development. However, they share a common viewpoint on multilateral diplomacy as an effective device to pursue their goals. Multilateral diplomacy through multinational conferences and negotiations offer states better conditions to achieve agreements on issues that require a global participation. States benefit from multilateral diplomacy in various aspects as they can participate in pooling international information which might be related to their domestic affairs, through the joint management of resources they can then find an effective method to pursue their own objective. States can also influence the behaviour of other states or obtain mutually beneficial agreements through the multilateral system (Walker, 2004, pp. 16-18). On the other hand, multilateral conferences offer occasion for states which have no diplomatic relationships or conflicts with each other to meet up and discuss solutions for their bilateral affairs beyond the initial particular issue of the conference. In international conferences of the UN, EU and WTO, member states have equal votes which provide opportunities for developing states or states with less significant political position to express their viewpoints on global affairs.

Furthermore, non-state actors like NGOs also play an important role in multilateral diplomacy and have contributed considerably to the development and solutions of certain global issues, such as environmental and human rights issues. In contrast to states, which are the main decision-making bodies, NGOs often do not have the formal voting authority in international conferences. However, NGOs can effectively engage in international affairs and shape the negotiations process by lobbying the state, providing information or helping in drafting the decisions. Take the Kyotol Protocol negotiations on global climate change as an example. Environmental NGOs "were successful in achieving their goals by working behind the scenes to raise concerns about issues and influence the positions of key states" (Betsill and Corell, 2008, p.12). In other words, the involvement and contribution of NGOs in multilateral diplomacy is undoubtedly necessary, as their particular concerns on environmental or human rights issues are useful in order to reach a global solution to these problems. Despite the fact that NGOs might not have the diplomatic authority in international negotiations, they are an essential part of the multilateral diplomacy.

In conclusion, the increasing number of global issues that require multinational negotiations, has made multilateral and conference diplomacy the most important factor of contemporary diplomacy. Multilateral diplomacy is significant as it contains within itself other fundamental elements of the new diplomacy, such as diplomatic negotiations or public diplomacy. In general it has strengthened the relationships among states as well as their collaborations with nongovernmental organisations.

Bibliography:

Betsill, M. M. and Corell, E. (ed.) (2008), NGO Diplomacy: The Influence if Nongovernmental Organisations in International Environmental Negotiations, The MIT Press, USA.

Leguey-Feilleux, J. R. (2009), The Dynamics of Diplomacy , Lynne Rienner Publishers, London.

Walker, Ronald A. (2004), Multilateral Conferences: Purposeful International Negotiation, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11741674 - G20: Leaders' statement from Seoul summit. It shows how states can achieve agreements in multilateral conferences.

Questions & Answers revealed for the real people with powers!

HAMID SHEIKH, NEWHAM’S FIRST DEPUTY YOUNG MAYOR in 2007

I have managed to find truth about the office of Young Mayor of Newham. Young people have the right to speak for themselves on how they want their community in Newham to be. This is what used to happen with the old Youth Parliament. It may not have worked perfectly, but at least there was some structure in place to give young people a voice. Now the youth parliament has been scrapped. The only right young people have now is to vote in an annual talent show for a Young Mayor who will make decisions on their behalf. Let me answer Rebecca’s points one by one.

“A democratic election contest for the Young Mayor and Youth Council gives

every young person the opportunity to take part in local decision-making.”
Yes, the Young Mayor elections are fair and democratic. However, the Youth Parliament – an elected assemble of young Newham residents – was a much better system. That was direct democracy. All the young people had full power to express themselves. Having a Young Mayor removes their right to speak for themselves. I don’t agree to having one person to represent all the young people in the borough, elected by a one-off snap popularity poll. The danger is that if the young person occupying this position is speaking to an MP or a minister, he or she won’t have the confidence to stand up for the young people of Newham, unless they are given a script. They can become puppets or hostages.

“Through the Young Mayor’s budget and Youth Opportunity and Youth Capital Funds the Young Mayor and Youth Council have initiated youth-led projects across the borough.” Young people make up half the population of Newham. The Young Mayor’s budget comes to £25,000 – less than one thousandth of the total council budget! If we include the funding from the Youth Opportunity Fund, it is still no more than 1.5%. It is true that the council spends hundreds of millions on education and other youth services – but young people have no say in how that money is spent.

Candidates “campaign to win support from their friends, neighbours, classmates and peers”. Elections should not be a glorified talent show, a popularity poll based on how many friends you have, or block voting by schools and colleges. Does this really

“reinforce our accountability to the community”? There is no way to hold the Young Mayor to account. Once he or she is elected, that’s it. It’s a one-term position, so they never stand for re-election.

Sir Robin Wales talks about “the indifference felt by a small minority of young people towards the 2008 Young Mayor Election”. There are at least 35,000 people aged 11-17 living in Newham. On top of that, there are many more young people who are working or studying in Newham. All of these are eligible to vote. How many actually voted in the Young Mayor election? Even this year, only around 8,000. So who are the “small minority”? The voters or the non-voters?

“Your article quotes election slogans taken out of their original context... These slogans and statements are necessarily inspirational.” Many young people considered these slogans not “inspirational”, but meaningless sound-bites – an insult to their intelligence. Young people in Newham have real problems! None of the manifestos which I read for the Young Mayor in 2009 offered a serious programme on how to tackle youth unemployment, the shortage of college places, lack of free sporting and recreational facilities, or gun and knife crime. Newham’s young people deserve better than an annual game show. They need to get organised!

Click Here to see Angelica Lukauskas's Manifest, now is this achievable? does she have a clue that she is just another poppet of the bigger people with powers out there who are just controlling her?

It’s just another political game by the people with powers...

The Young Mayor of Newham is the council’s flagship initiative for working with local young people. By putting power to influence decision-making directly into the hands of young people, the Council is strengthening local democracy and reinforcing an inclusive community spirit, which is the lifeblood of our vibrant and diverse borough. A democratic election contest for the Young Mayor and Youth Council gives every young person the opportunity to take part in local decision-making.

Young people participate as nominees, candidates, election agents, and of course as voters. The Council acknowledges critique of the initiative as a valuable form of participation which reinforces our accountability to the community. Young people possess a range of talents and interests and we recognise the role of Young Mayor or Youth Councillor will not appeal to everyone. We provide a vast range of other activities for young people to take part in.

Young people’s opinion piece described the indifference felt by a small minority of young people towards the 2008 Young Mayor Election. The annual Young People’s Survey which was generated by the Newham Council shows strong and growing support among young people for the Young Mayor and Youth Council scheme. The Young Mayor website is the primary source of information for young people to find out how to get involved and keep up to date with the work of the Young Mayor and Youth Council.

Newham’s young people are able to make informed choices when electing their representatives. The aims of all the candidates for Young Mayor are widely publicised through posters, leaflets, PowerPoint presentations, DVDs and video manifestos available in schools, colleges and online. All nominees and candidates are supported to lead their election campaign to win support from their friends, neighbours, classmates and peers.

As part of their election campaign, each candidate develops a manifesto based around their priorities for young people and how they will make positive changes to the local area. The new elected Young Mayor’s article quotes election slogans taken out of their original context within manifesto statements. These slogans and statements are necessarily inspirational.

They are written by young people for whom this is usually their first experience of standing for election. Young people decide at the ballot box which manifestos resonate best with the concerns that matter to them.

The Young Mayor and Youth Council may be judged on their delivery of positive changes during their term in office. In the last year they have focused on three key priorities: tackling crime and fear of crime, building sustainable communities and increasing opportunities for young people. These priorities have informed their decision-making in spending the Young Mayor’s budget of £25,000, guiding the allocation of Youth Opportunity and Youth Capital Funds worth £400,000, and influencing over £490 million of Council investment in services for children and young people.

On crime and fear of crime, the Young Mayor has strengthened relations between young people and the police. On building a sustainable Newham, the Young Mayor has led the campaign to raise awareness of recycling and energy efficiency. On increasing opportunities for young people, the Young Mayor and Youth Council have engaged local young people in shaping Newham’s Olympic legacy.

www.newham.gov.uk/youngmayor

EUs Democratic Surplus

International institutions have often suffered the aggravating description of being in ’democratic deficit’ among which the European Union has equally occurred, but with an increasing public awareness of political affairs, there is hardly any doubt that bureaucratic illnesses need immediate treatment. Being a cluster of democracies, the very absence of this characteristic in the institution itself appears rather self-contradictory.
The ‘democratic deficit’ carries with it a legacy of legitimate decline and has, fortunately, resulted in the European Citizens Initiative (ECI) introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, an answer to the constant interpellation by citizens in an information age.
The process itself reflects the dominant role of the internet which proves to be a direct tool in diplomatic relations as ordinary citizens, a million of them, now posses the possibility of participating in the implementation of laws, a unprecedented progress towards direct democracy.
"not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties." (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/10/116&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en)
The quarrels regarding the sufficient number of support the ECI will need among member states to attain adequate legitimacy witnesses the diffusion of power as it seems to emphasise the delicate balance between public influence and political latitude.
However, MEPs, through which ordinary citizens have a voice, insist on ‘’public hearing as the appropriate filter’’ in the implementation of law and policy proposals and, thus, represents, hopefully, enough pressure to influence the outcome.
Nevertheless, there remains doubt about efficient results, evident in the belief that only governments posses the power to truly change structures within the EU.
No matter what the ECI will, finally, entail of results, the initiative itself represents a great deal of what The New Diplomacy is fundamentally all about. Shifting from predominant bilateral negotiations between states to multilateral consultations and summits, the ECI embraces public opinion as a link in decision-making and creates hope for further public engagement in the future.
International regimes, whose transparency is often in question, experience more pressure than ever before from interest groups, NGOs and civil society to a degree that makes them difficult to ignore.

In an era of growing economic interdependence where decisions on top have increasing influence in every corner of the world- or Europe at least, public participation and influence ought to be a matter of course and political processes should, thus, not be kept from the political agenda.
Additionally, more than being a public diplomacy tool, it invests in direct participation by citizens within the EU and hopefully, the discourse the ECI represents will amplify and obtain greater recognition in other international institutions whose accountability is equally important.
It is ’the power of people’, a power that deserves more attention than ever before.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11773647

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/10/116&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0389+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

The G20 Summit In Seul

In order to tackle the worldwide issue of the financial and economic crisis, in November in Seul the G20 members met to strengthen international cooperation and gather some new solutions to be taken in the future in terms of improving the global situation and maintain further growth and development.

Today, there are available numerous articles and comments on the above top forum. The final statement by G20 leaders has been made available to public opinion. It is rich in expressions showing strong unity and unanimity among the leaders. They state their common attitude towards overcoming the appalling economic (and not only) conditions. The official website provides updated information and documents prepared during the meeting, for instance the Communique. It makes clear that the states are ready to join their efforts and carry out the proposed solutions. International media spread pictures of personable representatives standing together, proud of themselves and glad to have accomplished the set goalsYou can check it here. Doesn’t it look perfect? Even too perfect? Still, we have to bear in mind that setting particular objectives is not enough. The public opinion is more looking forward to seeing any visible effects of the G20’s work in reality rather than on paper. We are all awaiting to discern changes in our countries concerning the everyday living. Unfortunately these expectations are not always satisfied. It usually takes a lot of time for the new regulations, solutions and ideas to be implemented and finally to work. Therefore it is not really that beautiful as we may conclude from the given documents.

Giving the above example of a recent event, I did not want to say that public diplomacy is worthless as it not seldom presents untrue facts shaped by governments’ PR agencies. I underlined one of its disadvantages but in general, I strongly believe that public diplomacy plays a huge role in nowadays’ world.
Many authorities like Mark Leonard mentioned in the Nye’s book ‘Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics’ as well as Berridge (2010;p180) claim that public diplomacy is a kind of propaganda. Still Nye strongly disagrees (2004;p.107). I would support the Nye’s view that apart from trying to create the most positive image in media, public diplomacy ensures almost ideal conditions for maintaining healthy and continuous relationships among states.

The G20 summit is a great chance for the most influencial states in the world to exchange views on the most current affairs, reach agreements and cooperate for the sake of billions of people in the world on behalf of – again- billions of people. Thus, public diplomacy is significant in terms of international partnership. Moreover it makes us –citizens- feel more or less secured. What I am trying to emphasize is that this PR work has an enormous psychological influence on us. We know that in times of crises we are not left ourselves but that there are institutions which always take care of appearing problems. In addition, the states’ willingness to meet and work together proves that we may not expect any third world war in the near future.

MI6 Boss Sir John Sawers Gives First Public Speech By Serving Head Of Br...

'Je t'aime moi non plus' v. 'Your 'avin a larf aintcha!' - Anglo-French Defence Agreement-

BBC coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOdSWZDyNgU

ITV coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5855wHTApnE






The recent treaty agreements between France and the UK (http://gu.com/p/2kzf8 ) has emerged out of a certain amount of economic necessity. The economic down turn has got strategic heads turning where some tentative costings can be made to some very large military budgets. After all the UK and France are the 3rd and 4th largest military forces in the world. Somehow both leaders have forged ahead to sign this treaty which will allow for a 10,000 expeditionary force, an aircraft carrier and joint nuclear testing. Cameron had to re-assure the US/the Pentagon, who suspected the motives for such a move, that the UK would still be under the US nuclear umbrella and that we would continue to buy American nukes. The treaties also allowed France to rejoin the NATO command structure for the first time since 1958 when De Gaulle protested at Eisenhower's control of the organization and left NATO to become independent of US control. Sarkozy has now decided that France should stop isolating itself and has been happy to make ouvertures toward a soupcon of military cooperation with 'Les Rosbifs' as they affectionatly call us. It also allows for the UK to act independently if it likes even though in recent history this has happened only twice; in Sierra Leone and in the Falklands. This is a brave new forging of a newly minted limited edition Anglo-French warrior on the world stage. However even this small step has raised the ire of Cameron's backbenchers one of whom Bernard Jenkin, a former shadow Tory defence minister, said that  "We cannot have a strategic fusion with a country that has historically, and still has, diametrically different strategic objectives on the world stage."