Leftovers from the Old Diplomacy dining table: Treaties, Alliances, Ententes, Cooperations and Relationships

(A cartoon expressing a rather sour German point of view on the British-French "Entente Cordiale" of 1904 -- John Bull walks off with the trollop France (in her scandalously short tricolor skirt) while Germany pretends not to care despite the hidden sword. Source: wikipedia)




The New Diplomacy has developed with new technology and all the fast paced decision making that goes with that but its roots lie in Treaties, Alliances, Ententes and Cooperation which have tended to prosper as have ties between nations which are still strong, valid and cogent in todays world. After all technology can fail so other things need to be in place to reinforce the conducting of diplomacy. There are various terms which have survived and continue to be used that refer to an established connection between two states or countries. This is a list of a few examples:

1) The 'Auld Alliance' of France and Scotland

2) The 'Entente Cordiale' between France and Great Britain

3) The 'Special Relationship' between the USA and Great Britain

4)'Franco-German Cooperation'

5)The 'Anglo-Portuguese Alliance' of England and Portugal

So which of the four do you think is the oldest historical alliance between two countries? Are these arrangements still valid as working diplomatic ties/alliances?

The first Alliance between France and Scotland proved to be a match born out of a mutual dislike, perhaps even hatred, of England and still gets mentioned when the putative leader of Scotland's Assembly meets the actual President of France. The Anglo French'entente cordiale' celebrated its first centenary in 2004 with barely noticed state visits between the two states save for a few Red Arrows flying overhead in tribute. The 'Special Relationship' has been propagandised at different times but is not a priority now. President Obama removed the statue of America's favourite British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the Oval Office because his colonial government was presiding when his father was  detained without trial in Kenya. President Obama has to spend more time with the growing influence of the BRIC countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China and much less time with the UK and the EU. This is not to deny that there is a common diplomatic and economic bond with the US especially since the Marshall Plan and the British Empire acceded to 'Pax Americana'.

In European terms and world terms a common language or heritage still counts at a certain level. Some powerful links are more powerful than others most notably that of the US and the UK and between Germany and France. During the Iraq War the French and German governments sided with Russia against the UK and the US over the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Former President Jacques Chirac stated his desire that Europe acted as a bulwark against US foreign policy in global and regional terms in particular the US policy in the Middle East which he believes needs countering. The President of France has much more autonomy of position when it comes to diplomacy than many of his counterparts. This is also a left- over of the Anglo Saxon, ie UK and the US, divide and conquer, landshare and grab of the Middle East by mandate and protectorate which lead to France being sidelined and ignored progressively after the Treaty of Versailles onwards.

The answer to my conundrum concerning which of the above examples is the oldest alliance is Portugal and England who signed a treaty in 1386. The truth is that they are all still valid and ongoing arrangements. The old treaties signed between these pairings do not bind them and may not be as relevant but elements of 'soft power' are often exhibited where sabres once rattled. Portugal and the UK are in NATO and the EU (as are Germany, France and the US) so much happens around those two tables with others present. Portugal has given the UK access to air force bases on the Azores, which are owned by Portugal, most notably in 1982 when the UK under a Thatcher government fought Argentina over the Falklands Islands. When Portugal wanted the UK government to stop India, in the form of the Indian Union, from taking back Goa in 1961 which Portugal had occupied since 1510, the UK government could do little as India was independent and the Portuguese government had refused to negotiate with the Indian government.

So it can be seen that some of these arrangements endure, some are more pronounced but events are unfolding fast and the new economic priorities arising from the economic power of the BRIc countries is laying the foundation for new forms of diplomacy which will still have some links to the past. It should be noted that the current economic conflict between China and the US has potential to escalate and China have memories of the way they were treated by the Eight Nation Alliance (Austro-Hungary, Britain, France, Germany, United States, Italy, Japan, Russia) during the Boxer Rebellion when they were forced to sign an unequal treaty in 1901 after being defeated by 45,000 foreign troops. The Chinese play a long tactical game and have no liking for cosy alliances.




Angela Merkel Chancellor of Germany and Nicolas Sarkozy President of France at a Summit Meeting 2009

Old dogs, new tricks

XX century brought a significant change into the system of diplomacy. The transition from traditional system to the so called "new diplomacy" did not take place without a reason though and according to many theorists, the main reason was the First World War (White, 2001). However, I believe there are some elements or habits which survived and are still of some (good) use in the globalized nagotiations network.
Journalist Kenneth Weisbrode highlights the fact that not only is the traditional diplomacy still haunting the new system but it is going to be of even higher importance soon, as there are already talks for instance between the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the British Tories leader David Cameron about the reinvention of diplomatic system for the 21st century with a remarkable accordance to "the old diplomacy" (Weisbrode, 2010).
What is it that modern diplomacy derives from the classic system? From various dimensions on which diplomacy operates, each diplomat or State usually picks some of the "traditional" methods which he/it can efficiently use in a particular situation. For instance, even the global network's strong supporter and the new, open diplomacy follower- the U.S. and its foreign ministry, due to its difficult relations with China is actually very likely to use some of the old fashioned "ways of doing business" (Weisbrode, 2010). Is it going to be treaties, ambassadors? It's an interesting issue to observe judging by how Kenneth Weisbrode describes it.

Speaking of negotiations, even though Internet and technology have immensely developed in the times of globalization and are some of the most popular, yet efficient communication tools, a slight reluctancy to adopt them can be observed among diplomats (Riordan). When it comes to the most important communications, many diplomats still prefer the "traditional" handshake and face to face contact, not to mention the elegant receptions and gastronomically sophisticated dinners instead of video conferences.
One of the most visible links with the "old sytem" is probably also the presence of the resident ambassy and everlasting attention given its main residence's "brick and mortar" appearance (Berridge).
Another example of the "old dog's" presence can be the the fact that states are still forming bilateral groups or even blocks of interest as they used to (example can be the Copenhagen summit on climate change in 2009) just to create a balance of power. Especially the poorer and smaller states which have practically no influence on the global issues try to seek security this way. That's not really what Woodrow Wilson was hoping for in his 1918 pro-international-networking speech proclaiming the rise of the "New Diplomacy". Judging by this example states do behave according to the realism's theory. Sometimes they do not only seek security but also power (as for instance Venezuela) and it's also reflected by their diplomacy, which happens to resemble what once upon a time was calles "machtpolitik".
Among other persisting elements journalists also mention: "the alignment of foreign policies with national and regional interest, the preference for the possible over the merely desirable, and the cultivation of what are today called "confidence building measures"." (Weisbrode, 2010).
Change of the diplomatic system is obvious, it is just progress. Still, the "new diplomacy" sticks to some of the good, old and known methods, but are we by any chance going to face the future "back to the past" in diplomacy?

‘The diplomacy today’

When we talk about traditional diplomacy we usually associate it with the period of separation, isolation and distance- difficult to overcome- among countries. We may think of some exclusive cooperation and secret agreements involving merely a couple of states . Undoubtedly, at that time it was the best kind of diplomacy considering the narrow agenda and ‘the nightwatchman role’ of states (Brian White, ‘Diplomacy 2005:387-403). Diplomats and heads of states did not put any premium on expanding the number of actors engaged into particular issue. However, times has changed dramatically. Therefore the we had to adjust to new conditions. In the wake of internationalization and globalization, the main characteristics of diplomacy had to undergo some major improvements, as well. Nevertheless, it does not mean that the need for traditional diplomacy has completely vanished. In my opinion, there is a place for ‘the old diplomacy’ but unquestionably the importance of the new way of conducting it is far more required today.

To start with, I have to mention the creation of worldwide networks and multilateral treaties - the result of processes which societies, economics and , cultures went through the last few decades(Fred Halliday 1994;2). The old world’s order simply broke down as an effect of natural development each civilization is subject to. ‘ the global village’ mans nothing but global issues. Here arose the call for transformation of communication amongst countries. States’ representatives had to acquire new skills which were more up-to-date and start the age of ‘the new diplomacy’.

At this point, I can give an example of the UN. The sessions of the great assembly often concern contemporaneous problems. The representatives from 192 countries meet to discuss various problems. In September a High-level Meeting on Revitalizing the Work of the Conference on Disarmament and Taking Forward Multilateral Disarmament Negotiations took place , as well as, High-level meeting of the General Assembly as a contribution to the International Year of Biodiversity. Every year there are held numerous conferences concerning for instance environmental issues, the human rights and many many more. Click here for more information

The EU is the next great idea which integrates countries in Europe. It proved to be extremely helpful to each of its members. Many of them thanks to acceding it were able boosts theirs national economies. The EU Parliament meets to discuss issues significant not only in the old continent. This week representatives are due to rise the problem of the Crisis in the EU livestock sector, the Innovation partnerships and Demographic challenge and solidarity between generations. Click here for more info

Lately, David Cameron has had a conversation with USA president and Yemeni leaders after an explosive device was found on a US-bound plane in Britain. Thanks to the fact that the diplomacy today is open we have access to many details of the conversation. More info here

The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization is also worth mentioning. Although SEATO was dissolved on June 30, 1977 it is an appropriate evidence that the international cooperation in politics was a common need. Therefore, the efforts to build the foundation for strong multilateral diplomacy concerning multitude of issues have their roots in many historical integration ideas.

To conclude the above arguments, I would like to say that I do not undermine the value of the traditional diplomacy. I believe that it is still of great importance in some political aspects. However, at the present when there are some many clashes, conflicts and instability we should be the advocates of this new diplomacy as it may be our only solution for striking a balance in the world.

Traditional diplomacy and its contemporary relevance

   

Despite the fact that diplomacy has changed in many aspects, as it has become more open with the involvement of non-state actors concerning different global issues, it still has its basic structure and fundamental system rooted in traditional diplomacy. Traditional diplomacy, which was based on secrecy, high politics and bilateral agreements between the superpowers, played a key role in the history of human society and still influences the contemporary world. This essay will provide the main features of traditional diplomacy that still remain relevant to contemporary diplomacy.

Firstly, the main ideas that dominated traditional diplomacy were alliances betweens states in order to prevent wars and create a balance of power. A typical example of this system is the League of Nations, which was formed after the First World War, to realize a collective security alongside each state's attempts to pursue their own interest through negotiation and secret agreements. Although it failed to achieve its constructive targets, as it could not prevent the escalation of the Second World War, its main structure and spirit have been maintained and converted into the after-war new established organisation, the United Nations (UN). It can be argued that the UN is a more successful example in some ways, as it has obtained peace and security as well as promote economic development and cooperation among nations (Steans and Pettiford, 2005, pages 31-32). The UN represents a new diplomacy which is more public and objective with the participation of non-state actors and includes most nations in the world. However, the idea of balance of power and high politics remain important, as the UN permanent Security Council is made of the five powerful states (the USA, Russia, China, France and the UK) which have the ultimate decisions on global issues. For instance, this is why the USA decided to initiate the war in Iraq in 2003 despite the UN security concerns. To some extent, contemporary diplomacy might be evolved in some aspects, these original features still remain in the nature of diplomacy.

Secondly, the traditional hierarchical system, conducted with the Foreign Ministry as the head and embassies as department bodies, is still functional in contemporary diplomacy. This kind of system has limited the role of ambassadors in policy formulation and decision making. Ambassadors' attitude and actions are then mainly restrained and directed by the Foreign Ministry which can make negative impacts on the effectiveness of their works overseas. According to a US report: "Embassies are too often saddles with structures reflecting a preconceived notion of what embassies should be, rather than being easily adapted to fit the environment in which they must operate" (Riordan, 2003, page 14). It might take a longer time to make progress in this traditional network that will give ambassadors more authority over policy making process.

Thirdly, the traditional functions of the embassy, such as negotiation, promoting friendly relationship, representation, lobbying and consular services, are still important in contemporary diplomacy. Such social and ceremonial activities are necessary in order to strengthen the relationship between states, promote the image of the embassy itself and reflect the efficiency of embassy in the host country.

Finally, even though the new diplomacy has created an era of multilateral system, traditional bilateral agreements remain essential. Through bilateral agreements states can achieve noticeable and significant economical or political negotiation in particular issues. Therefore, many countries state their global concerns in multilateral conferences but pursue their national interests through bilateral agreements.

All these factors mentioned above are evidence for the influences and relevance of traditional diplomacy to the contemporary diplomacy. It can be argued that the new diplomacy is an adjusted version of the traditional one.

Bibliography:

Berridge, G. R. (2005), Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills.

Riordan, S. (2003), The New Diplomacy, Polity, Cambridge.

Steans, J., Pettiford, L. with Diez T. (2005), Introduction to International Relations: Perspective and Themes, 2nd edition, Pearson Education Limited, England.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6MX0eN4AhU&feature=related - an interesting video of the current UK Foreign Secretary William Hague talking about the new aspects of British foreign policy.

The ‘old system’ of diplomacy had prevailed until the end of the First World War; it relied heavily on secret negotiations and was executed by professional diplomats. In contemporary diplomatic relations and under the new diplomacy fashions of parliamentary style debate, questions are raised as to whether the ‘old style’ of diplomacy has any cotemporary relevance.
The ‘new diplomacy’ features openness, inclusiveness and low politics which allows soft power and public diplomacy to grow. Furthermore, new diplomacy includes contemporary global conferences which permit negotiations between continents to subsist. Example of this:

Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos (R) welcomes President of the Transitional Federal Government of the Somali Republic Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed (L) at the Viana palace in Madrid on September 27, 2010, on the sidelines of the International contact group on Somalia meeting. Representatives of 45 nations and international bodies met in Madrid to consider plans to strengthen an African Union peacekeeping force in war-torn Somalia. AFP

The example I have chosen is significant, it shows that the ’old diplomacy’ has little significance, in the early 1900’s these talks were carried out in secrecy, today all states are insiders and co-exist with the major powers, (this was very different before World War one.) Also, they are allowed to be apart of the focus of upcoming plans: in relation to the African Union peacekeeping force.

On the other hand, there is still evidence that there is a need for the ‘old diplomacy’ in an increasing globalized world the world conferences which have specified, important functions and do not allow time for individual state relations to be addressed, improved or encouraged. In front of a world stage it may be harder for state actors to negotiate to final or even progressive agreements. For example:
June 2008

Iran's president has labelled Israel a "fabricated regime."

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cranked up his anti-Israel rhetoric at a news conference on the sidelines of a UN summit on the global food crisis in Rome.

This is just one example, although I would like to note that there are many examples of high politics within the international arena today which have a need to feature closed negotiations. This is to fulfil a stable level of communication and compromise to withhold sates resorting to war.

In conclusion, I think the ‘old diplomacy’ has great contemporary relevance.
In the new diplomacy there are many great opportunities for non-power states to voice their interests in the world stage. Furthermore, contemporary diplomacy has allowed conferences to take place that include major world threats such as the environment. A world conference allows issues to be debated within a parliamentary style and is clearly an attribute for the international community.
However, not all negotiations can take place within the world stage and be successful (or not.) The ‘old diplomacy’ allocates closed negotiations between states to exist and to communicate away from the world media and other non-actors involved within the world stage. In times of high level politics which include substantial terrorism and nuclear proliferation from totalitarian regimes, there will always be a need for certain closed and exclusive meetings.

Please feel free to explore some of the links that interested me when writing this blog:

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20100401a1.html

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Iranian-President-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-Says-Israel-Will-Disappear/Article/200806115005407?lid=ARTICLE_15005407_Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Says Israel Will Disappear&lpos=searchresults

The Public Diplomacy by Africom

United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) was established on February, 2007 . The project of AFRICOM was managed to build national security, to maintain public diplomacy as well as to ensure stability and humanitarian support according to needs and interests of African people. (http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/media/AFRICOM%20Web%20Publication.pdf)

According to General William "Kip" Ward, Commander of United States Africa Command,the main goals of project is to build the capacity that "they" say they want to have, in order to provide for their own security, its about the programs that U.S. brings to the continent, that are helpful to build in the professionalization of the military, in their ability to protect their borders, territorial surroundings including waters. Moreover, the essence of stability is not only about weapons and rifles, is not about the teaching someone how to shoot or march forward, the whole approach consists of many other components to build health, economical and education development and to provide hope for African people.

Despite the positive approach of project, the engagement of AFRICOM became very controversial and challenges the concept of “new diplomacy”. It also has many of comments by critics, especially by resistances. According to skeptical view of Nicole Lee, executive director of TransAfrica Forum, the "soft power" consists of public diplomacy and national interests which has to be supported by both negotiating states, and it should have nothing in common with military power, especially with the concept of militarism. Only shared values should have priority status. (http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/media/AFRICOM%20Web%20Publication.pdf)

'AFRICOM, for all the talk it is being of its being new and innovative engagement, could simply serve to protect unpopular regimes that are friendly to U.S. interests while Africa slips further into poverty, as was the case during the Cold War.' - Nicole Lee, Executive Director, TransAfrica Forum

(http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/pdfs/africom%20layout%20web.pdf)

As a respond to criticism could be arguments provided by Vice Admiral Robert T. Moeller served as Deputy to the Commander for Military Operations (DCMO) of United States Africa Command: ‘No, the U.S. military is not trying to take over Africa.’. R. Moeller's position has a strong basis and explains Africom very clearly without any ambiguities:

‘Let There be no mistake. Africom’s job is to protect American lives and to protect American interests. That is what nations and militaries do. But we also have found that our own national interest in stable and prosperous Africa is shared strongly by our African partners. By working together, we can pursue our shared interests more effectively.’

‘We believe diplomacy, development, and defense should work hand in hand – and in balance – to achieve long term security.’

(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/21/the_truth_about_africom)


As a reflection to public remarks, one year later after establishment of AFRICOM, in February 2008, the University of Southern California’s center on Public Diplomacy organized two days duration conference to analyze and discuss the AFRICOM’s strategy within relationship among U.S. and African nations. According to policy recommendations, “Public Diplomacy” as a part of AFRICOM’s policy has to be defined more clearly as well as the strategy how to place “public diplomacy” into practice has to be more organized and developed. Furthermore, the the lessons learned from experience of outsiders’ involved in Africa should have an attention and direction to all actions of AFRICOM.
(http://uscpublicdiplomacy.com/pdfs/africom%20layout%20web.pdf)

To conclude, the long term security mentioned by R. Moeller is crucial to eliminate local instability which includes piracy and illegal trafficking, ethnic tensions, irregular militaries and violent extremist groups as well as oil theft, widespread illegal fishing which costs 1 billion dollars per year for African people. The success of "public diplomacy" is possible only if U.S. interests and Africa’s issues will come together with common goals to pursue mutual decisions. As it was mentioned above, the stability is most important element which helps to maintain "public diplomacy". U.S. military should not be recognized as a threat to citizens or to common well being of Africa's people, it must to be accepted as indicator which detects antagonism.

The Modified Diplomacy

As a fact, under the “old diplomacy”, global policymaking was more strictly the purview of governments. One of the strongest elements of “old diplomacy” is secrecy, which is opposite to “new diplomacy” pursuing clear openness for public. As a result, the gap between citizens and government is reduced. At this point of view, must be observed, that “old diplomacy” lost its relevance in nowadays. On the other hand, the “new diplomacy” cannot be recognized as a brand new innovation at the stage of international relations, because it is a result of evolution and progress which is inescapable related within its beginning called “old diplomacy”. To crystallize these remarks, the model of “modified diplomacy” must be emphasized, and similarities in front with differences between “old” and “new” diplomacies will be discussed.

The enthusiasts of "new diplomacy" are tended to state “old diplomacy” as already expired. UN will be analyzed with the priority status among international organizations, just to prove and demonstrate how succeed or not they are in terms of new (public) diplomacy, because its existence lays on the part of period when diplomacy developed. This example will detect the role of “old diplomacy” and its relevance/ influence to IR today. The confrontation of these two diplomacy theories will conclude to bipolar observation.

The measure of UN which supports the “new diplomacy"

‘At the UN, all the member states – large and small, rich and poor, with different political views and social systems – had a voice and a vote in this process.’(Baylis, Smith, Owens 2008:314) All member states had to accept the regulations declared in obligations of the UN Charter, an agreement which settled international order. According to the Charter, the United Nations emphasized four targets: to ensure international peace and security; to maintain and develop cooperative relations between nations; to collaborate in solving international issues and in pursuing attention for human rights; and to coordinate the actions of nations. Furthermore, the charter promoted the interests of people as well as those of states. (Baylis, Smith, Owens 2008:314) This part illustrates the process reducing the gap between citizens and government. It also provides equality to all states to say a word as well as to be hearing out by others; all procedures are open to all state members and this kind of openness promotes the “new diplomacy”.

A state of UN referrers to traditions of “old diplomacy”

Security Council is one of the principal organs of UN. After 1965 it includes of 15 states and 5 of them have veto power, recognized as USA, Britain, France, Russia (former Soviet Union), and China. The veto power has a power itself to reject all Security Council decisions. (Baylis, Smith, Owens 2008:315) Even if there is collaboration among state members, there is no sense of equality between them. The scheme of UN illustrates public hierarchical system, where each state has a voice, but only particular number of them has a right to make a decision. It must to be mentioned, that there have been widespread and frequent calls for the reform, but no attention to this request was founded.(Baylis, Smith, Owens 2008:314) The diplomacy inside the UN is opened, but inequality is still a part of it and continuous over 64 years.



The primary conclusion is that diplomacy at this moment is seen as improved and public, opened for states as well as for individuals, there are no decisions made behind the closed curtains. Despite all these changes, there are particular attributes of “ancient diplomacy”, which is well represented and described by Thucydides:

‘The standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong (5 veto power states) do what they have the power to do and the weak (other member states) accept what they have to accept… this is the safe rule – to stand up to one’s equals, to behave with difference to once superiors, and to treat one’s inferiors with moderation. Think it over again, then, when we have withdrawn from the meeting, and let this be a point that constantly recurs to your minds – that you are discussing the fate of your country, that you have only one country, and that its future for good or ill depends on this one single decision which you are going to make.’

(Jackson, Sorensen 2007:63)


My final conclusion applies to view, that there are no “old” or “new diplomacy". There is only “modified diplomacy” within the roots comming from previous politics. Moreover, it is strongly based on values of realism: ‘Because it provides the most powerful explanation for the state of war which is regular condition of life in the international system’. (Baylis, Smith, Owens 2008:91) The past diplomacy still has relevance today and makes an influence to international relations.

The degree of diplomacy’s openness in 21st century

The most significant change in diplomacy of 21st century could be recognized as public (open) diplomacy. It will be discussed bellow from different point of view and based on particular examples.

The Diplomacy from itself represents values and the code of behavior of international and domestic governments/ authorities. As a fact, globalization of world politics made an inescapable influence to ‘old (past) diplomacy’ and caused natural consequences of evolutionary progress at international and domestic stage. Many changes have been taken in diplomacy, because of expansion of international society, what stimulates increasing number of international/domestic actors in face with own interests delivered by diplomats in particular fields (new technologies, economics, trade market, science, pharmacy etc.). As it can be seen, this process helps to decrease the gap between government and citizens. One of the examples pursuing public diplomacy is Hillary Rodham Clinton when invited all citizens of U.S., especially innovators from the technologically savvy Bay Area with the purpose to bring new ideas on how to improve America’s diplomacy:
” International relations, she said, are not just the province of men wearing three-piece suits shuttling in and out of meetings.”
” Diplomacy and outreach can’t just be left to our government.”
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/16/MNLO1FTHRP.DTL&type=politics)
Hillary Rodham Clinton Speaks Diplomacy in S.F. [VIDEO]: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2010/10/16/MNLO1FTHRP.DTL&o=1&type=politics

As Hillary Clinton declared, diplomacy can’t just be left to government. Unfortunately, there will always exist a state of diplomacy, which combines highest level of international affairs and such an institutions as national security department. Logically, it cannot be open for public, because of security and confidential reasons. To sum it up, open diplomacy can be effectual and valid in particular level between allies, but is not playing its part among enemies, moreover between ‘blocks’ and disengaged states. The relationship between the enemies is competitive, where diplomacy starts to cooperate with intelligence services. Intelligence's overseas liaisons interact with diplomacy and foreign policy. The connection between diplomacy and intelligence can be recognized by some particular features of its activities: intelligence as a separate state takes a part of twenty-first century government; it uses different access and technologies to collect covered information about certain targets, in this case, intelligence provides information by special methods, diplomacy uses it. For example, embassies can be recognized as intelligence units and are suspicious for local intelligence. At this level of diplomacy the target stays consistently, only technologies are improved, what could be emphasized as the change in new diplomacy.
(http://www.twq.com/10july/docs/10jul_Maller.pdf)

To conclude, the concept of diplomacy can be figuratively compared with the chess-board, which consists of different figures controlled by particular strategy. And the degree of the openness depends on the role and substantiality of particular figure, because the strategy within its targets is tended to be uncovered for the purpose of success.

The most significant change in the nature of diplomacy: ORGINS AND THE END OF 30 YEARS OF WAR

Methods of diplomacy have varied with the political conventions of each age. Negotiations have been a common practice throughout history, the origins date back to at least the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East. This blog will explore some significant history and changes within the nature of diplomacy with most attention to the End of the 30 Years of War as I consider this to be the most significant change in diplomacy.

There have been many significant changes in the nature of diplomacy, such as diplomatic conference of Sparta in 432BC. The conference objective was to decide whether or not to go to war with Athens. I do not consider this to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy but this should be noted as it is a historical and significant change when exploring natures of diplomacy. In this era there where many protocols in place which governed diplomatic procedure and although the procedures and technologies of these protocols have changed, the factor of diplomatic procedures are still important in international relations today.

The Byzantine emperors transformed the traditional role of diplomats as they were required to compensate for reduced military force by the use of diplomacy. The traditional agenda of a diplomat was to set out the views threats or proposals of the emperor, this moved to a new role which modern diplomats exercise, such as being a trained observer and negotiator. This again is a significant change in diplomacy as it gives an insight to how the art of negotiation began and how it has evolved.
Later in the history of diplomacy came the 30 years of war (1618-48.) The war started due to the uprising of the protestant aristocracy against the Spanish authority. This was a key change of diplomacy history as this was a period that the ‘Machiavellian’ expedients of spying and conspiracy took place. Also during this time the English took unquestioned precedence of morality and was called by the English ‘the end justifying the means.’ These means incorporated all sorts of issues but religious toleration was at the root of the conflict. This was a time of cynical behaviour from many heads of states. It was especially practiced by a prince of the church, Cardinal Richelieu of France who sided with the Protestants; ultimately this allowed the Holy Roman Empire to extend its borders. The example the Prince of the church provides is a balance of power politics. This is key in diplomacy as balance of power politics has been discussed within the international arena throughout history including the present day. By the 1630’s the war involved many cutting dynastic, religious and state interests’ issues. This war examples many diplomatic changes as it was Europe’s first continental war.

I consider the most significant change in diplomacy to be the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the 30 years of war. This is ‘considered by international relations theorists as the major transition to modernity.’ (The globalization of world politics-Baylis, Smith,Owens-4th edition) The treaty was crucial in delimiting the political rights and authority of European monarchs. Not only this, it legitimised a commonwealth of sovereign states; this is not only a significant change in the nature of diplomacy but also international relations as a discipline. The fact that the treaty allowed states to control its internal affairs and independent external affairs caused a major change in diplomatic procedures and relations thereafter. It also considered many rules and political principles of the new society of states; this significantly changed the way in which diplomats communicated, negotiated and represented their individual state.

Although there has been many other major changes in the nature of diplomacy such as Treaties of Utrecht (1713,) treaty of Paris (1814,) Treaty of Versailles (1919,) Charter of the United Nations (1945,) Declaration on granting Independence to colonial Countries and Peoples (1960,) new technologies, role of non-state actors, multilateral conferences and the new idea of public diplomacy. I chose to look at the history of diplomatic change as this provides the first changes and origins of how diplomacy came about to be what it is today. I considered the origins of diplomacy and the End of the 30 years of War as a significant starting point from where diplomacy has changed and evolved to what it is today.

Wargames and 'Showing your hand': The Evolution of 'New' forms of Diplomacy

This posting is going to go back a step to a previous version of the game of New Diplomacy (and perhaps each version should have a number to denote it). The latest version is primarily concerned with technological advances brought about by increased global internet participation. I am returning to 1989 and the fall of the Iron Curtain. To those glorious promising days of a new dawn in world cooperation and the end of  the threat of world thermonuclear warfare.

It was the point at which the US started to assume it's new role of World Policeman but without the chess playing skills required during the 'Cold War'. Brian White in his essay 'Diplomacy' reminds us that; 'No good card or chess player reveals his or her 'hand' in advance, and diplomatic negotiations are similar to these games in important respects'.

In the film 'Wargames' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHWjlCaIrQo   a supercomputer is made to play tic-tac-toe to understand that some games are futile and so it is persuaded not to 'play' a game of thermonuclear warfare against the Soviet Union. The computer then decides to relinquish control and asks to play chess instead. So why then did diplomacy fail to disarm the world based on this logical conclusion! Or fail to see that a logic driven computer would if given artificial intelligence understand that such a game was a 'no win' situation.

The role of games, sport and diplomacy has been around for a long time. William Shakespeare mentions tennis in  'Henry V ' when the Dauphin, the French Prince sends King Henry a gift of tennis-balls, as a joke in response to Henry's claim to the French throne. King Henry replies through his diplomats "His present and your pains we thank you for: When we have matched our rackets to these balls, we will, in France, by God's grace, play a set [that] shall strike his father's crown into the hazard ... And tell the pleasant Prince this mock of his hath turn'd his balls to gun stones" For gun stones he refers to what we know as cannon balls for a gun.

Time and time again sport and games feature in diplomacy and on occasions manages to defuse the sabre rattling and the jingoism.

The Wireless Diplomacy

The technological innovation proliferates at phenomenal speed with its provision of an advanced virtual infrastructure of information and has thus dramatically transformed the way in which we interact. Consequently, the nature of diplomacy has been compelled to adopt new approaches to the issues that are no longer settled with excellent oratorical skills but which require multilateral cooperation and constant exchange of intelligence.
The enormous flow of information has allowed a rise of increasing public awareness of diplomatic procedures. While technology has facilitated diplomatic activity the media and the public opinion have increasing influence on political decision making and tends to result in political panic attacks since thorough deliberation and strategy development are limited due to external pressure for rapid but sustainable conflict resolution.
A hectic diplomatic timetable substitutes administrative routines and customary procedures. With international organizations follow intricate stressful agendas permitting few errors given that global issues affect and interfere with national politics.
However, technology has equally accelerated diplomatic activity given that distances are virtually shorter and thus maximizing the enablement of international institutions and permitting shuffle diplomacy to ensure efficient exchange of intelligence and that decision-making meets deadlines. Technology and consequently globalization has equally seen a rise in influential non governmental organizations, transnational relations and private businesses which have become additional actors in international affairs, consequently changing the nature of diplomacy as it is no longer an exclusively governmental discipline (Ivor Roberts, Satow‘s Diplomatic Practice, 20-21)

Alongside its role as the major distributor of information and connectedness the internet has additionally provided a forum for terrorism which poses a great threat to international security in contemporary society. With the emergence of such complex networks diplomatic relations face great challenges calling for concerted action against international threats.
Common to an array of today’s political headaches like terrorism and global warming are the inability to naturally link them to a specific state and thereby they require an approach different from the habits that hampered efficiency in the old diplomacy.
To combat such problems multilateral cooperation has become a crucial necessity as to creating a framework that enables worldwide alliances despite cultural differences. Geographical distances are virtually blurry which cast the foundation of both bilateral and multilateral platforms (Suzanne Nossel, Smart Power, Foreign Affairs).

The primary difference that occurs in the nature of diplomacy is the globalization of increasing interdependence that the international society is experiencing with concomitant intertwined and fluctuating economies, expanded security agendas with time constraining the diplomatic latitude. All which suggest pushing the stand-by button of national interests combined with an extended embracement of international concerns.
The United States, with the superpower status it has acquired, has grown particularly vulnerable to cyber attacks considering its expanding reliance on technical equipment and should pay considerable attention to the transformed characteristics of warfare, shifting its focus from conventional methods to virtual strategies to defeat cyber warriors (James Adams, Virtual Defence, Foreign Affairs).

In the jumble of wireless connections, publicity propaganda, and online foreign policy, diplomatic activity is perhaps facing the greatest challenges of all in its long history. Long gone are the wooden wagons and time consuming processes as head phones meet the Concorde only leaving limited time for thorough considerations. The nature of diplomacy is now promoted to a new global level where decisions are made on the basis of quick briefings but their influence more dominant than ever.
Society is rapidly adjusting to a digital world- the nature of diplomacy must do the same.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qds6CieehhE

The use of soft power in contemporary diplomacy (exemplified with the Middle East)

Thinking of changes in the model of diplomacy over the years got me to conclusion it's not easy to judge which of them is of the highest importance, in the end it all depends on the context of their application and its results. However, I had no problem deciding on which transision I actually find the most interesting when looking through the prism of recent international events.
Just a brief reminder, the term "soft power" wa invented by Joseph Nye to name the "capacity of getting others to want what you want" (Nye, 1990) by the use of negotiations rather than "hard" military force.
Many anaysts find the question of the use of "soft power" engrossing when it comes to discussing the Middle East. especially with the recent example: Iran's president Ahmadinejad's visit to Lebanon.
Flynt and Mann Everett argue in their article for "The Huffington Post" that Iranian soft power is strategically significant and it is still growing (Flynt, Mann Everett, 2010).
Let's look at the example: president of Iran arrives in Beirut: huge vivid posters, warm welcome, his speeches about co-operation and on the contrary rumours about Ahmadinejad's symbolic throwing of a stone toward the Jewish state (Daragahi, 2010).
Just soft power, provocation or maybe already deterrence?
Among some there is a firm belief that the "friendly" visit is just a pretext to turn Lebanon into an Iranian base. What is more, the White House spokesman Robert Gibbs claims, that Hezbollah "values its allegiance to Iran over its allegiance to Lebanon" thus making the entire event looking even more insincere (Al Jazeera, 2010). Others claim the visit to be a pure victory parade and a show to threaten Israel, the USA and its Arab allies (Daragahi, 2010).
On the other hand, we have Hezbollah's supporters commenting on the visit that it is "a symbolic show of support give to the vitriolic attacks on the resistance", who next say "Israel does not need a provocation to launch an attack. When Israel sees conditions are right, it will launch its own provocative action or attack." (Daragahi, 2010). Seems like there is some nuclear diplomacy tension there after all.
In further persuasion of its usefullness for Lebanon, Hezbollah claims Iran has a substantial role in rebuilding Southern Beirut damaged after the fights with Israel. Moreover, it is supposed to be far better armed than it was during those fights and in case of the new armed conflict, with the help of Syria it is capable of easily defeating Israel (Daragahi, 2010).
We can clearly see that Iran wants the event to be perceived as a routine, friendly visit (plus the announcement of all the aids to be given to help Lebanon) by the public but what's really under that cover? It may be that they want Lebanon's ties to the West and the USA to be unbound or to put Israel under a psychological pressure. Perhaps, there is even a possibility of a "hard power" support in case of a new Israeli attack on Lebanon in the future.
I think the current Middle East example illustrates how "soft power" can be contemporarily used and even though it seems to be a better solution to the open "hard" armed fight, in truth it can actually have a completely different implied meaning. I leave the question open: is it really just conflict free negotiations or is it even more contentious?

The most significant changes in the nature of diplomacy

Can anyone deny the great importance of diplomacy in the today’s world? No, I do not think so. It is also impossible to maintain indifferent to achievements which it made reachable. Despite the numerous changes it underwent, I believe that it is extremely difficult to consider it to be absolutely flawless.

For ages, diplomacy had been a perfect means of pursuing one’s interests. Political leaders wanted to gain as much as possible for their country from two- party relationships. A narrow agenda created perfect conditions for development of state to state agreements.

Today, it seems that diplomacy is more open. It encourages every state to get involved in international cooperation and contribute to its improvement. No party can be rejected and no issue is ought to be neglected. Still, does it really reflect our reality? You may mention both UN, UE and many other international organizations. On the one hand, I would agree but on the other hand.. aren’t they a little superficial? Yes, these organizations made hundreds of states express their opinions without a fear, as well as, expound on various problems. Even though some measures have been taken to solve particular issues, results are not so apparent. The big community engaging many members will always face animosity. Some states will never place the common good above their own interests. Therefore it is extremely hard to demand unconditional obedience from everyone. That is why, I think that carrying out diplomacy did not go through any dramatic changes. I would rather say that the general rules changed but the selfishness which has always been permanent in politics, remained the same.

The fact that there take place conferences about various aspects concerning our presence in the world strongly contribute to international integration. What is more, the lack of secrecy proves a mutual call for comprehension and progression of relationships among countries. Although I do believe that today’s diplomacy is not about gaining power any longer, it seems to me that those crucial decision in world’s order are influenced by the leading states. Nevertheless, it is not only the politicians that take part in decision-making processes but also celebrities and non-governmental organizations. More and more problems are discussed in public. The media has become an influential creator of opinion, too.

To conclude the above remarks, I need to say that I am an opponent of the changes which are taking place at the moment. They may be very fundamental in the future of world politics. However, I do realize that some of them are conducted to satisfy public opinion. The most important agreements of high politics will never be available for democratic control.

The evolution of diplomacy

During the last decades, diplomacy has played an important role in world politics as it has contributed many significant improvements to the international community. Diplomacy can be defined as the management of relations between two or more states or non-state actors based on their diplomatic communication and negotiation. In the time of war and later in the bipolar world, diplomacy was used as a tactical tool of secrecy by the superpowers to gain some political powers and threaten their rivals. However, contemporary diplomacy with the applications of modern technology has been transformed by being more open and receptive with the participations of not just traditional states, but also of the new independent states and non-state actors such as NGOs and multinational organisations. In other words, diplomacy has shifted from its traditional bilateral system to adapt to the new multilateral one. There are now many multilateral agreements and organisations with global concerns, such as the UN (United Nation) or the WTO (World Trade Organisation). Nevertheless, the basic nature of diplomacy based on bilateral agreements and exchanges of embassies between states remains primary.

One of the main factors which influenced the change in the nature of diplomacy, and still does, is ‘globalisation’ as it produces significant impacts on human society and the modern diplomatic system. Globalisation with the spread of communication and the revolution of technology has created extraordinary interactions between states and their people. One state cannot achieve remarkable development or notable political status by agreements with just its neighbouring countries, but it needs also agreements and treaties with other countries in the same region or from other continents (White, in, Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2005, 3rd ed., page 391). As in the globalised world, the economy and political system of states are influenced by each others. Therefore, it is important for each state to not just send their representatives (diplomats or ambassadors) to an embassy in the capital of their friends' countries, but also to have their diplomats on diplomatic missions representing them in UN' and  multinational conferences. Advantages of such conferences are that most of them are public with the participations of non-state actors such as NGOs which do not represent any particular states' interests. Therefore, most diplomatic decisions there are made in order to seek alternative solutions to global issues, such as global warming, rather than to obtain some beneficial interests for a country itself.

Multilateral agreements and treaties have also become a significant part in the evolution of diplomacy. A successful example of such treaties is the European Union (EU). Founded in 1957 by 6 countries to support a free common market without barriers, the European Community has evolved to the present EU with 27 member countries working together to aim for peace and prosperity for their citizens (http://europa.eu/abc/history/2000_today/index_en.htm). EU countries members, despite their own governments and parliaments, share the European Parliament and have to follow the European constitution, treaties and law, and use the same currency. Even though they are representing themselves as a community on an international level, they still have their embassies and diplomats in other member countries that represent their own foreign policy. Another significant multilateral organisation is the UN created after the Second World War to maintain international peace and security by developing friendly relations among nations with 192 member states.

As mentioned above, globalisation in general and the multilateral system, with the involvement of non-state actors in particular, have influenced and brought the most significant changes in the evolution of diplomacy. As a result, contemporary diplomacy is more global and creates better relationships between states in different economical and political spheres.

http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2009/March/20090324081426dmslahrellek0.668133.html - an interesting article about the U.S. multilateral diplomacy

China-Japan: Recent Diplomacy Activity

This is a recent diplomatic news issue which appeared to escalate quickly and drew in the US government as an interceder calling for a resolution to an event which might have assumed much lesser interest if it had happened in Europe. A possible parallel might be Englands claim on Jersey since Norman times.  It is interesting because there is some unresolved history between the two states going back to the Second Sino-Japanese war in Manchuria  between 1937-1941. Every so often the issue of Japan's portrayal of its part in the history of the conflict raises its head as an unresolved issue when the Japanese history syllabus in its schools is discussed or some revision is made to the teaching that continues to depict the Japanese as heroic innocents in Manchuria with regard to the 1937-1941 war and therefore not guilty of particular atrocities known to have been committed by the Japanese.

  

Diplomacy

Japan-China Clash over Fishing Boat Incident

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Tokyo -- A Chinese fishing boat had a run in with two ships of the Japan Coast Guard yesterday which resulted in the arrest of the Chinese captain.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry subsequently summoned the Japanese ambassador in Beijing on two occasions to lodge a "strong protest" over Tokyo's handling of the incident.

The Japanese Foreign Ministry, in turn, made a protest of its own.

This is the latest in the the Japan-China territorial dispute over a small group of islets called the Senkakus by Japan and the Diaoyutai by China.

(My insert: The Senkaku Islands dispute, also known as the Diaoyutai Islands dispute or the Pinnacle Islands dispute concerns a group of uninhabited islands which have been claimed by both the People's Republic of China^[1] and the Republic of China (Taiwan) since 1971.
The United States controlled the islands as part of its occupation of Okinawa from 1945 to 1972. Other than the years of American oversight, these small islands have been effectively controlled and administered as part of Japan.^[2]
The controversial diplomatic issues of sovereignty are marked by a complex array of economic and political considerations and consequences.^{[3]   (Source: Wikipedia)}

The incident also comes about two days after DPJ leadership candidate Ichiro Ozawa declared on national television that, "The biggest problem is the Senkaku Islands. At no point in history have the Senkaku Islands been Chinese territory."

According to the Japanese government's account, two Coast Guard ships spotted the Chinese boat fishing in their territorial waters and then gave chase when the boat attempted to flee. After the Chinese captain deliberately rammed the Japan Coast Guard vessels with his own boat, he was detained and later arrested for obstructing public duties.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku stated, "We will handle the matter firmly in accordance with the law... It is important that in Japan we not get overly excited."

However, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said, "We demand Japanese patrol boats refrain from so-called law enforcement activities in waters off the Diaoyu islands and refrain from actions that would threaten the security of Chinese fishing boats and their crew."

She added, "The Diaoyu Islands and its adjacent islets have been Chinese territory since ancient times."

The Chinese captain has been taken to Ishigaki Island in Okinawa Prefecture, where he is being dealt with under Japanese legal procedures.

A government spokesman commented to PanOrient News that Japan would "address this issue rigorously based on domestic laws taking into account the degree and the characteristics of the violation."


PanOrient News