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