Non-Engagement in Diplomacy: The Magnificent Seven Outsiders

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLTHW0ZwK7U

What do these countries, or former countries, have in common?

• USSR
• China
• Vietnam
• Libya
• Cuba
• North Korea
• Iran

They have all been excluded from diplomacy with the US at various times. They form an exclusive and notable group of exclusion. The distrust went back to Jefferson. In the early days the Americans just did not trust diplomacy.  But this proved to be a detrimental distrust. In fact they did not send diplomats abroad until the 1890’s[1]. In the 20th Century this was made remarkable by the US Senate’s refusal to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. America’s ‘ability to moralize has been a liability at times in diplomacy. This has been a liability which it has used to its own advantage. It has also been shown to have an unwillingness in recent times  to abide by international law.[2] Thus showing that the US wants the world in its own image. Imagine a world without diplomacy and international law? It is not an easy thing to do but we would have to go back many thousands of years to find it.

So let us look at the seven states that the US did not want to recognize in diplomatic ways.

• USSR

After the revolution the US would not recognise the regime. They opened an embassy in Moscow 1933

• China

Non-recognition became a weapon to isolate enemies and diminish their prestige. Nixon visited Beijing in 1972. Normalization started a with Carter in 1979. The Chinese economy has grown rapidly from this point.

• Vietnam

As it was communist the US would not have any diplomatic relations with them. Carter started normalization and then Clinton completed with the lifting of trade embargoes.

• Libya

In US eyes Libya was an adversarial state that would not agree to US conditions. Restoration of diplomatic ties started in 2008 after deals were struck over the Lockerbie Bombing..

• Cuba

Ties were broken off in 1961 this lead to an absence of diplomatic contact until 1977 when President Carter made diplomatic arrangements via the Swiss Embassy in Cuba and in Washington. Cuba is the only state that is subject to the 1917 US trading with the Enemy Act.

• North Korea

The US has never had normal relations with North Korea in diplomatic terms and never signed the ceasefire so is still technically at war. Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang in 1994. George W. Bush refused any contact preferring to refer to them as part of the ‘Axis of Evil’.

• Iran

Problems between Iran and the US started in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution and the US diplomatic hostages who were held for 444 days. Iran also became a part of George .W.Bush’s ‘Axis of evil’. In 2006 there seemed to be a diplomatic shift by the US. Negotiations were mooted. The nuclear ambitions of Iran and there geopolitical role have caused real policy problems for the US and Europe.

These examples illustrate that the US should engage not seperate or isolate. To reap benefits they need to engage.

---

[1] p216-p219, Constantinou, C.M. and Der Derian,J, (2010)

[2] Sands, P., (2005)- Lawless World-America and the Making and Breaking of Global rule, Penguin Group, London

'Britain's greatest gift to the world' faces budget cuts.

This is a blog on the current Con-LibDem Coalition's governments approach and attitude to the BBC World Service whose budget was cut by 16% whilst the 'Foreign Affairs' (the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) budget was reduced by 24%  and which is from the policy/guiding principles agreement reached days after the Coalition was formed. (The Guardian, Comprehensive Spending Review, 21/10/10)

It should also be mentioned that the soft power influence of the BBC World Service was harmed by change made to their funding. The BBC will have to fund the world service themselves not the FCO. This will lead to a diminishing of service and influence. A thousand jobs are expected to go at the BBC after cuts to the World Service and BBC Online. Five language services will go;  Albanian, Macedonian, Portuguese for Africa and Serbian, and cuts to the Carribbean service. The BBC World Service will be lose 16% of their budget over the next 4 years. It is estimated that 30 million listeners will lose their coverage out of a world wide audience estimated at 180 million listeners world wide. (p.14,The Guardian, 26/01/2011)

"It is an unwise move at a time when Britain's influence in the world is waning as new actors -China, India, Brazil- emerge" said Daya Thussu, professor of international communication at the University of Westminster, to the Independent newspaper (p16, The Independent, 27/01/2011). It is hoped however that online services will prove to be more cost effective and contact will still be possible.

It seems ridiculous to ignore the fact that not everyone in the world has ready access to the internet. A great many people all over the world have pocket radios tuned into the BBC World Service which is a British quality marked brand with influence and an impressive record of diversity in action. While Aung San Suu Kiyu was under house arrest she listened to the BBC World Service to keep herself informed. Kofi Annan described the World Service as 'Britain's greatest gift to the world'.

I spoke to a former diplomat to the Lebanon from 1957-1961, Christoper Everett, who was surprised at the cut to the service and was concerned at the impact of the cuts. ' The BBC should have been allowed to seperate the World Service from the budget arrangements. There is a very good argument for the World Service being treated as seperate and distinctive with an identity all of it's own'.

My own belief in the efficacy of a certain old fashioned but effective use of British soft power has taken a blow. In a world in need of the softer elements of subtlety in diplomacy it seems to me to be a poor decision and ridiculous that a current Tory Foreign Secretary could not see the worthiness of maintaining and developing the World Service. The Coalition will regret this decision.

(15. FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The Government believes that Britain must always be an active member of the global community, promoting our national interests while standing up for the values of freedom, fairness and responsibility. This means working as a constructive member of the United Nations, NATO and other multilateral organisations including the Commonwealth; working to promote stability and security; and pushing for reform of global institutions to ensure that they reflect the modern world.

•                      We will take forward our shared resolve to safeguard the UK’s national security and support our Armed Forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

•                      We will push for peace in the Middle East, with a secure and universally recognised Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state.

•                      We will work to establish a new ‘special relationship’ with India and seek closer engagement with China, while standing firm on human rights in all our bilateral relationships.

•                      We will maintain a strong, close and frank relationship with the United States.

•                      We want to strengthen the Commonwealth as a focus for promoting democratic values and development.

•                      We will work to promote stability in the Western Balkans.

•                      We will support concerted international efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

•                      We support reform of the UN Security Council, including permanent seats for Japan, India, Germany, Brazil and African representation.

•                      We will work to intensify our cultural, educational, commercial and diplomatic links with many nations beyond Europe and North America to strengthen the UK’s relations with the fastest-growing areas of the world economy.

•                      We will never condone the use of torture. )

I will explore this further.

Wikileaks: Diplomacy gets skinned (re-installed piece)

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.

29 November 2010 12:14

reflections

Reaching back to my idea of diplomacy at the beginning of the semester, I must admit I feel really embarrased of how negligent my perception of it was. A few months ago I perceived diplomacy as the peaceful means of negotiations plus some consulary services and additionally a "representation" of a particular state in a foreign country. During the new diplomacy module I found out that diplomacy practices are a lot more complicated than that and actually they have many dimensions.
One of the interesting discoveries concerning diplomacy was also brought about by the piece of news one day this semester and what I mean is the controversial Wikileaks. A number of New Yorker articles on the topic that I have read not ony provided me with some amusing findings on how the most boring country to reside for a diplomat is Canada (the cables from canada revealed that diplomats gossip about soap operas and hardly about any serious political issues), but also brought about some interesting news about issues which I have studied during the module. For instance, secrecy of bilateral diplomacy or the acting against morality just because of being under the control of the politicians (for instance, questionable tasks assigned to diplomats by Hillary Clinton) which issues were clearly visible in the revealed facts.
Judging from a perspective of time, the aspect of the new diplomacy which interested me the most is public diplomacy, about which I hardly knew anything before. I believe it to be modern and controversial phenomenon, yet capable of creating some brilliant results. thus, I hope I am going to expand my knowledge about it further, a well a about other diplmatic practices.

At the end of this module, my opinions about the role of diplomacy in world politics have certainly changed. This course introduced me to the concepts of public diplomacy, NGO diplomacy that I wasn’t aware of and that really interested me in terms of challenges to the practice of diplomacy. I might have thought for a second that the ‘new’ diplomacy was to replace the ‘old’ diplomacy because of the ICT revolution but I realised with this module that there are various type of diplomatic relations that can complement each other.

In this week’s seminar we also discussed the thin line between, diplomacy and politics and how they can be confused. I will refer to Leguey-Feilleux’s definition of diplomacy: “the idea of communicating, interacting, maintaining contact, and negotiating with states and international actors” (Leguey-Feilleux, 2009, p1). Negotiations suggest political manoeuvre Diplomats are not politicians but there have the political interests of their countries in mind. Furthermore there has been a more and more economical notion in diplomacy. Trade is the new diplomacy and businessmen are the new ambassadors in the Coalition government. Indeed head of Jimmy Choo Tamara Mellon is at the top of a group of “business ambassadors” picked by the government to promote Britain’s image and attract investment (the Guardian, 12/11/2010).

Another totally different actor with a growing diplomatic role in world politics is the European Union. What more to prove the changes in diplomacy that to give the example of the European Union delegations in other countries. Firstly every member country has a EU embassy in Brussels, including Belgium, but also outside the EU like in Washington DC. We could ask if such representation is really needed. It is shown that even though the bilateral missions in Europe are as strong as ever (number of staff for example), European missions are growing outside Europe sending European diplomats but also introducing European public diplomacy. In that case ‘public diplomacy’ cannot be define as ‘national branding’ because it is the promotion of a multinational entity. The EU public diplomacy is about influencing the way the EU is perceived but also it is about creating a EU identity as an actor. It intends to influence foreign conceptions on democracy, human rights or climate change. By describing itself with such values, it avoids the problem of the different voices within the EU and allows the one diplomacy of the EU (Rasmussen, 2009, pp1-20).

In the last few months we have studied the dramatic changes of diplomacy while maintaining the need for some old time secrecy. To conclude we can ask about the future of diplomacy. Is 21^st century diplomacy really going to be that different from last century’s? An author makes five interesting hypothesis on the future of diplomacy. His first point is the “’disintermediation’” of diplomacy or the end of the state-run diplomacy and the pressure of the private sector. This was seen in particular with the so-called economic diplomacy and the growing role of transnational corporations. Secondly he foresees an “Europeanization” of diplomacy with a shift from national diplomatic services to joint ones. It is already the case but it is suggested it is a growing trend. Thirdly in the future of diplomacy he thinks of “diplomacy as democracy”. New actors can participate in diplomacy and within the United Nations for example. His fourth point describes the “thematization” of diplomacy or the specialization of diplomats. And finally he predicts an “Americanization” of diplomacy. He means “American politics as world politics” with separation of powers, the importance of interest group and the media and the need from NGO support (Henrikson, 2005, 1-18). I personally think that his four first arguments can add to each other and will be how diplomacy is most likely to ressemble in the future.

Hendrickson, A. K. (2005) “The Future of Diplomacy? Five projective visions”, Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy No. 96, available at www.clingendael.nl/cdsp/publications/discussion-papers/archive.html

Leguey-Feilleux, J-R (2009) The Dynamics of Diplomacy (Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner)

Rasmussen, S B (2009) “Discourse Analysis of EU public diplomacy: messages and practices”, Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy No. 115, available at www.clingendael.nl/cdsp/publications/discussion-papers/archive.html

The Guardian (12/11/2010) “Tamara Mellon: not a typical captain of industry”

Coalition government taking Students Money!!

I feel obliged to speak on behalf of students across the nation, who is in dire need. Statistic show that about one in every four homes is faced with the challenge of poverty a challenge made even harder than in previous years, due to the economic downturn. This in turn means that the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is more vital to our society than ever before. Let’s put a stop to the idea that EMA is a financial drain.

They say that the rising generation is our future. Then why not invest in a better tomorrow? Why not invest in the lives of those who will one day shape this world we live in? To plant a seed is to believe in tomorrow. Then why uproot a seedling? Why terminate EMA? EMA is an avenue for people from poorer back-grounds to attain self-development that is otherwise unaffordable, and provides those with true potential a chance to prove their worth. Sometimes all people need is the means to accomplish great things. Given the chance, many college-aged students would continue studies after secondary education, working towards their goals and contributing to society, instead of living off benefits in later life.

Is Britain a democracy, or a hypocrisy? Democracy means everyone is given an equal opportunity to work towards what they want to achieve in life. The harder you work the greater your success or reward. EMA promotes that idea of equality, allowing those with the drive and de-sire for progress to achieve their potential.

Think of the uncharted consequences of scrapping EMA. One of the main problems will be the escalation of crime on the streets. Left idle at home, many youths will turn to other activities. Since their energies will not be focussed on positive pursuits, they will inevitably be channelled in a negative direction. Eventually this leads to urban decay, which in itself brings along a wide spectrum of problems. Coping with the repercussions will cost many times more than any short-term savings on EMA. Huge numbers of college aged students won’t be able to afford to continue their studies.

My Way of Understanding Diplomacy...

Now what is Diplomacy, in my way of thinking diplomacy refers to ability or a skill to negotiate. This could be negotiating between groups or organisations but its main aim is applied more to the negotiations on the international relations between the nations of groups of nation. Diplomacy is navigated in by the diplomats representing the views or interests of their nations; the word diplomacy itself has “Greek Roots” but the profession and use of diplomacy sees its widest use in the times of the ‘Mongol Hordes’[1]. Their main object was to entire the premises of the Persian’s and to invade the Persian’s land which was the result of murdering several diplomats. In the world of today diplomacy is primarily conducted in the UN (United Nations) it is build in the “New York” where all the representatives of all the nations of the world meets and then decides on the lethal issues of mutual interest.

Diplomats also conclude foreign ambassadors and the staffs which are employed in foreign missions, embassies and to consulate that represents the interest of their nations abroad and their task are to use their various technique and talent to form diplomacy to further interest of their nations.

When diplomats are using these techniques and talent of theirs to represent their nations they also use other strategy but sometime they end of getting murdered by the terrorist, just like the Russian diplomat who had been killed by the Al-Qaeda, where a man was convicted of kidnapping and killing five Russian Embassy staff in Iraq, which has been sentenced to death by the Iraqi court of justice.

---

[1] http://timelinesdb.com/listevents.php?subjid=47&title=Georgia