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

My understanding of diplomacy today

The New Diplomacy module has improved my knowledge about diplomacy and its significant impacts on International Relations in different aspects. Before the start of the module, diplomacy appears to me simply as bilateral negotiations and communications between two states where diplomats play the main roles in this network. Besides diplomats, resident missions or embassies are also important features of diplomacy as they represent the bilateral relationships between states, provide consular services for states' citizens abroad and also promote their national images abroad by providing cultural and social events to the citizens of the host countries.

Nevertheless, the New Diplomacy module has changed my understanding of diplomacy. Contemporary diplomacy is a global network involving not jut bilateral negotiations between states but also interactions between states and other multinational and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). With the influence of globalisation and the evolution in the technology of communications, diplomacy has been transformed from its traditional form of secrecy and high politics to be more open with the participations of states as well as non-state actors. In other words, contemporary diplomacy can be defined as an era of multilateral diplomacy where states are sending diplomatic missions to multilateral conferences organised by multilateral and international organisations, such as the United Nations, to discuss different issues of contemporary world politics. In such conferences, states and NGOs are cooperating and lobbying each others in order to achieve solutions to global challenges such as development, security and environmental issues.

On the other hand, besides the emergence of new diplomatic actors such as   international organisations and NGOs, there is also the significance of public diplomacy in contemporary world politics. Public diplomacy has been used by states and NGOs as a practical device in shaping public opinion in order to achieve their objectives or promote their national brandings. Public diplomacy through the use of soft power, such as media, newspapers, radio and campaigns, has played an important role in contemporary diplomacy besides the traditional government to government channels. It has shown its effectiveness in engaging the public support for states' domestic and foreign policies. Public diplomacy has also strengthened the relationships between states by providing educational and cultural exchanges to citizens of the host countries.

In conclusion, the New Diplomacy module has developed my understanding of diplomacy. It has provided an overview of the development and evolution of diplomacy, the emergence of new diplomatic actors and institutions, such as NGOs, in contemporary diplomacy. In other words, contemporary diplomacy is a global complex network involving state and non-states actors, as well as individuals, concerning a wide range of global issues, such as security, development and the environment.

I would like to thank our tutors Steven Curtis and Oliver Lewis for offering us such an interesting and useful module about diplomacy. It has improved my knowledge of this subject. I found it also useful by blogging my entries and receiving comments from other students throughout the course. The visits to the Embassy of Netherlands and Albania were also exciting opportunities for me to see the applications of diplomacy in practice.

The latest embarrassment of US officials by the comments leaked in Wikileaks (Guardian, 07/01/2011) made me ask myself again about the role of diplomats. The article mentions that comments made by US ambassadors in reports to Washington have upset the host countries. The embassy cables are confidential documents of more than 274 embassies between 1966 and 2010; the whole affair has been dubbed “cablegate”. I recommend everyone to browse the site for more details.

http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/secret_US_Embassy_Cables_(Cablegate)_1966-2010/

Another story related mentioned in the Guardian earlier in 2010 was about the Turkish Ambassador in Vienna speaking out on the way Turks are treated as “virus” by Austrians (the Guardian, 11/11/2010). These comments were seen as insulting Austrians and didn’t go down well at all in Vienna.

While the first story brings to the public elements on diplomatic relations and foreign policy it would never have normally been aware of, bringing transparency and truth to the wide audience; the second article shows that being open in the first place doesn’t necessarily work either. These two examples show that the relationship between diplomat and host country is very important, bearing in mind that diplomats can be dismissed by the host countries and be declared “persona non grata” (Kleiner, 2010, p3). The question is: is secrecy still needed in diplomatic relations or do we have the right to know?

Guardian.co.uk, 7 Jan 2011, “Wikileaks cables prompt US to move diplomatic dispatches”

Kleiner, J., 2010, Diplomatic Practice: between tradition and innovation

The Guardian, 11 Nov 2010, “Austria treats Turks ‘like a virus’, ambassador claims”

World's top media start spread of US secret cables obtained by Wikileaks...

Reflections on Diplomacy: The Final Chapter

The introductory perceptions of diplomacy may encompass only limited dimensions of the practice and nature but invite the curiosity to explore a discipline that embraces so many and elaborate parts of international relations. My reason for such in introduction lies in a second view on the first blog I posted on the internet which concentrates on an aspect that has influenced not only diplomacy but virtually all methods of interaction, that of the technological revolution. The implicative effects occur in former American National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger’s notion of shuttle diplomacy which has indeed speeded up the notion of internationalism and an agenda on which both issues and actors have multiplied in number and complexity#. In this aspect, I continue to believe that an underestimation of the capacity of diplomacy would be a fatal mistake as it presents an elegant alternative to the anarchical system of miscalculation of intentions and warfare, a reason which in itself holds sufficient reason to improve diplomatic methods. But given the short period of time in which the nature of diplomacy has had to adjust to these incredible circumstances patience combined with genuine effort seem to be the key words.
Questioning the relevance of ambassadors, embassies and their costly maintenance has become a natural consequence of these changes as the involvement of world society is undermining their positions. Nevertheless, I shall support their existence in the future for the simple reason that their symbolic presence reflects the desire to uphold good diplomatic relations and because ambassadors tend to posses unique knowledge of the nation in which they are placed.
My awareness has also captured the diplomatic implications of international economic and political interdependence where a fusion of public and private interests have added even more diversity onto the agenda. Negotiations within both trade and the environment become increasingly elaborate as issue-linking blend together whatever interests may be at stake# and the sudden amalgamation of national and international interests make it difficult to compromise. The regional groupings this has created indicate the separation of interests which continue to divide the international community during negotiations and obstruct multilateral agreements.
The notion of secret diplomacy was fuelled by the release of the Wikileaks# which conveniently coincided with our seminar on exactly that subject. Our discussion evolved around its political consequences for particularly the United States and its national interests combined with a discussion of the justification of this secret practice. My personal opinion supporting occasional secrecy was greatly challenged by those who recognised the democratic deficit diplomacy would, consequently, suffer. The arguments during seminars were a stimulating eye-opener as they appeared to mirror exactly the dilemmas which modern diplomacy is facing in contemporary society.
The changing patterns and dimensions of complexity are exactly what has come to my attention in this module; an acknowledgement that the deadlock during multinational conferences and summits, the exclusion of non-state actors in the final decision-making and the dominance of the global north over the global south on several issues still leave plenty of homework for the diplomatic practice. But despite these obstacles, my perception of the role of diplomacy in world politics has reached a form of absolutism where its decline would be of devastating character and its improvement ought to be a continuous common goal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0Z2WUF-x9M

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