Young People are trying to set a example...

Kaycee de Belen Young Mayor of Newham

VOTE, VOTE, VOTE……?

The Election fever swept though London Borough of Newham a few months ago as young people rushed to the polling station set up in their schools, eager to cast their votes for the new Young Mayor of Newham and become involved in the world of politics.

This is how the Newham council and the current Mayor of Newham hoped the youth in the borough would respond. The truth was a little different. Before voting day, teachers tried in lesson and in assemblies to get their students interested in voting. The reality was that most people didn’t care. Mostly of the people that voted were just those who had lessons like PE, PSHE or Drama on voting day; instead of a lesson they were taken to the polling station to cast a random vote, having received yet another lecture about how important their vote is.

The sad truth about the young mayor is that no one should really care. Whoever got voted in, in the same thing was going to happen. Every candidate would to the same: nothing. Now I’m not suggesting that any of the candidates were just looking for something impressive to put on their application forms. I’m sure many of them really do want to help the young people of Newham. But there are two things standing in their way.

The first problem is that none of them knows how. Their manifestos were filled with empty slogans like “vote for me for a better life” or “I’ll unite Newham”. Not only are these things unachievable for the young mayor, but they sow that these candidates had no idea of what to do once they become the Young Mayor. One candidate actually said “vote for me to be happy”, now how are they going to make everybody happy? Employ happy squads to make sure nobody’s sad? Or maybe send out travelling clowns, to cheer up all the unhappy people? One candidate said that she needed everyone’s ideas to help her to be the mayor. In other words… she hadn’t got a clue what to do.

The second thing that stops the Young Mayor of Newham helping people is the funds they have access to. The Young Mayor has a budget of £25,000 to spend on helping the youth of Newham. £25,000 is barely enough to pay for one full-timer for the year, so any activity that needs time is out of the question. That leaves very little for the young mayor to do.

now isn't this related to the public diplomacy, how cleverly the government of today are plotting there scheme amongst young people on influencing them to pretend to be a part of the government and act as superiors from others, the government is trying to make them diplomats by giving powers which is controlled by others acting such as puppets by the people with powers.

I’m afraid I don’t now who won yet. Congratulations, anyway. But please don’t be offended if I tell you I’m not holding my breath for anything new to happen in Newham now that you’ve been elected. for more details visit the Newham Young Mayor website; http://www.newham.gov.uk/youngmayor/

Sir Robin Wales Mayor of Newham

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.