At the beginning of the module my idea about diplomacy practice was quite general and thus unclear. Throughout the semester I gained more detailed knowledge which helped me to better understand techniques and ways of conduct by which diplomacy is done.
I could see diplomacy being applied on different issues in situations that happen to occur in politics with various outcomes and certainly with a differing affectivity reached.
On the lectures there were explained two types of diplomacy – bilateral and multilateral, each of them using their own tools in order to reach the desired agreement. The module also showed me many ways of conduct like for example conference diplomacy or more unique ways such as secret or crisis diplomacy and I learnt the fact they all can be used depending on the circumstances in any area – environment, trade, security etc. Because the information was very up to date one was given a chance to recognize new trends like multilayered, secondtrack, niche or preventive practices.
It is basically a tool that can be used both directly and indirectly. Directly in a sense of arbitration and indirectly for instance by developing global or regional rules for government.
Another phenomenon discussed that sought to provide a better overview of the whole issue was the question who everybody does participate in negotiating. Here not only sovereign nation states are included but also non-governmental organizations, agencies of the UN, other international institutions and groupings, not forgetting about important individuals who thanks to either their personality or power of persuasion have been able to ease steps towards some agreements.
Diplomacy can be universally used and being adapted in order to make the best out of a particular situation. It is undoubtedly flexible as it is changing its practices throughout times and it reacts on the technology and communications developments. The good examples would be shuttle or virtual diplomacy.
Having chosen this module my impressions changed thanks to the possibility to learn both about essential facts as well as about unique details which together form the art of the subject.
streda 22. apríla 2009
Trade and Environmental Diplomacy
Diplomacy is a tool of political art which can be used universally in any area of politics whether one talks about trade, security or environmental diplomacy. Before there will be a distinction made between these three I will give a brief idea of each of them.
Firstly, security diplomacy comes. As Riordan explains international security agenda is focusing on a wide range of issues, nowadays including even new ones which happened to be important only lately. Here issues such as balance of power, regional conflicts, civil wars and weapons proliferation plus international terrorism that appeared on the agenda only a few years ago. Furthermore there is organized crime, epidemic illnesses, environment, mass migration and international financial stability that analysts put all together in the sector.
All these issues are apparently important to the civil society thus to negotiate about them seems to be very delicate. Diplomats who are normally present might sometimes be counterproductive as they do not have the appropriate knowledge and expertise therefore lack credibility to participate on the decision making. It is non-governmental actors through who the engagement with a foreign civil society can be best done not only because they have the right knowledge but also thanks to the network of NGOs that can use to build relationships and better understand the situation in the particular place.
Trade diplomacy deals with completely different issues. Barston argues that trade and foreign diplomacy go hand in hand with each other but the fact is that is can be practiced separately. The setting of the international trade diplomacy is defined through the number of multilateral organizations and institutions, large political groupings and special interest-based groups. Probably the best known are GATT, WTO or ILO. The organizations whose main aim is trade diplomacy exist on the regional level too like for example the EU or ASEAN.
Lastly, environmental diplomacy seeks to stop the destruction of the nature and the Earth and reach sustainable development. The interactions and procedures does not form a system but again agreements are reached through negotiations at different forums and conferences. The actors involved are not only sovereign states but agencies, organizations, NGOs and even individuals. Even though the agreements are reached the problems comes when ratifying and implementing in the domestic policies of the states which can be explained by naming different obstacles from the lack of interest for change to the notion of the state sovereignty.
This overview helps us to see the purposes and practices o different types of diplomacy. It shows us that the main differences are in the subject of negotiations as different areas are concerned, moreover in setting of the negotiations and after them implications of the agreements, in the affectivity, the actors involved, the obstacles that stand against reaching the aim and I would say that also in the interest and enthusiasm with which certain countries are willing to negotiate and compromise their own agendas.
Firstly, security diplomacy comes. As Riordan explains international security agenda is focusing on a wide range of issues, nowadays including even new ones which happened to be important only lately. Here issues such as balance of power, regional conflicts, civil wars and weapons proliferation plus international terrorism that appeared on the agenda only a few years ago. Furthermore there is organized crime, epidemic illnesses, environment, mass migration and international financial stability that analysts put all together in the sector.
All these issues are apparently important to the civil society thus to negotiate about them seems to be very delicate. Diplomats who are normally present might sometimes be counterproductive as they do not have the appropriate knowledge and expertise therefore lack credibility to participate on the decision making. It is non-governmental actors through who the engagement with a foreign civil society can be best done not only because they have the right knowledge but also thanks to the network of NGOs that can use to build relationships and better understand the situation in the particular place.
Trade diplomacy deals with completely different issues. Barston argues that trade and foreign diplomacy go hand in hand with each other but the fact is that is can be practiced separately. The setting of the international trade diplomacy is defined through the number of multilateral organizations and institutions, large political groupings and special interest-based groups. Probably the best known are GATT, WTO or ILO. The organizations whose main aim is trade diplomacy exist on the regional level too like for example the EU or ASEAN.
Lastly, environmental diplomacy seeks to stop the destruction of the nature and the Earth and reach sustainable development. The interactions and procedures does not form a system but again agreements are reached through negotiations at different forums and conferences. The actors involved are not only sovereign states but agencies, organizations, NGOs and even individuals. Even though the agreements are reached the problems comes when ratifying and implementing in the domestic policies of the states which can be explained by naming different obstacles from the lack of interest for change to the notion of the state sovereignty.
This overview helps us to see the purposes and practices o different types of diplomacy. It shows us that the main differences are in the subject of negotiations as different areas are concerned, moreover in setting of the negotiations and after them implications of the agreements, in the affectivity, the actors involved, the obstacles that stand against reaching the aim and I would say that also in the interest and enthusiasm with which certain countries are willing to negotiate and compromise their own agendas.
Traditional diplomacy
‘What are your impressions of the ‘old’ diplomacy? Has it become outmoded?’
The ‘old’ diplomacy is a traditional approach to the management of the relationships between states and other international political actors. It stands on a bilateral basis which means that only two states are included in the dialogue that was usually happening in secrecy. The only possible outcome in this system was a mutual agreement of settling a conflict or a dispute. The agenda was not very wide, usually the actors of the talks were negotiating the shift of a territory from one state to another or the other possible topic was an acquisition of another throne. Also peace and war issued were an essential part of negotiations. The old system of diplomacy was characterized by ceremonies conducted through the protocol.
In my point of view, especially when I consider the period of time few centuries ago it seems to me that the fact that negotiations were conducted as secret meetings does not necessarily have to be of a negative nature. We need to remember that those times were fairly dangerous as the security was not organized on such a high level as it is today, also the public and public opinion was taken differently as the division between educated and uneducated was significant and that is why it could not be considered as a whole. I believe that even when the negotiations would be publicized in some way the public opinion influence on the decisions would not have the same importance and impact on the outcome as it happens today. Also because of the state-to-state organization of talks the outcome was quite clear as there were only two real possibilities: an agreement or a disagreement. Today because of the multilateral basis it might be difficult to find a solution for certain questions, especially in cases when the decision needs to agreed unanimously as some states agree on the resolution but other states do not.
This is not to claim that the traditional organization of diplomatic practice was more simple and convenient than the new diplomacy approach. Surely the trends have shifted over the long time so as the circumstances in which diplomacy is employed also the way it is used and put in the practice needs to be updated to fulfill the needs of our time. This means that today the general public is more interested in what is happening with the state and its organization and position among other states and so the people wants to be more involved and let to have a word into the decision-making so the shift from secrecy to ‘openness’ of the diplomacy might be seen as a reaction of the world changing.
However, whether the old system has more advantages or disadvantages, it was a pioneer system that enabled the following generations to take examples from and possibly improve it to shape it in a requested way of practicing.
The ‘old’ diplomacy is a traditional approach to the management of the relationships between states and other international political actors. It stands on a bilateral basis which means that only two states are included in the dialogue that was usually happening in secrecy. The only possible outcome in this system was a mutual agreement of settling a conflict or a dispute. The agenda was not very wide, usually the actors of the talks were negotiating the shift of a territory from one state to another or the other possible topic was an acquisition of another throne. Also peace and war issued were an essential part of negotiations. The old system of diplomacy was characterized by ceremonies conducted through the protocol.
In my point of view, especially when I consider the period of time few centuries ago it seems to me that the fact that negotiations were conducted as secret meetings does not necessarily have to be of a negative nature. We need to remember that those times were fairly dangerous as the security was not organized on such a high level as it is today, also the public and public opinion was taken differently as the division between educated and uneducated was significant and that is why it could not be considered as a whole. I believe that even when the negotiations would be publicized in some way the public opinion influence on the decisions would not have the same importance and impact on the outcome as it happens today. Also because of the state-to-state organization of talks the outcome was quite clear as there were only two real possibilities: an agreement or a disagreement. Today because of the multilateral basis it might be difficult to find a solution for certain questions, especially in cases when the decision needs to agreed unanimously as some states agree on the resolution but other states do not.
This is not to claim that the traditional organization of diplomatic practice was more simple and convenient than the new diplomacy approach. Surely the trends have shifted over the long time so as the circumstances in which diplomacy is employed also the way it is used and put in the practice needs to be updated to fulfill the needs of our time. This means that today the general public is more interested in what is happening with the state and its organization and position among other states and so the people wants to be more involved and let to have a word into the decision-making so the shift from secrecy to ‘openness’ of the diplomacy might be seen as a reaction of the world changing.
However, whether the old system has more advantages or disadvantages, it was a pioneer system that enabled the following generations to take examples from and possibly improve it to shape it in a requested way of practicing.
Prihlásiť na odber:
Komentáre (Atom)