New blogs on the New Diplomacy

The students posting their thoughts on this blog have now completed the module. I have set up a series of new blogs for the students who are about to start the module this week. Please follow and comment on their work at:

http://thenewdiplomacya.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyb.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyc.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyd.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacye.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyf.blogspot.com/
http://thenewdiplomacyg.blogspot.com/

Growth of Information technolgy.

What you consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy?
The dynamics of diplomatic practice continues to evolve with globalisation setting current global trends, projecting the challenges faced globally. Any individual can be a diplomat, in different contexts. The end of the cold war saw a dramatic shift with the level of power the diplomatic office holds, technological advances creates challenges and obstacles for them. The International system has become more transparent, with media publications it has made it increasingly more difficult for any diplomatic talks to be held in private. Social networking sites and the vast information exchanges have interlinked communities from different parts of the world.

The internet makes us all an audience, UK foreign secretary David Miliband regularly blogs on current affairs website, (extract and link below). In the past diplomats answered to their heads of state etc, and civil society were verily kept in the loop. Also with 24 hours news coverage access available to us from all over the world, from CNN to Al-Jazeera, giving us more points of views.
Diplomats are experts in particular fields, with more knowledge and additional skill’s, they require more background information on other countries. Diplomacy is expanding, to fit the current situation culturally, economically and socially. The push for this I would say is the technologically advances more than anything another aspect, it has made us aware of what is going on worldwide, and governments need to keep civil society up to date on diplomatic efforts, its the trend to be more clear. Countries that are less transparent in their diplomatic relations, that do not have freedom of speech, and call for accountability are less favourable in the international arena.


David Miliband – Foreign Secretary, Blog Post
Iran
Posted 30 March 2010 by David Miliband | 3 comments
One of the problems we face in dealing with Iran is the constant confusion about who is wielding power. This has implications for our policy on the country’s nuclear programme. I wrote about this in the International Herald Tribune last weekend.

http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/roller/miliband/

Greenpeace Named COP15 Negotiations a 'Climate Shame'

NGO's call for action....

What in your opinion is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy?

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy in my opinion is NGO diplomacy, the rise of NGO’s in the international system within such a small amount of time shows just how successful they are. They have expanded the practice of diplomacy globally; they have accumulated state like powers in terms of international recognition, political weight and in some case more money and power than some states. NGO’s have the ability to manipulate negotiations by attracting publicity and swaying public opinion, by publicly advocating for or against issues, and can more easily gain the trust of society over the government. Their flexibility, mobility and freedom, does raise the question of their legitimacy.

The influence of NGO’s at negotiations can shape the policy making process, their presence is most effective in environmental negotiations. The attendance of NGO’s at these negotiations is a comforting thought for civil society, but for governments this meeting is not always anticipated. During the Copenhagen climate change conference the number of NGO’s that could attend were limited, according to the United Nations framework convention on climate change, (UNFCC) they feared NGO’s would breach security and the building cannot accommodate all. Their work is often restricted by governments who make it increasingly hard for them to carry out their work, with regards to step by step updates, territory limitation and access to statistics. NGO’s can be passionate about the cause, they call for legally binding agreements, and protest till their heard.

All governments regardless of their capabilities are not always the first to admit there’s a problem, the agenda is in most cases set by NGO’s and scientists, and they create awareness and encourage participation from governments. For instance during the Kyoto protocol they influenced the actually negotiations behind the scenes and one of the disadvantages is that they have no control over the actual outcome of the policies. NGO’s use the media, to name and shame countries that are not doing their far share. Their tactics are sometimes criticised for being to aggressive or unrealistic, but they are the firm hand that is need, no country has an legal obligation, only a moral obligation.

Diplomacy and diversity

My knowledge of the subject has increased in various areas, I now understand the importance of multilateral diplomacy in todays political world far more than previously. Institutions such as the United Nations and other NGO's role in world politics and multilateral diplomacy have been highlighted for example the diplomatic negotiations between China, India the United States and North Korea to solve nuclear issues have changed my original perception of all public diplomacy being practiced bilaterally. Also my opinion of the balance of power's importance have increased due to Joseph Nye's explanation of the terms soft power, smart power and hard power. This module has highlighted that in order for major world crisis such as terrorism to be solved soft power is a necessity and public diplomacy is the correct way to achieve this. At the start of this module I did not understand the diversity of diplomacy and how powerful certain NGO's are, after research organisations such as Green Peace have demonstrated there role in world politics as illustrated in earlier blogs. I previously understood political diplomacy to simply be state ambassadors. 

How has your opinion about the role of diplomacy in the world politics changed since the start of the module?

My initial understanding of diplomacy was that it is the ability to negotiate. Deliver and pursue the states interest in a friendly manner. That was clearly very narrow view and describers only the top of the iceberg so to say.

During this module we examined different levels of diplomacy from bilateral and multilateral diplomacy of embassies and consulates to public and celebrity diplomacy. Now students of this module are able to distinguish between the consuls and diplomats, why they while doing almost the same job as diplomats and sometimes work even harder than last ones do not sometimes enjoy the privileges of those diplomats. It is very interesting how states use ‘disguised embassies ’such as interest sections, the same consulates, front missions to continue the relations with a state when they are not in the friendly relations in a way that will prevent ‘an embarrassment of both‘ (G.R. Berridge, 2010).

Diplomacy is not only about the negotiation though, that would be quite limited definition. It is an art of influencing as we have learned about the public diplomacy through the utilization of celebrities in other words implementation of soft power as J. Nye argues.

It has become more inclusive as we discussed in our former blogs and the development of new ways of telecommunications have allowed the transformation of the diplomacy as some argue in the era of global governance.

So by the end of the module one comes up with even more questions like: does international system of states have more common goals hence cooperate more and make diplomacy transparent and more accessible for non-state actors? How strong is states’ self interest now and how weak are states when it comes to environmental threats, or global terrorism?

In recent years we have seen examples of growth of cooperation of states as in security issues, environmental and business alike. So now when I say to myself that I want to become a diplomat I also ask myself a question what type of diplomacy I am going to carry.

the role of diplomacy today

In my belief the increasing role of diplomacy in word politics through the spread of political duties among political actors and non political actors is mainly one of the first impressions that in the beginning of this module I was poorly aware. Diplomacy evolved has a peaceful political instrument to solve conflicts among states, seeking to develop good state relations, where the advance interests of state are mainly achieved through the role of states representatives in the conduction of negotiations and talks. Nevertheless, diplomacy in these modern political proved to be one of the crucial ways to reach peaceful resolutions, as for instances the talks made among USA, North Korea, Russia and China regarding the nuclear program in north Korea to diminishes the level of conflict.
In addition , the role of TNC’s and NGO’s in solving conflicts and major issues of human rights and environment as also evolved where the emphasis of public diplomacy, through the mass media uses politics to influence the world community relationships among states. The increase number of transnational organizations that participate in the international arena to address major issues alongside other political actors, has had a positive impact in shaping the future outcomes of global solutions .Diplomacy is no longer a political activity that takes among only bilateral and multilateral diplomatic engagements, its flexible nature has allow states and entities to also engage through the so called, polylateral level.

My understanding of diplomacy today.

Student Name: ABDI ADAN

Student No: 05050694


Question: My Understanding of Diplomacy today. 29th April,2010.




Module: NEW DIPLOMACY.



The diplomacy is attached with management of relations between governments

and other actors, from a state position in relation to each other. Diplomacy is

concerned with discussion or advising, picturing and implementing foreign policy.

But there are many means by which governments through their formed and other

political actors. In addition to that, other actors, articulate, co-ordinate, and security

particular or public interests exchanging by correspondences, private talks, exchanges

of ideas, lobbying, tourists, threats and other related political activities diplomacy.


The World of Diplomacy or Public Diplomacy has changed.

In spite of, great differences between the hot and cold wars of the 20th century, the

underlying factors that developed the practice of public diplomacy were similar. States

dominated international relations. Non-state actors were few in number. “Good Ideas”

were secular struggles between regimes and democratic worldviews? Media and

communications systems used analog technologies. Hierarchies were the principal

organizing structure in society. The armies fought on battlefields with industrial age

weapons.


New diplomacy with new trends.

Since September 11th one has witness great adjustments and changes in international

relations in general and the relationships among powers in particular “September 11th

event” is a corner stone of post-cold war period and the one of new century as well.

It is the first time in history of international societies to admit so widely and seriously

the danger of terrorism without any large and serious campaign over this understanding.

In past years after the end of cold wars, for instance, there have been so many debates

and disputes on issue of what is the primary at the topic of national and international

securities that people including politicians and common mass feel confused often about

both domestically and internationally.


About New era and New diplomacy concerned each other. The integration may be fasted

and fastened though displaying various pictures at different areas with different

arrangement. Multi-level and multi-national regimes could be more available , U. N.and

its security council could play more role, various NGOs may get involved deeper,

decision-making by nation leaders on national stability may consult more with regional

and global partner at stance, just cite some of potentials.


Lastly, the diplomacy is now part of a global discussions, it has many different meanings

Or ideas and ‘no one size fits all’. The period of communication is going traction. Some

see it as more inclusive than new diplomacy and more descriptive of multi-stakeholder

environment. For most analytical and practical purposes, however, the two different

periods can be used analogously. For example, in 2007, Mr. G. Bush’s administration

used a US. National strategy for public diplomacy and strategic communication without

offering a distinction. My understanding of New Diplomacy today is to under-

stand the activities of the new policy. We know that relations between countries

have always been important and never more so when we need to work together

to tackle global economic problem, global terrorism, global warming and proverty

in development world.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF DIPLOMACY TODAY

In the start of this module, I thought diplomacy was all about cooperation between two states which have their embassies in each other’s country. However, since this module has come to nearly its end, I have learnt a lot of things. These lies particularly from the important role played by Foreign Ministry, multilateral and public diplomacy, not to mention the great work played by NGOs in contemporary diplomatic world. I have learnt along that the work and milieu before in which diplomats and foreign ministry mixed were very different and this has dramatically changed in the 20th century. (Berridge: 2010, p.7)

It is argued that changes have occurred through wars or technological innovations (globalization) as leaders tend to find for more alternatives, per say better resolution when a war end to prevent another war, this was the creation of the UN. The challenges of both changes (globalization and UN) have grown more and become more complex which require at the same time, both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. (Aviel: 2005, p.15)

However, it was only at the end of the Napoleon war in the nineteenth century that multilateral diplomacy began to take modern form. Thus, the inclusiveness of many non states actors such as NGOs which plays an important role in the society today, notwithstanding, the UN that occupies a central and unique place in world politics as James P. Muldon, Jr. puts it. The role of multilateral diplomacy is important as it advertise great powers interest through many forms such as celebrities campaigning and also advertise national priorities whereas citizens can now support, give their opinion or even protest.

I have now acknowledge that diplomacy do not only involve states to states basis but a more open and broadened task. These tasks may involve officer in the government and outside the government. However, one must be more anxious about what the future hold for diplomacy as we have witnessed the dramatic changes that have occurred in the 20th and 21st century due to globalization, NGOs huge involvement and foremost the use of diplomacy by political leaders as a tool to promote their countries’ interest in other countries and its use to obtain certain objective, this especially in political campaigns. These raise the question as whether diplomacy and politics should be combined together to form one as certain diplomats dissociate themselves to politicians.

"World warming to US under Obama, BBC poll suggests"

Click on the link below for this interesting news story analysing the success - or otherwise - of states' public diplomacy efforts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8626041.stm

The Different Methods of New Diplomacy

The most important aspect of new diplomacy for me are the involvelment of non governmental orgainisation, public diplomacy and new information technology. These new appraches to diplomacy have revolutionised this idea of 'new diploamcy'.

The involvement of NGOs (non-governmental organisations) in every aspect of international negotiations has revitalised new approaches and new options, thereby stifling the ability of traditional government actors to operate uninterrupted. They have played an important and influential role in many international negotiations for the past fifty years. In Bosnia, there were a lot non governmental orgainisation co-operating with other governments agencies in trying to resolve the conflict. Secondly, public diplomacy has adopted a lot of different methods in engaging with foreign public . These fundamental changes have created a new set of expectations for international relations.

Moreover, the binding forces of globalisation and new technological transformation have made these new diplomacy a force and efficient in resolving some recent conflicts around the world. Finally, the system of old diplomacy ie government to government communication and self-interest will never disappear.

What in your opinion is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy?

The fact that citizens are now involved in most sensitive issues makes it the most important change in new diplomacy. Philosopher like Berridge, believe that public diplomacy is purely and simply the new term redefined for propaganda. It is acceptable in a sense that political leaders now use this to mobilize the mass audiences to attain an objective, in an electoral campaign or in a food company(advertising a dietetic product for example).

One of the reasons why I would say that public diplomacy is most important within new diplomacy is the fact that NGOs occupy a huge role in our society without forgetting that even if they do not have the right to vote at the UN they still have an influence on Governments as they tend to focus more on certain issues than someone working in a foreign ministry as they way they dedicate and spend their time investigating on issues, a foreign ministry officer, for example does not have that time because they are often busy dealing with so many issues at the same time.

The fact that human being grows its intelligence also develops by creating new features. The process of globalization is a key factor as today almost everyone has access to phones, internet that enables us to track important information such as EURONEWS, AFRICABLE, CNN, and BBC News and so on, not to mention the different movement of NGOs that we are all aware of, through either their website or other sources such as facebook.


Thank you

Public diplomacy better than a bomb.......and cheaper!

 

The most important aspect of the new diplomacy in my opinion is public diplomacy.

With the increased threat of terrorism on a global scale caused by situations such as 9/11,

The London bombings, Madrid bombings and recently the Moscow bombings there is a clear political problem in existence.

 I believe public diplomacy is the most important aspect of the new diplomacy because it is an essential ingredient in smart power. Which is Obama’s supposed strategy

 

Joseph Nye explains “A smart power strategy combines hard and soft power resources. Public diplomacy has a long history as a means of promoting a country’s soft power and was essential in winning the cold war.”

 

To win the long standing battle against terrorism which has caused pain and suffering to millions of people and weaken certain country’s economies

Public diplomacy is important as it can be used to promote unity between the people of the world and the governments themselves.

 

Vietnam is an example of what can happen if to much hard power is used with a major lack of soft power as the people kept on fighting regardless of the United States increased use of mk –77 dumb bombs. The lack of public diplomacy caused civilians to continue fighting for the enemy.

 

Overall education is the way to counter the threat of international terrorism and public diplomacy can do just that, People with understanding and attraction to the west due to public diplomacy would be less inclined to carry out or support terrorist activity. Due to the severity of the problem that public diplomacy provides a solution for to a certain degree brings me to conclude why I believe it to be the most important part of new diplomacy

Important aspects of the New Diplomacy

Dliplomacy in a broader sense is been charecterized by its continuity and constant evolution rather than revolution,in its development.Since procedures and settings have been modified the basic principles of diplomacy ,as we know as the foundation for negotiations among nation states still have an enduring validity.And moreover,in the 20th centuary the resillience of the diplomatic system has been afected by the changes in technology and also in the structure of the world order.
The New Diplomacy ,it is in part a modern phenomenon that has been evolving ,being namelly a relativelly a new development ,that possesses distint foundations from the traditional diplomacy .Being one of the most crucial aspects the evoulution from the bilateral diplomatic negotiation to a more multilateral dimension,where a wider range of nation-states can be involved in global negotiations.Important issues such as humanitaire assistance, Human Rights ,environmental issues and fair trade can be addressed and tackled in a wider escale.
New diplomacy it has been closely associated with Public diplomacy ,since it starts from the premise that through dialogue and negotiations nation states can achieve goals in foreign policy .And throughout media and other political ,cultural and social actors citiziens can be involved in the processs of shaping the message but also analyzing and understand the ways that the message is interpreted.
The end of the Cold war marked an important start for the development of the New diplomacy, since the global scene was also changing :from a bipolar world to the emergrnce of a few greater powers.Alongside with this phenomenon ,the world is being bombarded by the emergence of new global challenges which have been dealt by nation states but also by NGO'S and other non -state actors.And their role in in this new era is mainly product of the new diplomacy,since alongside with government they also help and relieve states in tackling international issues.
Therefore both state-actors and non state actors can conduct their affairs in a more cooperative manner and benefit from the global outcomes ,where before within the old diplomacy frramework these big global achievements would have been almost impossible to solve.

US-China Relations Under Obama Administration

The US and China diplomatic relation had come a long way ,and a turn point took place since Obama came to power,although it srill faces the 21st centuary comtemporarian challenges that required a more fresh thinking and approach by both powers.The US and China in order accomplish and to combate these challenges decided to find a common ground ,in which both powers intend to compromise.As two great ecomomic powers they decided to launch a historic effort to tranform both US and Chinese economy by investing in renewable technology and energy efficiency .And subsequently these initiatives defenitly were a starting-point that contributed for the bottom-up economic growth that benefits the strengthning of US-China relations.And by recognizing both countries common interests they have realised that they can achieve so much more,like the US and China cooperation in the Six Party talks on the North Korean nuclear isssue over the past few years,which makes clear that both powers can work constructively together and bilaterally with other states, too,in order to minimize tensions regarding sensitive issues.

But more recently ,the climate change issue is still perceived as a trully common challenge and a long term solution that has been addressed during the Copenhagen Climate Summit, that took place ,that took place in December 2009.The US alongside China and ohter major developing countries join forces in order to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, since previously, the Kyoto Protocol did not achieve the same effect as the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

Both the US and China realised that they have heavy, if different , responsabilities to meet this vital challenge.The Climate Change challenge demanded a much higher levels of cooperation without delay ,which led automatically to a new global aggreement ,that took his first step , during the Copenhagen Summit.Talks among China , the US and other major powers ,regarding the climate change issue sat within a framework were the new agreements and negotiations were bigger and more sophisticated to avoid climate impacts ,already projected by Climate Change Institutions.

Cooperation enduring global challenges ,such as the climate change is a product of the more developed and mature between both powers over the past years.But broadly in the modern world non-traditional security threats triggered that an increase in the quantity, but also quality of US/China engagements became an habit, in a wider range of global challenges.

greater porogress still takes place,in a world where inevitable challenges always emerge the US-China relationships will seek to produce major benefits from both parts ,but al;so by accepting their responsabilities to persue urgently needed solutions to problems like , climate change ,global economy and arms proliferation.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china

www.guardian.co.uk/environment /copenhagen

Vital aspect in New Diplomacy

In my opinion the most impirtant factor of New Diplomacy is its flexible nature to conduct close relationships and dialogue between independent states .As once stressed by Rousseau,the states system as he once knew weree considered the ''the body politic ''where states were ''forced to look outside itself in order to know itself :it depends on its own environment and it has to take an interest in everything that happens ''(Watson ,1982'chapter1).Basically the New Diplomacy interesting nature is in its plurality ,in which the coexistence of independent staes, non -state actors and public opinion determine the extension of forces that define the modern independent states behaviour in the international society.New diplomacy inherited from the traditional diplomacy some of its practices and principles, which ,also to a certain extent helps us to understand the impact of globalization and other historical factors in the diplomatic evolution.Historically New diplomacy , it dealt intimately with conflicts ,duplicity and reversals of policy ,consequently it developed a organized pattern of communication and negotiation among independent states, through their own political tools or with the direct or inderect influence of othere actors,which have enabled states to set closer affiliations towards the other ,namelly regarding their own interests.

Moreover, in my personal opinion apart from the vital emergence and role of non-state actors ,TNC's and other international organizations in influencing the New Diplomacy status ,i would argue that in a developed international society , diplomatic dialogue is the most important instrument .Because it is a ''civilized process based in awareness and respect''which has contributes for the ''continuous exchange of ideas and the attempts to find muttually acceptable solutions to conflicts of interests ''(Watson .1982,p.21)

Important aspect of the new diplomacy

The environment for diplomacy has been affected by a change in the

distribution of power at international level. In my opinion ‘Balance of power’ is no longer a basis for diplomacy. Today, the new diplomacy needs to reflect the new distribution of power. First, for much of the last century our security concerns were primarily about expansionist state power, threatening their own citizens or neighbouring countries. Today, some of the greatest threats are likely to emerge in countries where state power is too weak to hold tightly down on the threat of global terrorism. The implication is clear: building the capacity of states must go hand in hand with building democratic accountability. It can be argued While the sense of insecurity felt by our citizens may actually have increased. Across the world, people are demanding more power for themselves. task is to make this a force for progress.

Second, over the next two decades, with the growing strength of China and India, there will be a political, economic and military power more geographically spread

than it has been since the rise to global dominance of the European Empires in the

19th Century. This means the leading role within the European Union and NATO more important than ever.

Also there is a mismatch between national power and global problems. The risk of

financial crises, climate change, and health pandemics cannot be lessened by

individual countries; they require collective action on a global scale. Managing the

risks from globalisation and maximising the benefits requires institutional modernization and the development of the EU.

Finally the power to coordinate at scale can be done without the hierarchies of

bureaucracies or the price system of markets, either the helping hand of the

state or the invisible hand of the market. Technology is enabling networks to

challenge the power of traditional incumbents, economically and politically.

Public Diplomacy = Call Me we can be freinds

The recent meeting between India's SM Krishna and China's Yang Jiechi illustrates the importance of public diplomacy in contemporary world politics.

The meeting in Beijing on 7/04/2010 between these top officials resulted in an agreement being signed for a 'hotline' to be placed in both Prime Ministers  offices so they can speak with ease anytime they want to discuss issues such as climate change and the global financial crisis, This will develop India and China's bilateral relationship dramatically. 

This is the first time India have signed an agreement of this kind with any country so the possibility of major development and change based on these country's working together could affect world politics in numerous ways due to the dramatic economic development these states have had in the last decade. 

The following article is from china daily explaining the importance of the visit 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2010-04/06/content_9687717.htm

This article explains the meeting also but is an indian news company

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/04/07/indiachina-sign-agreement-to-create-a-hotline-forpms.html

Main points to take note of are the opportunity for China and India's relationship to develop as a result of this public diplomacy has increased. In the worlds current climate with the United States economy less productive as they would like means strong relationships between other powerful states such as India and China are not in their favor depending on how far this relationship goes could change big things. The meeting also indicates that there will be plenty more public demonstrations of India and China working side by side which could minimise certain threats from Pakistan and pose a threat to the United States 

'reputable' opinions/actions as depending on the growth of these emerging superpowers they may create a mouth bigger than Americas.

Let the games begin!

The Olympic Games evolves each time around to be greater and greater, the spectacular major international event brings together countries from all over the world. This is the opportunity for a country to bolster its prestige, the opportunity to compete amongst the world’s best athletes to achieve international fame, to promote your country culturally and economically in the international arena. The spotlight is most definitely firmly placed and all eyes are on the host, how they will deliver. This is public diplomacy at it’s best for the host country, the athletes aren’t the only ones competing, firstly there’s the competing to be a host country, then to host the best Olympic Games in history.

The Olympic creed

"The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph, but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered, but to have fought well." Baron de Coubertin

We’ve all been taught to believe this in life, however when abilities are ranked and your representing your country internationally a gold medal is what you want to take home. National prestige is at stake, this is not war but this is still very much a battle ground.

This is power politics, the government utilises all its resources to promote, inform and advertise their country, and overall to impression on all levels. The games are a powerful tool for those participating and also to the viewer’s, the powerful aspect of it being internationally broadcasted. It builds relationships between countries and also between the individuals partaking.

"I call upon all nations to observe the Olympic Truce. I am convinced that in this observance, and by working with the International Olympic Committee to promote the Olympic Ideal, we will draw the world’s attention to what humanity can achieve in the name of international understanding." Kofi A. Annan, United Nations Secretary General, February 1998.

It’s difficult to put aside political affairs and call this humanity competing in the name of good sportsmanship, physical strength and the race to be the best in your field. However, how are the athletes funded? Also the process in which the host country is chosen (International Olympic committee showered with gifts), and do they all have the same opportunities to nourish their talents. There are professional athletes with multi-million dollar sponsors competing alongside athletes that live on the poverty line, the host country have more time and access to the grounds to practice.

China the global rising superpower, determined to change attitudes, had the master plan to promote a positive image and integrate with the rest of the world. China known internationally for being human rights violators set its sights on hosting the Olympics. They had a task to show good governance, competing alone could be described as a form of democracy. The world leaders chose to put aside issues like these in the name of sports, but many will say that it’s down to economic interests.

President Bush described the Olympics as a sporting event, and he merely attended the games as a sports fan, and Mussolini once described the games as the political system. Have times changed and is it only a sporting event, that’s an ideal theory in my opinion, Political interests dominate, the Olympics brings economic growth, creates jobs, increases tourism and foreign investment, there are many advantages to hosting the games. It was more likely that it was only a sporting event in the past, however with the mass media attention it attracts, and commercial opportunities. It continues to spread into other realms of society and has been used as a weapon for publicity and attaining creditability internationally.

Public Diplomacy

Queen Rania Al Abdulla of Jordan at Yale University September, 2009

Here is another blog entry to read.Thank you that you have stopped to, hopefully, read through my blog.

So, on what point of view do you stand regarding the public diplomacy? do you think that it is propaganda and the way to attract people or influence or do you believe in active public participation?

In changing nature of international relations states still play an important role. In that sense public diplomacy is used by governments as a tool to promote own interest, attract businesses or influence on foreign policies of other states. Here it is important to mention J. Nye’s implementation of soft power which might later effect the use of hard and economic power. However involvement of non-state actors and the other not less important issue, the development of technology has demonstrated us how public opinion can in some cases influence policy makers or even work on their own and bring change.

There is a link to the video of Queen Rania’s speech at Yale University to students about the importance of peace in Middle East. It shows one of the hierarchical models of public diplomacy which implies a message from state to an audience. Hence she has addressed her speech to young and growing people, probably future American politicians and emphasized the importance of the role of United States in settling the conflict in the area. Moreover this video also supports the argument about the hegemonic power of the United States what we often talk about in our seminar discussions.

We may keep in mind also the creation of image and representation which are other important aspects of public diplomacy. Have a look at the video and think what image has Queen Rania created? Was she successful in delivering her massage? What consequences if any her speech will have?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fROidpenw1E

Thank you

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Diplomacy has continually changed in the international system, in states and in societies. For decades, foreign ministries and other government groups have focused on projecting national images for a variety of purposes. The increase in integration of economies and societies has improved the perceived need to project national brands in a competitive global environment. But alongside this, another perspective on public diplomacy is emerging, which views it in terms of a different way of conducting international policy. This recognises both the need to operate within more complex domestic and international setup and, at the same time, the challenges the environment poses. Working with a more diverse set of stakeholders raises questions about the structures and processes of national diplomatic systems and their policy ability. More fundamentally, it touches on the principles and norms underpinning a world order in instability.

Current obsession with public diplomacy are not hard to understand. Events following the wave of terrorist attacks that began in September 2001 have focused attention on the centrality of identities and values in world politics and, on the significance of images and ideas. Add to this the impact of globalisation, the proliferation of actors seeking a voice on the world stage, and the dramatic changes in communications and information technology underpinning these developments, and it is clear that the business of diplomacy is far more complex than it was even a quarter of a century ago.

As is the case with so much in a fast transforming environment, the implications of change are not always easy to interpret. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify two interlinked but individual images of diplomacy emerging within the discourse of public diplomacy. One of these flows from a traditional conception of diplomacy as a mainly hierarchical and intergovernmental process.

Public Diplomacy Among the Locals

Public diplomacy involves outreach from a government to foreign populations, through cultural exchanges, media engagements, academic grants and other efforts. My submission will concentrate on a diplomat engagement with local people in Ghana and the Voice of America radio in Ethiopia.

A friend who worked for Ghana High Commission told me a story of an ambassador he knew when he was working for the Ghana Foreign Service in Accra. The ambassador made a point to get out among the local people, he knew owners of local businesses, was invited to business functions, cultural festival and school open days. He also learned the local language Twi and performed volunteer service. As a result he gained a good reputation for promoting his country. Most Ghanaians started talking about his 'face to face' diplomacy and all negative sentimens regarding his country was completely changed. This public diplomacy was therefore successful and very influential with local people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8575749.stm

Secondly, most western government policy on public diplomacy is aimed at promoting, convincing and influencing foreign publics. Power in a global world today includes using and exploring all avenues to change opinions. Recent example is the United States and its allies fight against transnational terrorism, a struggle they say is ‘winning hearts and minds’. It is therefore not surprising for the U.S funded broadcaster the Voice of America in Ethiopia, using all means possible to influence and change public perceptions in Ethiopia against the recent fierce opposition of the ruling government. Since most people in this horn of Africa country doesn’t have a television and access to other means of new media. It is the official voice of U.S government in Ethiopia recently, the government ordered it jammed because in their view it is a propaganda and interference in their up coming elections in May 2010.


Finally, in the past opinion and views of public in foreign countries had a minimal concern to the US government. The September 11 attack and anti American sentiments in many countries made the US and many western countries adopted new approaches in their diplomacy strategy around the world to reflect contemporary times. For when public diplomacy is relegated only to aid offering it lack the opportunities to properly network and promote the image of the country.

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

PROPAGANDA RENAMED???

Public Diplomacy is a mechanism that states use to promote their country in other countries. It can be done in different ways, via television or media such as the voice of America, the Alliance Française (which is a charity that promotes French language worldwide), the Fulbright program (cultural and educational exchange), websites or even radio.

As Berridge pointed out, Public Diplomacy is the new term given to white propaganda because government tend to avoid the word propaganda for its reputation of spreading lies amongst people to achieve an objective, per say, brainwashing. Many however, find this definition inadequate and reflecting on old diplomacy.

Public diplomacy cannot be talked about without mentioning the country that had received most attention in this sector, the United State of America. The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 on public diplomacy for example, provided that public diplomacy’s legislation involves propaganda but do not allow the government from distributing within its information intended for foreign audiences, other legislations theoretically reinforce the ban of publication of taxpayer using publicity or propaganda purposes, the appropriation bills is one example that reinforce these ban (Farserra: 2009).

Nevertheless, public diplomacy has been successful in the past year (2009) with the image that President Obama gave to the world. He created dialogue between himself and states, particularly Muslim countries, which saw the Bush administration as evil. The US has now a positive image throughout the world, in Latin America, Middle East and Africa.

President Obama used public diplomacy to campaign his election by communicating with the US citizen through Facebook, television and many more. Not to mention the fact that in most of his speech, he always talked about “the United States of America working to improve his image abroad”, this illustrate the importance of public diplomacy. (Dale: 2009)

A recent event on public diplomacy was taken place in Tanzania where a donation of a dozen of books was given to university students. Thanks to a Fulbright scholar, please read full article on the following link. (U.S. Department of State: 2008)

sub: public diplomacy.

Student N0. 05050694

Student.Name:Abdi Adan 2010-03-17

Blogging: Sub: PUBLIC DIPLOMACY.



The Public Diplomacy might be explaining as the way in which States leaders

communicate with one of other at the highest levels. The public diplomacy is

clear and net. The different organisations take the lion’s share with a public

diplomacy, or multi-lateral organisation such as, NGO’S and The unites Nations,

communicate with citizens in other societies. The public diplomacy describes

mostly Sales, Films, Televisions, Music, Sports, and other/cultural activities are

seen by public diplomacy advocate to a very great extent important avenues for

otherwise of different kinds of citizens to understand each other and integral to

the international cultural understanding, which the governments are a key of

goals of modern public diplomacy strategy.


Public Diplomacy consists about the following objectives:

- New public diplomacy
- Support Foreign Policy objectives
- The communications, Traders, Negotiations.
- The National Interests of States & so, on

Public diplomacy moved to define a new direct attention of traditional diplomacy

and it has since been taken by other foreign ministers and the public relations the

making as general. When the political leaders and foreign policy experts discussed

or they understood that the public diplomacy it is neither propaganda nor public

relations, but unlike anything else, the form of diplomacy that is only in this present

time coming into current fashion. For the reason of that, a new definition would be

adopted which puts the activities of public diplomacy into the context of traditional

diplomacy, and connects between it to the larges mission of foreign policy making

and execution.


A new definition of public diplomacy.

In order to understand the evolution of this an idea, a view of the quality of being

Clear, propaganda and public relations in order “propaganda” is kind of campaign,

In definition is the systemic propagation of a doctrine or information describing

the views and interests of those focusing such a doctrine or cause. On other side,

public diplomacy is a business of inducing the public to have understanding for

and goodwill towards nation


Inclusion, both of them or these terms connection with an idea of public diplomacy,

but neither one alone satisfactorily describes it. In this point thus for consideration

of a new definition of public diplomacy, one that takes into consider the needs of the

foreign policy making apparatus in the support country. (I.e. the government

preparing in a public diplomacy campaign) with respect to direct to country. But the

other foreign diplomacies wherein the public diplomacy campaign is taking place,

while accepting the truth of the contributions of propaganda studies and public

relations to control.


Public Diplomacy: the important point planning and execution of information,

Cultural and educational programming by dictating the country to create a public

opinion environment in a country its self or countries that will enable target

country political leaders to make decisions that are supportive of commanding

country’s foreign policy objectives. Public diplomacy will sometimes assume

this objectives as, for example, an account of the facts of a situation, human rights

abuses, dictatorial practices, political and religious repression.

Old on the Decline, New on the Increse,

'old' diplomacy still has contemporary relevance however its influence will decline over time as the power shifts to generations of the future, The Diplomats the future being born in todays world will grow up with the vast amounts of information on the internet and endless outlets for communication as the norm therefore increasing the use of communication via technology

even more than in 2010. 

 

This means that just as the internet speeds become faster peoples minds will be influenced faster for good or bad, meaning problems will need solutions far more quickly. People in todays world are expecting an increasing amount of information and responsibility from Alternative non state actors such as Green Peace and the United Nations  New diplomacy Therefore the only option. 

Darfur Protests in London 

The Copenhagen G8 summit earlier this year received many criticisms for not being taken as seriously as should have been by some world leaders however the fact that the G8 summit made it possible for these criticisms to be made indicates new diplomacy increasing whilst the 'old' decreases, 

Bilateral negotiations are still an aspect of diplomacy however the power of the people is on the up and the effectiveness in the future of 'old' diplomatic meetings may be a thing of the past as honesty is becoming far more respected. If citizens to read, learn and question as new technology provides political diplomats will have to adapt eventually also. 

This video from Green Peace shows the extent to which people will now go to express their views to Heads of State, the fact that anyone can go on youtube and see this story with the choice to make a decision on whether it is right or wrong shows how far the world has come in terms of diplomacy, 50 years ago a small story like this would never have had an audience. 

Joseph Nye explains the importance of understanding Hard, Soft and Smart power in todays world and had his theory been understood properly by the United States the Iraq war may not have become such a mess CIA information combined with 'old' diplomacy = Iraq war. Had smart power been used (correct balance of hard and soft power)  with New diplomacy the situation may have been maintained in a better manner. There were protests all over the world bad diplomacy if any between Iraqi officials and the United States. 'Old' diplomacy worked when the stakes were not as high the future holds space only for New diplomacy if we want this world to survive

the 'old' diplomacy.

The enviroment for diplomacy has been affected by a series of the shifts in the distabution of power at intrnational level . 'balance of power' is no longer the basis of diplomany, today the new dipomacy needs to reflect the new distribution of power.
firstly, for much of the last centuary our security concerns were primarily about eccesive and expansionist states, threatening their citizens or nebouring countries today some of the greatest threats are likely to emerge in countries where state power is too weak not too strong- to weak to clamp down on the creeping threat of global terrorism, the implication is clear:building the capacity of states must go hand in hand with building a more democratic state as well. while there has been a substantial reduction in the size of conventional and nuclear arsenals since the end of cold war, the sence of insecurity felt by citizens may actually have increased. across the world, people are demanding more power for themselves.

relevance of Old Diplomacy

The 'old' diplomacy ,following the cold War period have been evolved ,alongside the contemporary world events ,and its nature as a consequence have been facing constant transformation.The International System is now characterized by new forms of conflict therefore in order for diplomactic outcomes to be,either relevant or efficient ,diplomacy in the International system is more often to take a multilateral form rather than the previous traditional bilateral shape,where various states tend to adopt the so-called "public diplomacy".

Some schoolars advocated that the old/traditional diplomacy in the constant transforming world politics is for the above reason ,not adequte anymore,in addressing the existent conflicts.

Following the same line of though, is Kessinger believe that the evolution of diplomacy ,such in theory as in pactice ,has been growing out of the impantience with the old /traditional bureaucratic forms of diplomacy.

Therefore this conclusions led me to share the believe as Sir Harold Nicholson that defined this new era of diplomacy,where the traditional one is no longer that relevant ,as "the management of the International Relations ,the method by which these relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys...''also,he takes his point even further by emphasising the needs to change in approach in order to cope with the new development."

For this reason diplomacy has to accomodate to the comtemporary world conflicts and mainly be reivented ,so the old diplomacy feautures can still be relevant in the Globalized and increasingly modernized World but it isnt by all means that much relevant.

Same Old Politics and Diplomacy

The end of the cold war and formation of the United Nations set the stage for a new international relations and diplomacy. In it was a rejection of the old politics and diplomacy which were often characterised with wars. However, this new international system in contemporary diplomacy has always been undermined by USA and other permanent members of the UN security counicil. The aftermath of 9/11 terror attack on USA, shows US unilateralism in their decision to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

The failure to use diplomacy shows they have been the main beneficiary of the international system that was developed to be the alternative to violence and armed conflicts after the cold war. Their may argument was that other countries cannot have "veto power" over matters of U.S. national security,as result war was the only option and not new diplomacy.

The so called "threat of terrorism", and Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were used to further USA aggressive agenda towards Iraq which dates back to the 90s. Iraq had their sovereignty restricted before the war in areas of military, economic development and sanctions which were imposed for an indefinite period. Whilst many countries favoured the use of diplomacy to afford war President Bush was adamant that Iraq was a threat to world peace and security. The new diplomacy, it appears, has been accepted, but has it really? President Obama's have tried to use 'soft power and new diplomacy’ to repair USA tarnished image in the world and restore some of their lost power.

After championing the formation of the United Nations, what then is justification for USA to use the same old politics and wars?

DIFFERENT RECIPES BUT SAME INGREDIENTS

Despite all the changes that have occurred in diplomacy such as technology, globalisation, NGOs, old diplomacy is still relevant in contemporary world because the same agreed basis for diplomatic representation at the congress of Vienna in 1815 is still the same basis for today’s diplomacy.

Old diplomacy was created to prevent war between states and define territories borders by the pursuit of national interest and the use of balance of power which played an important role. However, the same coordination is still used today by states as mechanisms to achieve what they want and to get a country want what they want. The use of hard power by the United State of America and the use of soft power by the European countries is one example of this (LaFranchi: 2009).

With reference to William R. Moomaw, old diplomacy addresses 5 major topics - Avoiding war and maintaining peace, Defining territorial borders and resolving border disputes, Trade rules between and among nations such as GATT and WTO, Treatment of foreign nationals by government such as the rights of foreign citizens, Operational rules for communication and transport between nations such as postal service, land transportation. He then addresses the main major topics of new diplomacy which are: Human rights (genocide in Darfur), Humanitarian assistance in Sierra Leon for example, Labour rights, workers conditions in developing countries, National environmental issues and Fair trade.

The 1st topic is transparent today in a sense that modern state are aware that powerful state are in possession of nuclear weapon which prevent them from going to war and maintain peace by negotiating. Take the example of the United State and the Soviet avoiding going to war (Nye, Jr.:2004). The 2nd assumption is relevant today as if we take the case of Israel and Palestine conflict which can be a good example of defining borders. The 3rd topic about trade rule as one of the old diplomacy assumption is still relevant today. The GATT existed until 1994 and changed its name to WTO which is still functioning now. His 4th assumption is still alive in the revised assumption of the new diplomacy which is humanitarian intervention assistance. Take the Kosovo and Congo case for example.
His 5th assumption then can be said as similar to the new diplomacy fair trade as they were trying to implement a system that could cover postal services, communication between states and so on (Weisburd: 1998). Therefore, it can be argued that some of the roots of old diplomacy are still present in the contemporary diplomacy.

Moreover, modern diplomats discuss issues and initiate negotiation at lunch or dinner for example, most of the time, it takes place with two people trying to achieve each other interest, more than achieving it in public which makes old diplomacy relevant today because secrecy is still used. An example of this was confirmed by the chair deputy of the Swedish embassy, whom confirmed that it is true that diplomacy is more open today than before but it is still driven intimately by diplomats over lunch or dinner not in public and finally stressed that more European Union countries used secrecy than openness, not to mention that the policy formulation and decision making process are still the same in diplomacy with slightly some difference but the same ingredient apply.

Same Old Politics and Diplomacy

The end of the cold war and the formation of the United Nations set the stage for a new international relations and diplomacy. In it was a rejection of the old politics and diplomacy which were often characterised with wars. However, this new international system has in contemporary diplomacy been undermined by USA. The aftermath of 9/11 terror attack on USA, shows their unilateralism in their decision to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

The failure to use diplomacy shows they have been the main beneficiary of the international system that was developed to be the alternative to violence and armed conflicts after the cold war. However, they made the argument that other countries should not have "veto power" over matters of U.S. national security. The so called "threat of terrorism", and Iraq’s "weapons of mass destruction" were used to further USA aggressive agenda towards Iraq which dates back to the 90s. Iraq had their sovereignty restricted before the war in areas of military, economic development and sanctions imposed for an indefinite period. Whilst many countries favoured the use of diplomacy to afford war, President Bush was adamant that Iraq was a threat to world peace and security. So in hindsight was Iraq a threat to world peace and after championing the formation of the United Nations, what is justification for USA to use the same old politics and wars? The new diplomacy, it appears, has been accepted, but has it really. President Obama's have tried to use 'soft power and new diplomacy’ to repair USA tarnished image in the world and restore some of their lost power.



http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/19/content_11212165.htm

traditional diplomacy

The Greek city states on some reason sent envoys to somebody to others in order
to negotiate specific issues, such as war and peace or commercial relations,
although it did not have diplomatic representatives normally posted in each other’s
Territory. From Italy the practice was spread to other European Countries. Milan was
to send a representative to the court of France in 1455.However, the foreign powers
such as France and Spain became increasingly involved in Italian politics the needs to accept emissaries were recognised. The European the ability to exercise diplomacy is describing a fundamental of a state. As mentioned above, diplomacy has been trying to exercise since the first city-states were formed millemia ago in ancient Greece many centuries the human diplomats were sent only for specific negotiations,
communications and would return immediately after their mission concluded
diplomats were always relatives of the ruling family or of very high rank in order
to give them legitimacy when the sought to negotiate with the other state. The
traditional diplomatic is a clear in activity and net.


The bilateral diplomacy provides a meaning of control and management of economic
like the following main points: Trade arrangement, Education, religious, Cross-
boundary, Administration e.g. Legal, Technical Consular.
Bilateral Diplomacy work is a core function of foreign diplomatic missions, since
each relationship with a foreign country is unique or special for it also the foundation of the regional and multilateral diplomacy. It is thus a vital building block in the complete structure of external relationships. The technique of bilateral diplomacy is narrated or described in a world history.


New public diplomacy, first foreign policy itself is changing few of our pressing
Challenges are bilateral, immediate crises – Iran, Iraq, and The Middle East Peace
Process, Afghanistan, Cuba crisis Missiles, Vietnam, Israel and Egypt. The diplomatic
resolution of problems were taken various processes and procedures have developed
over time for handling diplomatic issues and disputes or arbitrations and mediations
were took development after 1960.


In addition to that, the developing context of diplomacy includes the ways in which
the member countries of EU are implementing its common foreign and society policy.
It has become the co-ordinator of bilateral relations. The traditional and bilateral
Diplomacy are addresses the principals arenas of diplomacy and the roots or
tools and techniques that can be used in an innovative way for relationship building
in the future.

The non-Proliferation Diplomacy of the the Non-Nuclear -Weapon States.

The Non-Proliferation Diplomacy of the Non-Nuclear-Weapon States: Understanding International Responses to Iran's Nuclear Defiance



This paper explores the responses of the non-nuclear-weapon states (NNWS) to Iran’s violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), focusing on the stance adopted by members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In February 2006, key NAM members voted to refer Iran to the UN Security Council in a move that stunned Iranian diplomats, and seemed to signal a collapse in NAM solidarity on fundamental non-proliferation issues.
But the issue is, does Iran violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Iran said that it has the Atomic Energy with good intensions; in the other hand testing a long range missile with is capable to reach Israel and other countries it shared border with.
I taught it was necessary for Iran to se a diplomatic solutions for this problem, because if the United Nations give Iran sanctions it will affect the poor masses in Iran including the opposition that are not in support of this current government regime.
To avoid war on Iran, should Iran comply with the United Nations or not?
If Iran did not comply, the action plan for Nuclear disarmament and Non-Proliferation will take place, and that will be United Nations sanction against Iran or Military actions against Iran.
But are the United Nations going to disarm India, Pakistan, and Israel for keeping there Nuclear arms because its shared border with Iran, if not Iran will be considering these three countries as a big treat to its country.
How did this Nuclear got in to there hands, who sold it to them, are the going to refund there money to them? How much does it cost to purchase them?



t

Visit to the Swedish embassy

Hello my fellow student!!!
This afternoon some of the New Diplomacy students including myself went to the Swedish Embassy to visit, we were welcomed, addressed by the 2nd person in charge at the embassy after the Ambassador. I was really surprised for the fact that he sacrificed and gave some of his time to us senior students, many thanks to him and to our Professor Dr Steven Curtis.

Basically he talked about what their embassy do in general in different country such as London and Berlin. I must say that, I am very impressed for the fact that a country like Sweden which is composed of nine million habitants has an organisation to help developing countries and now attract more UK citizen to visit their country than their citizen coming to the UK.

His Excellency Augustsson himself said that Diplomacy have had a significant changes from the Old system of diplomacy to the Modern system. He also stressed that the facility with technology, communication and media challenges more their work as information could be spread easily and they have to be very careful about what they say.

The old diplomacy was all about secrecy before and I am pleased to announce that, despite the fact that we have learn this at University or read in books, the openness of the Modern Diplomacy have been reconfirmed this afternoon by his Excellency as most of their files are open to the public.

It might interest you to know that Diplomatic corps in the EU countries have a sort of solidarity between the members as they belong to same political and cultural entity and also that his Excellency Augustsson really knows his job as most of what he talked about today was before said to us by our Professor. He talked about shifting resources which literally means that opening new embassies in certain countries such as Mali and closing some, the embassy in Dublin is one example.

Two questions then arise: do you think that it will be necessary to have Diplomats in different countries if state can get information as quick as their want now days? And do you think Diplomat’s jobs are being challenged with the foreign minister experts working with them alongside?

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND WEAPONS OS MASS DESTRUCTION.

There are five permanent members of the Security Council that have the power of veto any resolution.

1. China
2. France
3. Russia
4. United States
5. United Kingdom.

Iran has been told to stop its uranium enrichment plant, because the United States and United Kingdom are suspecting Iran of using the nuclear reactor for bad intensions.
Countries like India, Pakistan, and Israel has nuclear weapons and Iran should it as well like these three countries to protect it self for attack from any of these countries.
These three countries shared border with Iran, in order words pose as a big threat to Iran.
I am saying that Iran should have the nuclear weapon because for self defense.
The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States.
It was called Atom for Peace program.
This program was continued until 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the shah of Iran.
Iran has successfully tested there missile couple of times and that provokes the United State and United Kingdom.
On the 06 April 1998 Pakistan was successfully tested flight of the surface-to-surface Hatf-V (Ghauri) missile with a range of 1,500 kilometers (937 miles) and a payload capacity of 700 kg. This was 1979, by now who knows what Pakistan is capable of doing in terms of nuclear weapons.
The Indian Test of the Agni II IRBM was conducted 11 April 1999. Which Pakistan responded on 14 April 1999 with a test firing of its Ghauri II missile from the Jhelum region in northeast Pakistan. The vehicle reportedly struck a target in the Baluchistan desert about 1,100 km. away. These two countries shared borders with Iran, so in order words telling them that some thing is coming.
Who suppose to have nuclear weapon?
Russia have before threaten to blow the west if attack Yugoslavia.
America have used it in the second world war against Japan Hiroshima and Nagasaki
This was the impact of the nuclear weapon.
The world should abolished the idea of nuclear weapon if the are not keeping it with bad intensions

killing of the Civillians in Afghanistan

kill of civillians in Afghanistan.The US military has admitted killing 33 civilians in an air strike on a village in Afghanistan in August, far more than it has previously acknowledged.Following the August 22 attack on Azizabad, in Heart province, the Afghan government claimed that 90 civilians, mainly women and children, were killed. This figure was backed by the UN.Until now the US has estimated that that no more than seven civilians died in the attack. It launched an inquiry after it emerged that film recorded on mobile phones showed rows of bodies of children and babies in a makeshift morgue.we are not there but recently Nato airtsike killed 27 civillian in afghanistan, why the civillians. President Obama promised to withdraw the American troops if he voted in, but instead of that he sent 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.if another country or third world country did that, the Britain and America will be the first to condem it or even give sanctions to that country.i think this is human right abuse and breach of trust and confident on the Nato troops.

Where lies Falklands Sovereignity?

Argentina and the UK went to war over the islands in 1982 and now with the discovery of oil in the islands the conflict have resurrected again. The Argentine government has ruled out any military action over the island by trying to use diplomatic means to pressure the UK government into negotiations. I think some things will be different this time around. For one thing, no-one expects another bloody war. However, there's a lot more to this new oil, with Latin American countries solidarity this time, the UK government might find themselves facing the contempt of a whole continent rather than just one nation. Is diplomacy going to be use this time or not and who really owns the Falklands?

International order has seen constant changes through the time of history. There are several factors that contributed to those changes. Together with those changes the evolution of diplomacy took place. The most significant one was the technological innovations which led to faster communication. What in its own term led to transparency and multilateral relations. The other important change is the performance of diplomacy. If before it was only the educated elite and the nobility, people of high classes of societies like in the times of Renaissance and French diplomacy today there is a notion of public diplomacy involving more International organisations and non-governmental organisations.
The world becoming more and more interdependent and it does not involve only the trading issues as it was during the times of colonisation. Hence that broadens the spectrum of diplomacy from purely state interest to tackling the issues as the global pollution, global war on terror , spread of diseases and etc. There are issues that need to be tackled and where states fail to reach as a sovereign but the international organisations has the ability to do so as for instance humanitarian organisations like Medicines Sans Fronteriers (Doctors without borders ), IMF and World Bank.
The involvement of those actors in international relations transforms the nature of old exclusive and secretive diplomacy as in the times of the Cold War to a more open and inclusive as during the United Nations summits' today. However it does not mean that the features of old diplomacy are not any more in practice. Public diplomacy has become a new feature as a consequence of industrial and developed societies.