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?