'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
While I agree with you that there will be an increase in non-state actors, I do not share your view that traditional diplomacy will decline. Firstly, it must be remembered that a government represents its entire people whereas NGOs represent certain people on a certain issue. Secondly, I do not believe one should be so quick as to discard secrecy. There are situations where open negotiations are not possible (for a whole variety of reasons). In such situations, secret negotiations are vital both in the attempt to resolve issues, but also to maintain a somewhat stable international system. I believe the best example of this is the secret negotiations between Jordan and Israel. Further, I believe that in order to achieve any sort of progress in the Israel-Palestine conflict, one must start slowly by secret negotiations. Third, I strongly believe that bilateral agreements are relevant and will continue as such. A multilateral agreement such as the Rome statute (ICC) is bypassed by the US through the signing of bilateral agreements with ICC signatories. Furthermore, even the European Union, whose emphasis is on multilateral trade agreements, finds itself forced to signed bilateral trade agreements with some states in Latin-America.
ReplyDelete