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.