Sunday 2 May 2010

Diplomacy Today



In the beginning, diplomacy in my understanding was just a tactful and peaceful way of dealing with issues and getting what you want. I associated diplomacy with the “high-profile” diplomats dealing with foreign governments to create friendly relations between their respective states in order to promote one or another cooperative dealings, whether economic, political or cultural. However now, it is possible to see that diplomacy is not simply an interaction between professional diplomats with the hosting state, but it is a complex net, which is composed of many different actors and arenas of interaction. In other words, diplomacy grasps complex web of actors, issues and ways of dealings with issues. In particular, diplomacy involves negotiating and cooperating in different arenas, such as in multilateral diplomacy, where diplomats have to deal with several states at a time in a complex structure of international organizations such as the World Bank, IMF (International Monetary Fund), UN (United Nations) and etc. Diplomats have to compete with or deal with different sources of information for credibility as well as promulgating their interests, such as the press, media, Internet and other independent sources of information such as the BBC. Also, the role of the Non-Governmental Organizations in diplomacy further complicates the way diplomacy works. Their interaction can be either cooperative or competing and conflicting. Cooperative in a matter where government can use NGO’s as a “catalytic diplomacy”[1] where they operate through and within NGO’s since they have the credibility, specialization and the trust of the public, or their interests can be conflicting where they come to opposing each others intentions, whether on moral basis or political purposes. Moreover, issues that go beyond the state boundaries such as the environment takes diplomacy into a higher, more demanding nature, where it comes to a point that it becomes simply impossible to come to any agreements since there are so many actors such as NGO’s, pressure from the press and the public to deal with, as well as many different issues that need to be considered of such as the economic factors and political power as well as general concern with future damages of the climate change for example that shapes diplomacy as the most complex game of chess, where moves have to be planned in advance by considering all the possible options from both sides, ones own as well as the opposite with various outcomes. Therefore, in my opinion diplomacy today is more complex and intermingled. However, even though I think that diplomacy is more complex in nature, I still think that no matter where diplomacy takes place, with who it communicates and interacts and how it operates, it is still conducted for the national interests of the states, whether in promoting their image, getting their way, promote their interests, gain economic cooperation, all in all it is always and only in the name and for the sake of the national interest of the states.


[1] *“Catalytic diplomacy” does not refer to operation of governments within and through NGO’s only, it is conducted on a more inclusive basis. As Riordan states: “not simply on a narrow foreign ministry level, but at a higher, more encompassing level”. (2003, p,127).

1. Riordan Shaun (2003) The New Diplomacy Polity Press, Cornwall

3 comments:

  1. Leyla, I agree with what you say. Also, NGOs are able to negotiate as a third person, an outside observer sometimes. Which is why they are at an advantage and they are used by states sometimes to act in the state's interest.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Leyla,

    I like the fact that you state how diplomacy and its practice have changed so much, yet it is still the national interest which 'runs the show' so to speak. This in itself asks me to question whether diplomacy can ever be a tool for working toward a more global community, and whether realism is still one of the most prominent and convincing IR theories. I think as the climate change debate continues, we might see states regard the issue as being part of the national interest, and then maybe we'll have a more concrete agreement. We will see!

    Best,

    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  3. The book are so beneficial for us. i should find it, if i find the hard copy it will be better if not the soft copy is also good.

    ReplyDelete