http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11876423

Just something to add about what has been happening in the news this week about the wikileaks.

I think it is outrageous that someone would think to jeopardise the security of so many states however I think this just shows that in the world we live in nowadays, in regards to the levels of communication and technology we have, nothing can be kept secret, and this is of course fundamental to secret classical diplomacy.

Adding from this, many people believe that they have the right to involve themselves in issues such as diplomacy, but their intentions are malicious.

The new releases are of course fascinating but largely unsurprising.

Internet - a new stage for new actors.

The most import aspects of the new diplomacy.

Generally speaking the term diplomacy means mainly placing state’s representatives in another state and maintaining good relations between them (Berridge and James 2003: 69-70). But is it the only case nowadays? International politics has become so important and widespread that sending professional diplomats to various embassies all over the world is not enough for any country which wants to play a significant role on the world stage.

As I see it the most groundbreaking moment in the new diplomacy was abundance of the Internet. Everyone can be online now and spread their views and opinions throughout the world. What is more it became the main source of information. It is quick and cheap as well. In fact anyone can be kind of a diplomat now but without years of difficult education and competitive path of career. If we take it into account there suddenly appear more players on a diplomatic stage. Hence traditional players - national governments started to use this platform of communication to influence international politics as well.

There are number of websites with the news updates 24 hours a day which means that quick and relevant reaction of state actors is essential. Moreover NGOs which are more and more heard and listened to by people use the Internet as their major way to aim their goals. There are numerous campaigns spread out with the Internet (for example Facebook). They establish forums which are used to discuss controversial issues. With the usage of Internet it is relatively easy to gather a lot of people who share the same point of view about certain issue and who are likely to do some action about it.

This creates a big pressure on politicians. Citizens can easily verify their words and influence actions. That’s why an answer to the question who actually is the diplomat nowadays is ambiguous. The border between professional policy makers, NGOs, media and the people is blurred. The fact that now you can actually write an e-mail to the foreign minister or MP or sign a petition to introduce a law on banning landmines with a couple of clicks - changed the face of diplomacy completely. Now everything needs to be clear and explained to the people. However a lot of people believe that the highest politics is still happening behind the closed doors. But didn’t uncle Google and aunt Wikipedia change it a lot during past years?

Soft Power

Joseph Nye is famous for coining the term 'soft power' as a way of making somebody (or a state) wanting the same things that you want. Combining this with military 'hard' power for example creates smart power which is undeniably relevant as Barcak Obama has infamously attempted to enforce it as his method of deployment of American Foreign Policy. In regards to diplomatic relations however, I see soft power through culture as being the key factor that has been consistent not just with the USA but globally as a form of this 'new diplomacy'.
Looking at the USA as an example we can see how the Voice of America (VOA) was purposefully created to influence people across the globe, in particular to demonstrate democracy, freedom and all good american values in contrast to those demonstrated by communism. At its peak the VOA was broadcasted in 53 languages to 91 million people. This is not considered diplomacy in classical terms but it no doubt has had an effect on influencing the way the US has been abe to implement its foreign policies over the years. In more recent years the creation of al-hurra, the arabic speaking program, has specifically dealt with the domestic question that came up after 9/11; "Why does evreybody hate us?" by trying to create an understanding of american policies in the muslim world.
Joseph Nye said that "Information is power, and today a much larger part of the world's population has access to that power." This indisputably confirms the need for this direction that states need to go in order to fulfill their diplomatic purpose. Culture is attainable through information, and you can make foreign audiences want to be a part of that culture.
In regards to the UK there is evidence of strategic communication during the 1990's conceived by a branch of government. The British Tourist Agency sought to brand the UK as "modern and multi-ethnic" and as a "creative island". The multi-ethnicity of the country being portrayed is fundamental in diplomacy to demonstrate to any state Britain hopes to have relations with that we can be empathetic and are by no means ignorant.
It would be foolish to disregard this trend in cultural diplomacy as it is vital to the way we build international relations. In certain cases there can be no denying the need for more classical forms for example with imminent threats and 'high politics'. However soft power cannot be rejected as paramount in ensuring our future security and from reducing global threats in which ever form they may take.

Wikileaks: „Open covenants, openly arrived at“ or „ the 9/11 of world diplomacy."?

a very good interactive map showing the origin of the cables

While scholars agree that one of the main features of the “new diplomacy” is its openness, true to Wilson’s ideal of “Open covenants, openly arrived at”, the latest Wikileaks revelations may be going a step too far, some fear. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, for instance, called the revelations “the 9/11 of world diplomacy, for they blow-up all relations of trust between states” (my translation)

Wikileaks is a website, run by Australian citizen Julian Assange, with a reputation for publishing sensitive or classified material. In the past it has released secret US material on both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, with the goal to uncover the unethical behavior of governments.

The reason why The Guardian speaks of a “global diplomatic crisis” is today’s release of a new bulk of documents, consisting of about 250 000 US embassy cables sent from embassies around the world to Washington DC as well as directives sent from Washington to its diplomats.

The most sensitive issues disclosed include communications about Arab leaders, namely King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, urging the US to carry out air strikes on Iran to disable any nuclear aspirations, as well as directives signed by Hillary Clinton basically ordering US officials to spy on the UN leadership as well as on fellow diplomats. This raises the question if US diplomats have crossed the line from information gathering to outright espionage.

Furthermore, very frank, for some certainly offensive, evaluations of world leaders and politicians have been made public, including remarks about Putin, Berlusconi, Merkel, Karzai and Ahmadinejad.

The reactions around the world have been diverse. The US had firstly, condemned the release of the cables as irresponsible and posing a threat to national security and to the lives of diplomats abroad, secondly, tried to limit the damage by warning close allies beforehand, and thirdly, explained that those cables were not the basis for American Foreign Policy but rather private reports of encounters that were not meant to be published.

Ahmadinejad has shrugged off the release as a deliberate propaganda effort by the US to destroy the unity of Arab states and as “psychological warfare against Iran”.

European nations criticised the publication of the cables, with the German government taking a “no comment” approach and France regarding them as a threat to democracy.

The question which has to be answered now is whether the leak really constitutes a global diplomatic crisis or simply a massive embarrassment for the US.

While the concept of openness is surely desirable, publishing sensitive cables while the issues concerned are still on the table, may severely damage cooperation and trust. Diplomats and politicians are surely aware of the fact that their conversations with American diplomats will be reported back to the State Department, but finding those personal accounts online and in the news constitutes a huge breach of trust.

German Development Minister Dirk Niebel, who has been called an "unlikely choice" for his post and "is not considered an expert on development assistance" claimed that "one will have to think much harder about how open one speaks and with whom."

Personally, I consider openness in negotiation to be of paramount importance. If diplomats are unable to communicate honestly with each other due to the fear that any remark made might be found in the news, successful negotiation will be impossible. As Berridge puts it: “Successful negotiation means, by definition, that each side has to settle for less than its ideal requirements” (Berridge/2010/105). Compromises have to be made and this can only work in secret, for “certain parties [..] have [...] to be sold out.” (Berridge/2010/105)

However, so far there has been no leak of a “game-changer”. Nothing was revealed “where we believed that US policy was X and it has actually turned out to be Y”. So there is the possibility that after the first storm has blown over, diplomatic relations will return back to normal. The US will have been seriously embarrassed and will be expected to massively increase its security measure with regard to embassy cables.

To conclude, I don’t think, the leak constitutes a 9/11 for international diplomacy, because most diplomats will be aware of the frankness of cables and quite possibly, other countries express themselves in a comparable way internally. Moreover, so far the media have applied self-censorship and promised not to publish any material that will pose a threat to national or international security.
Some people will face uncomfortable questions and the US will have to keep on its toes to reassure its allies of its trustworthiness. Even openness has its limits when it comes to jeopardizing the success of sensitive negotiations: Maybe covenants should only be open after they have been arrived at.

The Most Important Aspects of New Diplomacy

Traditional diplomacy has evolved over the years. Time has given us what we call new diplomacy. With new diplomacy comes new aspects or perspectives of diplomacy. Many of these aspects are essential to our current diplomacy and it would be hard to pick just one of them.Globalisation impact on diplomacy has been essential. A globalized world has forced diplomacy to be more public and multilateral. Mulitlateral and public diplomacy has become an important part of the of the new diplomacy. Apart from multilateral and public diplomacy there is one more key aspects. Arguably the most essential and influential one.
The emergence and influence of non-governmental organisations(NGOs)and non-state actors is the most fundamental change. Governments around the world have been forced to adapt to their rapid influence and development. Their significance have grown with the expansion of globalisation.In old diplomacy their impact was at a minimum, where the "game" was between states. Today's developed society makes it impossible beyond them.. Their input all over the globe has given them an ability to stretch beyond any borders and are therefore inevitable. Governments have become dependent on various organisations to create economic stability. NGOs breaking of boundaries gives them an opportunity to create economic resources in all parts of the world. A wider range of economic income help stabilizing a states wealth and power for that matter. Their current ongoing economic revival situation gives them an even vaster significance. Governments are depending on their resources abroad to uphold a certain status and reputation. Ambassadors, diplomats and other parts of a governments foreign offices are not the only representatives abroad. Non-state actors and NGOs build relationships far beyond the diplomatic society. Could even argue they create their own diplomacy.
Public and multilateral diplomacy in all respect, but the major impact comes from non-state actors and non-governmental organisations

To further add I cannot disregard from the internet and its impact on international relations and diplomacy.
The cyber-war between USA and China regarding Google has definitely damaged their diplomatic relations.
Google, Internets largest provider of information has had trouble to integrate on the Chinese market because of Chinese restrictions. China believe Google is hurtful by sharing information of freedom etc. It is well known that opposing against the Chinese government is a criminal offence and people are prosecuted on a daily basis. Which really is sometimes hard to understand because we live in a liberal world in the West. This comes as a shock for Google as their market shares have increased rapidly. I guess this would be a very hard market for them to just give because their are more internet users in China than there are Americans who breathe. It is scary how much impact internet can have on not just individuals but diplomatic relations. On todays internet you can find anything from cooking to actually how to make your own bombs,which is very disturbing. It has become the way we connect with each other. I have freinds living all over the world. With a simple e-mail or a message via Facebook I can reach them whenever I like. And no to mention Skype where we are able to communicate with people over through our computers and even through our phones. The evolution of technology is very exciting but scary. I guess these measures are necessary in the rapid economic growth that world is encountering. The next step is going to be interesting. How far are we possible to go? Is it going to be like Star Wars where we send video messages in a capsule and then we communicate? I think my generation has been blessed to live in this IT-revolution we are seeing in today's society. And hopefully it will move in the right direction to involve more people and make life very much easier for all of us

Mr Cameron in China!!!!

David Cameron in China!!!!

'Public Diplomacy is a euphemism for propaganda conducted and orchestrated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs directly and via diplomatic missions' (Berridge: 2005).

Public Diplomacy is the promotion of the national interest of states through 'propaganda', this is the way in which politics evolve in a world of competition and aimed to gain advantages from others at any price; the recent visit of Prime Minister Cameron to China illustrates the above premise, the use of public diplomacy to promote bussiness. The purpose of his presence in China was to promote trade with the UK because of the financial crisis, so it makes sense to look to places such as China it does not matter how far it could be, the most important is to find markets outside Europe in order to grow up the British economy. China want to build up its manufacturing industry and require specialist machinery that the UK can provide. On the other hand, China is the manufacturing workshop of the world that need to sell their products and the UK want to buy but also want a good deal. Although, Mr Cameron achievement is to promote investment from them in UK and to double trade with China by 2015, it's not going to be plain sailing.

Why China?

China will be at the front of the race to become global trade superpower, for this reason China represents a great opportunity for the UK interests. However, this is not a simple welcoming Chinese business into Britain with open arms.

Mr Cameron seems to understand that doing business around the world will make everything a bit better at home. But, I sense a mistake. Mr Cameron had a difficult task to complete: to make some noises about human rights, so how he managed propaganda in his country and outside? I mean he was there with the idea to make business, but he had a duty with the UK public opinion regarding 'human rights'; now the public is uncertain of how well he done, personally I don't think this was a very good idea, but really, how it would work, if a complete strange comes to your house to teach you how to manage your own rules' at home, so why begin with a spot of light criticism?. Chinese welcome business and friendship but not the UK trying to teach and trouble them, the Western countries have had human rights scandals, for this reason do not have qualification to teach Chinese people any lesson. Even more when Mr Cameron explained that it really is not good having a one-party state with censorship of the internet, probably Mr Cameron went so far.

Bilateral Diplomacy and hegemony

Bilaterla diplomacy in the early 20th century often degenerates into a system of conspiracy between states with a hidden agenda of hegemony against other opposition. It was a common practice that led to WW1 and WW2 and form part of the old dip[lomacy that led to nearly 50 years of war and conflict in the European modern civil war arena and created a standard political culture that led to the Suez Canal war and left a legacy of Middle East conflicts and tensions that spilt into the 21st century . The 2003 Second Iraq War was a result of bilateral diplomacy arriving at a common national interest to overthrow Saddam Hussein and it proved a great success  as well as profitable for some Western countries and investment banks .
After WW2 bilateral diplomacy (see Behind Closed Doors) was used to carve up Europe and led to 50 years of Cold War or  seen by some academics as a Third World War fought out by proxies from South America to Africa and Vietnam, Asia . It is now being used to destabilise the Middle East by the US and Israel over land and water, to subjugate the fragile new Iraqi government and mount an annexation of Afghnistan  for its unexploited oil and other mineral resources vital to Western political economy......the last colonial frontier before it confronts China in the north at the mountain panhandle pass . In the Indian Ocean through a secret bilateral diplomacy Britain ceded to the US the Islands of Diego Garcia for a massive US air and naval base build up as part of its triangular operational theatre from the Horn of Africa-----the vital Suez Canal--Red Sea passage---Iraqi oil supply----future Afghan natural resources supply------all these has to be protected by the huge US naval and air base in the 21st century, and to stop China's strategic expansion into the African continent . China has already signed  a number of bilateral treaties with individual sovereign African states and dispensing a soft power public diplomacy approach by building  roads, irrigation projects, schools, hospitals,airports etc . A vigorous US-Indian bilateral treaty and diplomacy has to be entertained as the theatre sits right in front of India which may feel very uncomfortable  at the massive US presence in the middle of the Indian Ocean enroaching within her sphere of influence.
International relations in the 21st century will have to adjust to these changes in scenario as China's new economic power enables her to expand into areas traditionall yseen as a Western monopoly and may lead to a  widening of war and conflict between East and West. It seems that the West needs wars, big or small, for its political economy to function and to do this a wave of bilateral diplomacy has to be conducted so as to make US presence in the region less intimidating .

Comments please                                                   ToraToraTora

Multilateral Diplomacy or Conspiracy ???

Multilateral diplomacy is about talk and argument among states and involved a high level of conspiracy according to Jeniffer Mitzen (2005). The mulitlateral diplomacy that surrounded NATO's intervention in Kosovo is widely perceived as legitimate when compared to the American-led coalition's Second Iraq War in 2003 is widely considered as illegitimate (Johnstone,2004) because of the way the US conducted its multilateral diplomacy without UN sanction (Rubin,2003) and under the pretext of going after Iraq's WMD. The late Dr.David Kelly had already argued and presented his findings  and confirmed that there were no WMD in Iraq, so to shut him up he was bumped off, claimed to be suicide.
Where legitimation is accomplished through argument , future disagreement must always be possible, but it must not devolve into violence and conflict that can destroy the social order (J.Mitzen), and one would add to mislead the UN member states in multilateral diplomacy and loses all credbility in the conduct of international relations.

James Rubin , " Stumbling Into War ", in  Foreign Affairs 2003 (September/October)46-66.

Jennifer Mitzen : Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres, in American Political Science Review , Vol.99,No.3,August 2005.

Ian Johnstone, : US-UN Relations After Iraq : The End of the World (Order) as We Know It ? , in Europen Journal of International Law  15(December): 813-838

Comments please                             ToraToraTora

Utility of Secret Diplomacy

Did China's secret diplomacy and use of soft power led to the release of Aung Sang Suukyi from her house arrest recently ? China is scheduled to build two major hydro-electric power station projects bordering the Burmese-China river vicinity by harnessing the giant river water of northern Burma so as to provide power to her new industrial city in Sichuan province. It is an estimated US$5 billion project to develop the region's Economic Trade Zone to benefit the land locked hill regions of both countries. It will represent Burma's first industrial inland development and China's Fourth Phase inland development in the 21st century. This economic aid offered  by China is too attractive tor the Burmese Military junta to ignore and it is made on condition that Aung Sang Suukyi is to be released from house arrest and her future remains a Burmese internal matter. One feels that her life is in mortal danger from now on .
Secret diplomacy remains a very potent element within the practice of old diplomacy, and whether for good or bad, continue to be a major influence in international relations.
The 2003 Second Iraq War was conducted via secret diplomacy between the US-Britain and a handful of willing allies and vassal states. It has also been used to settle the Libya-Lockerbie dispute and led to the resumption of diplomatic relations with the UK.
Although secret diplomacy has it's usefulness it also has its dark side of hegemony and conspiracy which may not appeal to some observers .

Comments please                          ToraToraTora 

Public diplomacy - does anyone know how it really works?

Public diplomacy. This term is more and more used in common discussions, media and political world politics in general. However are we average citizens of this globalized world aware of what does it actually mean? And more important how it can influence domestic policy and our everyday lives?

G.R.Berridge says that public diplomacy is pure propaganda. Government want their country to appear the best on international stage and uses all of the resources to introduce and proceed their policy. What is very important is the fact that beside traditional methods of diplomacy (these are professional diplomats their contacts and face to face talks) brand new actors are taken into account. Whole media – not only press, television and radio. Recently the most powerful mean of communication and spreading news and opinions around the world is the Internet. However can we really say that public diplomacy is propaganda only? In fact what is wrong in creating country’s the best image possible? Additionally what is very significant public diplomacy is created not only by officials but actually every citizen of every country in the world can shape it.

For instance we could observe it very well during Olympic Games in China. A few months before the Olympics were about to start riots in Tibet broke out. Tibet was under rule of China from 1950 but they wanted to use an occasion to attract world’s attention – Olympics were perfect for this purpose. And in fact it worked. A lot of protests, official letters support from a lot of influential people and fuss in mass media occurred during this period. Case of Tibet was number one in media for a couple of months forcing governments to stand on one or the other side of barricade.

Although a number of countries disapproved China’s actions in Tibet the situation didn’t change after the Olympics. People still suffer tortures there and basic human rights are still abused. Tibetans who were jailed during the protests are still in prisons – or dead.

This case shows how unpredictable public diplomacy could be. We believe that people have an influence on the world’s politics. That public opinion can put a lot of pressure on state’s officials. In my opinion it has a real power especially in domestic policy provided that the country is truly democratic. In international politics there are a lot of different factors taken into account and sadly it turns out that countries as powerful as China or USA can do what they want without any serious consequences. Having said that we should not take public diplomacy for granted. As I see it it plays very important informative role in international society. Why don’t just try to be one of “sixty million budding diplomats”? Maybe next time the outcome will be more constructive. Good luck!

Article in The Independent about the prostests:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/antichina-protests-worldwide-as-olympics-begin-889013.html

Very good article about China after Olympics:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china/beijing-olympics-falun-gong-4218.html

Free Tibet:
http://www.freetibet.org/

Hu Jintao urges British students to embrace political freedom and human rights

The general consensus this week is that David Cameron has proven himself to be a strong and brave leader, successful at taking risks as he well and truely stands out among other western leaders to be the first to visit China since Liu Xiaobo received the Nobel Peace Prize. The Prime Minister and his team stood their ground on the issue of wearing poppies and continued with business talks and student conferences.

David Cameron talking to chinese students about such issues is undeniably, a courageous move for public diplomacy; two decades after the atrocities that took place in Tiananmen Square. It clearly shows that the Prime Minister has taken foreign policy and public diplomacy as seriously as he said he would.

However, it is astonishing that this country will continue to in force the need to improve human rights overseas, namely China, whilst over-looking the violations of human rights that occur domestically and among other 'democratic' states. The most contemporary issue being that of UK soldiers facing war crimes trials following the submittance of videos showing prisoners being tortured by military interrorgators. Furthermore are the recent stories of a 'shadow justice system' in order to impose severe restrictions on the rights of people suspected of acts of terrorism in the UK, which hardly fall in line with the ideas of political freedom.

Another issue that has swiftly been swept under the carpet by the liberal democrat party after the coalition is that of asylum seekers looking for refuge in the UK. Child Detention centres remain open way too long after Nick Clegg's insistence that they be closed, echoing Barack Obamas empty promises for closing Guantanamo Bay. The only way the british public allow the continuation of these violations is because when there are spending cuts and everybody feels the burn; there has to be a scapegoat. If the public knew that an asylum seeker could be detained (without any charge) for an indefinite period of time in this country, for the fact that they fear for their saftey in their country of origin, would they allow it?

There are of course unparallelled differences in cases we find here in the UK and those in China but we should not allow the shock factor of what happens abroad blind us from the hipocracies that occur internally. There is no reason why equal efforts of human rights promotion cannot be made within our own borders aswell as within the borders of potential trade partners. http://http//www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2010/nov/10/david-cameron-china-political-freedom

Public Diplomacy - Nuclear Stability in South Asia.

Nowadays every state builds and maintains official relations with other countries for this purpose shall be drawn sets of methods, tools, actions and legal forms, which serve the public authorities and their representatives in the conduct of these relations – public diplomacy. Furthermore, it includes policy objectives that define how a country interacts with other countries worldwide. Public diplomacy is usually aimed at protecting national interests, national security, ideological beliefs and economic prosperity. This is a result of peaceful cooperation with other nations or through aggression, war and exploitation.In the 21st century the importance of public diplomacy is increasing dramatically, as each country actually has the ability to communicate with other countries in some diplomatic form.


In addition to this, the public diplomacy is the hierarchical structure of state institutions, the relations of domination and subordination between these institutions, and between officials and citizens. These interactions are public because of the fact that they are announced nationally and they underlie common, civic and nationwide interests. Thus, political organizations wrap, cover, and in some cases occupy the whole human society.




The first question pertaining to the public diplomacy is whether or not the mass media and its extreme forces in political arena are part of the public diplomacy. Usually the media circulated the authority of political organizations, parties, leaders or dispel them and show to the public their true nature. Also, the opinions of the respected politician, the great statesman, often, determine our sympathies and antipathies. This type of manipulation of the media in the so – called democratic and capitalist countries is made veiled. The universal idea suggests that in these states the press, radio and television are free and independent. However, some studies did show a very different picture. Noam Chomsky in his work ‘Necessary Illusions’ convincingly demonstrated by showing excerpts from the official seal of the USA, colossal distortions of actual events. According to Chomsky “the media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interrelated, putting their reports and analysis within the overall framework of support for the privileged and thus limiting debate and discussion”. In other words, in the mass media it is more important who speaks than what this person says.




Another essential question concerning the public diplomacy is how the propaganda affects it. Propaganda is inherently a well organized lie. In itself it may contain real facts or a half - truth, but interpreting them in an arbitrarily way. Moreover, it deletes the uncomfortable facts for the particular state and in that way puts forward the desired impression. In the historical aspect the propaganda is imperative from the ancient times when the information and knowledge were controlled by religious monopoly and to public reached only the official explanations, often with divine justification. Its real prosperity comes with the development of the modern technologies which give to countries such as UK, Germany, USSR and USA the chance to conduct large - scale propaganda, censorship and powerful implementation of policies that put millions of people in the circumstances of fabricated facts and allegations.


From my point of view, as a quite recent development of the sphere of public diplomacy is the peace – making diplomacy. This type of diplomacy can be illustrated by the conflict in South Asia. The clash is marked by bipolarity – Pakistan on the one side and India on the other. There are two powers which have antagonistic feelings towards each other. The key idea is that both India and Pakistan are members of the United Nations, which has a peace – making diplomacy. So, we can expect that they will be prevented from engaging in dangerous military conflicts. If India and Pakistan wage a war against each other, the United Nations is highly likely to intervene in order to stop the conflict from spreading and thus prevent a nuclear disaster. After all, international institutions have a set of standards and if a country is deemed to violate some of the stipulated regulations, certain actions are implemented against the aggressor so that tranquility is regained.
It is true that if a nuclear war begins between India and Pakistan, the deleterious impact of such a pernicious enterprise will have repercussions, which will not be confined only to the South Asian region. Furthermore, once the nuclear taboo is broken, many other countries may decide that they should use their nuclear weapons. Consequently, the anarchy that will ensue will probably lead to total obliteration. This macabre situation is far from pleasing to the great powers in the international system. So, they will try to ensure that such a situation is prevented from happening by applying the peace – making diplomacy. For instance, the USA may send warnings if it sees that the tensions between the two countries may escalate to a nuclear war. Moreover, if it is informed that either of the countries or even both of them are vent on using nuclear weapons, the USA may adopt the compellent use of force. Compellence is the deployment of military power so as to be able either to stop and adversary from doing something that he has already undertaken or to get him to do something he has not yet undertaken. Ultimately, India and Pakistan will change their military intentions. Thus, harmony will be restored and tensions will be extirpated, gratitude to the public diplomacy.

Web Links:

1) http://publicdiplomacymagazine.com/

2) http://knol.google.com/k/public-diplomacy-and-propaganda-their-differences#

3) http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/propaganda/?nid=6791

4) http://expertvoter.org/alternative-society/noam-chomsky-necessary-illusions-thought control-in-a-democratic-society-part-3-1989

5) http://home.nvg.org/~skars/ni/ni-c01-s01.html

6) http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/asia/conflict.html

Traditional Diplomacy

Every aspect of society has a history or tradition. Whether it is old old or new there is always a history behind it. Diplomacy is no different. The evolution of our society has changed the way diplomacy is conducted, but still it is deeply rooted in tradition and history. The political climate is ever evolving and therefore the nature of diplomacy also transforms. In order to achieve our objectives we have to adapt.It is essential to never disregard from the main objective of diplomacy which still primarily promoting your states national interests and building bridges with other states. There is no looking past the development of our society and the complexity it brings along but we can never disregard from the fact "old" diplomacy is still fundamental.

The technological development or rather the revolutionising impact it had on society and an increased involvement of non-state actors gives diplomacy a whole new face. It has become inevitable for the diplomatic society not to adapt to the ongoing process.Technology has facilitated interaction between states. The requirement to meet face to face has become less significant. Maybe less is the wrong term to use but technology enhances the opportunity to act quicker. Today modernised society leaves no room for error

League of Nations creation after WW1 and their predecessor United Nations also hand a significant hand impact of diplomacy. United Nations impact has also meant the increased influence of of non-state actors. New components such as International organisations, multinational corporations, non governmental organisations but also certain individuals such as celebrities make a direct impact on contemporary diplomacy. Their significance can not be looked over as the are key players in the global community. United Nations have also brought states closer to each other other with more favourable interaction methods.

These key factors on development has taken us far. Perhaps the key principles of "old" diplomacy have been overshadowed but they still remain very relevant. New diplomacy gives us an openness and transparency which is desired by many, but the fact remains that "secret" diplomacy still remains.States will never publicly notify regarding national security or other "high politics" issues. It goes to show that secrecy is still very fundamental in diplomacy and especially diplomatic negotiations.


And let's not disregard the fact that diplomats are still representatives of a particular state. Their tasks have broadened and become widely increased regarding aspects such as trade and environment. As mentioned before they still represent a states national interest. Diplomats or ambassadors and high commissioners are still present at various social events and other formal dinners etc.. Their presence is still required. This form of representation still exists. History and tradition is powerful within diplomacy and can not be disregarded.

Diplomacy in Disguise

Does 'old' diplomacy have any contemporary relevance?

As outlined in the previous blog entry, there are a lot of challenges to the old way of conducting diplomacy. However, Berridge (Berridge, 2010) argues that the French System is still at the basis of the diplomatic order – though sometimes in disguise.

I believe that this disguised ‘old’ diplomacy is still relevant today.

The reason for this is, first and foremost, because of an undisguised reality: resident embassies still exist all over the world – resident embassies, those embodiments of the old diplomacy, whose requiems have been sung for decades.

This may seem surprising, with all the competition the rise of ‘new’ diplomacy has brought for this old institution: Chief executives and ministers are more eager to deal with diplomatic issues themselves at summits, the media provides 24/7 news coverage from all across the globe and time and space are shrinking due to the increased speed of travel and real-time communication.

The fact that embassies prevail against those odds proves, that the tried and tested methods of ‘old’ diplomacy must still have some kind of relevance, for some of their vital tasks can simply not be substituted by other means.

One of the Clingendael discussion papers outlines, that “the opening of access to so many different people […] means that foreign ministers are dealing with many more clients than they did even ten years ago” (p36).

Personally, I believe that this only means more and not less need for embassies, for who else is going to deal with those clients on a daily basis? Agreeing with Berridge, embassies are simply the most efficient way to achieve continuous negotiation, provide executives with better first-hand information than the media can provide, while providing consular service and advice to heads of state at summits, while skillfully adapting to technological innovations.

Another aspect of ‘old’ diplomacy which is very much in use today – and rather successfully so, I claim – is the reliance on bilateral negotiations and the resulting treaties.

Authors consensually assert that multilateralism is one of the key features of the ‘new’ diplomacy, however negotiations on an international basis, especially at summit level, are extremely slow, difficult and often unsuccessful with regard to binding commitments, as we have seen at the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

If such a deadlock is reached, governments often turn to bilateral agreements: “[They] may become more popular as the lack of movement in the US, in particular, slows agreement on comprehensive international action," Jason Anderson, head of European climate and energy policy at WWF claimed.

This trend is exemplified by cooperation agreements between the US and partners like Mexico, Russia and Brazil or the signing of a US-Chinese and a US-Indian memorandum on the cutting of greenhouse gases and the cooperation on energy efficiency.

China and India also signed a bilateral agreement between themselves with a focus on greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy.

Furthermore, the EU, too, works together closely with China on a bilateral level (Even though the EU constitutes of several countries, it still remains a two-party engagement) which resulted in the agreement to establish a Europe-China Clean Energy Centre in January 2009. Exact information on this here.

The same reasoning has been employed before when the NPT proved insufficient to control Nuclear Weapons and to make for binding reductions in nuclear arsenals: The largest reductions

in Nuclear Weapons have been brought about by the bilateral START I treaty between the US and the Soviet Union/Russia. A treaty so successful is has just been renewed.

Comparable to the embassy case above, again, the ‘new’ diplomacy does not render obsolete the ‘old’ mechanisms, but rather complements them on various occasions, for example by providing an impetus to make concessions on a multilateral level after bilateral success.

Therefore, I conclude that the ‘old’ diplomacy has a lot of contemporary relevance, for the conduct of diplomacy is not restricted to the exclusive use of only one mechanism: Old and new aspects can co-exist and even reinforce each other, ‘old’ institutions like embassies may adapt to new technology, and, as Berridge puts it, some of what we call ‘new’ may actually just be an ‘old’ concept in disguise.

Traditional diplomacy

The roots of diplomacy were set in the ancient world. Moreover, the emergence of countries inevitably caused need to be maintained an active foreign policy on the international stage. It was necessary to establish forms of external contacts and relationships, to negotiate and conclude agreements. This is the sphere of diplomacy – to uphold the international affairs.
In addition to this, diplomacy occurs together with the emergence of foreign relations. It is constantly improving and has improved many centuries earlier before the creation of the term to be determined. Besides, at different stages of history diplomacy has been going through in diverse forms and ways that were consistent with the current conditions, and therefore they do not always coincide with the current ways and forms. Nevertheless, many basic principles of diplomacy and diplomatic skills and activities specific to the time treat distant past, have not lost their importance in our days. Now, a truly efficient diplomacy could be only the one, which is based on traditions, national and historical values and events, as well involving the problems of the modern days. Consequently, this allows the countries to optimally develop their line of foreign relations and successfully ensure their national and state interests.






In order to substantiate the validity of the idea that the ‘old’ diplomacy is contemporary applicable, we can adduce historical examples which aspire to find the solution to certain political affairs and problems of the modern time, since they are concentrated on what is happening in reality. For example, during the cold war nuclear weapons helped make competition between the US and USSR safer than it would have otherwise been if the superpowers had had only conventional arms on their disposal. Both were aware that if each of them had pushed the other too far, the conflict might have escalated to nuclear war engendering the obliteration of many towns and cities. The civil casualties would have been countless. Thus, because they used the diplomatic activities effectively and were aware of the probable aftermaths, they never actually fought a war with each other. So, from this historical paradigm we can perceive that the ‘old’ diplomatic methods and decisions are not only contemporary relevant, but also can be utilize very successfully on the political field nowadays.
Incontrovertibly, the diplomatic actions of the US and the Soviet Union were different during the cold war from those which take place at the present time. Notwithstanding, the history of the cold war implies that what matters is not the character of the countries that have nuclear weapons but the fact that they have them. Therefore, we do not need to look at the state level of analysis, which examine the regimes of the countries, their economic systems and domestic factors, in order to predict the relationship between the countries. Hence, we can witness that the fact that the US and the USSR have nuclear weapons makes the situation between them stable during the cold war, which can be scrutinize as some way of diplomacy to keep the relationships between those countries in tranquility.
On the whole, we can observe that the ‘old’ diplomacy is not outdated because what is happening currently in the international arena is not unique, but is rather reminiscent of events that took place in the past.
Web Links:
1) http://www.coldwar.org/

2) http://www.funfront.net/hist/europe/coldwar.htm

3) http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=66

The New Diplomacy C: The Old and New Diplomacy related to Bilateral and...

The New Diplomacy C: The Old and New Diplomacy related to Bilateral and...: "Diplomacy occurs as a dialogue between independent states. When talking about diplomacy, one must understand that there are Old and New dipl..."

The New Diplomacy C: The Old and New Diplomacy related to Bilateral and...

The New Diplomacy C: The Old and New Diplomacy related to Bilateral and...: "Diplomacy occurs as a dialogue between independent states. When talking about diplomacy, one must understand that there are Old and New dipl..."

The New Diplomacy C: The Old and New Diplomacy related to Bilateral and...

The New Diplomacy C: The Old and New Diplomacy related to Bilateral and...: "Diplomacy occurs as a dialogue between independent states. When talking about diplomacy, one must understand that there are Old and New dipl..."

Western Hypocrisy and Diplomacy

This is a reply to Mam

On the debate about Human Rights there had always been a double standard practiced by the West and  the UN Human Rights Commission in league with Western powers namely the US and her vassal states------the UK, Australia,New Zealand, Israel,  apartheid South Africa, Central and South American countries, and the EU-----all have appalling human rights record from the Second World War to the Cold War years to the torture and murder of Steve Bikko, Sharpville, Soweto, imprisonment of Nelson Mandela for 30 years in Robbins Island to the Iraq's Abu Ghraib torture pictures, the Gaza massacre, and all these have been confirmed by the recent Wikileak revelation on 27 October 2010 exposed such atrocities to be standard practice so much so that our study of international relations can never be the same again .

Why blame China for all the Western economic failures and financial crisis ???During the 19th and 20th century when both Britain and the US had their economic power through exploitation of the Third World resources and were prepared to use gun boat diplomacy and warfare against the LDC people with little regard for their human rights ( see John Pilger, Caroline Elkins et al) and put nothing back into the third world development. But when China moves into these areas and offered to build schools,roads,railways,hospitals the West starts to point to the country's poor human rights record . But as far as China, Malaysia, Singapore,Vietnam are concerned western idea of human righs is not importat because the West don't believe in it themselves and is only using HR to beat and point an accusing finger on countries whom they don't like. What are the basic HRs which Asian countries considers most important are good clean water, a roof over your head, free schools to college level, good roads, productive farm practice  and cultivation to produce food, a free health and welfare system, look after the aged , etc...one could go on . Feedong and education the 1.4 billion Chinese is more important then the polemics of HR . And all these were invested on the Chinese people since 1960 under the communist regime and today the Asian peoples are harvesting  these rewards invested by their government with an average annual economic growth of 8% compared to the Western hemisphere of 0.3% . The govrnment policy is that you can get rich in China but the State decides and today China produced more $ billionaires a year  than the entire EU countries  combined according to Forbes 2010 riches people publication . So it is educational to compare what are the best priorities for the Third World ???  comments please........ToraToraTora

Multilateral Conspiracy

Multilateral diplomacy is about talk and argument and involve a highlevel of conspiracy according to Jeniffer Mitzen (2005) . The Multilateral diplomacy that surrounded NATO's intervention in Kosovo is widely perceived as legitimate base on humanitarian intervention consideration but when compared to the American-led coalition's Second Iraq War is widely perceived as illegitimate (Johnstone,2004) because of the way the US conducted its multilateral diplomacy without UN sanction (Rubin,2003) and under the pretext of going after Iraq's WMD . The late Dr. David Kelly had already argued and presented his findings and confirmed that there were no WMD in Iraq, so to shut him up he was bumped off, claimed to be a suicide by the establishment .
Where legitimation is accomplished through argument, future disagreement must always be possible, but it must not devolve into violence that can destroy the social order ( J.Mitzen) ,and one would add avoid concerted efforts by interested parties to mislead UN member states in multilateral diplomacy and loses all credibility in international relations.

Jennifer Mitzen : Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres, in American Political Science Review, vol.99, No.3. August 2005

Ian Johnstone (2004), US-UN  Relations After Iraq : The End of the World (Order) as we Know It ?, in European Journal of International Law  15(December) :813-38

James Rubin (2003),  Stumbling Into War  , Foreign Affairs (September/October) :46-66

ToraToraTora

NGO's are a Liability :Diplomatic Quangos

NGOs are a creation of powerful vested interests like e.g. the World Bank and the IMF to ensure that they have  a monopoly of Third World finances, markets and trade, and they are one of the causes of perpetual underdevelopment in some Third World countries in dependency theory and structural adjustment programmes(SAPs) .  NGOs are also the cause of crippling debts in poor countries and perpetuating what Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal ( in Asian Drama ) termed the vicious circle and spiral of of never ending poverty.

It has its early history during the Green Revolution in agriculture pioneered by Norman Borlaug in the 1960s on dry rice cultivation without needing much water but tons of fertilizers that has to be imported from Monsanto, ICI,etc under a loan- aid  agreement for these new rice strain to survive and grow . Many underdeveloped countries  had to borrow heavily from the IMF and World Bank during the Cold War years and this serve the interest of the West, especially the USA .

The NGO diplomacy is generally seen as a body to market western products in the developing world .  Although superficially they are seen to be helping and aiding the Third World   like for example the fight against malaria  in Africa. But after 30 years the parasitic illness remain dormant in 2010 and new western medicines and other ineffective control reccommendation has failed to eradicate the plague but continue to be dumped on these countries at a price .
There has also been accusation that some NGO's  are using the Africans as live human  guinea  pigs to test western drugs in disease detection, birth control pills among the hill peoples of Thailand and the deadly   ebola virus  as WMD experiments . And possibly HIV/AIDS, a genetically engineered virus that appeared in 1982 is within the WMD programme tested on Africans first but soon got out of control ,cross the human ethnic barrier and swamped the world  .

NGOs are generally seen as both  a liability and a marketing tool of  Western interests and to keep redundant diplomatic bureaucrats in a job at great expense to Third World countries receiving aid from the First World.

However the same cannot be said of medicin sans frontier which is a highly respected independant organisation, but the same cannot be accredited to the Red Cross which has been tainted in the past and strongly connected with the Swiss banks and government during the Cold War years .It was used as a cover for Swiss banks in their shady activity with dictators in the Third World to embezzle millions of dollars out of their country into Swiss bank accounts .

My Face can you name one NGO that has been really successful in helping Third World countries to grow better crop yields or to eradicate disease . We are in the 21st century now and all the NGO particpation in the last century continue to be with us, why  ????? ToraToraTora

Evolution Of Diplomacy

Old diplomacy as we know we know it, is slowly but surely dying out. The old "hush hush" mentality and sneaking behind each others back facade is cracking up.

The innovation and evolution of technology has certainly shed a new light on the whole context of diplomacy. Behind closed doors and the elitist diplomatic society has taken a tumble.

The liberation in society, or at least western society leaves the "old" diplomats hanging by a thread. I am not arguing against t

he old diplomatic agenda, but it is inevitable not to adapt to modern society.

The new diplomacy is an outcome of the development or our society. This is no longer a one man race where people travel hundred of miles just to deliver a classified document. Technology has broken boundaries far beyond what we could ever imagine. Not only us as individuals, also how states interact with each other.

The rise of NGO's, Human Rights groups and environmentalists are also a key factors in the change of diplomacy. The have risen so high that their impact is so significant to the ongoing processes in world diplomacy. They represent the new powers of diplomacy and international affairs. The economic, cultural and commercial even individual are regarded as the "new" key components. States have become so dependent on their backing to make up for their own mistakes and losses.

Richard Langhorne makes a very interesting argument in his book " History and the Evolution of Diplomacy " about the connection between states and non-state actors.

This website: (http://www.diplomacy.edu/books/mdiplomacy_book/langhorne/regular/langhorne-5.htm)

has an excerpt from his book. For a example. In an ongoing financial crisis when states experience confusing and difficult times and they loose power and money in relation to other states. The role or impact of non-state actors such as humanitarian organisations has increased to make up for states own poor governmental structure. This has evoked a new pattern in international affairs. Increased participation gives the the opportunity to influence. There are no longer afraid of the stabbed in the back after they "saved" them. Its a bit confusing I know. Please feel free to read (http://www.diplomacy.edu/books/mdiplomacy_book/langhorne/regular/langhorne-5.htm)

Another interesting point Langhorne makes out is the fact that non-state actors are becoming so powerful. They create their own diplomacy. It is an interesting point of view because evolution has no ending.

With power and influence comes greed and all of a sudden they are more powerful than the state itself.

They move on to greater and better things. Borders and boundaries become more diffuse and we loose even more of our integrity and sovereignty.

I am not sure whether i agree or disagree with Langhorne on this matter. If they create a diplomacy so vast that it overtakes the diplomacy as we know it, should we be afraid? Will they pose a threat to world securtity? This maybe seem as ridiculous questions, but I am only speculating.

Evolution has no ending