The New Diplomacy

Richelieu ‘perceived diplomacy as an instrument of power to be used continuously, rather than occasionally as events required’ (Feilleux, 2008: 40)´.

Although, this module had not covered my interest on diplomatic jurisdiction, I had enjoyed and learnt so many new concepts and ideas that were absoultely new for me or that I had wrongly understood. For example I was completely unaware of the origins of diplomacy and when I had started preparing for my essay I realized that my understanding was muddled up with the historical context of diplomacy since Greece and so on, after further reading and research now I am very pleased to know that the real origin of diplomacy is other and could trace back to XV-XVI century in France and the culmination of the thirty years war in Europe, also is extremely important to underlined on the value of the French Cardenal-duque Richelieu writings performed in ‘Testament Politique’ that are of paramount importance on the development of the theory of diplomacy, as the main focus of his arguments on diplomacy as a method used by states to pursue its national interest: ´the interest of the state was primarily and eternal that it was above sentimental, ideological or doctrinal prejudices and affections (Nicolson, 1954: 51). In fact since Westphalia Treaty states are the only sovereignty among nations, consequently states use diplomacy to promote its foreign policy by loobing the domestic affairs of other countries.


Also I have learned the increasing value of the NGOs role in world politics as before I use to understimate it. The influence of NGOs in world politcs is challenging the modern international system, it does not matter if actually is in a low level the most important is that the first step was done and the public support is very influencial in its evolutionary process. I strongly agree that through cooperation and communication in the future NGOs will gain global influence in such a level that would open a new chapter in their involvemnt in world politics. Despite this is a long term perspective, its viability is base in the extensive involvement of the people.

Another topic that interested me was Public Diplomacy as an aspect of the New Diplomacy, and the polemic opinions among some authors regarding this theme. While for Berridge public diplomacy is merely a euphenism for propaganda, for other such as Nye public diplomacy is seen as the way to build up relationship. I absolutely agree with Berridge argument, as public diplomacy is so many times used to influence politics through the public, for example many countries use propaganda as a strategic way of communication to promote themes such as the prevention of spreading of communism in the Cold War period.

To conclude I have improved and gained much more knowledge in this module than I had expected when I started. Now my wrong ideas about diplomacy had gone, but my worry about the disadvantage of the influence of high politics over diplomacy in modern politics still relevant , as I understand that diplomacy allow states to act unilateraly in certain serious cases, such as international conflicts in which secrecy plays an important role: ´The idea that statecraft and international relations form some separated practice that can be removed from other forms of politics and government, with its own separate rules and philosophies, is unjustified in an age where everything is connected´(Ross 2009: 26)´.

Kissinger's Diplomacy

According to Kissinger, no country has influenced international relations so decisively and ambiguous as the USA. Moreover, no nation has been more pragmatic in its daily conduct of diplomacy and ideological in the pursuit of its historic moral convictions. Moreover, Kissinger describes two opposing attitudes towards foreign policy. The first is that America's best serve its values, reinforcing democracy at home and became inspiration for other countries. The second is that the values of the USA are spread around the world, the mental attitudes are the product of American experience and inflict a global international order based on democracy, free trade and international law that has not really existed is utopian.

In line with Kissinger’ idea, the USA has the best management system and the rest of the world can achieve peace and prosperity only perceive the American reverence for international law and democracy. Furthermore, the American perceptions of international politics face the European diplomatic traditions of the Paris Conference of 1919. The European leaders seek to restore the old system and methods, while the Americans believe that the Great War broke out because of the vicious European methods. In addition to this, Kissinger established 14 points of Wilson, which clearly exposed that the international system should not be based on the equilibrium of forces and the ethnic self - determination, and diplomacy must be guided by explicit agreements. Americans attribute the troubles of Europeans in their system of balance, while the Europeans to the Americans - for their global reformist policy. In fact, both approaches to foreign policy are products of their own unique conditions. Balance of forces guarded the American security and the collapse leads to an involvement of America in international politics. Europe has been pushed to the policy of balance of power when the dream of a world empire collapsed and growing number of countries. The system of balance of forces is intended to limit the ability of states to dominate the one above the other; its objective is stability and moderation. The concept of balance of power reflects the views of all major political thinkers of the Enlightenment - the universe exists as a result of interaction of international relations principles.

On the whole, the USA, in relation to Kissinger, must take into account the fundamental values of the first society in history, established in the name of freedom. The traditional American idealism must be connected with a careful evaluation of current realities to create an appropriate set of USA interests. Implementation of the American ideals will be pursued by patiently accumulating partial record. Finally, prosecution of former goals - peace, stability, progress and freedom of humanity - will be endless voyage.

My understanding of the diplomacy today.

Generally speaking my understanding of diplomacy changed completely since I started attending this module. I have never actually been thinking about the role of diplomacy in a world of modern politics before – I just had a very imprecise idea about it. I thought that it is secretive and is very needed because diplomats have a big influence on international political decisions. My first impressions about the new diplomacy were as well quite different at the beginning than they are now.

In the first place I thought that the main trait of the new diplomacy was that it rejected all of the means worked out through the decades by the traditional diplomacy. In fact all of the old ways have been improved and combined with the new things. For example the most traditional bilateral diplomacy didn’t fade away with an appearance of multilateral conferences.

My second impression about the new diplomacy was that it is designed to maintain world peace and solve international problems. In fact I realised that the main diplomatic actors – states try usually and mainly to achieve their goals and improve their national image. As a contrary a lot of others actors appeared. They took a role of taking care of internationally important issues. Different kinds of NGOs created hundreds of experts on different areas of international political life.

As a result of attending The New Diplomacy classes I understood that new diplomacy is very complex. It appears in different areas of political world and it’s used in a lot of aspects. The good example is public diplomacy or trade diplomacy.

I was expecting to gain knowledge about how current problems and conflicts aroused. It was true because during the seminars we discussed as well about what’s happening now. Contribution of other students helped me a lot and because of them I got interested in many new things. It was very helpful that all of us are from different parts of the world because we had different points of view about one issue.

In fact working in diplomacy seemed to me a prestigious job with only a lot of benefits. Because of things that I learned during this semester I have better outlook on a work of a diplomat. It has a lot of disadvantages as well. Nowadays the majority of decisions affecting international politics is made on high-level summits of states’ officials. Diplomats are becoming less and less important because of the appearance of NGOs and other non-state actors. The case of WikiLeaks shows that their work is just doing what government tells them to. And due to ICT revolution they’re on ‘the leash’ all the time.

In my opinion role of diplomacy is fading away. It might develop into a new system of running world politics based on NGOs and high-rank state officials with no need of embassies and ambassadors anymore. It could become more and more globalised and modernised. Of course states would still need consulates to deal with their citizens’ problems abroad but only to practical purposes. I hope that I’m wrong because I quite like the idea of professional diplomats.

The New Diplomacy and I

At the beginning of this semester I was extremely excited about this module for I have been fantasizing about a possible career in the diplomatic service for a little while now – without having a perfectly clear idea of what this would actually entail nowadays.

In my ‘first impressions’ I suspected we would be dealing with the shift from ‘high’ to ‘low’ politics to address the multitude of tasks diplomats are facing these days and had a general idea that there was an ‘old’ diplomacy (a mean history teacher had once given me the horrendous task of writing an essay about the diplomacy of Fürst Metternich from Austria and what Woodrow Wilson would have thought about it) which had mainly been conducted in secrecy and that in recent years there had been a challenge to that. Of what exactly this new diplomacy consisted I didn’t know.

Over the course of this module I did not only learn how this change from matters of war and peace to an agenda so diverse that diplomats need to be dossier agents and not the generalists of former times came to be, I also learned that the challenge to ‘old’ diplomacy was much less recent than I had believed. I also began to grasp what this new diplomacy really is.

I learned about the new openness and inclusiveness and para-diplomats and how the involvement of new non-state actors from all sides of the political spectrum, plus some well-know actors, like heads of state, in new roles, had changed the face of diplomacy – beyond recognition, some claim. Others, I found out, conservatives like Berridge, who became my diplomacy guru, are much more critical and don’t see these novelties as a radical changes but rather as just another step in a long evolutionary process.

This debate followed through the whole module: was the new actually that new? And did it make the old obsolete? I learned about the traditional institutions, first and foremost embassies, and was surprised by their flexibility and ability to retain their relevance. The two visits were especially insightful and awakened my interest in the question why bilateralism was still so relevant even though multilateralism and summitry seemed to be very compelling alternatives.

I was intrigued by the discussion of propaganda vs public diplomacy which helped me to understand a whole variety of issues such as why Obama went to the trouble of addressing the Iranian people personally in a video message or why the German government sees the need to spend so much money on the Goethe Institute to promote its image abroad.

Then, fantastically, Wikileaks happened. While surely being embarrassing for the US and possibly unbalancing some established relationships of trust which are so important for diplomacy, it was an amazingly interesting event to follow and comment on, evaluating it against the backdrop of everything that we have learned in this module.

All those things and many more which I gained knowledge of from the lectures, seminars and all the books and articles (some of which were truly eye-opening!), fortified and supported my belief that diplomacy, regardless of if we call it old or new, is one of the fundamental pillars of world politics. Even if diplomatic channels are sometimes ignored when a nation decides to act unilaterally, the variety of issues which are nowadays found on the agendas of a diplomat make apparent the fact the diplomacy permeates every aspect of political life.

The most important thing for me, personally, is that, at the end of this module I am still as excited about diplomacy as I was before but so much more well informed. My understanding of diplomacy has not fundamentally changed, but has deepened and broadened. And most important: It has left me with a lot of hope! While getting into the classical diplomatic service is a threateningly difficult task, this module has showed me that there are so many other actors actively and meaningfully involved in diplomacy, that I only now realized the variety of possibilities open to me and everyone else interested in diplomacy! Thanks, new inclusive diplomacy!

PS: I would like to end on a humorous revelation about corridor diplomacy Wikileaks has failed to reveal:

The Environmental Diplomacy of non-state actors

These days, the environmental discourse is dominated by the paramount topic of climate change and how to fight it. Most conferences, summits and informal gatherings revolve around it in one way or another.
The significance of non-state actors in these kinds of negotiations is especially intriguing due to its omnipresence. While I would not (yet) argue for the complete end of the primacy of states, “diplomacy now involves many more participants who are experts in matters other than diplomacy and hold their position outside foreign ministries”(1). This is especially true for environmental negotiations, for most of the problems transcend the borders of states and thus fall into the realms of non-state actors with a claim to represent the civil society as a whole, which is not properly represented by the states.

First, however, who are those non-state actors?
They can be subdivided into three categories: Business groups, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and the media.
Business groups have a variety of ways to influence negotiations and have played advisory roles to governments or even sponsored big media campaigns, based on self-sponsored scientific research, which involved TV, radio and newspaper advertisements and even public speeches. In the early days of the climate change discourse those efforts were aimed purely at discrediting proof for climate change or lobbying against the Kyoto Protocol and the like, outlining how bad emission cuts are and how they could ruin the economy and trade competi-tiveness. Especially notorious was the Global Climate Coalition. However, business groups are not a monolithic bloc and in recent years some have changed their tune, now recognizing the potential dangers of climate change and instead advertising their efforts to contribute to fighting it(2). This however has been harshly criticized by ENGOs as ‘Green-washing’ (See Greenpeace: Change your act, not your image).

The engagement of ENGOs has continuously grown since the Rio Summit and more and more varied ENGOs attend the big environmental events. Plus, the relationship between NGOs and formal negotiators and governments has become more and more mutually supportive (as always, with exceptions!). From ENGOs from the North and South, to student, religious or local groups, sometimes united in cooperation under the Climate Action Network, they all have a number of significant ways to influence negotiations.
They can either participate in the formal negotiations as observers or, now more and more common, as advisors to delegates or full members of national delegations. Due to their specific knowledge of the subject they can provide expert scientific, legal or policy advice.(3)
Another column of ENGO work is that of research-based think-tanks, which develop creative solutions and alternatives outside the formal processes. This activity can range from the publication of scientific reports to the organization of side events with presentations, talks and debates. This enriches the discussion by providing analyses, research and alternative solutions. And can go as far as staging a parallel conference to the Copenhagen Summit, which was even attended by some delegates. Furthermore they can be active as campaigners and create pressure on the negotiators through demos, protests and rallies. (4)
Lastly, one of the greatest skills of ENGOs is the interaction with the media and the expert use of new information technologies. By eagerly giving interviews and providing back-ground material they raise public awareness and achieve that those publications, often featuring details of corridor discussions and biting commentary, were directly distributed to the officials at the negotiations. A great example of the use of new technologies and the impressive responsiveness of ENGOS was Oxfam’s rapid response system during the Cancun Conference. Through these actions they help maintain the momentum and exert a lot of pressure to act on delegates in negotiations.

Lastly, the media. While articles about the environment and climate change had to be searched for in a newspaper just some 20 years ago, the media now features big articles about environmental issues on a regular basis, even outside of great events like the climate summits, and some have dedicated whole sections to the environment. Also, it was first and foremost the media which started linking phenomena of extreme weather to climate change and thus paved the way for governments to openly admit that climate change might indeed be happening and that something needs to be done about it (which most do nowadays, but two decades ago, that was revolutionary!). (2)

To sum up, through those very diverse ways of influence, from advocacy to policy research, from the raising of awareness to exerting pressure, from lobbying to expert advising, most non-state actors have a very significant impact on negotiations. Even though their efforts may not always translate into reliable actions or make their way into the finished treaties, “the most profound enemies of progress on global climate change are not scientific skeptics or well-funded industry opponents, but general misunderstanding and apathy regarding issues and policies at stake.”(2)And it is exactly this enemy that non-state actors usually fight!

(1) Langhorne, R 'Diplomacy of Non-State Actors' in Diplomacy and
Statecraft, Vol. 16, No.2, 2005

(2) Carpenter, C., ‘Businesses, Green Groups and the Media: The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations in the Climate Change Debate’ in International Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 2, 2001

(3) Atiq Rahman and Annie Roncerel, "A view from the ground up" in I. M. Mintzer and J.A. Leonard (eds), Negotiating Climate Change: the inside story of the Rio Convention

(4)Gough, C. & S Shackley, ‘The Respectable Politics of Climate Change: The Epistemic Com-munities and NGOs’ in International Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 2, 2001

'The wheels have been set in motion'

'Nation-states and international organizations remain the major players in the diplomatic process, but the role of NGOs has greatly expanded' (Feilleux, 2009: 105)

Although, NGOs did not participate on the environmetal negotations directly, they play a role as a think tank as they are invited to multilateral conferences as official observers and they are allow to make a statement, this is a step forward for NGOs as before they were slightly allow to intervene. Nevertheless, the question of their significance still doubtful, the updates from behind closed doors displayed in Copenhaguen exemplify it, because there were no agreement in drastic cuts in rich country emissions.

Since the scenario of Copenhaguen was publicly unrealistic, then the NGOs have to move forward from beyond experience sharing and examine how to build collaboration in coming future, by identifying common challenges through the maintenance of regular communication mechanism, and the diferences they are facing as the 'Key elements in NGO effectiveness are skill in creating coalitions, networking, and framing issues in the public discourse in such a way that they will "ring true" (Feilleux, 2009: 106).

Moreover, since I´m speculating about the role of NGOs highlighted on environmental negotiations, it might be also be of some use to analyse the outcome of Cancun climate talks concluded on December 2010 in Mexico. Although, the great effort of environmental NGOs made during the talks to lobby, campaing and communicate, the result was mixed with bite-sized progress as the talks did not go far, following a last-minute agreement the talks established a global climate fund, while once again falling short of the emissions cuts needed, there is a great to do for next year as the big challenges remain, thus, Cancun is a new starting point for negotiations.

As climate change is a common environmental issue, NGOs are building up the way and its job is

of extreme importance for future conferences. The wheels have been set in motion, moving forward much stronger outcomes are needed with a biding, equitable, agregate emission target for developed countries for next year in Durban, to ensure that these wheels don´t fall off: 'If nonstate actors do not compare with nation-state in shaping world events, they increase the complexity of diplomacy and diversify the way in which it is carried out' (Feilleux, 2009: 102).

The efforts made by NGOs to have a significant impact in negotiations not always materialize into reliable compromise solutions from states. However, the door still open and the wheels have been set in motion, the task now is to continue influencing and raising awareness on the public opinion of the significant impact of campaining and advocacy, 'To those who regard the state as an obstacle to world order, the development of an alternative diplomacy embracing non-governmental NGOs and transnational movements offers the prospects of an international order trascending the states system' (Mellisen, 1999: 24)

The goals of Cancun Climate Summit 2010 were so important if we compare with Copenhaguen conference that concluded with countries making only non binding commitments in the conference. However, since Copenhaguen and Cancun, there are clear signs that the parties still interested in reaching an agreement, this is the oportunity for NGO's to show that they can devise a way forward over some environmental fundamental issues, also they can play a role in improving environmetal protection awareness and in organizing local governments and enterprises to tackle climate change issues by providing expert scientific advise and alternative solutions.

My understanding of diplomacy today

At the start of this module I was not entirely sure what "New Diplomacy" was going to give me at the end of the day. But after reading this very interesting module i have become more and more interested in diplomacy, but also more confused.

New Diplomacy or diplomacy in general is very complex and I believe i does not have to be that way. It has become evident that different skills are required in different diplomatic situations. Instead of dividing it into many categories it ought to be less complex. International Relations in general is a complex area and it becomes contagious on the components within in it. Many of these different ways of diplomacy are intertwined with each other with few differences.

Moving on and disregarding from the the different sub-categories within diplomacy it clearly shows a difference between old and new diplomacy. Old diplomacy will probably never die out entirely. But it is changing. Influences from non-actors are ever increasing and they have become so influential that they cannot be disregarded. Wikileaks recent revelations about the U.S diplomats and their statements has given diplomacy a smaller crisis and Wikileaks a dream situation. French President is an emperor without clothes. Germany's chancellor is made of Teflon. Sweden's Foreign Minister is a medium sized dog. Russian President is Robin and Prime Minister Putin is Batman. Abu Dhabi's crown prince calls Iran's president to Hitler. Chinese diplomats call North Korea a spoiled child and so on

Privacy is an absolute condition in the intimate conversation between states that represent the core of classical diplomacy. Trust has decreased around the world and it is likely some time before diplomats dare to speak openly with their American colleagues again. Certainly there are talented American diplomats, but they rarely have a strong position. U.S. State Department has a weaker role in the administration compared to the Pentagon [defense] and CIA [intelligence]. Of those working in American embassies is less than half of employees in the State Department. And American diplomats often work on entirely different qualifications than diplomatic skills. This is called "spoils system" and has old roots in the United States and means that a politician who won an election thank his party colleagues by giving them jobs in the administration, such as diplomats.

As a trained diplomat you have to know everything you say and do, or you will fail and that is how your counter-party will interpret you. This means that one must be very careful what you say. Especially when it is said and put down in writing and filed. Yet i believe Wikileaks are unlikely to cause harm in the long run. Even in the future, the world's nations will try to resolve conflicts by talking confidentially out of the limelight.

I never thought diplomacy played such an significant role in today's international relations as it does and this module has definitely given me a broader and new perspective on what diplomacy contains.

Trade and environmental diplomacy

As the nation state's role reduced, non-governmental organizations become increasingly important in international politics. In recent decades, the number also multiplied. Non-governmental organizations are now key players, whether it's about human rights, poverty, environment or natural disasters.

Round the globe, there are thousands NGOs (non-governmental organisations) who work in different ways to improve conditions for people at home, but also to shape public opinion and justice, solidarity and participation with people in other parts of the world. Examples of NGOs are trade unions and environmental organizations, but also social and humanitarian movements. Several of them, if not most, are in one way or another operating at an international level.

Many NGOs are important actors on the world stage, although they are not policy-makers and often have much less financial resources than states and corporations. The key to success lies in their ability to elicit opinions, not least in the context of major international meetings and events. Since the first UN environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972, NGOs have organized themselves in order to influence the UN thematic conferences and other international summits, regardless of whether they acted on the environment, trade, women or other issues. Several UN agencies are currently special arrangements for consultation with non governmental organizations. The UN Commission on Human Rights, for example, all organizations with consultative status to make both oral and written suggestions and comments.
With regard to human rights violations, all NGOs, regardless of status, submit information.

Environmental organizations have become increasingly international, largely due to environmental problems today are global. Many environmental organizations, notably Greenpeace, have made themselves known for their sometimes drastic actions, for example, to peacefully occupy hazardous factories. These actions have helped to bring environmental issues on the political agenda, both nationally and internationally. Other major NGOs, for example, humanitarian and social organizations that help people both in acute distress and fighting for human rights, such as freedom of speech.

Therefore their influence becomes essential and significant because they provide a different perspective on issues such as trade and environment.

Examples of NGOs:

The environmental organization Greenpeace, working primarily with issues related to biodiversity, marine ecology, environmental toxins, genetically modified organisms and nuclear weapons.

MSF, working to help victims of war, famine or natural disasters.

Amnesty International's work includes the release of people imprisoned for their views.

Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement, works with emergency and refugee assistance.

My understanding of diplomacy today

I emabarked on this module completely ignorant to what was meant by 'new diplomacy' and I feel that I am leaving it with the same confusion. This is not due to lack of interest, nor lack of reading or understanding but because I believe that the new diplomacy is not a new experience. Furthermore by categorizing diplomacy by traditional and new we are disregardful of the continuous evolution of the subject and process, subsequently naming too many differences as the same.

Of what I understand today I can conclude that every international situation requires a different form of diplomacy, whereas a few months ago I would have understood that secrecy was used by imperialist individuals caring little for ethics.

I would never have thought that I could find examples of diplomacy in a daily newspaper, however the majority of information and case studies for this blog have come from the Guardian. I believe this news is so accessible because the role of the diplomat is evolving aswell, something I was never aware of.

The writer that has interested me the most during this course is Joseph Nye. Nye has had such a crucial involvment in American foreign policy making and International Relations, and I couldn't agree more with the importance of smart power. Crucially we can see how smart power as a tool of foreign policy is debated and implemented in USA, in particular with Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama.

With this basic grasp of diplomacy now it is possible to follow foreign policy from a more critical standpoint and to analyse the diplomatic process's relevance in international relations.

In my opinon the study of diplomacy is vital in order to anticipate future international tensions or conflict because the pursuit of peace remains a global imperative.

My understanding of diplomacy today

First of all, when I selected to study this module I did not know that the diplomacy is such a complex subject. It was very interesting for me to read about it and explore it in depth. During the semester my opinion about the role of diplomacy changed spectacularly in relation to the estimation which I had before to start my studies on diplomacy and scrutinize its functions. Furthermore, I ascertained that the diplomacy requires a combination of solid knowledge of various skills, high intelligence and excessive talent. It is incredibly necessary for me that during the unit I obtained as a result of the learning process, knowledge of politics, history, law, economics, theory of international relations and foreign policy. What is more, from my assignations with several ambassadors, I learned that the success in such an activity as diplomacy is impossible without the fine sense of human psychology, a rich life experience and impeccable tact behavior.

Secondly, this module modified my vision that aspire of the diplomacy is to portray a particular country in its best light and that the prerequisite to do so is to lie the other countries in some way. In contrast, I gain the acquaintance that it is erroneous to make an analogous between the diplomacy and dishonesty. Thus, the lie is an inadmissible means for the virtuous diplomacy. It is not doubtful that the moral qualities of diplomats are considered as the major criterion for their selection and employment. Consequently, it cannot be respected a country that appointed a representative who does not tell the truth and show his genuine nature.

Additionally, this unit not only developed my awareness of diplomacy in profundity but also facilitated me how to distinguish the perceptions of foreign policy and diplomacy. I classify this ability as a fundamental because at the very beginning of the module these two concepts were equivalent item for me. As a result of this, now I can clarify the role and the major functions of the diplomacy and foreign policy. Hence, the foreign policy defines the tasks and objectives of the state in its international relations and the diplomacy is an integral, organic part of this policy and a set of actions for its realization. Likewise, diplomacy is an activity through which the state carries out its foreign policy objectives. Since these goals provide maximum favorable external conditions for ensuring national security and peaceful development of the country, protecting its citizens and its interests in the international arena, development of mutually beneficial political, economic and cultural cooperation with other countries and their representatives, it is perfectly clear that this activity - diplomacy, is vital for the particular state to resolve the issues of the day with due seriousness and responsibility.
Last but not least, at the commencement of the module I found myself in a very awkward situation when I was taught by my tutor the so – called term ‘new’ diplomacy. For this reason, I started to ask myself why I never before heard about this new expression and what is it. When I started to read my books and prepare for the seminars I found out that the there is nothing new in the ‘new’ diplomacy. Thus, I learned that the ‘new’ diplomacy is built on the ‘old’ one, even though the situation in the in international system changed during the years. So, the majority of the functions and activities of the ‘old’ diplomacy are contemporarily relevant. In other words, this module developed in me the picture that the so – called ‘new’ diplomacy is based on the theoretical fundamentals of the ‘old’ diplomacy, despite the fact that the ‘new’ one is modified in many aspects. Moreover, the ‘new’ diplomacy obviously can be improved by revising the ideas of the ‘old’ one. So, at the end of this unit I am able to conclude that anything can be up to date, if it is from the roots of its old version.



On the whole, during this module I educated myself about the nature, evolution, meaning, the rules and trends of the diplomacy and diplomatic services. Also, I acquired worthwhile skills such as analyzing, assessing and justifying the accuracy of the diplomacy, especially in its historical and modern perspective.

The Dalai Lama as a non-state actor and his influence on environmental negotiations

At 75 years old the Dalai Lama has been one of the most influential and inspirational leaders to demonstrate the human spirit and will to change the entire world and to engage with individual people in the most positive way, making him incomparable with any political, spiritual or religious leader.
Although exiled to India by the PRC and with no real political control over Tibet he continues to have significant power over the future of his homeland. I am going to examine two ways in which the Dalai Lama uses his unique diplomatic skills in this extremely unique situation by looking at the evidence brought to recent public attention by WikiLeaks.

The first way that the exiled leader uses the situation to his advantage is by calling on the USA to survey the circumstances environmentally. The environment, global warming and the greenhouse effect are global buzz words that every country on this planet has to deal with one way or another, and so the Dalai Lama is calling on the USA to engage the international community on fighting atrocities being committed on the Tibetan Plateau as a result of Chinese occupation.

“The Dalai Lama criticized China's energy policy, alleging that dam construction in Kham and Amdo have displaced thousands of Tibetans and left temples and monasteries underwater. He recommended the PRC compensate Tibetans for disrupting their nomadic lifestyle with vocational training, such as weaving.”

As a result of the concerns the Dalai lama has expressed the USA and China seem to be working closer together on environmental challenges and have launched a ‘Strategic and Economic Dialogue’ focusing on the issue of climate change. Furthermore the leader has suggested increasing collaboration between scientists from the USA and China. By encouraging a closer relationship between these two states the future of Tibet looks brighter as it is inevitable China will have to give way to American and hence international pressure.

The second way that the Dalai Lama has shown the world that Tibet has not lost yet is by a more subtle act of diplomacy, a use of soft power. The emancipation of Tibet seems an impossible task against a state like China that is seemingly so impenetrable and strong. However, the people are always stronger than their leaders, internationally and domestically. The international community has an increasing awareness of the political situation in Tibet, an increasing understanding of the Dalai Lama and his philosophies as his books sales rocket and an increasing preoccupation for global warming; of which new and frightening effects are being felt. The Chinese community has also started to stand stronger against oppression as the Dalai Lama has

“…continued to strengthen ties with Chinese scholars and authors.”

By appealing to the intellectual public a new found wave of hope may be found, a courage that is needed so as to prevent the extinction of a peoples.

For all the controversies and fear that may have come out of the WikiLeaks scandal, I hope at least one thing can be seen as positive. I hope that the international community continues to help Tibet seek emancipation and that they truly understand the difficulties awaiting in the future, especially if major states continue to resist the importance and relevance of the environmental crisis.