French System and the Modern Diplomacy - Term Paper Example

The French and Modern Diplomacy in 21st Century The French political system stands out in Europe. Analysts credit it for being the longest standing one. France adopted a form of diplomacy that was unique in its time. Diplomacy refers to any negotiations or moves used to have two parties reach an agreement. The diplomacy standards, procedures, and protocols have changed over time. As times changed, so did the agendas of negotiations and the expertise. Modern diplomacy utilizes procedures and standards that can efficiently address current problems. This paper will highlight the characteristics of the French system beginning with the Napoleon era and elaborate how modern diplomacy developed. This paper will highlight the Machiavellian concept of diplomacy, its application in the French system and the 21st century diplomacy. In addition, the paper will discuss the differences between the French diplomacy and the 21st century diplomacy. Machiavelli was the first in history to indulge in negotiations that led to agreements between his republic and other regions. His later works on how different powers could extend their influence to other regions and territories are the basis of the diplomacy adopted in the Renaissance Period. This system passed down to the states of Italy and France. History reveals that there was a form of embassy existing in France in the early 1535 (Berridge 105). The embassy was a representation of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. During that time, France was under the rule of a Christian king. Later, the definition of the embassy changed, as nations adopted new definitions of diplomacy. With time, the embassies became immune residential areas. Immunity implied that the representatives were not subject to the laws of the regions they were residing. During this time, there was a continuity system. In addition, there was intense secrecy in the diplomacy. The proceedings and activities of the embassy remained hidden. In the majority of the negotiations, the people remained in the dark concerning any proceedings. The people could neither learn about the outcomes of any ongoing negotiations nor understand the proceedings. Secrecy involved keeping some or all the details under cover (Berridge 106). Secrecy was a crucial aspect because in any form of negotiations compromise was compulsory. The two parties on the negotiation table had to incur losses. Each side formulated its set of demands before the negotiation. For the other party to grant these demands, the party had to pay a price. If the information concerning the negotiations reached the people or other government agents, they could hinder paying of the price. Handling these matters in discretion and secrecy proved to be the only viable tactics (Berridge 107). The French diplomacy system of the early times was very ceremonial. The ambassadors, who acted as formal representatives of the highest power, had great responsibility in the negotiation process. The procedure carried its effects from the renaissance period. The influence of the French diplomacy from the Renaissance Era made it unique. Complicated ceremonies became part of the negotiation protocol as binding factors of the agreements. Having a guiding protocol in place ensured that each meeting of the parties focused on the agendas rather than on debating about the effective procedures. The protocol usually highlighted the sitting arrangements of both parties and elaborated other necessities such as the guidelines of signatures (Berridge 108). Earlier in 1504, the Pope had laid out a precedence scheme. However, in 1815 the Vienna Congress made it invalid and set out a new order. The new scheme involved taking ranks in accordance to the time of the persons’ formal notifications and period of service at the capital. Other authors highlight that the French emphasized the value of honesty in all negotiation fronts. They believed that diplomacy based on deceit and trickery could not achieve its purpose of reconciling two parties with a fair consideration of the interests of both parties. Therefore, as an ambassador’s’ acceptance in the capital increased, he or she became more honest in addressing the issues at hand. In the French view, honest negotiations could stand the test of time. In addition, they proved worth of the time spent on them. Moreover, they prevented future revenge plans that resulted from dishonest negotiations. An additional defining feature of the French diplomacy system was the professionalism (Berridge 108). There was a clear definition of roles and ranks. The negotiators received relevant training and there was a form of control in the entry. In addition, the people holding positions in all the ranks received payment for their service. The emergence of the ‘diplomatic corps’ proved to be an earlier form of professionalism that was to emerge in the nineteenth century. These comprised diplomats assigned to the same capital who realized they shared interests. Despite the interests shared, these diplomats had their zones of differences. They pursued varying political and economic interests. In terms of their similar interests, it was obvious that all ambassadors required a level of immunity from the laws of the capitals in which they were residing. Some authors credit the French system for having been the best and an exemplary example of civilized diplomacy. However, the French system of diplomacy had its weak points. The secrecy maintained in the protocol and negotiations had its issues. Criticism surrounding this point is that a level of openness is usually crucial. In addition, many diplomats faced the accusation that they had tendencies of going native. Usually, spending a long period in one region led to the acquiring of the culture and values of the place and led to losing contact with one’s country. In addition, most of the diplomats lost contact with their Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Loss of contact with the ministry sending a diplomat to duty led to incompetence. In other cases, diplomats found themselves acting contrary to the ministry’s interests (Beridge 110-114). Many nations adopted the French diplomacy over time although with certain adjustments. As times have changed, so has diplomacy. The world wars, the cold war, and post cold war events have changed the negotiation front of many nations. In addition, new advances in information and technology have changed the picture of diplomacy as well. Today, international relations follow different procedures and the diplomats adhere to a certain code of ethics. In addition, new agendas have appeared on the negotiation tables. On the other hand, the concept of the involvement of the state changed. Modern diplomacy involves many parties. These include nations, international organizations, and corporations of transnational origin. Others include non-governmental organizations and interest groups. The current scene in diplomacy values credibility. It is worth noting that the role played by states is still notable (Klavins 1). However, the monopoly that existed and defined these negotiations has faded away with the entry of other players. Modern diplomacy seeks to address a diverse list of issues dealing with the environment, security, social problems and technology (Kurizaki 54). Currently diplomacy encompasses a larger diplomatic society. In addition, modern diplomacy must address a new realm of setbacks and challenges. These include the emerging social demands, domestic agencies, and the expansion of policies that address foreign issues. Diplomacy in the technologically advanced 21st century must adopt the new technologies and new forms of communication (Klavins 2). With such advances, current diplomacy has become very dynamic. The parties involved must portray competence in the new technologies for things to run smoothly. A diplomat must have access to the internet, keep track of international news, and observe any changes in the global picture of events. In addition, parties coming to the negotiation table must exhibit expertise as far as the agenda of the negotiations is concerned (Bolewski 21). The negotiations must take into consideration the opinions of leading institutions about the agenda of the negotiation. Contrary to the secrecy characteristic of the French diplomacy system, modern diplomacy requires the presence of mass media. In addition, the negotiations adopt a multilateral front. Dialogues in the negotiation are virtually becoming longer and diverse. The procedures value the presence of emerging experts in the field and others actors from the international community (Klavins 3). Currently, diplomats need an understanding of the global conditions that define the world in the 21st century. The globe seems to be changing so often, and this places higher demands on the diplomats. Some authors suggest that future diplomats may require having the expertise themselves and not relying on experts. Being a diplomat in the 21st century presents one with vast responsibilities. Diplomats currently need to extend their advice to the political arena. They require a vast knowledge of trends in commerce and other fields and understand the implications of these trends for their countries. They need a proactive tracking of the events that define the global arena in this century (Klavins 5). With the advancing technology and communication services, diplomats can utilize these, stay posted, and have a connection to any updates from the ministry they work for back in their home country (Singh 46). The internet becomes a crucial tool for negotiations. Most of the times, members of the parties can receive updates and convey their opinions and responses using formal mails. The use of the internet has several benefits for modern diplomacy. The diplomats have to stick to the content and agenda of the negotiation, and this eliminates the unwanted noise without substance. It becomes easier to compare data provided by different diplomats. In addition, there is increased transparency because of the availability of easily retrievable data. In addition, such data can be available for future reference. Use of recent communication forms opens the front to more players in the negotiation field. In addition, diplomats have the responsibility for being clear and for elaborating their ideas. In addition, this eliminates the problem of time zones. However, there are preconditions that improve the use of modern technology in diplomacy (Singh 46). Diplomats must hold similar views on the main objectives of the negotiations. In addition, identification of the active players of the negotiations occurs in advance, as well as identifying parties who have permission to view the content a diplomat posts. The members of the parties must meet and build trust relations before online participation starts. In addition, the parties must identify an individual who will play the role of a central facilitator of the online negotiations. Moreover, all the diplomats must delegate authority in the initial meetings, and members should contribute to the level of authority in mind. The diplomacy scene has undergone many changes in comparison to the French diplomacy of previous centuries. As described above, modern diplomacies are credible and do not indulge in the extreme secrecy that was characteristic of the French diplomacy and other 18th century diplomacies. In addition, the emerging needs of the 21st century society have dominated the fronts of many modern negotiations. In the majority of negotiations today, expert views receive priority. The French diplomacy portrayed a level of professionalism as far as negotiations were concerned. Professionalism and competence of modern-day diplomats are higher. In addition, diplomats require vast knowledge of global trends and their implications, whereas the French system diplomats required understanding of their country’s political and economical interests, but they had comparably less responsibility. The advanced technology and communication means contribute greatly to making diplomacy effective despite the increasing responsibilities and new challenges (Singh 47). The sole purpose of diplomacy has remained unchanged. However, the protocols, procedures, and players of modern-day diplomacy are very different from those of the French diplomacy. Following changes in global trends, the agendas change very often today. However, it can be said that in former times the French had managed to establish a form of diplomacy through which they had most of their agendas accepted and through which they could exert their dominion over the entire Europe. Work Cited Berridge, G. R. Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002. Print. Bolewski, Wilfried. Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations. Berlin: Springer, 2007. Print. Klavins, Didzis. “Understanding the Essence of Modern Diplomacy”. The ICD Annual Academic Conference on Cultural Diplomacy 2011: Cultural Diplomacy and International Relations; New Actors; New Initiatives; New Targets. Berlin, December 15th-18th , 2011. PDF file. Kurizaki, Shuhei. “The Logic of Diplomacy in International Disputes”. Diss. 2007. Print. Singh, Nau N. Diplomacy for the 21st Century. New Delhi: Mittal Publications, 2002. Print. Read More