How Diplomacy Evolved from the First World War - Essay Example

Diplomacy Many academicians have defined diplomacy in variant ways depending on the context of application. However, though it has no absolute definition, diplomacy can refer to an art, skill, or process that involves conduct of peaceful negotiations on treaties, agreements, and alliances between nations, organisations, or individuals. Diplomats, ambassadors, high commissioners, consulates, consulate generals, senior government officials, and individuals take place in the dialogue and negotiations on international relations. Diplomatic information is secretive and their lives sanctified. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations defines the rights and immunity of diplomats. International diplomacy by professional diplomats aims at achieving peaceful agreements and solutions to international debates or conflicts like war, trade, human rights, and leadership. Indeed, diplomacy fosters international relations and world peace. International policies, respect for the parties and set rules and codes of ethics governs the diplomatic process. Additionally, diplomacy will follow a given strategy and may involve incentives to lure the support or input of parties. Cultures, level of education, and positional power have a direct impact on the process of diplomacy. Diplomacy adopts different forms depending on the level of application. Bilateral diplomacy involves two nations with common interests. Multilateral diplomacy involves more than two parties and can be preventive diplomacy, developmental diplomacy, war diplomacy and public diplomacy. The phases of diplomacy include envoys diplomacy, residential diplomacy, conference diplomacy, and organisational diplomacy (Galtung and Ruge, 1965, p.102). However, it takes time to accomplish a diplomatic mission and hence some parties result to war and sanctions when conflicts arise. Diplomacy has considerably changed with technology, growth of intellectual capacities, human rights advocacy, rise in democracy, and the experience of world war. The growth of humanity to an international figure has led to interdependence between nations that require an institution to define existence of a sober relationship. This growth has led to changes from where parties meet when necessary to institutionalized diplomacy, which involves permanent diplomacy and diplomacy at regular intervals The ‘old diplomacy’ existed before the First World War while the ‘new diplomacy’ exists after the First World War. The old diplomacy has faced many critics while compared to the new diplomacy. This paper will informatively analyze why Woodrow Wilson criticize the old diplomacy. It will also discuss the main ingredients of the new diplomacy that emerged after the First World War. Thomas Woodrow Wilson was the 28th American president and served from 1913 to 1921. He was born on Dec. 28, 1856, in Staunton, Virginia. He had a significant influence in the U.S. foreign policy. Prior to his presidency, he was the president of Princeton University and the author of books on American government. By this time, America was using the old diplomacy famously known as, the dollar diplomacy (World History Project, 2006, p.1). The old diplomatic system had merits and demerits. It was advantageous to have diplomatic representatives in many foreign capitals. The diplomats were also resourceful, experienced, and good negotiators. However, it had many failings. Through this diplomacy, American investors expected the American government to protect their interests. Upon becoming the president of US, Woodrow vowed to abandon the dollar diplomacy to the dissatisfaction of the investors. He observed that the dollar diplomacy did not encourage universal ideals, good morals, and the spread of democracy all over the world. He termed it as an act of selfishness that was against the spirit of effective diplomacy. He noted that the promotion of democracy was his and America’s ultimate priority. He also criticized the old diplomacy in that it did not promote neutrality in matters of warring nations. To this effect, he stressed his neutrality policy in his campaigns saying that this will keep America out of war with Germany and other nations. He called on Americans to be neutral in diplomatic relations. Subsequently, Wilson managed to keep America in neutrality for 976 days as he negotiated for a peaceful end to the fighting with the Germans. However only a few American remained impartial as America finally went to war. Additionally, during this era winning Europe states were entitled to annexed territories and indemnities from the losing nations. President Woodrow Wilson criticized this type of diplomacy and in many occasions, he tried to mediate between the aggressive powers urging them to respect organized common peace, community of power, and shun balance of power and oppositions (Age-of-the sage, 2012, p.1) He laments that the old diplomacy did not accord democracy and its peace was not well founded. Old diplomacy featured double-dealing, behind-the-scenes conniving, and dishonesty. It ensured that those rulers stayed in power under any circumstances. He criticized this tread in his "self-determination" speech saying that we should accord respect to national aspirations of all citizens and their governing should be by the majority’s consent. The old diplomacy denied citizens this right. The old diplomacy emphasized on secrecy elitism and bilateral agreements. This was very secretive and dangerous to unaware neighbors. It also used war to forge parties’ interests. Wilson criticized the secretive and power oriented nature of old diplomacy in that it was realistic to the powerful nations only. The old diplomacy was also very conservative in nature. Despite the many changes in governments, diplomats came from the aristocratic elites. They lacked adequate training and had no clear understanding on international economics and other global issues. This would amount to low understanding and undesirable results (Schmidt, 2010, p.1). Wilson criticized the conservative nature of old diplomacy observing that it overlooked global interests and favored a countrys short-term national interests. He realized the bilateral nature of the old diplomacy restricted international relations to two nations. This would not serve world interests and hence was not effective. Wilson also criticized some ambassadors who worked at cross-purposes with the home government hence initiating conflicts that led to the First World War. He advocated for world peace and democracy, which did not feature in the old diplomacy. He also argued that individual nations could only benefit from this diplomacy in the long-term. Wilson was also against the idea of diplomats seeking to preserve European balance of power in the European colonies. He argued that a nation and its citizens should enjoy respect to their national aspirations and that the citizen’s consent should govern a nation. President Wilson also hated and discouraged the Prussian Autocracy as contained in the old diplomacy. In an act of demonstrating effective diplomacy, world peace, and criticism to the old diplomacy, President Wilson announced fourteen points for a better world in Jan 8, 1918. In the first five points, he addressed general principles of world peace and diplomacy. He renounced secret treaties, addressed the freedom of the seas, and called for the removal of worldwide trade barriers. Additionally, he advocated for the reduction of firearms in the world and a reasonable international negotiation of all colonial disputes based on the principles of self-determination. He argued that citizens should reserve the right to form their own nation at will. The other points relate to territorial problems in Russia, France, and Italy. He followed up his criticism on old diplomacy with the “self determination” speech on February 11 1918 (Office of the Historian, 2012, p.1). The speech and the fourteen points confirmed the ineffectiveness of the old diplomacy, hence the criticism by Wilson. Similarly, in commanding US to war, he made it clear that US will be in war as an associate and not an ally. In this, he criticized the secret diplomacy other warlords have committed themselves to. Moreover, he appealed for the formation of a League of Nations. Throughout his tenure as the US president, he urged Americans to put global interests first, spread democracy to the world, and seek peace in addressing conflicts. He faced many counter critics from his critics on the old diplomacy because America was not ready for the new diplomacy. In fact, even the congress could not support his views and in most cases, he was a lone ranger. However, he received support outside America in his quest for open and modem diplomacy, which will effectively solve international disputes. After the First World War, many people criticized the effectiveness and secretive nature of the ‘old diplomacy’ and called for open covenants leading to open diplomacy, which defines the ‘new diplomacy’. Believing that the First World War was because of ‘old diplomacy’ traits, a new diplomacy dispensation was inevitable. An open, principled, democratic, multilateral, and idealistic diplomacy replaced the secretive, bilateral, pragmatic, and undemocratic diplomacy. Of concern is that the new diplomacy featured many nations as opposed to the old diplomacy, which featured a few powerful states. The New Diplomacy focused on open cooperation, arbitration, collective security, and fairness in resolving international conflicts (Schmidt, 2010, p.1). It also encouraged the formation of international organization to regulate, control, dictate, and enhance positive international relations. Competent diplomats hailing from a bigger cross section of the society characterized the new diplomacy. The democratization, formalization, and the competency worked for the good of diplomacy as ambassadors and their embassies gained independence and international importance (ROUSSEAU, 2011, p.1). Additionally, nations also started relying on personal diplomacy by senior government staff like presidents, their vice presidents, and their counterparts in relevant nations for diplomatic relations (ROUSSEAU, 2011, p.1). The modern diplomacy also adopted diversity of ideas and respect for ones decision. It promotes dialogue and wide consultations and is multisided. Because of the growth in telecommunications, ease in transportation and political centralization, public diplomacy rose in the modern diplomacy. This has led to increased telecommunications diplomacy, dispelling of false information and leader-to-leader and superpower summitry diplomacy (ROUSSEAU, 2011, p.1). This promotes mutual understanding and friendship between political leaders, which is a good asset in the new diplomacy. Additionally, the growth in telecommunication enables the communication of global ideas via the international media. This promotes informative and independent approaches to international concerns, which fosters diplomacy. The telecommunications have also spread democracy around the world, as international information is fundamental to international leadership. Moreover, the new diplomacy has enabled equal participation on international debates aimed at enhancing international relations. In fact, smaller nations with presumed minimal powers can attend international summits and conferences and persuade the more powerful nations to adopt better international policies (Schmidt, 2010, p.1). In the old diplomacy, the smaller nations did not enjoy this right. In fact, the new diplomacy encourages the participation of all nations in dialogues, forums, conferences, and seminars geared towards international decisions that affect world diplomacy. The new diplomacy accommodates the willingness to create a new strategy out of a normal international decision-making forum. Thus, the new diplomacy demonstrates flexibility in implementing international decisions, which is prevents superpower control in world diplomacy. The ad hoc criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia are examples of flexibility in diplomacy (Davenport, 2002, p.1). The new diplomacy also promotes multilateral diplomacy (ROUSSEAU, 2011, p.1). This enables increased relations among many nations. These international relations between many nations have led to international conventions that create and enhance international treaties. In light of this, the new diplomacy features international organisations with global interests. The multilateral diplomacy led to the formation of the United Nations (Davenport, 2002, p.1). Through the UN, many governmental and nongovernmental organizations have enhanced their own issues to the interests and rights of all. Some have said they no longer trust governments to represent them on matters of international concern. This has facilitated the fight for human rights, international justice, and leadership. The multilateral diplomacy has also created a network of same interests and emergence of many International Governmental Organization (IGOs) and NGOs. The new diplomacy also entails the Ottawa Convention on land mines of 1996. The convention fast tracked a campaign initiated by NGOs and small and medium sized nations to ban anti-personnel land mines (Davenport, 2002, p.1). However, although the powerful nations were against the treaty it went through by a majority vote. Similarly, the new diplomacy harbors the Rome statute on International Criminal Court (ICC). The treaty was to apply with no compromise to member and nonmember states of the UN. The US was against the treaty from the beginning. However, 60 nations out of 189 in the United Nations voted for the statute and brought it to universal application (Davenport, 2002, p.1). The ICC serves international justice to all nations hence promoting the new diplomacy. The creation of the ICC was the greatest defeat of the superpower in international diplomacy. Additionally, the meetings and negotiation on the Kyoto Protocol on climate and elsewhere, was a great avenue to enhance international democracy, as all nations were to abide to environment conservation. The new diplomacy features a communication of international goals with a language that preserves human rights (Davenport, 2002, p.1). Another significant aspect on new diplomacy is the trust on NGOs as opposed to governments. This ensures the fight for human rights and justice is consistent, independent, and resilient. Hence, the replacement of US and other powerful nations with the NGOs in matters of international importance is the major ingredient of the new diplomacy. It represents a deviation from traditional law to voting on statutes and treaties. Considerably, it is under the establishment of collaboration, dialogue, soft power, and justice. It emphasizes on openness, competency, and multilateral agreements. However, it has faced critics in that it represents people and not governments. The critics also argue that some treaties like the Rome statute do not represent the majority and that they do not have power to implement their decisions. Additionally they argue that the new democracy undermines national sovereignty in favor of multilateral agreements. In conclusion, I note that diplomacy has evolved significantly from the First World War to date. The old diplomacy had many anomalies in that it focused on national interests rather than global interests. It served the powerful nations only and oppressed the less powerful nations. The conservative, bilateral, undemocratic, and secretive nature of the old diplomacy negates the search for world peace and diplomacy. Hence, President Wilson was justified in criticizing it. The new diplomacy has pleasant attributes that foster world peace and good multilateral relations. It has made significant contributions in enhancing equality, justice, and human rights. The small power nations have also had their way in international affairs via the new diplomacy. Despite the criticism on the new diplomacy by the powerful nations, it has been effective in many nations. Works Cited Age-of-the sage 2012, First World War Diplomacy 2012, Viewed 8 March 2012, < http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/history/diplomacy_world_war_one.html > Davenport, D 2002, The New Diplomacy 2002, Viewed 8 March 2012, < http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/8102> Galtung, J and Ruge, M 1965, Patterns of Diplomacy 1965, Journal of Peace Research 2, (2),101-135 Office of the Historian 2012, Wilsons Fourteen Points, 1918 2012, Viewed 8 March 2012, < http://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/FourteenPoints> ROUSSEAU, R 2011, From Ancient Greek Diplomacy to Modern Summitry 2011, Viewed 8 March 2012, < http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/summitry/538> Schmidt, K 2010, the League of Nations 2010, Viewed 8 March 2012, World History Project 2006, World War 1, Woodrow Wilson 2006, Viewed 8 March 2012, Read More