How Diplomatic Practitioners' Ideas Solve Diplomatic Challenges - Assignment Example

To what extent can the thought of past and present diplomatic practitioners help to inform contemporary diplomatic challenges Introduction Diplomacy can be defined in many ways. According to the renowned diplomat Lester Pearson (1959), it is referred to as the art of letting another person have your way, or the profession and art to perform negotiations between nations as explained by Ernest Satow (Nagel 2003). Diplomacy is associated with various philosophies like a set of conduct and behaviour, and having an approach to inter country relations and a key method of communicating between sovereign states (Nagel 2003). There are many definitions of diplomacy but only the intangible ones help understand the post modern expression of the same. Thus, no matter in how many ways this term is defined, they are based upon some common assumptions which are- A difference between foreign policy and diplomacy is implied, which are often used in place of each other, as it provides with the outlines whiten which the international work. It is technically considered to be merely a practical art, but the most important aspect is the communication which includes negotiations, intentions, representations etc which are vital to reducing the gap in relations and recognition. Diplomatic practices have been adapting fundamental changes since 1945, and these activities had taken an enormous leap diversifying globally in the latter half of 20th century. There had been many challenges like the differences in diplomatic thoughts flanked by the East and West, the radical developments of logistics and communication, the globalization and expansion internationally which put to test the nature, elasticity and efficacy of diplomacy. Many events like the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the cold war era focussed away the attention from the revolutionary developments and thus not much academic attention was given to the latter (Saur 1997). Since 1989, the international communication has exceptionally increased and it has been realised that diplomacy is inevitable for the working and existence of states nationally and internationally. Modern diplomacy is more convoluted for the practitioners and scholars due to the noteworthy changes like Increase in the number of international actors. The number of states have become 3 times or more, the number of UN members have increased to more than 187 totalling to 17,020 bilateral relationships, and conventional organizations to 6,000 (Melissen 2005 ). The interstate dealings are based on bi amd multilateral treaties, changes in the international affairs and foreign policy has multilateralized diplomacy. The decolonisation, trans nationalization and globalization has affected many changes technically and increase in awareness of problems globally has transformed diplomacy. With the Direct communication between the foreign ministries of different countries, there is no training of the officials by the practioners appointed by the government and people from inter and nongovernmental organizations also act as diplomats. The changing environment requires coordination, management, intervention and media dealing which adds to the skills of diplomatic functions. The Shift in Environment The international environment has changed in terms of structure, challenges and issues, politics, which has broken the narrow boundaries after the Westphalian period and so many ongoing developments across borders. Thus there has been an effect on the diplomatic practises and theory, still making conflict resolution, negotiation, ethical management and some other skills remain the basis of diplomacy. According to Sam Huntington (2005) , the world has bypassed bipolarity and has there are interactions possible multilaterally between civilizations. Thus the thoughts of some diplomats that modernization will westernize all the civilizations are proving to be wrong. The emerging world have nation and based on their own civilization, though there are few problems related to sovereignty. The western countries are still in the race for to save their civilization against the non western countries and civilization but the new thought is that the global conflicts and war can only be avoided if the leaders of different countries accept the multicivilizational make up of the emerging political environment which calls for cooperation, coordination and maintenance to survive and flourish. Singer and Wildavsky in their view have divided the world in different zones of peace and turmoil, former being the democratic and industrialized countries and the latter compromising rest 85% of the world which will continue to war, but with the ongoing developments will generate wealth, harmony and democracy among all of these zones. This is more upbeat than Huntington’s theory which takes civilization based only on national security. Past and Present Diplomatic Thoughts: Challenges and Change Drivers The history of diplomacy was always associated with power and bipolarity also the relationship between states. and today the focus and interest has widened and thus the interpretations of the term. One factor is the change and developments and other is the cultural diversity of the practioners and scholars. For instance, in the SHFAR annual meeting 2003, the panel comprised of majority US people and thus the issues discussed were also according to the range of participants. As mentioned by Robert Beisner, the diplomats in the past focussed on bipolarity which compliments scholarship in the same, in his research on the history of foreign relations. For instance, the current erudition in the said field is more than ever aimed to increase the number of nongovernment people work toward the political and social framework towards the creation foreign policy. This would broaden the horizon and understanding of the conventional nature and decision making. Another important argument concerns the events post World Trade Centre and Pentagon disasters has transparently exhibited the capability, instability and challenges of the non state actors to the state system itself. They have the capacity to drive events as said by Saskia Sasson (Sasson 2002). The same thought is the central apprehension of Phillip Bobbit also. He asks the same questions in his book and comments that the “control of the state - a site of opportunity rather than security-is up for grabs” (Bobbit 1999). The end of cold war was an important point in the history of diplomacy i.e. after 1945, the focus widened. As said by Penny M, that the one direction focus made people lose a lot and it has to be multi-focussed in his work Challenging Cold War Habits- African Americans, Race, and Foreign Policy. According to some diplomats, the end of east west discord shows the lack of ideology and thus creating perplexity in the foreign relations, while others think that it has been a beneficial mark-up in the same. While some policy makers reason their deviation from interference, according to Michel Feher, it is based on the uncertainty of historical resentment which was the reason for conflicts. Thus this kind of response was inevitable. More so after the end of cold war, the super powers also shown a less interest in this area, but as the conditions intensified, the was a toll on their credibility as being ignorant on the political crises, the west powers ended up underpinning their ethnic hostility. Post cold war period, several relaxations were observed in the area of national security. After the 9/11 tragedy, there arose a concern for scrutiny. No longer were the super powers only had the power to threaten. After the collapse of the former and the Berlin wall, the main challenge was to scrutinize the reaction of diplomats when they had to act in the cultural space. According to Alexander DeConde, there has been a great variance in presidential proposals form old republics to date. There have been gender influences, interventions and more, but above all the acceptance of the civilians for their leaders to be capable enough to deal with circumstances had been the most crucial. The cultural shift is seminal in changing the trends in international relations and the movement of people of various cultures for the attainment of diplomatic objectives is often confused with nationalism as said by Robert Griffith (2001). Still many historians working in the field are trying to expand and explore the bilateral approach of the practioners by understanding the world concerns and developments. Another important point is that the contemporary diplomacy involves current events, colonial, American, feminist, ethnic and cultural studies, anthropology, bridging problems and experiences all leading to a better insight in the problems of society, interstate and international relationships (Plummer,2005). The old Feminist theory also has an influence on the diplomacy, or international relations as it had to be dealt with rationality, power, gender interventions and obscurity as explained in the works of Emily Rosenberg. The old Colonial practises and ideologies on the other hand has helped a lot in the framing of the international relations by understanding the impact of such practises on the political and economic conditions of the past. The cultural adoptions are different as from the diplomatic history as these are the people of the society themselves which is very flexible, contemporary and dynamic. It is a conscious effort to decrease the distance between the operators and the society. With globalization, strengthening of economies, movement of labour there has been a much improved cooperation internationally which has thus affected transnational relationships and politics. With the technological advancements the government is no longer isolated thus the association of culture and power has become inevitable. with modernization, the traditional diplomacy which was based on the relationship between chancelleries and executives has also been revolutionized but the importance of international archives is the same as it was in the past. Today, diplomacy is equally concerned with the interstate and international relations and globalization on the other even after the world economic recession 2008. The diplomatic challenges are more complex today like “threats to global order by activities of supranational or international collectivises as they are from the machinations of traditional nation-states” which makes the inter country working difficult as explained by Copeland (2009). And also diplomacy is not only essential in conflict resolution but is also optimum for global security. The developments have to be based upon humanity which will go much beyond the globalization and modernization concepts. As globalization creates uncertainty, this should be a high priority consideration for diplomats today. Thus to understand the nature of the same is very important in the formation and implementation of foreign policies. Present day world order, effect of globalization on the former, global security progress has to be fully understood and applied. Post cold war period, development has a greater importance as it is considered the founding block of global growth and it has second defence in that matter. There are various risks like global terrorism and security risks but more so the chase for human centred development is the main challenge which can have a much worse impact. Thus according to Copeland, unlike the traditional diplomatic practises, diplomatic focus should be shared by the cultural developments, interaction and communication, the role and importance of the non state actors and also filling the gaps in the political system. Thus, in today’s world, defence and security, global order, ongoing developments, modernization and globalization all are interconnected and thus the so created threats can only be dealt with better diplomatic practises, as only diplomacy is the key to international policies and is the most relevant. The imbalance between the ever increasing demand for different forms of diplomacy and the deteriorating supply has to be corrected. The foundation may be old diplomatic theories and practises but has to be amalgamated with newer resources. Thus taking the necessary approaches, diplomatic practices today are neither extreme and edgy, nor experimental and traditional but it is more comprehensive and ready to face and resolve the contemporary challenges. Bibliography Beisner, R. L 2003, “Some Notes on the New American Foreign Relations since 1600: A Guide to the Literature”, Program, Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, 2003 Conference, George town University, June 6-8,Washington D.C, Bobbit, P 2002, The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History, New York. Copeland, D 2009, “Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations”, Lynne Rienner Publication, USA, ISBNs: 978-1-58826-679-8 hc,978-1-58826-655-2 pb. DeConde, A 1999 “Presidential Machismo: Executive Authority, Military Intervention, and Foreign Relations”, Northeastern University Press, Boston. Eschen, PMV 1996, “Challenging Cold War Habits: African Americans, Race, and Foreign Policy;”Diplomatic History 20, pp 627-38. Feher, M 2000, “Powerless by Design: The Age of the International Community”, Duke University Press, Durham, N.C. Griffith, R, “The Cultural Turn in Cold War Studies,” Reviews in American History 29 March 2001,vol 15, pp 150-157. Huntington, S 2005, “Who Are We? Challenges to America’s National identity”, Simon & Schuster, NY. Lester, P 1959, “Diplomacy in the Nuclear Age”, Harvard University Press, Boston. Melissen, J 2005, “Wielding Soft Power: The New Public Diplomacy”, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael Diplomacy no.2, ISBN 90-5031-1098-2, viewed 09 Nov 2009 Nagel, BS (ed.) 2003, Policymaking and peace: a multinational anthology, vol. 3, Lexington Books , USA. Plummer, BG 2005, “The Changing Face of Diplomatic History: A Literature Review” Society for History Education,vol. 38, no. 3. Rosenberg, E 1994, “Foreign Affairs After World War II: Connecting Sexual and International Politics”, Diplomatic History, no. 18, pp. 59-70. Rosenberg, E 1999 “Consuming Women: Images of Americanization in the ‘American Century”, Diplomatic History, no. 23, pp. 479-97. Sasson, S Jan 18 2002, "Globalization after September 11" Chronicle of higher education,vol 48. Saur, 1997/98, yearbook of international organizations , pp xii. Singer, M & Wildavsky, A 1996, The Real World Order: Zones of Peace, Zones of Turmoil. Chatham House Publishers, NJ. Read More