Non-state actors in environmental diplomacy.

Not so long ago most diplomatic issues were taken over by state actors but as more and more issues have risen, such as environmental concerns like global warming, the importance of the involvement of not-state actors has increased.

To examine the significance of non state-actors in environmental negotiations first it is important to know what role they take in these talks. Non-state actors are entities that participate or act in international relations, they are organisations with sufficient power to influence and cause a change even though they  don’t belong to an established institution of a state. Non state actors have several important roles like aiding in the opinion building in international affairs, for example NGO’s influence in the Human Rights Council, or Princess Diana’s work on opinion building over the subject of land mines. Probably one of the most important roles that a non-state actors can take is the investigation and provider of expert information in some matters such as evidence of climate change and solutions on how to stop it. This last role has been taken on by many non-state actors, specially NGO’s such as Green Peace, in most of the environmental talks since the 90’s, and have been greatly influential in recent conferences like the one in Paris.

Non-state actors are also fundamental agents in helping to achieve both national and international development goals. In the Paris Agreement, representatives of regional bodies, organisations, consultants, researchers, academics and project developers all came together in meetings to examine the articles of the agreement and conclude on how to implement them nationally and internationally.

nonstate actors picis

In the image above we can see one of the dialogues that took place after the Paris agreement by different regional non-State actors regarding article 6 which talks about the reduction of green house gas emissions whilst still being able to develop as a country. All these dialogues that took place mostly in developing countries in 2016, show the power that Non-state actors can have in diplomatic missions especially when finding a way to implement certain articles in countries where it might be hard to do so.

Seeing how non-state actors take on very important roles on a national and international scale, it can be said that the significance of said actors is very important. NGO’s can shift global opinion on a matter, by providing evidence of their findings, specially on environmental problems. Other actors such as celebrities can also be very influential in the way people think which later might motivate people to pressure their governments into action, a great example of this is when they made Leonardo diCaprio  a UN messenger of peace, and became one of the biggest promoters of sustainable development, going as far as to interview the ex-president of the US, Barack Obama. Non-state actors can give reliable, extremely accurate information about environmental issues, that is why they are very important to diplomatic talks. They cans also influence the way people act so that a certain policy can be placed, and most importantly they take constant action to make sure that the goals are being followed and hold responsible those who do not follow.

 

leonardo nbp

 

 

Bibliography

NGO CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK INTERNATIONAL [online] NGO Participation working groups  (2016) Available at: www.climatenetwork.org/working-group-pages/ngo-participation (Accessed the 10 of May, 2017)

David Hone (2016) THE ENERGY COLLECTIVE. [online] Paris agreement: Developing Article 6. Available at: http://www.theenergycollective.com/davihone/2322758?developing-article-6 (Accessed the 10 of May, 2017)

UN: CLIMATE SUMMIT 2014 [online]. Secretary-General designates Leonardo DiCaprio as UN messenger of peace. Available at: http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/2014/09/secretary-general-designates-leonardo-di-caprio-as-un-messenger-of-peace/ (Accessed the 10 of May, 2017)

UN CLIMATE CHANGE: PARIS AGREEMENT [online] Non-state actors say how Paris can boost climate action. (2016) Available at:  newsroom.unfccc.int/paris-agreement/regional-dialogues-on-article-6-of-the-paris-agreement/ (Accessed the 10 of May, 2017)

Josh Busby (2015) DUCK OF MINERVA [online]. What role for non-sate actors in the new climate governance?. Available at: duckofminerva.com/2016/01/what-role-for-non-state-actors-in-the-new-climate-governance.html (Accessed the 10 of May, 2017)

 

 

‘This is your home’ – he said to NGOs

The former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali has said in 1994, regarding NGOs participation in UN venues:

<< I want you to consider this [the UN] your home. Until recently these words might have caused astonishment. The United Nations was considered a forum of sovereign states alone. Within the space of a few short years, this attitude has changed. Non-governmental organizations are now considered full participants in international life.>>

(Raustiala and Bridgeman, 2007:2. UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s 1994)

This is explicative of NSAs presence in international negotiations. In fact, non-state actors have been – and continue to be – largely present in the international scenes, especially when it comes to ‘low politics’. To be more precise, NSAs are active in environmental and human rights issues. When it comes to the environmental field, both at the EU and UN level, NSAs have acquired a position as consultative organisms. This means that they do not have the same powers as states, yet these stakeholders are consulted regarding agenda setting and political framework, in light of their work of expertise and knowledge dissemination.

Environmental diplomacy has started to be central in the international agenda in the 1970s, especially since the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. Important steps forward have been made in the 1990s, for example with the Kyoto Protocol (and following Kyoto II). Non-state actors have played a huge role in the agenda setting, policy evaluation, experts consultation and information spreading. In particular, in the UN 1972’s venue, NGOs have written alongside states, the preparatory documents (Clark and al., 1998; Betsill and Corell, 2008). 250 NGOs were present as promoters of sustainable development! The Agenda 21 of the Rio Environmental Summit is ‘the first UN document to recognize the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders groups’ (Hocking, 2011: 233).

Non-state actors have a few sources to gain authority from, in global venues: ‘symbolic (legitimacy/ability to invoke moral claims), cognitive (knowledge, expertise), social (access to networks), leverage (access to key agents and decision-making processes), and material (access to resources and position in the global economy) powers’ (Nasiritousi et al., 2014: 113). Obviously, different actors have different strengths and possibilities, yet it is evident that they exert an actual influence in diplomatic affairs. Their strength lies in their organization and connections: connections with the public, with other NSAs and with states. What makes them different is their neutral characteristic: they do not represent a state, rather a view – but most importantly – an outcome. NSAs bound together the private and the public, making clearer and faster answers possible. NSAs significance is the fact that the public is actually involved in the state’s business. On the other side of the spectrum, states themselves are more aware of the public opinion and objectives.

The World Wildlife Fund gives one recent example of non-state actors’ work of representation. Staying neutral to the political groups, WWF, in the aftermath of the official beginning of Brexit negotiations, has called for Theresa May’s attention on environmental issues, praying the UK government not to forget the environment, putting in place an online platform where to write a letter to the Prime Minister (link here, for whoever wished to participate https://bsd.wwf.org.uk/page/speakout/brexit ).

WWF-Briefing-Future-of-UK-Seas-A4-735x520

Important NSAs, like Greenpeace for example, seem to have a direct connection and valuable position with other non-state actors.  Following the sanctions imposed to JBS – the largest meat processing company in the world, accused of buying cattle from illegally deforested areas in the Amazon – by the Brazilian government this March, Greenpeace has stopped negotiations with the company ‘until it can prove that the meat is free of deforestation, slave labour and conflicts with indigenous lands or protected areas’ (Greenpeace editors, 2017). To me, only the fact that a company of such influence and economic resources was negotiating with a non-state actor, is illustrative of the NSAs importance.

Overall, it seems clear to me that NSAs have a position in environmental negotiations, as well as influential powers. Their spot in international and national negotiations comes from their valuable skills in information gathering and dissemination, expertise and network of connections. NSAs are embodied in diplomacy; therefore, it would be impossible not to consider them as influential actors.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Betsill, M. Michele & E. Corell (2008). ‘Introduction to NGO diplomacy’, in Betsill, M. Michele & E. Corell (Ed.), NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations, the MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-18

Clark, A.M., Friedman, Elisabeth J., Hochstetler, K. (1998). ‘The Sovereign Limits of Global Civil Society: A Comparison of NGO Participation in UN World Conferences on the Environment, Human Rights, and Women’ World Politics, 51(1), pp. 1-35.

Greenpeace editor (2017). ‘Greenpeace Brazil suspends negotiations with cattle giant JBS’,  Greenpeace.org, available at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/2017/Greenpeace-Brazil-suspends-negotiations-with-cattle-giant-JBS/

Nasiritousi N., Hjerpe, M., Linner, B. (2014). ‘The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: understanding agency through governance profiles’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(1), 109-126

Raustiala, K., Bridgeman L. Natalie (2007). ‘Non-state actors in the Global Climate Regime’, UCLA School of Law Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, 07(29), pp. 1-35

Multilateral Diplomacy

Image result for multilateral diplomacy

Multilateral diplomacy or multilateralism is a form of conducting a conference between two or more states that shares a common issue of interest. This agreement does not exclusively concern agreeing on subject matters but also allows these states to solve any other of importance on the issue and differences that may be in-between. There are different forms in which multilateral negotiations can take. They include the Artarctictic treaty of 1961, the Kyoto protocol of 1998 and finally the United Nation Millennium Declaration of 2000 that concerned humanitarian matters. Currently, negotiation on diplomacy has indeed realized an increase. Multilateralism started during the time of fast world war in an attempt to end the hostility of European nations on various countries hence helps in preventing the outbreak of another war. The League of Nations was formed due to this real hopes. (Smith,2016.pg.82) Multilateralism has been seen over the year growing significantly, and this is clearly shown through globalization, matters of international concern have become gradually interconnected and have continued to affect some countries.

European Union consists of 27 member’s states; thus it fits the definition of multilateralism as a form of a form of conducting a conference between two or more states that shares a common issue of interest. Furthermore, these states form part of the organization for economic purposes thus fulfill the term of gathering together on the grounds of similar matters. (Smith,2016.pg.8 Strength and weakness of the organization.

Due to fast growing and highly competitive economy of China, it has made it unavoidable to build tie with European organizations, although China is not a member of the EU. Currently, China is the largest trading partner of EU and its suitable first source of imports for goods.  With trade and cooperate agreement of 1975, the relationship between the two started, and has seen a gradual increase over the past decade. The agreement was improved in 1994 by exchange of letters that established an extensive political dialogue and finally meetings of high level have been held on either side of the states. The meetings have reflected different levels, ranging from the annual conference of prime and foreign ministers and political directors. (Masters,2016 pg.58) Human rights, poverty, and foreign policy were the main diplomatic issues covered in held meetings.

The respect of human rights remains deep between the two sides. Energy security and climate change go beyond, and it’s the area of concern to their mutual interest between EU and China. Multilateralism diplomacy would offer an understanding of this area that would enforce codes and regulations that are commonly agreedon either side. EU carries the collective interest of individual states and at times the image of the division this deeply fixed interest to probable outcomes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, multilateral diplomacy has enabled negotiations between different countries in finding common ground on particular matters. (Kerr and Wiseman, 2013 pg.123) However, this engagement does not give a mandate for a state to interfere with another’s affairs. The key aspects behind all this are mutual respect and sensitivity of multilateral diplomacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

References

Kerr, P. and Wiseman, G. eds., 2013. Diplomacy in a globalizing world: theories and practices (p. 123). New York: Oxford university press.

Masters, l., 2016. Multilateral diplomacy of the south: the g77+ china in the climate change negotiations. Latin American Report31(2), pp.54-61.

Smith, M., 2016. EU Diplomacy and the EU–China strategic relationship: framing, negotiation and management. Cambridge Review of International Affairs29(1), pp.78-98.

 

New diplomacy

Diplomacy had experienced improvement which influenced its trial back in the 20th century. The development emerged from various changes in the universe like information revolution, the growth of communication technology, immigration of people and the knowledge and access to mass media. This new diplomacy brought in fresh solutions and innovations in the diplomacy like summitry. Summit meetings started to being held in the First World War, the initial ones being held by the Neville Chamberlain with German dictator Adolf Hitler, ten years later in 1950, Winston Churchill popularized them (Reynolds, 2009). Summits also remained in use in the cold war as a discussion between the superpowers like the USA and the USSR. However, throughout that period summitry was mainly purposed on solving the issues concerning security. After the end of the Cold War, changes have occurred in the international politics whereby new actors and matters emerge and hence old bipolar order malformed.

First, a summit questions the responsibility plus the position for the skilled diplomats besides introducing the heads of state (Alexandroff and Brean, 2015). The specialized diplomats put pressure on their linguistic skills, diplomatic tuition, and familiarity of the country they serve. Nevertheless, it gets more attractive for the media when the governors are present and also emphasizes the reputation of the summit. Besides, politicians express what they are doing to make the world a better place through the summits and also diplomats gets marginalized through them.

Also, summits have introduced multi-actors, for instance, small states plus non-state actors’ discussions. The summits are regularly planned by international organizations like the UN and EU and in which each member country, gets an opportunity to stand up and present their views. To perform global politics and international peace it is of importance to offer a chance to each nation to give their opinions on the issues discussed. The important issues that are emerging in these summits are environmental, economical and social, more problems still exist in states, and hence summits remain the significant way that these issues can get solved through joint solutions (Labrecque, 2010). Furthermore, the summits include non-state actors like NGOs in their discussions like the environmental ones, through this they can also give out their opinions on the issues.

Also, summitry has brought in a significant change in diplomacy through publicity. Through the news concerning meetings of the Summit, journalists get attracted though this may seem contrary due to pressure (Berridge, 2014). Nevertheless, it remains supposed that through publicity a relation with the public opinion gets recognized. Hence the outdated method of undertaking diplomacy that is through secrecy takes no part in the information age where everyone in eager to get the knowledge

Briefly, it is evident that summitry remains an important aspect of the recent diplomacy. It has not only established various necessary changes like introducing the head of state as diplomats but also have made it modern and updated and hence giving new opportunities and solutions for the conducting of global politics by various states.

 

 

 

References

Alexandroff, A. and Brean, D. (2015). Global Summitry: Its Meaning and Scope Part One: Figure 1. Global Summitry, 1(1), pp.1-26.

Berridge, G. (2014). Cooper, A. F., Heine, J., and Thakur, R. (Eds.) (2013).The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 25(2), pp.397-401.

Labrecque, C. (2010). Jean-Robert Leguey-Feilleux, 2009, The Dynamics of Diplomacy, Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner, 401 p. Études Internationales, 41(2), p.296.

Reynolds, D. (2009). Summitry as intercultural communication. International Affairs, 85(1), pp.115-127.

 

 

 

Crisis Diplomacy

International catastrophe is a well-known term. It is a structure of connections between the governments of dissimilar independent countries in severe war, containing the insight of a hazardously major likelihood of war. The political meetings are required to endorse negotiations of reconciliation, prevent a drenching conflict, ease and discuss the cessation of hostilities and war tenacities among different opposing parties. This requires conversely diplomatic and clever international relations information in controlling complicated worldwide and provincial calamities The Gulf disaster of 1990 was a political disappointment. On several instances, Iraq positioned Kuwait as a misplaced region.

 

Reasons for Kuwait Invasion

Iraq wanted admittance to the Gulf region, though, after failing to do so in its conflict with Iran, it moved its focus towards Kuwait. Due to comprehensive warfare obligations, the economy of Iraq was in catastrophe and one of its creditors was Kuwait. The Country Iraq wanted their loans to be released, as its government sensed that they forfeited and secured their society to safeguard the capital and interest of Arab states in contradiction of Iranian fundamentalism. The Kuwaitis did not, yet the Saudis did agree to do so, proceeding to reinforce its connections with Iran, which formerly supported Iraq throughout the battle against Iran. However, they went contrary to the participation of Iraq in the Middle East cooperation countries. For the government of Iraq, this was difficult to accept.  In the Gulf region, a war was unavoidable and it was a conflict in which Iraq was likely to fail. There were many motives why this became a fact. It was quite obvious that the president of Iraq Saddam Hussein was turning out to be a soldierly hulk in the Middle East and a risk to the constancy of the complete district. The United States and other developed western countries could not jeopardy the cost of oil from the area. Being the second biggest foundation of oil in the Gulf region, the attack on Kuwait placed the international oil market into turmoil. With Saudi Arabia, the forces of Iraq then assembled their militaries at the border. In turn, this brought the soldierly power of America into the clash. The resources that Middle East regions gave to Iraq were utilized to buy high-tech ammunitions that made Iraq one of the biggest armed forces in the world and a dynamism to struggle with. Kuwait being one of the richest states in terms of its income in the world has free major and minor education, social and health services. All of this was appealing and exasperating to Saddam Hussein, who used his soldiers to take over and attack Kuwait (American Patriot Friends Network, 2004).

 

Cautionary Signals

From the month of February till August 1990, Saddam Hussein began to send cautionary indications of a forthcoming incursion of Kuwait. During a speech in July 1990, Saddam Hussein indicated to do something operative in a situation whereby the arguments failed to safeguard the people of Iraq. Upon hearing this message, the U.S sent varied hints to Iraq. The government of the United States believed Iraq to be scammed and using alarming words. It opposed that if an attack were to happen, it would be an imperfect one.

 

The State department of America emphasized the assurance of United States’ vow in safeguarding their associates in the Middle-East, though a different representative of the Department of State mentioned that the Americans did not have a distinct safety or defense promises to Kuwait. In the meantime, the force was applied in Kuwait by Saudi Arabia with the support of other Arab states to resolve its conflict with Iraq. The leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia involved in dynamic but someway ineffective political discussions. Middle-East countries discovered an explanation that was not accessible to international intrusion. Iraq instigated to amass its crowds on the borders of Kuwait towards the end of July 1990. Frightened by these movements, the formerly president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak began discussions between Kuwait and Iraq, in trying to overcome outside interference, for instance, the United States and other influences. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein ruined talks within two hours, and on August 2nd, 1990, he commanded the conquest of Kuwait. The government of America together with Russia (Soviet Union) and England condemned the attack on Iraq. The security council of United Nation asked for the removal of Iraqi soldiers from Kuwait on August 3rd, 1990. Hardly any days later in a conference with King Fahd and Richard Cheney UN commanded the American’s military support which the United States settled too. The NATO and American associates sent soldiers to protect Saudi Arabia against the Iraqi outbreak.

 

The Gulf War

The alliance militaries equipped to face the armed forces of Iraq with employees from England, the United States, the Soviet Union, Germany, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Japan. On the other hand, Iraq attained backing from Algeria, Jordan, Palestinian Liberation Organization, Sudan, Tunisia and Yemen. The war initiated with the United States air raids on the air fortifications of Iraq and other links on 17th January 1991. This process concentrated on airborne incursions and was referred to as “Operation Desert Storm”. In February, Operation Desert Sabre was introduced that focused in the direction of the ground assaults. The influence of the outbreaks stunned Iraqi soldiers who later laid down their arms.  George W. Bush confirmed a truce on 28th February 1991 which concluded the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein settled peace relationships that needed him to leave his country of all artilleries of mass annihilation and identifying the autonomy of Kuwait (Perry, 2015).

 

Diplomatic Crisis

From the moral viewpoint, Kuwait is authorized for reimbursement as a war prey. For this purpose, the postponement of reparation payments is a crucial progress. For the people of Kuwait, the Gulf war endures, as the fortune of a small number of their women and men, who were killed or taken in prison, remains unidentified. According to the KUNA (Kuwait News Agency) out of six hundred individuals who were captured by the forces of Iraq, only two hundred and forty-six remainders have been recognized (Naar, 2015).

 

 

Conclusion

Iraq had always considered Kuwait part of its region. The invasion of Kuwait was a tremor and a bash in the back. With the demise of Saddam Hussein’s administration and the Iraqi reconciliation with Kuwait under the novel government. The society has now cohabited with the new circumstances and the general public of Iraq. However, the unstable local uncertainty has prepared Kuwait attention on safeguarding the safety of its public in every manner and concentrate on the future as an unusual breathing in the glooms of the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

American Patriot Friends Network. (2004). Several Reasons Why Saddam Hussein Invaded Kuwait. [Online] Available at: http://www.apfn.org/saddam-hussein/kuwait.htm [Accessed: 28th March, 2017].

Naar, I. (2015). 25 years on, Iraq’s Kuwait invasion remains a source of bitterness. [Online] Available at: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/features/2015/08/02/25-years-on-Iraq-s-Kuwait-invasion-remains-a-source-of-bitterness.html[Accessed: 28th March, 2017].

Perry, W. (2015). Operation Iraqi freedom decisive war, Elusive peace. [Online]. Available at:http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1214/RAND_RR1214.pdf [Accessed: 28th March, 2017].

 

 

 

PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Public Diplomacy is the method which international campaigns realize as a reasonable means of communication in international relations. Public diplomacy is a moderately youthful, however famous idea and a field of study, with a storm of writing since turn of the century. The act of public diplomacy, or strategic engagement with individuals went before the reconciliation of its phrasing inside governments and services of outside undertakings. Free strategy as a practice and field of study is liable to more extensive developments happening intact, universal relations, and social orders. Public diplomacy is not thought to be the same as customary government-to-government strategy since it draws in no state performers. Albeit and many policymakers and researchers relate transparent approach essentially with “delicate power” (the ability to convince by fascination), it is significant to both subtle and hard power. In late decades, a clear strategy has turned out to be progressively crucial to the act of diplomacy (Tich 1990).

However, in the recent decades, public diplomacy has been widely viewed as a clear means by which a sovereign nation communicates with publics in various countries to inform and influence audiences across the boarders for endorsing the national interest and progress its foreign policy objectives. In this view of traditional perspective, public diplomacy is seen as a basic chunk of state-to-state diplomacy, by which is meant the conduct of official relations, naturally in private, between official congresses (leaders and diplomats) representing independent states. In this case, public diplomacy includes various activities such as exchange of educational programs for students and scholars and language training; visitor programs; cultural exchanges and events; and television and radio broadcasting.

In addition, according to (Arif, Golan & Moritz 2014) the information distributed around the world is not limited because of the advancement in technology that can convey information around the whole world in minutes for example, with fighting terror attacks in a global real-time age television and also use the internet. Public diplomacy also served both multilateral and bilateral diplomacy in where they are interested in the promotion of trade in quest of investment, and global tourism which is also referred to as labeling and makes interaction and cooperation. The example, therefore, can be seen in the Norwegian and Canadian experience with the Ottawa procedure on landmines that showed how collaboration between the international and domestic and policy stadia in the private and public sphere (Smith 2017).

In conclusion, through treating the main idea and patterns of public discretions, we crave to draw a structure for the analysis and acknowledgment of the capability of Slovenian public discretion and its future directions. Therefore the needs to embrace diplomacy to make progress toward the non-traditional, transparent, synergetic and integrative, straightforward, informative and innovative method for operation is seen (Iprm.org.my, 2017)

 

 

 

References

Arif, R., Golan, G. J., & Moritz, B. (2014) ‘mediated public diplomacy: US and Taliban relations with Pakistani media’. Media, War & Conflict, 1750635214538619.

Iprm.org.my. (2017). Role of Public Diplomacy | IPRM.org.my. [Online] Available at:             http://iprm.org.my/role-of-public-diplomacy/ [Accessed 29 Mar. 2017].

Smith, P. (2017). The Hard Road Back to Soft Power on JSTOR. [Online] Jstor.org. Available     at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43134153 [Accessed 29 Mar. 2017].

Tuch, H.N. (1990) ‘communicating with the World: U.S. public diplomacy overseas’. New          York: St. Martin’s Press.

 

The New Diplomacy

001.jpg

The functions of diplomacy can be broken down into six vast areas: ceremonial, management, information/communication, international negotiation, duty of protection and normative/legal. Ceremonial are about protocol, representation and visits. Management deals with day-to-day problems, promotion of interests (political, economic, scientific, military, tourism), explanation and defence of policy, strengthening bilateral relations, bilateral coordination, multilateral cooperation. The third area – Information and communication is about assessment, reporting, and monitoring.

002.JPG

The significance of each and every area will vary from state to state. For some, diplomacy may be largely devoted to ceremonial representation; others may allocate resources to high-level roving envoys or in support of an established role in international rule making. The functions of diplomacy are also particularly closely related to evolving events and issues such as international crises, human and natural disasters or outbreaks of violence, which shift the diplomatic spotlight on to previously remote geographic areas or issues.

003.jpg

The most significant dimension of the new diplomacy is the evolution of it. I believe that it is the change of technology and communication that we have seen in the last 20 years that’s one of the most symbolic, momentous things. We experienced the huge development in flexible andf fluent passage of information and knowledge.

004.jpg

We have a much more accessible access to knowledge, information and reports, that previous diplomats, ambassadors never had. Thanks to Facebook, Twitter, email, Skype, Messenger, Instragram and Snapchat even, we can find out what’s happening on the other side of the globe. We can actually follow the events, celebrations, happenings minute by minute.

005.jpg

All of these platforms build a vast technological evolution and progress in the diplomatic service, negotiations and International Relations. That’s one of the things that make the relations and alliances much, much easier to create, uphold and promote.

006.jpg

References:
– The changing nature of diplomacy. PDF.
– Merym1. Diplomacy old and new 2016c. Web. 29 Mar. 2017.
– (“Pertinax”), André Géraud. “Diplomacy, Old and New.” Foreign Affairs. Web. 29 Mar. 2017.
– “The Contrast between Old & New Diplomacy.” The Contrast between Old & New Diplomacy. Web. 29 Mar. 2017.
– Moomaw, William R. “New Diplomacy.” 2012. Web. 29 Mar. 2017.