Reflective Portfolio on the Evolution of Diplomacy

Reflective Portfolio Template
Student Name
Course
Professor
Date
Section A: Blog Entries
The evolution of diplomacy
The word "diplomacy" in Greek referred to an old man, which was later used by the French (diplomatie) to indicate the duties of a negotiator. It is impossible to establish the exact time when human societies saw the need to communicate. However, it is safe to assume they did this in the earliest days. Diplomacy existed very early, at least since the Bronze Age (Kerr and Wiseman 2017). The oldest diplomatic record is a letter inscribed on a tablet dated 2,500 BC, discovered in present-day Iran (Siracusa 2010 pg. 2). The letter was carried by an emissary who had made trips between distant kingdoms. In the olden days, sovereigns sent envoys to curb wars, neutralize hostilities, make treaties, enhance peaceful relations and ensure continued trading activities. In those days, diplomacy was primitive by today's standards and had few rules.
Since then, diplomacy has evolved to meet the ever-increasing needs of more complex societies. The modern era of diplomacy can be traced to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended 30 years of war. It led to the establishment of independent nations and created religious freedoms. In 1626, France's Cardinal Richelieu created the first foreign ministry (Melissen 2005, pg. 3). The move encouraged the classic approach to international relations. Diplomacy became more institutionalized as divine right kings paved the way for constitutional monarchies and republics, which increased the number of embassies and legations all over Europe (Siracusa 2010, pg. 3). Towards the end of the 19th century, the European style of diplomacy was adopted widely in most parts. Embassies were for large countries, while litigations were for smaller countries, with the former headed by ambassadors and the latter by ministers.
The desire for countries to maintain a continuous flow of diplomatic business with cross relationships between the partners increased. Nations wanted to ensure that political issues and different issues could be followed and controlled. The formalization of embassies and other diplomatic posts was instrumental in enhancing the growth of diplomacy as instrumental in the world's politics (Stanzel 2018). Today's diplomacy operates in an interdependent and globalized world. The world has become more interconnected as nations seek ways of coming together to enhance relations. Diplomacy is a matter of necessity for the survival of countries in the ever-competitive world.
Another change is that monopolized states no longer characterize the "actorness" on the global scale. Instead, both supranational and subnational actors play a significant role in the world of politics (Jönsson, 2016). For instance, the European Union, United Nations, and the World Trade Organization are some of the supranational organizations whose authority in some matters is binding to its members. Additionally, modern diplomacy considers both transgovernmental and transnational dimensions. At the same time, diplomacy has evolved from the time when information would be transmitted through messengers on horsebacks to the use of modern means of communication facilitated by information technology. Communication between the various actors has been enhanced. The digitization of diplomacy has enabled countries to strengthen their relations and deal with more complex issues (Verrekia 2017, pg. 14).
Sources
Jönsson, C., 2016. States only? The evolution of diplomacy. In The Tranformation of Foreign Policy (pp. 242-262). Oxford University Press.
Kerr, P. and Wiseman, G., 2017. Diplomacy in a globalizing world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Melissen, J., 2005. Wielding soft power: the new public diplomacy (p. 4). Netherlands: Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael.
Siracusa, J.M., 2010. Diplomacy: a very short introduction (Vol. 242). Oxford University Press.
Stanzel, V. and und Politik-SWP-Deutsches, S.W., 2018. New realities in foreign affairs: Diplomacy in the 21st century.
Verrekia, B., 2017. Digital diplomacy and its effect on international relations. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 2596. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/2596
Embassies and foreign ministries
Are Embassies and Foreign ministries Relevant?
Undoubtedly, embassies and foreign ministries have played a critical role in the world and continue to impact how countries relate. Through embassies and foreign ministries, diplomats represent the interests of their spending nations and the citizens living abroad (Græger and Lindgren 2018, pg. 200). The diplomats advocate on behalf of their countries. They are instrumental in enhancing the image of their sending country, promoting trade, and facilitating negotiations between the two countries. However, some advancements in the modern world compel individuals to reconsider the importance of embassies and foreign ministries.
Countries are generally experiencing recession and unfavorable economic conditions. Such economic hardships have compelled some countries to scale back on their diplomatic representation overseas. A few countries have closed some of their embassies to reduce operational costs. For instance, the realities of COVID 19 have left countries devastated since more resources continue to be devoted to fighting the pandemic. COVID19 led to the loss of jobs in some sectors as governments implemented social distancing (Nicola et al., 2020). Some sectors like the airline industry were adversely affected as little business took place. Similarly, the hospitality industry declined as more people opted to stay at home. Companies were forced to scale down their operations to reduce the number of workers. Generally, economic growth slowed down because of the harsh realities of the pandemic. Consequently, countries have come up with ways to reduce their expenditure by cutting down on unnecessary expenses.
Closing down embassies has been one of the ways to reduce the vast expenditure required to maintain embassies abroad (Neumayer 2008, pg. 4). For the developing countries, allocating considerable resources to maintaining embassies and foreign ministries is challenging. It is difficult to justify the allocation of limited resources to maintaining an embassy when citizens are faced with hunger and disease. Citizens in such countries are likely to call for budget cuts on their diplomats to reduce funding for their "expensive lifestyles."
At the same time, globalization and advancement in information communication technologies have connected billions of people across the world. The conduct of diplomacy must wake up to this reality and be responsive to the changes. Gone are the days when diplomats could not communicate directly on issues and had to rely on designated because of limitations in communication technologies. According to Helmers (2016, pg. 413), the notion of diplomats maintaining their relations out of the view of the public eye has become outdated. The author observes, "Modern diplomats interact with the public in their country of residence in many ways, both directly and through many media." Currently, government officials are free to communicate directly because of technology's advantages (Strom et al., 2016). For instance, diplomats can express their opinions on issues via their Twitter handles. In the past, diplomats couldn't make such communications. Hence, such diplomats do not necessarily need to be residents in foreign countries to undertake their duties.
Moreover, COVID19 has demonstrated that individuals can work from home or in remote locations (Monaghesh and Hajizadeh 2020, pg. 2). In the past, most jobs required individuals to report to their stations. Physical meetings were common, which forced businesses and governmental organizations to acquire physical office space where people could meet and work. However, COVID19 has accelerated the virtual meetings, making it possible to work from home. Diplomats can hold meetings remotely and represent their countries from remote locations (Bjola and Manor 2022, pg. 471). As governments embrace technology, there is a high likelihood that most government officers will be allowed to work remotely. Countries can use technology to close embassies and allow diplomats to operate from remote areas.
Consequently, the place of embassies and foreign ministries is being challenged. While, at the moment, countries may not do away with embassies and foreign ministries, the role of the same is slowly diminishing. It is critical to consider whether what an embassy does in a foreign country can be done online. This is a challenging conversation and important considering the realities of this century.
Sources
Bjola, C. and Manor, I., 2022. The rise of hybrid diplomacy: from digital adaptation to digital adoption. International Affairs, 98(2), pp.471-491.
Græger, N. and Lindgren, W.Y., 2018. The duty of care for citizens abroad: security and responsibility in the in Amenas and Fukushima Crises. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 13(2), pp.188-210.
Helmers, H., 2016. Public Diplomacy in Early Modern Europe: Towards a new history of news. Media History, 22(3-4), pp.401-420.
Monaghesh, E. and Hajizadeh, A., 2020. The role of telehealth during COVID-19 outbreak: a systematic review based on current evidence. BMC public health, 20(1), pp.1-9
Neumayer, E., 2008. Distance, power and ideology: diplomatic representation in a world of nation‐states. Area, 40(2), pp.228-236.
Nicola, M., Alsafi, Z., Sohrabi, C., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., Iosifidis, C., Agha, M. and Agha, R., 2020. The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review. International journal of surgery, 78, pp.185-193.
Strom, K., Hendrix, J., Taniguchi, T., Aagaard, B., Werth, R.S. and Legacy, S., 2016. Research on the impact of technology on policing strategy in the 21st century, final report. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
Negotiation or crisis diplomacy
Is Diplomacy Viable in the Russia Ukraine Conflict?
No other time has crisis diplomacy come to the test like in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The world is in a dilemma whether to undertake foreign military operations or engage in diplomacy to prevent escalating the same problem. Negotiation has come up in the recent past as an alternative to resolving the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
Negotiation or crisis diplomacy has become critical. Regional and international issues and crises have become more complex and pronounced. In the world today, it is common for diplomacy to occur under "conditions of perennial crisis:" (Constantinou 2015, pg. 29). The change-like crises have forced actors to adapt how they respond to particular situations. Under a problem, diplomats are expected to engage extra carefully with stakeholders to prevent the possibility of increased tension among the conflicting parties. They should not be seen to lean on one side since such a move would alarm the opponent. At the same time, they are faced with conflicting interests from the two divides, making them more vulnerable to making errors in judgment. Despite the challenges of crisis diplomacy, its application in the Russian Ukraine conflict cannot be ignored.
Are negotiations still possible in the wake of heightened tensions? This is the biggest question that faces diplomats. Consider the actions of Russia, where the attack was premeditated (Green, Henderson, and Ruys 2022). While Russia has continually denied preparing to invade Ukraine, earlier reports indicate that Russia was amassing more than 100,000 troops, tanks, and artillery. During that time, Russia kept moving its troops to strategic positions along the border in Belarus, which has close relations with Crimea, which Russia annexed illegally in 2014. At the same time, Biden engaged Putin on the same issue to get Russia to pull troops from the region. The United States tried to get Russia to pull out the troops, but this did not happen.
Russia's aggression is worrying, considering that it creates uncertainty for possible military confrontations in the future. Ukrainian fighters have also joined in defending their country, which further increases violence. It is a great concern that even as negotiations are ongoing, tensions keep escalating amid the dangerous military build-up at the heart of Europe (Green, Henderson, and Ruys 2022). While talks have not done much to persuade Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, they should continue. Through crisis diplomacy, the two countries can engage each other in finding a lasting solution to the problem. Instead of continuing with military actions, which will escalate deaths and the destruction of property, Russia should accept negation to solve the issue. The international community should not give up on crisis diplomacy.
Sources
Constantinou, C.M., 2015. In pursuit of crisis diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 10(1), pp.29-34.
Green, J.A., Henderson, C. and Ruys, T., 2022. Russia's attack on Ukraine and the jus ad bellum. Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 9(1), pp.4-30.
The new diplomacy
Diplomacy is the only Tool of the US to Advance its Foreign Policy Interests
In October 2003, President George W. Bush made his first trip to Australia, one of America's close allies. When he landed, what he met must have taken away the excitement of being in Australia as the United States president for the first time. When he arrived, thousands of protesters greeted him in several cities around Australia. The protesters were generally anti-American, rubbishing the American culture and values. The culmination was when Australian senators heckled him while addressing the Australian parliament. On the contrary, Chinese president Hu Jintao got a warm reception in Australia. Fewer protesters commented on Chinese human rights abuses. In parliament, fewer members heckled him. The two events demonstrated China's progress to enhance its image, despite the numerous cases of human rights abuses.
America remains firm on its quest to ensure that countries observe human rights. The belief is rooted in the idea that all people should enjoy basic freedoms. As a result, America has continually asserted itself in foreign issues to ensure that countries observe human rights (Contesse, 2019). The move has led to a majority of the counties feeling that the United States is overstepping its mandate as a superpower. The hatred against the United States has increased over the years, jeopardizing the nation's image.
At the same time, China is fighting to become a global leader and overtake the United States (Lai, 2011, pg. 2). China is partnering with the developing nations, where it provides financing for some significant projects. The nation has packaged itself as a developmental partner keen on promoting the growth and development of other countries. As a result, despite its human rights abuses, some countries feel that China is closer to their needs than the United States.
Consequently, the United States needs to embrace a "new diplomacy" that seeks to ensure that citizens in other countries appreciate America as a developmental partne...