The term diplomacy can be defined as the process of managing relations between governments of different countries. Daryl Copeland believes that diplomacy may be required to deal with the present modern life and technology. He sets up an ambitious agenda in his book ‘Rethinking International Relations’. There existed a lot of international relationships that experienced problems in the past and this disappointed Daryl. Because of the disappointment, he got the motivation to express his opinions in words. Diplomacy appeared to be largely ignored in the academic study that deals with international relations. Copeland had experienced a lot in the Canadian Foreign Service since he had been working there for thirty years. This led to his success in addressing diplomacy. He believed that diplomacy should be given a second thought in order to enhance international and global relations. He claimed that diplomacy and dialogue should be connected to the development.
Most conflicts between countries were brought about by inequality levels. He believed that diplomacy should be focused on bringing greater development to a country. By considering this, the relations between countries would be better, thus reducing the conflicts. This appeared to be the main issue that set off Copeland’s analysis. This shows that his intentions to enhance better international relations among countries would be for a good cause. Therefore, he made up his mind and came up with the argument to support his idea. His book clearly explains these arguments in details.
In the book, Copeland shows evidence in five chapters. This chapter shows the global relations after the Cold War. He analyses the effects on the globalization between the countries that got involved in the Cold War. He gives the thesis of diplomacy as linked with development, reducing conflicts in two main chapters of his book. Here, he vividly shows his stand on diplomacy and international relations.
After the Cold War, there was a change in the relations and diplomacy. The diplomacy idea and its effectiveness have reduced in strength. Various analysts could not analyze the change in globalization. This could not be evident since globalization had been a recent development. The writers, however, tried to investigate the diplomacy change.
Copeland believed that foreign ministries, which are rich in knowledge, had to participate in enhancing globalization. He claimed that for this to come true, they would have to do away with the old classic diplomacy. This would include stopping the concentration on privileged countries that valued advocacy, lobbying, and branding. Copeland suggested the foreign ministries should try to create a dialogue as a way of communication. They would also have to maintain the vital antitheses for coercive power – empathy and dialogue. The latter was according to the writer Joseph Nye whom supported Copeland.
The formation of Guerilla diplomats came to Copeland as a way of changing the role of foreign ministries. They would function as usual but in a different way from the previous diplomats in public diplomacy. The Guerilla diplomats would not be involved in the public diplomatic activities such as media communication and cultural diplomacy. To identify the Guerilla diplomats would be possible according to their agility, communication skills, linguistics, cultural awareness, and their affinity to collaboration. They would often be in large groups who valued diplomacy and had to be loyal. The Guerilla diplomats act with plenty of ‘souplesse’ which may appear embarrassing in some countries. In certain countries, there would be a confusion that may cause the relations to become complicated.
The book offers enough evidence on how the writer Daryl Copeland viewed the changes to be made to diplomacy. Various practitioners have tried to analyze the book in order to find solutions to the diplomacy according to Copeland. Copeland had put a lot of effort in expressing his idea that Guerilla diplomacy would be highly effective in the future diplomacy.
There exists a saying that ‘change is evident’. This can be shown by the various shifts that have been occurring in the US embassy. This appears to be happening due to the support by Condoleezza Rice. She believed in a policy called ‘transformational diplomacy’. This concept led to changes in the foreign policy according to Rice. The changes cannot be considered good or evil. Some of the changes include shifting from headquarters to the field. This shift represented the concentration on nations with large populations like India. The main issue behind the concept would be the spread of democracy.
America needs to change foreign policy to diplomacy. This may be required because of the change in technology. This should also happen due to the high development of technology in the United States. Technology seems to have brought a lot of changes with it which have to be addressed. This should be done so as to regulate the global relations of the American government with other nations. America interacts with many other nations since it is considered one of the most powerful countries. With these values, the States have to enhance proper relations in all other countries. The government therefore tries to facilitate and participate in maintaining these intimate relations. The globalization drives the economy of America due to certain interactions, like trade.
In the late 20th century, businessmen started turning to diplomats. This happened in order to for governments to achieve their objectives. The objectives at that time would be using their economic giants to maintain the global economy. Because of this transformation of businessmen, the diplomatic meetings turned into business negotiations. It can also be seen that the change in the world market would also lead to a change in the nature of diplomacy. Therefore, diplomacy in the present day seems to affect the economy largely. This can be explained by the reason that countries maintain intimate relations with each other only for economic gains.
Various people investigated diplomacy in connection to politics and globalization. Many could not link diplomacy and globalization in how they depended on each other. They came up with some conclusions about diplomats. The issue of any diplomat having proper communication skills was a necessity. They required this in order to bring their grievances about the government or particular policies. Diplomats could address the matter at hand, but not directly with the media. The media would have to acquire the information through other ways in order to keep the public informed. The diplomats made sure that they answered all questions that the media had through speaking to the public.
The diplomatic negotiations between Vietnam and Watergate made necessary the use of communication skills. The coverage of the negotiations caused a lot of aggressiveness due to the exposure. The technological and communicational developments lead to the high rate of transparency. This makes the requirement of communication skills for diplomats increase. The diplomats have to allow the public to know of their real intentions in case they win. Madeleine Albright, a former Secretary of State, claims after much analysis that communication with the public is rucial for any diplomat to succeed.
In the present day, unlike traditional diplomats, they have been considered as mediators and communicators in public and international relations. They attend live broadcasts but usually watch their words. They should take care of what they say in such publicized scenes. This increase in appearance in public talks improves the communication skills of the diplomats. They may be required to appear both domestically and internationally. This makes them interested in sharpening their skills in communication in order to address their issues effectively.
An example of the exposure of negotiations between diplomats would be the negotiations between the US and international diplomats. These negotiations, which should have been top secret, were exposed through the Wikileaks. This example could also be used to show globalization and how it opens up diplomacy. It shows that diplomats require PR skills to help in communication. It can also be seen according to Baylis that diplomats should be educated on the importance of economics. This skill should be in the diplomat’s mentality in order to represent his or her people.
According to the Hague Diplomacy Conference, the basic politics of diplomacy have always been to resolve international war by peaceful negotiations, communication, and gathering information. This helps in the conflicts since it develops understanding. Each opponent has their opinions listened to and considered before making any decision. This does not only apply to international conflicts, but could also domestic conflicts. The concept always leads to improved relations after the peaceful negotiations and communications.
The question ‘Does America need a foreign policy?’ has been asked by many interested practitioners. This question according to statistics bears the answer ‘yes’. Many American citizens claim that America needs foreign policy. With the high rate of development in all sectors, they should shift from the traditional policies and acquire new ones. A former Secretary of State Kissinger claims that America should tour the world and observe the developments. This experience would make the administration rethink the policy they have put in place. Many other writers suggest that transformation should be made in the traditional diplomacy. They support Copeland in that Guerilla diplomacy should be the future diplomacy if the diplomats want to make their point understood effectively.
Guerilla diplomacy requires reinvention of the person in order to deal with contemporary problems that he or she should manage to carry on through. It involves adopting some form of new tactics to accompany the traditional ways. If Guerilla diplomats failed, then public diplomacy would be an option. Considering the earlier effects of ignoring diplomacy, the nations now uphold it with much attention. An example of an incident due to the lack of upholding diplomacy would be the American bombing in September 2002. This could be explained by the rivalry between the Muslim countries and American government. The lack of diplomacy led to the poor relations with the other country. Several incidences similar to the example above occurred severally in other countries.
Diplomacy facilitates such relations and helps in creating understanding between the countries. Guerilla diplomats believe in non-violent solutions to problems. Another example of disaster that occurred due to the lack of diplomacy would be evident after the Asian Tsunami in 2004. This was a natural disaster it could not be controlled. The main victims would be the citizens of the country. Some Europeans and Americans who had been tourists in the country also perished in the Tsunami. The Europeans who had been affected by the death of their loved ones got help from the public. The public made sure that they got all the latest information on the disaster. From this incident, the people of Europe got to appreciate diplomacy and this became their breakthrough. Diplomacy requires the ability to consider one another before making any decisions.
In order to gain better comprehension of diplomacy, the scholars came up with the sub-state diplomacy. Many tried to contrive a more appropriate term for the sub-state diplomacy with no luck. It remained to be called sub state diplomacy. Several factors would be considered to have led to the sub state diplomacy in those early days.
The first factor would be the globalization that led many nations to interdependence. This happened due to the relations formed as a result of globalization. This later formed international trade, which soon gained worldwide spread. Countries kept trade interactions with each other in a peaceful way. The sub-state governments have to implement their policies in order to attract foreign investment. This helps satisfy their customers and hence maintain proper relations with the other states. The government should also do this as a way of promoting its economic position. This would be necessary due to the competition between the countries in economic growth. Each and every country wants to lead in the economic development. This helps in the nation building.
The second factor that led to sub-state diplomacy would be domestic policies being internationalized. There exist some policy areas that fall under the sub-state jurisdictions. These can be social services, communication, transportation items, and public health and land disputes. They have been of mounting concern to the government. The government should find solutions to the issues as a way of applying diplomacy in its operation. Many nations struggle to acquire international positions for them. An example would be the European Union which has a higher political advantage in its institutional framework.
The third and final factor would be nationalism and regional integration. Many countries can succeed in international matters but the only variable that differs would be nationalism. There exist nations that do not do so well when it comes to international matters. A country that has the quality nationalism often makes their policies. These policies only consider the country’s own interests. This would be a major characteristic of the nationalism nations. Countries that make their policies often have conflicts with the central government. The central government believes that they should be in charge of making the policies that govern a certain country of interest. This would bring the downfall of a nation in the international matters making it hard to maintain good relations. Many countries would not be interested in collaborating with a country which has domestic conflicts. These conflicts might potentially spread over to other foreign countries.
Besides the main factors mentioned above, there are several other reasons for sub-state diplomacy. Political reasons can be considered as one of them. The diplomacy in the present day would have shared history with the politics in the earlier days. This can be proved by the fact that diplomacy goes back to the days when it required communication as a necessity in order to properly address politics. Diplomats were politicians in the early days, where they would undergo training to acquire communication skills. Diplomacy has then undergone various transformations since the past to deal with the present day issues. There has been a lot of developments since the traditional days, bringing about a change in the diplomacy used. Traditional diplomacy would not be effective in the modern world. Many countries have been adopting new tactics to deal with diplomacy in respect to the recent changes in the technological sector and international relations with other countries.
Benefit from Our Service: Save 25% Along with the first order offer - 15% discount, you save extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page
As a counter argument, research suggests that the possibility that Guerilla diplomacy may not be the future diplomacy also stands. The option of public diplomacy would be potent too. Public diplomacy has its benefits and advantages to both the country as a whole and the individuals in the country. There has been a renewed attention given to public diplomacy that has been considered ‘new’. The ministry of foreign affairs has been considering the new foreign diplomacy. This should be adopted by all other countries in the world. This new public diplomacy involves a two-way communication. In the past, the policies would just be promoted without the consultation of any member. The new policy involves all members’ views in its policymaking. They can discuss the issues to be addressed by the government. This would be called the two-way communication. All sides would give their opinions; they would be listened to and addressed appropriately. This new public diplomacy could be the future diplomacy. It does not require any hard tasks, like the Guerilla diplomacy does. It simply deals with the simple ideology of communication as a two-way traffic method. The Guerilla diplomats do not have this type of communication. This shows that public diplomacy better suits the future diplomacy.
Throughout the study of diplomacy by various scholars, it has been a success thus far. It shows that diplomacy has undergone a lot of changes in the international relations. These changes are marked by the shifts experienced, behavioral norms, and the creation of new international customs. New solutions have been considered as a necessity to new challenges. This shows the importance of diplomacy to the contemporary world. Copeland can be considered to have been a patriot since he tried to find solutions to his countries’ relations. The Guerilla Diplomacy remains a major option to the future of diplomacy. Another option would be a new public policy which has been adopted by several countries. The same scholars have been analyzing the diplomatic developments that have occurred. They can cause the change in the nature of diplomatic representation in that it covers more accountability. There has been great emphasis on accountability as a quality of diplomacy in the recent days.
Russia has resolved to acquire public diplomacy. This has resulted in a lot of developments in the country, which is contrary to the current social, political, and economic state of the country. Despite these facts, Russia has enhanced good relations with its trading states, and has accomplished a positive improvement in its economy and international relations.
Diplomacy should be taught as relevant to the contemporary circumstances. It shows how to talk to one another not only as citizens or professionals but also as people who have learned how to relate to one another. Guerilla diplomacy perceives the nation as a global village, and therefore is obliged to manage globalization among the nations. It deals with issues like insecurity, terrorism, criminals, and other threats caused by lack of proper relationship with other countries. Every country would want to avoid any conflict with the countries that could harm them with such calamities. They lack peace and, therefore, uphold diplomacy in their government. For peace to prevail, there has to be the diplomacy that helps in the international relations. Countries with a satisfactory relationship with one another live in peace. This diplomacy should be applied to the domestic issues of the country before they apply to the international affairs.
America had never liked diplomacy. The US thought that they had been allies with Pakistan until the 9/11 bombing. The US discovered that Al Qaida from Pakistan had been behind the terrorist attack. They later discovered that the international relationships with Pakistan were not good. They successfully used diplomacy to gain trust of the Pakistanis. The US made rapid agreements with the Pakistani government. This was necessary since they wanted to capture the Taliban activists led by Bin Laden. Pakistan would have been the main country to make agreements with after collaborating with others, like Turkey.
The US won in the agreement with the Pakistan. They decided to make a rapid agreement so that Pakistan would have to agree to the terms and conditions fast without delay. This confirms that diplomacy had been a success in dealing with the security in the country. In the past, Pakistan had a good relationship with the US. This relationship changed after the 9/11 attack. The US maintained diplomacy to win in the capturing of the responsible nations. This shows the importance of diplomacy.
Guerilla diplomacy has still been practiced in the US. It seems they had taken Copeland’s ideas and put them into action. They used Guerilla diplomacy with the Chinese. The US had been in discussion about increasing the validity of the visas. Citizens in China would have to visit the country for very short periods since the visas had to expire after a short term. The US tried to persuade the Chinese citizens into increasing the terms indicated on the visas, but unsuccessfully. They employed the use of guerilla diplomacy to win them over. The Chinese had no idea of the plan of the US government. They made an agreement and shared views on the issue. The US tried to make the Chinese see the sense in their demand. They won when the Chinese accepted the deal. The visa terms were increased to a longer time than the previous.
In conclusion, diplomacy should be found in every country government. Countries that have diplomacy appear to grow very well in international relationships. Guerilla diplomacy may not be the future diplomacy, as it often turns violent. In the present day, Guerilla tactics have been violent when their demands are not addressed. This may not help in the international relations, as it often leads to conflict. A country with domestic conflict experiences rough international relations with other countries. Copeland may have wanted the best for his country, but according to the modern society, Guerilla diplomacy may not be the best solution to solve challenges.
Guerilla diplomacy is likely to solve some challenges in the international relations. It helps in deciding issues to help in international relations with other nations. This would help a lot in economic relations in the countries as well. Trade relations can be set up only among countries with good relationships. Diplomacy helps for economic positions as well. Copeland and Kissinger expressed their views on diplomacy in their writing. They supported each other about the need for diplomacy in the future. They both argue that countries should adopt new tactics of diplomacy that consider modern developments. As the world embraces new challenges, diplomacy should be able to come up with new solutions to the challenges. They should be effective and help in peaceful negotiations. In case of any misunderstandings between countries, diplomacy helps solve them peacefully and results in better relationships with the country in question.