The Evolution of Diplomacy
Ever since the existence of the human settlements, people have felt the need to communicate with each other. Even in ancient times, savages negotiating with other savages needed professionals to discuss issues such as the removal of injured and dead bodies after war. Diplomacy, therefore, evolved in response to mutual need to talk among societies, region and states.
For centuries, diplomacy has been the domain of a particular elite group of people. The diplomats worked quietly and secretly until they were ready to unveil their achievements or lack thereof. Diplomats were comfortable and secure in this closed environment, communicating to each other and paying little attention to those public whose future might be shaped by their work.
During the 1900s the fast-evolving communication boom, rise of international organizations and protection of peace in the face of large causalities in modern warfare, demanded a vibrant diplomatic service as a mechanism towards peace. The world was changing and peacemakers were becoming concerned about long term effects of the processes. Diplomacy had steadily developed as the means through which sovereign rulers communicated with their counterparts. The growing complexities that the new emerging order produced in Europe, especially through World Wars I and II, and new complexities in the power, size and efficiency among states resulted in large activities both bilateral and multilateral. Hence, the need for active missions manned by professional diplomats came into existence. Their functions included;
a) Observing and reporting on political, military, economic and social development in host country,
b) Promoting bilateral relations,
c) Representing at official and informal level,
d) Protecting the interests of the sending country,
e) Assuring welfare of the citizens of the sending state etc.
As per the British diplomat, Harold Nicolson, “In the days of old diplomacy, it would have been considered an act of unthinkable vulgarity to appeal to the common people on any issue of international policy.” Today, Nicolson’s “unthinkable vulgarity” has become a crucial part of diplomacy, and it would be a stupid act to refuse to consider the common people when conducting international relations. The popularization of personal media tools such as mobile phones, tablets, laptops, and similar devices have empowered individuals in unprecedented ways. People no longer feel the need to rely on traditional news providers, which bears the risk of being influenced if not controlled by governments.
These days, individuals carry devices in their pockets and have access to a vast array of platforms ranging from satellite television channels to social media enterprises such as Twitter and Facebook. In this new age of information, people collect information from diverse sources, spread their own views, and participate in nonstop virtual communication. An intrusion into the diplomatic process by a member of the public may require only a tap on the available devices. The governmental gatekeepers who restricted access to information and formed much of its content have been pushed aside by the individuals seeking out and spreading their own views. Diplomats feel the repercussions from this process, and while diplomacy may have been an elitist enterprise for many centuries, it is now opening up in the sense that people can know more about diplomatic activity and can choose to make their own voices heard. This is, to a great extent, the result of media-based empowerment of the public. In this digital age where everything bit of information is travelling at a fast pace, diplomats often find themselves compelled to move at a similar pace. Therefore, they must swiftly adapt to a strange and inhospitable new world in which the interests of diverse publics must be addressed quickly before they can cause implications in the dealings between nations and states.
These new media instruments that are changing journalism are also responsible for the decline in the insularity of diplomacy. Hence, “public diplomacy” has come into existence, which basically means that governments must not only communicate vital information to other governments, but also address their public. The public can be reached out through devices such as satellite television and social media. Moreover, public diplomacy is no longer an optional requirement; rather it has become an essential part of diplomacy.
Referring to the types of diplomacy, In 1981, Joseph V. Montville, then a U.S. State Department employee, coined the terms track one and track two diplomacy. Track one consisted of formal negotiations between nations conducted by professional diplomats. Whereas, track two diplomacy referred to conflict resolution efforts by professional non-governmental conflict resolution practitioners and theorists. Track two primarily entailed the reduction or resolution of conflict, within a state or between states, by lowering the anger or tension or fear that exists, through improved communication and a better understanding of each other’s viewpoint. The efforts of these conflict resolution professionals (sometimes retired officials), generally operating through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and universities, arose from the realization by diplomats and others that formal official government-to-government interactions were not necessarily the most effective methods for securing international cooperation or resolving differences.
Diplomacy that operates as a closed hub has not yet gone out of order, but that practice is increasingly seen as obsolete and ineffective. The mechanisms of foreign policy must oblige to the increasing expectations of the always curious public. The future of diplomacy is now being shaped by new media, new public, and new manifestations of political power. We are now witnessing large amount of data being collected across the world. Embassies might soon become a storage unit for big data collection, which will allow the foreign policy leadership to better understand the population they are dealing with which will be of great aid to the diplomats in performing their tasks. The rapid expansion in informatics and mass media has put additional pressure on diplomatic missions. The time lines are getting tighter and public is now more demanding. The services and its professional have to be very vigilant.
To conclude, diplomats should educate and make themselves accustomed to the new array of media related instruments as this will grant them the opportunity to merge their work with the lives of the very people they seek to serve.
