The plethora of opinions questioning the efficacy of diplomats in the age of globalization have been on the rise since the beginning of this century. Some are doubtful of the necessity of outdated global diplomatic groups in an age of instantaneous communication while the rest are critical of the financial investments made on them for merely flying flags and lighting bulbs. Some critics opine that NGOs and journalists could deliver equal information and investigation sooner and better than most cumbrous diplomatic machines. Most of these essential questions is rooted in the advancements in globalization. Therefore, it becomes necessary to address the core questions before analyzing the impacts that globalization has on diplomatic practices. The very first question is inevitably the meaning and implications of globalization with respect to diplomacy. To define globalization, it would be helpful to refer to David Held’s definition that elucidates the process as the “widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life’’ (Held 2017). According to socialists, globalization materialized after the Cold War with the collapse of international borders the extension of systems (social or political) to encouraging inter-dependence and regular interactions between countries, powered by the dual forces of commercial liberalization and advanced technology. However, it cannot be denied that what people term as post-cold war era is merely the later phase of globalization, since the process is as old as humanity itself. Some scholars are of the opinion that the growth in communication equipment along with the dawn of twin blocs (western and eastern) polarity at the end of the epoch have made significant contributions to the emergence of an intensive and better (effective) diplomatic action. (Vranješ and Zelji? 2013) Scholars have also viewed the changes in Diplomatic habits from the perspectives of obligatory interdependencies in present times. One of these perspectives detects how introducing multiple elements into the diplomatic platform is usually propelled by the penalties of a tangible consumer fiscal revolution—a change where the natural requirements and responses of individuals configure the outline of diplomacy, hence the indispensability for a diplomacy evolution. (Kickbusch and Ivanova 2013) Whereas the suggestions of some plainly refer to an overpowering transition from a traditional diplomacy form to a discreetly modern one.
The newest stage of globalization is undoubtedly a surge driven by technology, although the relativity of its components and the pace of transitions caused by several other progresses in human history ought to have steered in eras which are most likely to have impacted equally tough effects on the bygone generations of civilization. Eminent Yale University professor Nayan Chanda has never been a recently developed idea, but an ancient method of interconnectedness that has four primary group to credit for its existence and growth: traders, adventurers, warriors and preachers. Scholars have further extended their research to introduce the concept of hyperglobalization, which, according to Dani Rodrik is driven by an astonishing change in technological usages. (Rodrik 2018) While there is no undermining the worldwide attempts at economic interdependence, it left several gaps in the politics of interdependence with no efforts for making parallel developments in global consciousness and ethics. This economic space failed to transform itself into political space unlike the case for earlier examples of production, when industrial revolution aided the formation of metropolitan states into cohesive and organized units. This brings us to the heart of the matter: what are the outcomes of globalization in a rapidly developing world and to what extent does it affect diplomatic practices around the world?
The potential of globalization in elevating people culturally, intellectually and scientifically while aiding economic and social welfare remains a favorite discussion topic for journalists and news reporters. (Robert et al 2014) Although the notion is attacked by socialist thinkers who view globalization as a demarcation that perpetuates discrimination and inequity through unregulated trade and ‘trickle down economy’. Examining the political effects of globalization arises similar questions. The structure is such that people are made to live through the dramatic alterations in power between East and West, North and South. The progression in technology has significantly blurred the international borders, while the state has yielded certain authorities to multilateral units. This trend has witnessed a downward slope as power dissipates among individuals living in civil society, and this process is accredited to globalization. Challenges relating to transnationalism were thought to further corrode the state affairs following the Cold War, along with increasing the power of multinational (government allied) agencies. The ECB might currently exert massive power all over the Eurozone as well as the world, although the 2008 financial crisis that declared an urgent need for regulation of state and international economy is indicative of the loopholes that globalization entails. As per the reports of the crisis, the state was the only entity that could rescue the system of banking. (Chodorow 2013) Banks had to be re-nationalized and brought under the tighter grip of national regulators. The other national relapses on the global platform like country and state oriented restrictions and censorships, the internet etc. are equally relevant and interesting to the context of the topic. However, the process of globalization does not collapse permanently due these hiatuses or temporary glitches. Globalization is a mounting interconnectedness, always on the go, ever-implementing, ever rising, rather unprecedented and exclusive.
Focusing on the second half of the topic, what is diplomacy? It is only sensible to state that diplomacy, like globalization, is as old as the history of humanity. It dates back to humans’ inclination towards forming relationships, and diplomacy is essentially about relationships. Going by the ideas of ancient political thinker, Machiavelli, diplomacy is nothing but a device for deception that enables the state to attain more power. (Black 2013) A deeper analysis of the process will reveal diplomacy as neither the creation nor the pursuit of any particular system of politics, but a fundamental element in a rational relationship between one nation with another and man to (wo)man. The matter and form of diplomacy and the practices associated with it would different drastically today from what it used to be earlier in history. In more specific terms, diplomacy is the art of creating and constructing that uses relationships as means to an end. (Nicholson 2014) It is the curiosity to remain updated on the ambitions, resources and drawbacks of those with whom one wishes to deal with. G.R Berridge is right in defining diplomacy as an activity (necessarily political) that facilitate the actor’s pursuit of objectives, defending their respective interests through concessions without using force, law or propaganda. It functions through communication between among entities, planned to strike out deals (informal or formal). Commutations like these are assisted by clarifying objectives and intentions, assimilating information and stimulating goodwill. Diplomats are expected to perform the following roles: to negotiate on the sending state’s behalf, to endorse healthier relationships between the receiving and delivering state, to report after gathering information on the state (host), to provide a podium for consular happenings, to protect and defend the respective interests of the sending state while safeguarding national interests.
Addressing the core issue, has globalization, in any way, changed the nature and proceedings of diplomacy? The immediate, obvious answer that can be derived from the discussion so far is ‘yes’. Diplomacy has never been static and neither is globalization, from what is known of it. It is more appropriate to state that diplomacy has been successful in making methodological, rather than natural changes in diplomacy as it continues to revolve around building, utilizing and maintaining relations. Globalization has somehow succeeded in introducing a heftiness in the framework of the international diplomatic system. Several observations are geared towards diplomacy that is all encompassing. Diplomacy cannot operate without involving multiple actors including global organization and reprobate actors (Rose 2014). Globalization have shifted the focal point of diplomacy towards the reinforcement of manifold and sometimes superfluous involvement of actors (usually multiple) to integrate operative diplomatic actions. Most of these primary actors evolve to adapt new, modified diplomatic framework, which propagates one on one interactions with actors from outside state. This may lead to the substantial changes in the diplomatic practices of the 21st century. Universally recognized organizations like the World Bank or International Monetary Fund have a strong presence and prevalence in the transnational political arena. A change in their operative functions affect the interactive actions globally. To define diplomacy more broadly, it is a contemplated exchange between the political affairs of different states. Considered this way, the impact of globalization does not seem much challenging to diplomats of modern day as the necessary changes it makes appears negligible to diplomatic practices. However, if diplomatic practices involve exchange of written documents between states, where states are a centralized autonomy, bound by hierarchy and polity that first developed in Europe before spreading across entire world over past centuries, then globalization becomes an active force of diplomatic practices, spatial organization being the main reason behind this. The state is a political body that follows a territorial manner of organization. According to Weber it is a willing (pertaining to the ideological state apparatus) or forced (pertaining to repressed state apparatus) to claimed monopoly. (Weber 2013) While Schumpeter views the state as a demanded autonomy on taxation (Schumpeter 2016), Durkhem claims it to be a link of domination betweenea society that is bounded spatially and the elitists with power. In either case, the definitions talk about an exclusive spatial domain that tend to retain identical characteristics at any given time. The components of the explanation may vary from scholar to scholar, but the essential principles remains the same over time. To put it in strictly political terms, Globalization intrinsically includes de-territorialisation, which imposes a problematic trial for the state.
Both diplomacy and globalization keep networking and changing procedures ever since the time ambassadors were exchanged for the first time, hence neither of them is a new occurrence. Globalization must have altered certain significant aspects on which the nature of diplomacy rests even though it may not have revamped the same. It should be particularly mentioned that diplomacy cannot function without sovereignty irrespective of whether the sending party is the crown or the state. (Benwell and Pinkerton 2014) The democratic structure of western states have altered significantly since the Medieval Ages which was also the age of the first propositions and consequent practices of diplomacy (residential). A Nation-State oriented world like Europe enables diplomatic services to operate more globally as it has access to multiple set of rules extending to different empires, cities and states. Therefore, the impact of globalization might tamper with national sovereignty or in some cases, even restore it back to balance. Referring to earlier instances of globalization, it empowered the state at the cost of other conflicting units, whereas now it is most probable to rebalance the prominent previous status. The undeniable fact is that states do not or cannot maintain autonomy on sovereignty be it the communicative sector or the economic one. Although the states have successfully retained a domination (Monopoly) on the exertion of force but for matters concerning political and economic areas, globalization and the pace with which it extends have significantly weakened national sovereignty. This affects diplomacy and the practices involving it in several ways. Firstly, foreign ministries (both national and international) can no longer share an exclusive space of diplomacy. Almost all mediums and units of communicative services, like the civil society and non-government organization, faith groups (most with ethical or spiritual purposes) and most importantly, the media is occupied with gaining access to the diplomatic space. These organizations engage themselves from different ends via agents of diplomatic services. Secondly, there is the blurred lines between domestic and foreign frontiers. It must be noted that the implications of foreign policy has crucial effects on domesticity. Similarly, foreign policy is spread and shared across a handsome amount of local government actors as their particular responsibilities always operate via international dimensions. It is therefore a synthesis of traditional distinctions between diplomats and native civil servants and this is not necessarily devoid of risk factors since the perceptions, objectives and set of skills differ distinctly from nation to nation. Thirdly, it is nearly impossible for modern day diplomacy to deal with unsuccessful (in terms of global approach) states or states that are highly influenced or dominated by religious movements (radical or traditional). It takes two or more partners who contemplate and reason for a diplomatic relation to function properly. The partners must act in a rational and predictable manner to maximize their influence. (Baylis et al 2017) The fourth and the most dramatic aspect is the trope of communication. Globalization in the modern era has ushered a wave of multiple transformations and transitions in communication and technology. The ready availability of resources and information about far beyond places of the world at the pace of a breadth is certainly different from what it used to be some decades back. Hardly anyone recalls the bygone days when a diplomatic carrier with a note of correspondence and one or three week allocated time for a deliberated reply. Diplomacy today is part of the instant process functioning both with good and bad will. This shrink in time was initiated by merchants and military, but battled by diplomats who were not willing to use technology as the chief medium for communication, although they later adopted technological tools for communicating with the far ends of the world. (Leshner) The main reason for such unwillingness is generally associated with the anxiety of compromising private and confidential information. As the records of history suggest, any social changes seem to petrify the diplomats particularly but like any other organization functioning within society, diplomats too are compelled to be responsive. With globalization, there came the emergence of the free market enterprise. It surreptitiously interferes with the internal matters of the countries by enforcing the host country to change their politics. For instance, a market originated in the US will have to acquire an idea about the rules and regulations of a foreign country where it wishes to conduct trade and business. This inevitable tampers with the secrecy of information within territories as they have to compromise on confidential matters for enabling market growth and extending international relations. Another noteworthy aspect is the backdated notion of third world countries that look up to the western countries for liberation and advancements, without realizing that in most cases these first world orders only perpetrate exploitation in the name of exposure and progress. Many developing or underdeveloped countries are running at a loss due to the exploitative tendencies of the developed nations. Additionally, foreign aids come in form of loans and the method followed in spending the sum of money is dictated by the donor (giving country) nation thereby reducing the autonomy of the borrower (receiving country). In the process, they end up in an endless debt trap whereby they take more loans to pay off the previous loans.
Henrikson uses the philosophy and teachings of Kant to illustrate a predictive version of diplomatic services. (Henrikson 2017) He notes how the glide of all modern international systems are anchored on the same ground. It can be asserted from his work that real diplomacy dies with the creation of a superimposing and overlaying body that navigates the ship of worldly affairs. The reason why modern diplomacy prefers the dominance of international laws that is run by an intercontinental government, is because it is the easiest way through which every state has a fair chance to integrate power proficiently by means of diplomacy. Contemporary diplomacy and its framework serve merely as an excuse for practicing hegemony in the globalized system of politics, if one consider the innumerable instances of unjustified dominance and corruption involved in diplomatic practices. The theory of diplomacy should therefore be centered on the analysis of matters concerning global affairs from a political perspective involving mutual negotiation. (Kirshner 2013) The incredible dearth that diplomatic ideas have been suffering from throughout the entire course of post-world war era is indicative of the effects that globalization has on the political undertakings of diplomacy. Essentially diplomacy generates space for Nations to secure the goals of their respective foreign policies notwithstanding the practice of law, force and propaganda. This arises the question of the extent to which diplomatic practice and theory has situational impacts on a global level, and opens the channel of discussion regarding the benefits of modern diplomacy in the same domain. On a holistic note, diplomacy can be seen as the very soul of all functioning political acts. One of the vital survival tactics of diplomacy is the quest for knowledge, while the offering of relevant solution (internationally) through negotiable terms is also one among the survival strategies of diplomacy. (Ruel et al 2016) The instrumental nature of Globalization has enabled diplomacy to transcend the bounds of traditional play of power politics to undertake a new platform for an all-covering superstructure that aims to harmonize and assimilate interests. The breakdown of bilateralism along with the evolution of the Europe concert has led to the emergence of such a structure. Some argue that a contemporary form perforates the diplomacy of modern day, whose procedure and framework revolves around a theory of legalistic monism. Traditional practices of diplomacy is remarkably different from such philosophies. Moreover, the function of diplomacy in an age of globalization is to initiate a change in the basic principles of traditional diplomacy and modifying some fundamental conceptions of the same. Diplomacy and the practices concerned with it have always managed to surpass the ancient system of highbrow politics between state and the international scheme. In this context, high politics is perceived from a global unipolar perspective. The discussion would be incomplete without mentioning austerity measures imposed by the governments to give in to the spirit of globalization, generated by the champions of globalization, namely the MNCS and TNCS. These enterprises are large-scale industries with extended markets all over the world access information about the governmental and political codes of foreign countries.(Hist 2015) Further, homogenization of the concept of globalization increases the purchasing power of giving countries which might ruin the indigenous local cultures.
Today the central challenge for traditional government institutions is the multitude of actors. Power is now so diffused that there is a risk of taking effective and collective action. The world is now in a new operating global environment with stokehold engagement and social license that has become absolutely central to closing the central to closing the government’s gap. (Baylis 2017) Having approval from a handful of leads in business and government is no longer enough. Organizations require a wide range of partners to craft the way forward that is expected as fair. This is especially important because the challenges of the future are crassly different from past ones (Baine 2017). The way an organization prepare for them, understand them and work to solve them cannot be modeled on past practices. Therefore, analyzing the field of scientific diplomacy is highly relevant in this context. Diplomacy and international policy in terms of what it is for, has always been about finding a way to peace, prosperity, security and development. During the 20th century and through the cold war it was widely believed that the best way for assuring these was through defense. From what can be gathered from the discussion, it is no longer defense, or the use of armed force, but rather through diplomacy (given the nature of the challenges) that a nation can guarantee security and stability for the state. The five features that define this kind of transformed operative functions in the 21st century and that have created the special opportunities for science diplomacy are: the march of globalization, the emerging heteropolis, shifting power, the emerging security/development nexus, and the ascending of new threat sets. The term globalization is highly totalizing and paradoxical. It is a compressing space, it is accelerating time, territorializing politics, integrating culturally as well as politically, connecting as much as differentiating, creating, creating wealth but not for all. Globalization polarizes, increases inequality, socializes costs and privatizes benefits. It is, if nothing else, volatile, complex and bijous. (Watson 2013) One of its hallmarks, the revolution in information technology, has enormously facilitated collaboration across borders, and hence adherers the connection between science and technology. If one looks at the profile of scientific researches, it is evident that it is increasingly less national and more international.
If it is believed that the growths in the structure of globalization has fundamentally changed the practices in diplomacy there are reasons for people to remain relaxed about some of the above cited issues. Globalization has witnessed further pressure on the accountability of recruitment structure as far as multifaceted diplomacy is concerned. (White 2015) About few decades back, it was observed that the compressed space and time have prioritized information speed along with changing the ways in which people perceive the world. Shifting phases of social advancement and globalization have evolved the world to what people are able to view today. (Garcia 2013)The metamorphosis of diplomacy can be traced back to the most primitive form of human discourse. However, the emergence of United Nations have assisted the evolution of diplomacy from traditional, rather outdated methods to well modified and legalistic method. Within the framework of the New World Order that is so prevalent in today’s world of international politics, a domain of philosophical duality cannot escape the notice of scholars researching on international relations. Traditional diplomacy under this dual structure, assumes an auxiliary to the mechanism designed on the principles of new diplomacy. The reason why new diplomacy is prevailing over traditional forms is rooted in the existence of the United Nations, that follows a philosophy that caters exclusively to modern methods. Although, some critics of modern diplomacy has rightly pointed out the unsteady grounds on which it stands, and the soft skin it wears which makes contemporary diplomacy prone to failure owing to political resistance. (Duanmu 2014) Globalization, regrettably has ignored the diplomat’s role and also reduced the significance of foreign ministries. Foreign policies have made diplomacy one of its dependent variables and hence, must function adhering to the original norms and regulations for achieving its definitive objectives. Diplomacy has suffered a setback in its everyday practice due to the advent of a New World Organization. (Nowotney 2018) Undoubtedly, the most instrumental tool of globalization is the internet at the wake of the New World Order. This obligates the nations to extend the networks of diplomacy, which is indebted to the rush of communiqué and info technology. This circumstance loads the diplomats with the burden of wincing a maximum amount of information for abetting the process of decision making and formulating foreign policies.(Hettne 2016) Globalization has compromised on the secrecy and confidentiality of diplomatic practices as it propelled openness of diplomacy. Within the ambience of contemporary political affairs, the evasion of ministries (foreign) and the demotion of diplomats is due to the tendencies of individuals to participate more directly with the world outside without having to depend on any bureaucracy. It can also be argued that the interdependence among nations has severely affected the ways in which foreign policies, government structures and diplomatic practices are modeled.
It would be appropriate to conclude that globalization may be accredited to extending the horizons of diplomatic services, but it cannot be undermined that it has made substantial contribution to the congenital decline of diplomacy. According to the scholarly suggestions the sphere of diplomacy may be annexed by externalities, it only makes sense to state that the business operations of diplomacy have more or less remained where it should be. Globalization have imposed a limitation on the exclusivity of diplomatic behavior since they can no longer enjoy the unbounded flow of information. Essentially, the role of globalization in changing the practices and processes of diplomacy cannot be underestimated given the circumstances and reasons discussed above. The analysis on the topic sheds light on the ways in which globalization have kept changing the nature of diplomatic practices, subtly yet concretely.
References:
Acuto, M., 2013. Global cities, governance and diplomacy: The urban link. Routledge.
Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. eds., 2017. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press.
Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. eds., 2017. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press.
Bayne, N., 2017. Current Challenges to Economic Diplomacy. In The New Economic Diplomacy: Decision Making and Negotiation in International Economic Relations (pp. 97-116). Routledge.
Beck, U., 2018. What is globalization?. John Wiley & Sons.
Black, R., 2013. Machiavelli. Routledge.
Bohac, R. and Lipkova, L., 2016. Cataracts of globalization and the economic diplomacy of small states. ??????????? ???????-???, (159), pp.16-20.
Chodorow-Reich, G., 2013. The employment effects of credit market disruptions: Firm-level evidence from the 2008–9 financial crisis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(1), pp.1-59.
Duanmu, J.L., 2014. State-owned MNCs and host country expropriation risk: The role of home state soft power and economic gunboat diplomacy. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(8), pp.1044-1060.
Garcia, F.J., 2013. Globalization, Power, States, and the Role of Law. BC Int’l & Comp. L. Rev., 36, p.903.
Gregory, B., 2014. The Paradox of US Public Diplomacy: Its Rise and “Demise”. Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.
Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2017). Globalization/anti-globalization: Beyond the great divide. Polity.
Henriksen, A. and Rahbek-Clemmensen, J., 2017. The Greenland Card: Prospects for and Barriers to Danish Arctic Diplomacy in Washington. Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook, 1, pp.75-98.
Hettne, B. ed., 2016. The new regionalism and the future of security and development (Vol. 4). Springer.
Hirst, P., Thompson, G. and Bromley, S., 2015. Globalization in question. John Wiley & Sons.
Kickbusch, I. and Ivanova, M., 2013. The history and evolution of global health diplomacy. In Global Health Diplomacy (pp. 11-26). Springer, New York, NY.
Kirshner, J., 2013. Globalization and national security. Routledge.
Kjellén, B., 2014. A new diplomacy for sustainable development: the challenge of global change. Routledge.
Leshner, A., The partnership of scientists and diplomats. Science & Diplomacy, 3(4), p.1.
Nowotny, T., 2018. Diplomacy and global governance: The diplomatic service in an age of worldwide interdependence. Routledge.
Pinkerton, A. and Benwell, M., 2014. Rethinking popular geopolitics in the Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty dispute: Creative diplomacy and citizen statecraft. Political Geography, 38, pp.12-22.
Roberts, J.T., Hite, A.B. and Chorev, N. eds., 2014. The globalization and development reader: Perspectives on development and global change. John Wiley & Sons.
Rodrik, D., 2013. The Globalization Paradox. Democracy and the Future of the World Economy, p.253.
Rose, N., 2014. Harold Nicolson. Random House.
Ruël, H.J. and Wolters, T., 2016. Business diplomacy. The Sage Handbook of Diplomacy.
Sending, O.J., Pouliot, V. and Neumann, I.B. eds., 2015. Diplomacy and the making of world politics (Vol. 136). Cambridge University Press.
Vranješ, N. and Zelji?, D., 2013. The impact of globalization on the diplomacy of small countries with a focus on the foreign ministry. DEMOCRACY AND NEED FOR SECURITY SEA , p.63.
Watson, A., 2013. Diplomacy: the dialogue between states. Routledge.
White, C. and Kolesnicov, I., 2015. Nation branding in a transitional democracy: The role of corporate diplomacy in promoting national identity. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 11(4), pp.324-337.
White, C.L., 2015. Exploring the role of private-sector corporations in public diplomacy. Public Relations Inquiry, 4(3), pp.305-321.
White, C.L., 2015. Exploring the role of private-sector corporations in public diplomacy. Public Relations Inquiry, 4(3), pp.305-321.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download