FP5.pptx

Diplomacy
 refer to ‘ the application of intelligence and tact to
the conduct of official relations between
governments of independent states (Satow, 1917,
p.ix).
 a formal practices and methods whereby states
conduct their foreign relations including:
o Exchange of ambassadors
o Dispatch of messages among official
representatives

 In modern days, diplomacy involves:
 it involves both formal and informal ways of
communication where the chances of leaders and
citizens becomes significant
 Summit diplomacy : due to the benefit of ICT,
LEADERS themselves engage in bargaining and
communication
 Includes Multilateral approach
 Practices in open manner/ public diplomacy

Development of Diplomacy
1) Increasing relevance of bargaining process over
warfare in Europe,
2) Shift from ‘secrecy’ to ‘open’ kind of diplomacy;
and the concomitant development to multilateral
diplomacy than the exclusive focus on bilateral
diplomacy .
3) Submit diplomacy where leaders encounter-face –
to face than through traditional head of
missions(amabasadors) –intermediaries

4) The development of Technology
The development of nuclear energy-negative
development
The ICT- positively changed the spread of
interaction where extensive communication
reduced the level (a) asymmetry of information
between the Westphalia state –closed sovereign
state that should control in out of citizens and aliens

5) Regime Development
 to regulate issues of common concerns including
Nuclear energy, trade, fiancé ,environment , human
rights violations.. etc.;
Regimes, in the form of international agreements
stipulating rules and regulations of conduct and –
at best – allowing for sanctions against those
parties that do not comply with the understandings
that have been made, can compensate for lack of
trust by imposing control.

They provide information about the parties’
behavior and monitor their activities;
Regimes, in transforming negotiations into
increasingly rationalized tools, dealt with the
problem of trust in an effective way. The
development of trust is the third remarkable trend
in the evolution of inter-state negotiation;

6) The notion of power has increasingly been diffused as
compared to the classical period:
 decentralization,
 globalization, even
 the emergence of terrorist organization has put
limitation on the perception and use of power as force
• So instead of resolving issues through force,
negotiation has become the norms
7) The emergence of International organization:
• (both private and public)
• Global(universal-regional-sub-regional), IMF,
IBRD,WTO, UN and subsidiary organs .. etc

Diplomatic norms and practices facilitating conflict
resolution:
coexistence and reciprocity(exchanging things for
mutual benefit) ;
open communication channels;
shared language; commitment to peace;
diplomatic immunity; and
pacta sunt servanda- meaning agreements must be
kept in good faith (Jönsson and Aggestam, 2009).

Diplomatic Negotiation as instrument of FP
A) What is Negotiation
• is the peaceful management of common and
opposing interests and values of sovereign states
through the process of give and take.
• negotiation is an instrument in diplomacy
• Negotiation can be used to avoid wars, and but
paradoxically it is nearly always used after wars
are over.

B) When to use Negotiation?
Context matters.
 The question of whether negotiation and bargaining
will be effective as a tool in conflict resolution is
also very much connected to its context.
 William Zartman (Zartman, 2005) postulates that
we need a push and a pull in order to start any
negotiation process and to create an outcome.
 The push is the ‘mutual hurting stalemate’ : a
status quo that is painful for all the involved parties,
to the extent that they prefer a change (through
negotiation) over the situation into which they are
locked.

 At the same time there should be a perceived way
out of the deadlock: the pull in the form of a
‘mutual enticing (providing pleasure) opportunity’
 The idea of the ‘mutual hurting stalemate’(MHS) is
not applicable in every cultural context
• However, it(MHS) may well be a typically Western
rationalist notion.
• There are cultures, for instance, where suffering is the
highest good. The hero is the one who suffers. In such
a cultural context, suffering is more likely to aggravate
the problem of negotiation than to resolve it.

C) Nature of Negotiation
 there are two or more parties;
who have a conflict of needs and desires;
they choose to negotiate because they think it is in
their interest to do so;
give and take’ is to be expected;
they prefer negotiation over open fighting

D) Negotiation Process
A negotiation process means going through various phases:
 preparation and diagnosis,
 information, searching for formulations,
 bargaining, and
 the drafting of all the details (Dupont and Faure, 1991).
The way in which parties reach a settlement can also be
divided into three categories.
1) Synthesis of interests
 In the first place, there is the procedure whereby parties
would like to see all-important points included in the
settlement
 A synthesis is often difficult to reach and even more
difficult to implement.

2) Synergy (cooperation for a combined effect) of
interests:
 when one tries to work not from a partial interest, but
from a mutual interest.
These kinds of results can be very satisfying, and can be
well implemented.
However, requirements include a very good
atmosphere during the negotiations, and lots of time.
3) Compromise /compensation
Compromise comes in the form of mutual concessions,
in which each party loses some points and wins some,
or in which parties compensate each other for their
losses by trading concessions;

4) Implementation
• experienced negotiators will arrange the
agreement in such a way that it can be
implemented step by step in order to reduce
uncertainty (Jönsson, 2001).
• The implementation is, as it were, ingrained in the
agreement and still leaves room for negotiations
during the implementation process

E) What determines for success in the Negotiation
process?
I- Power differential thesis
II- The nature of the negotiator
III- The interactive argument
I) Does Power difference matter for success?
• It is interesting to note here that negotiation
processes between equal powers are as a rule not
very effective.
• Some power difference is needed in order to get
the negotiation process to flow.

• Power can be distinguished in three components:
1) behavioral power/power of conduct /: power
that is marginal and originates from the
negotiator ;
2) Structural power- power of the state being
represented ; and
3) Issue-specific power/Comparative power/: power
that belongs to the state regarding the issues
being negotiated(Habeeb, 1988).

Structural power
involves the total of power factors that are available
to a country in relation to that of other nations.
This power is determined by issues such as:
• the size and location (for example, a strategic
position) of the territory or state,
• the nature of its borders, its inhabitants, the
presence of natural resources,
• its economic structure and financial power
• the level of technological development:
“The fungibility of power’-ability to change the butter
into gun and vice versa

• Power difference is a necessary, but not a
sufficient, condition for explaining negotiation
results (Habeeb, 1988).
• comparative power should be drawn into the
analysis.
• By comparative power- the power structures
around the issues being negotiated, or the power
that is relevant in a particular situation.

• For example, does the Russian Federation, or the
Republic of Turkey for that matter, because of its
enormous army, have increased power over, for
example, Italy when negotiations are taking place
in the field of economic cooperation? That is very
doubtful.
• The existence of such an army certainly plays a role,
but the danger is neutralized by :
a) the politico–military coalitions in which Italy finds
itself-NATO +
b) Italy is famous in having technologies to produce
quality cars as compared to Turkey Or Russia

Comparative power is influenced by three factors.
1) the alternatives that might be available for the
relevant issue: the fewer alternatives a country has,
the weaker its cause.
2) to what extent has the country committed itself:
how far will willingness go to make use of its power
factors? Is there, for example, a willingness to weaken
a country’s economic power in favor of its military
power?
3) to what extent does the country have control over
the issues under negotiation?

II) Actor based arguments for effective negotiation
 To Rubin(2002), it is vital to ask the question ‘who is the
actor?’, as negotiation is very much about the choice of
partners.
• He then discusses the difference between actors who only
represent themselves and those acting as an agent for a
group of people, an organization, or a state –
• thus actors who need to be instructed, who need a mandate
written by their superiors.

Rubin sees five attributes of effective negotiators.
A) flexibility: negotiators will have to be flexible on means and
firm on goals.
B) be sensitive to various social cues about the other
negotiator, although this does not necessarily mean that
they have to react to that.
C) inventiveness is important: an effective negotiator has to
be creative.
D) a negotiator has to be patient and should not react right
away.
E) the negotiator should be tenacious; persistence is
important.

According to Mastenbroek ( 2002) effective
negotiator has to:
 realize his own interests;
 influence the power balance;
promote a constructive climate; and
 obtain flexibility.

• Mastenbroek noted that the most successful actors
were those who worked on the relationship with
the other side empathy (understand and share the
feeling of others) but not sympathy (favorable
attitude) – using the process for generating new
options and thereby ‘enlarging the cake’, while at
the same time being determined to get what they
wanted by using their power and influence in a
civilized way

• Lee Ross ( 2008 ) identifies three significant
barriers to successful negotiations: structural,
strategic, and psychological.
1) Structural barriers : domestic audience costs and
spoilers.
1.1. Audience costs- are those an actor “pays” when
displeasing some of its constituents
1.2. Spoilers- are actors who disrupt the peace
process among negotiators.

2) Strategic barriers include negotiating tactics such
as :
 bluffing(Mislead/deceive ) and
 secrecy.
3) psychological barriers include differing
conceptions of the past and reactive devaluation-
that actors will devalue proposals simply because they
were offered by an adversary that is not trusted

iii) Relational approach
 Focus on the interactive effects of diplomacy
Pruitt six conditions for building ‘working
relationships’.
1) rationality.
One should be rational, even if the other party acts
emotionally.
2) understand the other party, even if they do not
understand us.

3) communicate with them and consult them, even
if they are not listening.
4) be honest and trustworthy, even if the other
party tries to deceive you.
5) persuade them and do not go along with them if
they want to coerce.
6) be open to learning from the other party and care
about them, even if they reject your concerns

obstacles to efficiently reaching a negotiated
outcome:
a) objective choice is difficult if not impossible, and even
if the parties choose the best path, they might be
hindered in following it;
b) there is normally more than one criterion for choice;
and
c) there are process-generated stakes, meaning that
negotiators are not robots, but have an interest in
keeping up appearances, and that interest might
override the material interests for which they are
striving

In general Negotiation was seen as an instrument
to be used in situations where competition and
cooperation are both immanent.
• If competition is dominant, distributive
negotiation(win-lose) can be expected;
• where cooperation is the dominating mode(win-
win), integrative negotiation can be implemented

 despite these approaches , the practice of diplomacy
however involves the admixture of soft power and hard
power showing the significance of power difference among
the states
Carrot and stick Bargaining strategy
• It is the heart of the negotiation process: the phase of
compromising and compensating, of trading concessions
and emotions
1) The stick approach: Threats(hypothetical) and
punishment(action-real)
2) The carrot approach: promise(hypothetical) and
rewards(real)
Both 1& 2 can be used in combination

 N.B credibility and potency are ingredients for the
success of the bargaining process.
Credibility-state ‘A’ can intend fully to honor a promise or
to carry out a threat on state ‘B’.
Potency- in order for state ‘A’ to influence state ‘B’ , a
promise or threat by state ‘A’ must be believable and
sufficiently weighty in the eyes of the leader;
 promises and threats that are credible but lack potency are
likely to fail. Similarly promises and threats that might be
potent but lack credibility are likely to fail.

 Bluffing can also be used.
 Leaders can be bluffing in their promises or threat, but what
matters a is whether the target state is convinced.
‘A bluff taken seriously is more useful than a serious
threat (or promise) interpreted as bluff” Henry Kissinger

Coercive Diplomacy(CD)
What is it?
 It is a diplomatic method used by a country in
which the application of economic sanctions or
embargoes (stoppage), as well as the use of force or
military action, is threatened or hinted at in order to
force another country to give in to a certain demand
or not engage in a particular course of action(Perez,
2015, p.1)
Economic sanctions :
 Embargo- refusing to export needed goods
 boycotts –refusing to import
 freezing of foreign assets(expropriation )

 CD has been utilized throughout history as a tool of
foreign policy to present a peaceful alternative and means
to curtail military intervention or escalation to warfare.
reinforced the traditional mechanism of carrot and stick
approach to diplomacy
According to Mitchel, A framework limited to “carrots
and sticks” :
 ignores recent theoretical developments highlighting
the role that capacity, ideas, and norms play in state
decision making.
 it also constrains creative, systematic design of
untried—but potentially effective— nonproliferation
policies

• Accordingly a more ‘coercive ’ mechanism of carr
and stick-Coercive Diplomacy(CD) has gotten wi
currency among scholars and practitioners with t
view of curving the 21st challenges pertaining to
a) the Regulation of proliferation of Nuclear Ener
and
b) prevalence of ‘ rogue’-irresponsible states -wh
try to possess Nuclear power or any Weapons o
Mass Destruction(WMD)

Mitchell, Ronald B.(1997) ‘ international Control of
Nuclear proliferation : Beyond Carrot and Stick’ has
identified a bundled strategies of CD
1) deterrent and remunerative(give services)
strategies
o sticks and carrots—manipulate the consequences a
potential proliferant faces in an attempt to make
desirable behavior more attractive or undesirable
behavior less attractive;

Deterrents strategies involve :
 sanctions, threats, coercion, and other efforts to
discourage undesirable behavior by increasing its costs.
 Calls for “treaties with teeth” and for better
monitoring, verification, and enforcement
Remunerative strategies:
 Side payments or rewards

2) preventive and generative strategies
o reduce a potential proliferant’s opportunities for
undesirable behavior or increase the opportunities for
desirable behavior
Generative strategies
o Supplying Nuclear Energy for civilian purpose under strict
conditions could in away deny the usage of the material for
military purpose

Preventive strategies
o Preventive strategies seek to eliminate the choice of
noncompliance as an option rather than simply
making it less attractive
3) Cognitive and Normative strategies
o alter the potential proliferant’s perception of a given
reality, either by altering the information would be
proliferants have or the value that they attach to
certain behaviors and consequences.

Bruce Jentleson in ‘Coercive Diplomacy: scope and
limits in the Contemporary World’ applied coercive
diplomacy to explain the successes of US foreign
policy over Libya during M/Qadaffi.
He argues that Libya`s peaceful surrender to
eliminate WMD and permission to provide
compensation for the Lockerbie incident is the
result of the new Coercive Diplomatic style

Background
• US-Libya had rows since 1988 Pan AM 103-
Lockerbie case (in which 259 people including 189
Americans lost their lives ;
• Such relations was further strained by the ambition
of Muamur Gadhafi to acquire weapon of Mass
Destruction( WMD).
• Libya then agreed to eliminate WMD and offer
compensation to the Accident.
• What was the reason for Libya to surrender to US?

Jentleson argues that Libya`s peaceful surrender to
eliminate WMD and permission to provide compensation
for the Lockerbie incident is the result of the new coercive
diplomatic style that combined the following three
strategies;
1) Proportionality: making the objective policy –
rather than regime change ; the policy –not-regime
change reassurance provided though the secret talks
and other channels was critical

2) Reciprocity : involves carefully calibrated carrot
and stick diplomacy establishing step by step linkages
b/n the carrot offered and the concession made and
building trust after decades of bitter conflicts
3) Corrosive credibility : came from multilateral
economic sanctions and to some extent , although
much less than claimed by the Bush administration,
the backdrop of military force,

 The Vice Presidents of America, Dick Cheney’ was
reported to have said the following:
this was one of the bi product of …what we did
in Iraq and Afghanistan…..five days after we
captured Saddam Hussein , Muammar Qaddafi
came forward and announced that he was
going to surrender all of his nuclear materials
to the U.S( Jentleson,2006,P.2)

Propaganda
It involves the selective use of information to
induce in a target audience a desired perception of
certain political phenomena
The information selected may be either factual or
fabricated ( often it is a chemistry of fabrications+
factual(F+F)=P)
 Repetition and sensationalism is ch/stics of
successful propaganda
Example USA , use human right to china

• Falsified documents, photographs, films became
powerful media of prop
• Carefully designed fabricated disinformation will be
provided by propaganda machines
• the overall objectives is the defeat of the opponents;
• aims at the overthrow of the opponent often by
aiming at fomenting (stir up) a rebellion or other
transformation in domestic political arrangements;

• couched in this language explicitly adopt a
conflict mode
“if the object of war, either overt or covert, is the
breaking of the enemy’s will to resist, then
psychological warfare is a major dimension of
international conflict “
( Couloumbis and Wolf, 1981,p.139)
Tore kefetaw, were ye fetaw!
Ethiopian proverb.

??
In which system , dictatorial or democratic regime,
propaganda becomes successful? Why?

Public diplomacy
 It about image cultivation about ones state to wards
the other societies
• Public Diplomacy exist to create an image of the
nation in the minds of foreigners a positive image
will make foreigners want to support our policies,
visit (or emigrate) to our country, invest in our
industries or buy our goods and services
• Critical scholars have attacked nation branding for
the way that it imposes uniformity on diversity
(Jansen 2008, Kaneva, 2011).

 What is the difference b/n propaganda and PD?
Is it like an old wine with new bottle?
My answer
No, because pd is by the consent of two countries and it is
not by false information. Pd is not targeted on defeating
the other state. But propaganda is targeted on defeating
opponents and applies false information to deceive the
population of the opponent state . Plus to this propaganda
not based on the deliberation of states ( it is based on the
will of the state used it). And I think that, PD my not on the
basis of wine lose approach. In case of propaganda one
state may be the winner and the other my be the loser.

 The actor/institution unlike the propaganda
apparatus, non state actors serve the
purpose;
 Non political and non economic issues such
as culture , music+ sport could be used;
 PD for cultural relations
Cultural relations work will lead to growing
mutual understanding and appreciation
the co existence of the different cultures will
enrich the human experience (Parkinson, 1977)

The Three layers of Public diplomacy
effective public diplomacy requires that state and private
actors communicate with the people of other nations by
moving from Monologue to Dialogue and Collaboration
1) Monologue (i.e., one-way) communication:
Diplomats have long recognized the singular role of
public pronouncements and other forms of monologue
designed for mass audiences in other countries, using
one-way communication forms and outlets that are
inherently self-contained;

 monologues take many forms. Speeches; editorials;
proclamations; press releases; and cultural works such as
movies, books, poetry, and works of visual art are all
typically one-way, closed-container forms of
communication.
In today's world, monologue is an essential
advocacy tool that public diplomacy practitioners
can and must use to raise awareness about their
country's policies, identities, or values, deliberate
advocacy is only a small component of the
messages flowing across borders

2) Dialogue
• dialogue refers to myriad situations in which ideas and
information are exchanged an communication is
reciprocal and multidirectional.
There are multiple forms and multiple levels of dialogue.
Ideas and information can be exchanged:
in formal summits attended by elites;
in academic or professional conferences;
 in call-in talk shows;
on interactive Web sites; and
through citizen participation in cross-cultural sports,
cinema

• number of public diplomacy scholars and
practitioners have called for increased cross-
national dialogue/ "conversation of cultures"
(Lynch, 2000; Blaney and Inayatullah, 1994).
• While dialogue between cultures is an admirable
goal, it begins with dialogue between individuals,
whether they are representatives of governments
or private citizens meeting in a hotel conference
room or in an online chat room.
• These dialogic relationships provide the building
block through which broader dialogue between
civilization can evolve.

• Dialogue has the power to transform the Conflict
situations both in intra and inter state nature.
• technology had made it easier to incorporate call-
in talk show programs on radio and television, the
Voice of America announced its intention to move
from "monologue to dialogue."
• It did so based on the hypothesis that people tend
to listen more closely and to be more receptive
when their questions are being addressed and
their comments heard, and when they believe
that they, or people like them, are a part of the
conversation

3) Collaboration
collaboration as a form of public diplomacy refers to
initiatives in which participants from different
nations participate in a project together;
• Collaborative projects almost without exception include
dialogue between participants and stakeholders, but
they also include concrete and typically easily
identifiable goals and outcomes that provide a useful
basis and structure upon which to form more lasting
relationships.

• Superordinate goals coined by Muzafer Sherif(1958),
refer to "goals that are compelling and highly
appealing to members of two or more groups in
conflict but cannot be attained by the resources and
energies of groups separately" (pp. 349-50).
• In a study of conflict resolution among children, Sherif
found that cooperative projects were critical in
facilitating reconciliation.
• Citing a number of successful collaborative endeavors,
Stephen Ryan (2007) similarly argued that
superordinate goals are a critical method of creating a
new playing field in which trust and understanding can
be fostered across social fractures

• For example, the United Nations Development
Program (UNDP) launched the Action for
Cooperation and Trust, which brings together
Greek and Turkish Cypriotes from both sides of
the Green Line to work on common projects that
benefit the island as a whole.
• In Lebanon, the Unity through Sports program
brings together youths across religious lines to play
side by side in sporting events.
• Different Drums, a program in Northern Ireland,
connects Catholic and Protestant musicians who
play together while "still marching to the beat of
different drums."

FP5.pptx

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie FP5.pptx

Ähnlich wie FP5.pptx (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (14)

FP5.pptx