2.the leading influence of the Great Powers, which had wider interests, 'more money and more guns';
3.the common responsibility of the Great Powers for the conduct of the small powers, including the preservation of peace between them;
4.the existence in every European country of a professional diplomatic service on a more or less identical model;
5.the rule that sound negotiation must be continuous and confidential.
Definition of diplomacy
▲ the conduct of foreign policy;
▲ the apparatus for managing international relations, especially professional Diplomatic Services;
▲ the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent states;
▲ the management of international relations by negotiations; the method by which these relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys; the business or art of the diplomatist;
▲ the conduct of international relations by negotiation rather than by force, propaganda, or recourse to law, and by other peaceful means (such as gathering
information or engendering goodwill) which are either directly or indirectly designed to promote negotiation;it is a professional activity,though non-professionals now play an important part in it.
Public diplomacy and propaganda 作者：朱素梅 时间：2005年04月24日 What is Public Diplomacy? Definitions Origins of the term Public diplomacy and propaganda Public and traditional diplomacy What public diplomacy is and is not "PUBLIC DIPLOMACY refers to government-sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries; its chief instruments are publications, motion pictures, cultural exchanges, radio and television." (U.S. Department of State, Dictionary of International Relations Terms, 1987, p. 85) USIA which was in the business of public diplomacy for more than forty years, defined PUBLIC DIPLOMACY as follows: Public diplomacy seeks to promote the national interest and the national security of the United States through understanding, informing, and influencing foreign publics and broadening dialogue between American citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad. Origins of the term Public Diplomacy "According to a Library of Congress study of U.S. international and cultural programs and activities prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate, the term `public diplomacy' was first used in 1965 by Dean Edmund Gullion of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. It was created with the establishment at Fletcher of the Edward R. Murrow Center for Public Diplomacy." The Murrow Center, in one of its earlier brochures, described public diplomacy as follows: "Public diplomacy . . . deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies. It encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with those of another; the reporting of foreign affairs and its impact on policy; communication between those whose job is communication, as between diplomats and foreign correspondents; and the processes of inter-cultural communications. "Central to public diplomacy is the transnational flow of information and ideas." [top] Public diplomacy and propaganda To this day views differ as to whether or not "public diplomacy" and "propaganda" are similar. Two examples: In 1955, Oren Stephens, author of Facts to a Candid World: America's Overseas Information Program, called such programs (now known as "public diplomacy"), "propaganda." He referred to the Declaration of Independence as being "first and foremost a propaganda tract." In 1961, Wilson Dizard, in the first book to be written specifically about USIA, which was then about eight years old, wrote: The United States has been in the international propaganda business, off and on, for a long time . . . propaganda played a crucial role in the war of independence." In the years following these earlier views, some U.S. Government officials and others contended that U.S. public diplomacy programs are not propaganda. Others still contend, however, that since propaganda can be based on fact, public diplomacy can be equated with propaganda i.e. ideas, information, or other material disseminated to win people over to a given doctrine. If based on falsehoods and untruths, while still propaganda, it is best described as "disinformation." USIA officials always contended that their programs dealt with the known facts; to do otherwise would be counterproductive as their reliability would be questioned. Edward R. Murrow, in May 1963, as the Director of USIA at the time, in testimony before a Congressional Committee, summed up this view best when he said: "American traditions and the American ethic require us to be truthful, but the most important reason is that truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst. To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that." [top] Public diplomacy and traditional diplomacy Public diplomacy differs from traditional diplomacy in that public diplomacy deals not only with governments but primarily with non-governmental individuals and organizations. Furthermore, public diplomacy activities often present many differing views as represented by private American individuals and organizations in addition to official U.S. Government views. Traditional diplomacy actively engages one government with another government. In traditional diplomacy, U.S. Embassy officials represent the U.S. Government in a host country primarily by maintaining relations and conducting official USG business with the officials of the host government whereas public diplomacy primarily engages many diverse non-government elements of a society.作者: fengweiling 时间: 2005-11-27 17:47
Diplomatic Institutions and Personnel
沙特前国王：费萨尔·阿卜杜拉·阿齐兹·阿卜杜拉·拉赫曼·沙特作者: fengweiling 时间: 2005-11-27 17:47
Modern Diplomacy
2. Summitry
Forms of Summitry (Elmer Plischke)
making and enunciating policy;
communicating personally with foreign leaders;
commissioning personal representatives or special envoys;
receiving visiting summit leaders;
undertaking such visits and tours abroad;
participating in informal meetings and formal conferences.
What are the diplomatic purposes served by the summits?
1.Promoting friendly relations;
2.Clarifing intentions;
3.information gathering;
4.consular work (principally export
promotion and interceding on behalf of
detained nationals);
5.Negotiation.
Three kinds of summitry:
1.Serial summits
2.Ad hoc summits (including "working funeral")
3.The high-level "exchange of views"
A working funeral is of special diplomatic significance if it is the funeral of an incumbent head of government, since the funeral is almost certain to be the first occasion for foreign friends to confirm that the new leadership remains wedded to their relationship and for foreign rivals to explore the possibility of a change of heart. Warsaw Pact leaders always attended the funerals of leaders of the Soviet Union for the former purpose, while Western leaders attended them for the latter, at least in the 1980s.
首脑外交的优势与不足：（普利施科）
首先，最高级领导人之间彼此熟识，可面对面阐明各自的国家利益、外交政策、甚至国内困难。一些领导人之间建立了良好的私人关系，这种关系有助于促进正式的国家关系。在关系敌对的国家中，领导人之间的联系有助于澄清各自国家的立场，增加相互信任，消除分歧。
其次，首脑级领导人可以迅速地和直接地做出决定，避免了外交渠道的拖延和曲折。
不足：
首先，人们往往对首脑外交抱有过高的期望。
其次，参与首脑外交的领导人必须忍受新闻界刨根问底之苦。
第三，如外交由一个非职业的生手去处理，就要严重影响国家利益。
1.
Part Three By G.R.Berridge
预防性外交（Preventive diplopacy）
Actions or institutions that are used to keep the political disputes that arise between or within nations from escalating into armed force.These efforts are needed when and where existing international relations or national politics appear unable to manage tentions without violence erupting.They come into play before a point of confrontation,sustained violence,or military action is reached.作者: fengweiling 时间: 2005-11-27 17:48
环境外交
Nonstate Actors
1. territorial nonstate actors, such as national
liberation movements;
2. nonterritorial transnational organizations,
such as multinational corporations;
3. intergovernmental organizations, such as
NATO or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
In what ways do nonstate actors affect international politics?
1.introduce an issue onto the international diplomatic agenda;
2.publicize and raise citizen consciousness regarding certain global or regional problems;
3.lobby national governments and international organizations to make decisions favorable to their cause;
4.seek an outcome through direct action, sometimes (though relatively rarely) involving the threat or use of force.
Are nonstate actors in a position to replace the
power of the state?
No, the state still remains the critical actor of
international politics, because
1.only it commands the allegiance of peoples
occupying a defined territory;
2.only it possesses the capabilities to employ the
ultimate threat (war);
3.governments, unlike most transnational
organizations,are concerned with the full range of
welfare and security issues of a population;
4. only governments enjoy sovereignty.
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
( UNFCCC) （联合国气候变化框架公约）
Agreed to in 1992, which set out a framework for actions to control greenhouse gas emissions.
Entered into force in 1994, since then, six meetings of the conference of the Parties have taken place.
Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997, which commits industrialized countries to achieve targets for decreasing their emission of greenhouse gas
Kyoto Protocol will enter into force following ratifications by 55 countries to the FCCC, which account for at least 55% of total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990.
According to Kyoto Protocol, three mechanisms are established. They are: joint implementation
(JI); clean development mechanism (CDM); emission trading (ET).
Environmental Diplomacy of Multinational Corporations
1. corporations and the UN
Corporate interest in UN environmental activities has begun during the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio in 1992.
ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) and the WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) are active in environmental issues, attend UN plenary sessions and ad hoc meetings. WBCSD has worked jointly with the World Bank, WTO, and several UN agencies.
Both ICC and WBCSD have observer status at the Conference of the Parties to the FCCC
2. Corporations and NGOS
There are extensive cooperation between business and NGOs, e.g: Shell’s cooperation with World Wide Fund for Nature; Johnson & Johnson’s support for the World Wide Fund for Nature in China on a comprehensive assessment of the trade in rhino and tiger parts, generating data to support the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
NOKIA and Environment
(www.nokia.com/aboutnikia/environmental/)
Environmental considerations are integrated into every area of company life and at every phase of our products’ life cycle. We believe in eco-efficiency and sustainability—to respect nature and the needs of future generations.
Taking care of the environment is part of Nokia’s corporate culture. It means eliminating risks, also enables us to gain stakeholder acceptance as well as to achieve financial benefits and broader business opportunities.
Nokia has four environmental key programes
.Design for Environment
.Supplier Network Management
.Environmental Management Systems
.End-of-life Practices作者: fengweiling 时间: 2005-11-27 17:49
Mediation and the Art of Negotiation
A third party acting as a ‘facilitator’ or providing ‘good offices’ has a more limited role than a mediator, usually involving no more than helping to bring the parties in conflict into direct negotiations. In short, its role is limited to the prenegotiation stage. Of course, it is quite common for a good offices mission to turn into mediation but the activities remain distinct. Unfortunately, this does not prevent many mediations from being described as missions of ‘good offices’. Mediation should also be distinguished from conciliation. This is an attempt to resolve a dispute by having it examined in depth by an independent commission of inquiry or ‘conciliation commission’. This then offers its recommendations for a settlement, which are non-binding. Arbitration is the same as conciliation except that the recommendation is binding. It is akin to but not the same as judicial settlement.
Definition of mediation
Oran Young: mediation is any action taken by an actor that is not a direct party to the crisis, that is designed to reduce or remove one or more of the problems of the bargaining relationship, and therefore to facilitate the termination of the crisis itself.
Jacob Bercovitch: mediation is a process of conflict management, related to but distinct from the parties' own efforts, where the disputing parties or their representatives seek the assistance, or accept an offer of help, from an individual, group, state or organization to change, affect or influence their perceptions or behavior, without resorting to physical force or invoking the authority of the law.
G.R.Berridge: Mediation is the active search for a negotiated settlement to an international or intrastate conflict by an impartial third party.
Mediation is likely to be used when
1.a dispute is long, drawn out and complex
2.the parties' own conflict management efforts have reached an impasse
3.neither party is prepared to countenance further costs or loss of life
4.both parties are prepared to co-operate to break their stalemate.
Disputing parties may want to initiate mediation in the hope that
1.this low-risk and flexible form of conflict management will actually help them understand their conflict, reduce some of its risks and get them closer toward settling it.
2.each party may embrace mediation in the expectation that the mediator might nudge or influence the other.
3.both parties may see mediation as a public expression of their commitment to genuine conflict management.
4.the parties may want an outsider to take much of the blame for failure.
Who are today’s mediators? What are their motives?
Track one (official)
The most important mediators are states, whether acting singly or collectively, or via the international organizations.
The major powers and middle powers: First, they seek the mediator’s mantle in order to defuse crises that threaten the global stability, including global economic stability, in which they have such an important stake. Secondly. The major powers generally think it prudent to mediate in conflicts if these occur within alliances or looser associations of states in which they play leading roles. The motive here is clearer: they are anxious to maintain solidarity. Thirdly, it is clear that the major powers also see mediation in general as a means of extending their networks of dependent clients. In other words, they see it not only as a means of preserving existing influence but also of projecting it into areas where previously it had not been great.
Small states: are interested in both the huge prestige that successful mediation can bring and the increased influence the mediation will produce as well.（The Algerian mediation of the Iranian Hostage Crisis）
Track two (unofficial)
Citizen diplomacy, (Hammer)
NGOs, Carter Center
Negotiation is a technique of regulated argument which normally occurs between delegations of officials representing states, international organizations or other agencies. It takes place with a view to achieving one or other of the following objectives: identification of common interests and agreement on joint or parallel action in their pursuit; recognition of conflicting interests and agreement on compromise; or, some combination of both. Negotiation is the most important function of diplomacy.
(Berridge)
外交谈判的类型
Five categories of negotiation
(according to the purpose of the parties)
1.extension agreements (e.g. aviation landing rights, tariff agreements, renewal of a peacekeeping force mandate, renewal of leasing arrangements for an overseas military base.)
2.normalisation agreements (e.g. a peace treaty, re-establishment of diplomatic relations )
3.redistribution negotiation (e.g. territorial boundaries, voting powers in an international institution)
4.innovative agreement (e.g. Treaty of Rome, Sino-British agreement of 1984.)
5.negotiation for side-effects
外交谈判的程序与技巧
1．程序
three stages of negotiation
the pre-negotiation stage;
the formula stage;
the details stage;
the pre-negotiation stage:
1.agreeing the need to negotiate
2.agreeing the agenda
3.agreeing procedure (format; venue; level and composition of delegation; timing)
formula stage
(framework for agreement)
The chief characteristics of a good formula are: comprehensiveness,
balance, and flexibility.
the details stage
the details stage is the most difficult stage of all作者: fengweiling 时间: 2005-11-27 17:49
外交谈判的技巧
外交谈判应遵循的主要原则
1． 实事求是的原则。
在外交谈判中，谈判各方要以客观事实为依据，坚持摆事实，讲道理，以理服人。
2． 平等互利的原则
外交谈判中的各方在政治上要平等，对大国、强国和小国、弱国坚持平等相待，要互相尊重国家主权；在经济上要互利互惠，以求共同发展。
3． 求同存异的原则
在外交谈判中，要坚持求大同，存小异的原则，寻找双方的共同利益。
4． 守信的原则
外交谈判必须讲信用，外交谈判是国家的行为，谈判代表的言行是代表国家在国际关系中承担权利和义务的活动。所以，在外交谈判中所说的话都要算数，对于达成的协议要言必信、行必果，一诺千金、恪守不渝。作者: fengweiling 时间: 2005-11-27 17:50
What is Public Diplomacy?
What is Public Diplomacy?
Definitions
Origins of the term
Public diplomacy and propaganda
Public and traditional diplomacy
What public diplomacy is and is not
"PUBLIC DIPLOMACY refers to government-sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries; its chief instruments are publications, motion pictures, cultural exchanges, radio and television." (U.S. Department of State, Dictionary of International Relations Terms, 1987, p. 85)
USIA which was in the business of public diplomacy for more than forty years, defined PUBLIC DIPLOMACY as follows:
Public diplomacy seeks to promote the national interest and the national security of the United States through understanding, informing, and influencing foreign publics and broadening dialogue between American citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad.
Origins of the term Public Diplomacy
"According to a Library of Congress study of U.S. international and
cultural programs and activities prepared for the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the U.S. Senate, the term `public diplomacy' was first used
in 1965 by Dean Edmund Gullion of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
at Tufts University. It was created with the establishment at Fletcher of
the Edward R. Murrow Center for Public Diplomacy."
The Murrow Center, in one of its earlier brochures, described public diplomacy as follows:
"Public diplomacy . . . deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies. It encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy; the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with those of another; the reporting of foreign affairs and its impact on policy; communication between those whose job is communication, as between diplomats and foreign correspondents; and the processes of inter-cultural communications.
"Central to public diplomacy is the transnational flow of information and
ideas."
[top]
Public diplomacy and propaganda
To this day views differ as to whether or not "public diplomacy" and
"propaganda" are similar.
Two examples:
In 1955, Oren Stephens, author of Facts to a Candid World: America's
Overseas Information Program, called such programs (now known as "public
diplomacy"), "propaganda." He referred to the Declaration of
Independence as being "first and foremost a propaganda tract."
In 1961, Wilson Dizard, in the first book to be written specifically
about USIA, which was then about eight years old, wrote: The United
States has been in the international propaganda business, off and on,
for a long time . . . propaganda played a crucial role in the war of
independence."
In the years following these earlier views, some U.S. Government officials
and others contended that U.S. public diplomacy programs are not
propaganda. Others still contend, however, that since propaganda can be
based on fact, public diplomacy can be equated with propaganda i.e. ideas,
information, or other material disseminated to win people over to a given
doctrine. If based on falsehoods and untruths, while still propaganda, it
is best described as "disinformation."
USIA officials always contended that their programs dealt with the known
facts; to do otherwise would be counterproductive as their reliability
would be questioned.
Edward R. Murrow, in May 1963, as the Director of USIA at the time, in
testimony before a Congressional Committee, summed up this view best when
he said:
"American traditions and the American ethic require us to be truthful, but
the most important reason is that truth is the best propaganda and lies
are the worst. To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we
must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as
that."
[top]
Public diplomacy and traditional diplomacy
Public diplomacy differs from traditional diplomacy in that public diplomacy deals not only with governments but primarily with non-governmental individuals and organizations. Furthermore, public diplomacy activities often present many differing views as represented by private American individuals and organizations in addition to official U.S. Government views.
Traditional diplomacy actively engages one government with another government. In traditional diplomacy, U.S. Embassy officials represent the U.S. Government in a host country primarily by maintaining relations and conducting official USG business with the officials of the host government whereas public diplomacy primarily engages many diverse non-government elements of a society.作者: fengweiling 时间: 2005-11-27 17:50
经济外交
案例分析：美缘何放宽对利比亚的经济制裁？作者: fengweiling 时间: 2005-11-27 17:51
Economic Reward and Coercion
1.Tariffs
The tariff structure can be used effectively as a foreign policy inducement or punishment when a target country stands to gain or lose important markets for its products by its upward or downward manipulation..
preferential tariff treatment
most-favored-nation treatment
2.Quotas
3. Boycott
4.Embargo
5.Loans,Credits, and Currency Manipulations
6.Blacklists
7. Licensing
8. Freezing Assets
9. Granting or Suspending Aid, Including Military Sales or grants
10. Expropriation
11. Withholding Dues to an International Organization.
Economic coercion is most likely to be effective when the following conditions are met:
1. The economic relationship between the coercer and the target is highly asymmetrical in terms of vulnerabilities.
2. Alternative sources of supply or markets are readily available to the target.
3. The target does not have the technology or resources to fashion substitutes for those items it can no longer import from the coercer.
4. The costs of applying the sanctions to the coercer are significantly less than those suffered by the target.
5. There is little international sympathy for the government of the target.
6. The attempts at economic coercion are coupled with other techniques of statecraft.
7. The economy of the target is already weak, characterized by high unemployment, low investment, severe inflation, and the like.