28. Critically analyze the possible dangers to the bilateral embassies. 2

Possible problems:

1. The envoy’s knowledge of the target country and tight focus on that may produce a narrow “tunnel” vision. The envoy needs strong self-control, plus a holistic perspective, treating the home objectives as his lodestar. The envoy walks a tightrope.

2. Proliferation in “personal” classified messages, that is, messages that go from one individual in an embassy to a recipient in the MFA, deprives the top management of one source of information; such messages are often not distributed across the MFA as per its standard template for classified cipher messages. To the extent that decision making is a collegial process in the good foreign ministries (e.g. via the daily “prayer meeting,” for a heads-up on new developments), missing out on a wide range of key communications means that top officials may not all be on the same song sheet.

3. Personnel reduction in territorial departments, and shift to “thematic” structures, means a loss of that integrated regional view that has always been the specialty of the MFA’s territorial department.

4. The burden of demand on the envoy increases further. This raises the importance of leadership training. The envoy also needs to be closely plugged into governmental thinking, via all available means, including frequent consultation visits and annual conferences.

29. Explain the meaning of 'protocol handbook'. 1

Most countries have a “protocol handbook,” issued by the foreign ministry’s protocol department. It lays down the key procedures in that country and helps embassies as well as entities within the country to understand the basics. Countries may also have their own internal guidebooks on other protocol-related matters (such as state, official, and working visits abroad by their own heads of state and government), which are intended to help their embassies in preparing foreign visits by their dignitaries.

30. Analyze the globalized diplomacy. 3

Today, “world affairs is about managing the colossal force of globalization.

The modern foreign ministry, and its diplomatic service, has to accommodate itself to the changed circumstances, in the knowledge that it remains answerable for failings, even while control over the diplomatic process has been fragmented.

One consequence of globalization: many people feel that their lives are shaped by external events that are outside their control. Crisis has many faces. Take the global recession of 2008, producing economic insecurity, loss of jobs, decline in incomes, and slowdown in production, virtually in every country. Terrorism is another pervasive concern, with subterranean roots in foreign lands. Climate change affects all of us, threatening the very existence of small low-lying island states. Other dangers are more insidious, such as the influx of foreign cultural influence, viewed with alarm by those that struggle to conserve their own heritage. Migration is another interconnected issue, of the “home-external” kind, both for countries from where the migrants originate and for the destination states. Each of these is a new kind of security threat, a consequence of interdependence among states and peoples. These are products of relentless globalization.

Why globalized diplomacy? About two generations ago, politics was in command and was the prime focus of foreign ministry work; the best diplomats specialized in this field. Then, commencing around the 1970s, economic diplomacy began to emerge as a major component of external relations, in some ways overshadowing political diplomacy; export promotion and foreign direct investment (FDI) mobilization became the priority activities of the diplomatic system. More recently we have seen the rise of culture, media and communications, education, science and technology and even consular work as some new priorities in diplomacy. Taken together, this third tranche is seen as a manifestation of soft power and as “public diplomacy”. Paradoxically, after the end of the Cold War, political diplomacy has also regained salience, becoming more open and complex. The techniques of relationship building and conflict resolution have also become more sophisticated and require measured but rapid responses. Overall, diplomacy has become multifaceted, pluri-directional, volatile, and intensive.

Diplomacy has globalized in other ways. For one thing, with a breakdown in Cold War blocs, there exists no predetermined matrix of relationships. The West and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are now the dominant groups, but their former adversaries are also their networked partners, even while rivalries subsist. These are “normal” situations of contestation, driven by self-interest, as expressed through a search for resources and energy, and markets, to name only a few of the drivers; ideology is no longer an issue. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has been hollowed out, and remains as a loose coalition of have-not states; its ritualistic biennial summits persist, but NAM members are much more preoccupied with smaller, issue-based groupings. In essence, every country finds value in working with networks that stretch into far regions, in pursuit of common or shared objectives. Often, economic opportunity provides the driving force, and this too is subject to globalized concerns.