It has now been a year since the release of Guerrilla Diplomacy. I have spent much of this time trying to promote the book’s main arguments in support of restoring the diplomatic ecosystem and de-militarizing international policy. Following are a few reflections on those efforts.
daryl.copeland
Canadian Multilateralism: An Opportunity for Diplomatic Alternatives?
Last month the Canadian International Council released its report, Open Canada, on possible new directions for Canadian foreign policy. There is much to commend about this easily-digested document, not least the fact that at a critical moment a group of thoughtful Canadians took the time and effort required to bring the ambitious project to completion within a very short time frame.
My observations are directed at the content in Chapter 2, entitled Multilateralism: The Revolution. That section contains most of the authors’ commentary related to diplomacy in an interdependent, connected and network-centric world.
Globalization Nation
The Mark
Canada’s brand has less to do with the beauty of its nature than the nature of its people.
The World’s Oyster? Rethinking Canada as the Globalization Nation
With the G8/G20 meetings about to begin, the attention of the international media will inevitably, if fleetingly, focus on Canada. What kind of impression might be conveyed?
For journalists prepared to eschew the backdrops, sound bites and briefing books and to venture beyond the sterile secure areas, there may be a few surprises.
Even the least intrepid would soon discover that in a world of well-established, pre-packaged national identities, this country is different.
That difference has little to do with beavers or moose, with the cold climate or the scenic attractions.
It is not the place. It’s the people.
No matter where you’re from, if Canada were a mirror, you would see your own face reflected.
And because everyone is here, no one stands out.
Waging Modern War
The Mark Radio
In the asymmetric conflicts which characterize the age of globalization, diplomats, not soldiers should be on the front lines (with Mercedes Stephenson, Barbara Falk and Donald Savoie).
Making Sense of Intelligence
What’s in a name?
In the lexicon of international relations, key terms such as intelligence and diplomacy are often bandied about without much regard for their actual meaning.
Diplomacy is a non-violent approach to the management of international relations which features a dedication to dialogue, negotiation and compromise. Since at least the time of Chamberlain in Munich, however, diplomacy has come to be associated with weakness, appeasement, cheap talk and caving in to power.
Dark shadow over the Thai smile
Globe and Mail
In the era of globalization, underdevelopment breeds insecurity and shared identity no longer assures unity
Making Diplomacy a Counterinsurgency Weapon
Embassy
Can non-violent approaches to conflict resolution make a difference in addressing the complex challenges of counterinsurgency? Yes, but that contribution cannot be fully realized under present circumstances.
Political Officers in Conflict Zones: Public Diplomacy and Counterinsurgency – Part III
The past few posts have focused on the potential role of diplomacy in addressing the complex challenges of counterinsurgency.
Can non-violent approaches to conflict resolution make a difference?
Yes, but it is unlikely that contribution cannot be fully realized under present circumstances.
It is not just that the diplomatic business model has not responded adequately to the challenges of globalization – it hasn’t – or that foreign ministries are underfunded, hierarchic and risk-averse – they are. These features compound the problem, but it is the particular difficulties in the field that define it.
When Might is Not the Right Way
The Mark
The military can be used for peaceful purposes, but it isn’t designed for political and economic work.
Political Officers in Conflict Zones: Public Diplomacy and Counterinsurgency – Part II
Development is a strategic and moral imperative… our intention is to elevate development so that it stands alongside defense and diplomacy and an equal. Defense, development and diplomacy need to reinforce each other, but each also brings a unique perspective and set of capabilities to the table. Together, they make us stronger, smarter and more effective.
President Barack Obama, describing the new US national security strategy.
In earlier posts and elsewhere I have made the case that in the age of globalization, development has in large part become the new security. That is why I advocate the substitution of diplomacy – and especially an extreme form of public diplomacy, with the emphasis on cross-cultural dialogue and meaningful exchange – for defence at the centre of international policy.
Fighting With Diplomacy
The Mark
With irregular warfare now the norm, diplomats need to take the lead in resolving conflicts, not the military.