Suchergebnisse

We live in an era of pervasive connectivity. At an astonishing pace, much of the world's population is joining a common network. The proliferation of communications and information technology creates very significant changes for statecraft. But we have to keep in mind that the Internet is not a magic potion for political and social progress. Technology by itself is agnostic. It simply amplifies the existing sociologies on the ground, for good or ill. And it is much better at organizing protest movements than organizing institutions to support new governments in place of those that have been toppled. Diplomacy in the twenty-first century must grapple with both the potential and the limits of technology in foreign policy, and respond to the disruptions that it causes in international relations.

Preliminary Material /Paul Sharp and Geoffrey Wiseman -- Distinctive Characteristics of American Diplomacy /Geoffrey Wiseman -- The Distinction between Foreign Policy and Diplomacy in American International Thought and Practice /David Clinton -- US Diplomacy and Diplomats: /Chen Zhimin -- European Responses to US Diplomacy: /Michael Smith -- Transformational Diplomacy: /Maria Eriksson , Karin A. Esposito and S. Alaeddin Vahid Gharavi -- Course Corrections: /David Bosco -- American Public Diplomacy: /Bruce Gregory -- Quantum Diplomacy, German–US Relations and the Psychogeography of Berlin /James Der Derian -- Obama, Clinton and the Diplomacy of Change /Paul Sharp -- The Incapacitation of US Statecraft and Diplomacy /Chas W. Freeman -- The Traditions and Travails of Career Diplomacy in the United States /Thomas Hanson -- Digital Diplomacy and US Foreign Policy /Alec Ross -- Conclusion /Paul Sharp and Geoffrey Wiseman -- Index /Paul Sharp and Geoffrey Wiseman.

Is diplomacy important and can diplomats make a difference? This article examines these questions in the context of American foreign policy during the first two years of the Obama administration. The policy of George W. Bush's administration in Iraq and Iraq, unilateral in form and controversial in substance, ensured that foreign policy was a major issue in the election campaign, with all of the major candidates agreeing that American diplomacy needed to be restored. Candidate Obama went beyond the consensus about restoring the status and influence of the State Department, however, to argue that the United States should talk without preconditions, even with regimes of which it did not approve. In office, Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, rhetorically elevated diplomacy to an equal standing with defence and development, provided resources for greatly expanding the Foreign Service, and stressed the importance of taking advantage of developments in information technology to strengthen public and 'digital' diplomacy in the service of civilian power. They also 'reset' certain key bilateral relationships and 'reengaged' multilateralism. However, American diplomacy under Obama remains framed by the increasingly questionable assumption that its renewed openness to talking, its continued military superiority and its claim to embody universal values will continue to confer upon it the mantle of global leadership. If US administrations continue to assume that this is so, then American diplomacy will face the challenge of trying to bridge the increasingly widening gap between their aspirations and the means available to sustain them.