DOCSLIB.ORG

Guerilla Diplomacy Presented by Daryl Copeland March 8, 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guerilla Diplomacy Presented by Daryl Copeland March 8, 2010 Guerilla Diplomacy Presented by Daryl Copeland March 8, 2010 On the 8 th of March, the NZIIA (Auckland branch) was fortunate enough to hear Daryl Copeland talk about his recently published book Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations for the Globalization Age . Daryl Copeland is an analyst, writer and educator on international policy, global issues, diplomacy and public management. Now mainly involved academia, his time as a Canadian Diplomat (1981 to 2009) with stints in Thailand, Ethiopia, New Zealand and Malaysia, clearly influenced his writing of his book. Three key points of Diplomacy as relevant instrument for International Relations: As an introduction, Daryl Copeland used the story of Shahrazad and the Persian King (from One thousand and One Nights ) to illustrate the relevance of diplomacy as an instrument for International Relations: 1. “use your head”: bring one‟s intellect and any other comparative advantage to wherever one operates 2. “talk don‟t fight”: diplomacy is different from other international policy instruments because it privileges talking over fighting. 3. Keep talking until a favourable outcome is achieved, that is “until the executioner is sent home”. Summary of Copeland’s book: The central argument of his book is that if development is part of security in globalization age, then diplomacy must replace defence at the centre of international policy. Definition of terms: Defining his terms, Copeland sees development as: human-centred development that is long-term, equitable, and sustainable. Development is a process, not an end in itself. It is akin to when people are able to attain their full potential without obstacle. Copeland makes a point of distinguishing between security and defence. Certainly not a pacifist, he acknowledges that “admirals, generals and bombs” do have a role to play. Security and development are “two sides of the same coin”. However, where and when we do see insecurity and underdevelopment Governments “all to quickly reach for the gun”. Describing globalisation in a positive light as a successor to the cold war age, Copeland reminded his audience of “definite winners and losers” and described this force as polarising. According to Copeland, diplomacy is an approach to the management of international relations that is characterised by negotiation, compromise and dialogue. Sadly diplomacy has been marginalised. Today, workers in foreign ministries around the world don‟t actually do a whole lot of diplomacy: they work a lot instead in areas such as foreign trade promotion, consular services, performance management, and complete “endless” internal strategic reviews. Privileging and over-use of defence? To Copeland, defence has “almost everywhere” achieved the lion‟s share of resources, often at expense of other international policy instruments such as diplomacy. In recent years, defence has attracted tasks not really appropriate for military: armed forces are primarily hard-power instruments designed to compel adversaries to submit to another‟s will. For example, Copeland questions the role of military in strategic communications, cross-cultural exchanges and post-conflict reconstruction. In the recent case of Haiti, why was the US military running the relief effort? In a reference to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), Copeland believes the enduring lesson of the cold war is that sometimes military instruments “work best when you don‟t use them”. Similarly, Copeland draws on the saying: “sword stays sharpest when you leave it in the scabbard”. Attempts at solving complex issues in international relations relying primarily on the military can result in a blunt instrument and a real mess. Three myths central to the rethinking of International Relations: Firstly, Diplomacy is still seen to be about weakness and appeasement, having never recovered from Chamberlain and Munich. Contrary to this view, Copeland sees diplomacy as “our best hope for dealings with fundamental threats and challenges of the twenty-first century”. This is because diplomacy brings two aspects to the table: Knowledge-driven problem solving that is required to counter threats such as climate change, pandemic disease, bio-diversity, species extinction, resource scarcity which you can‟t address with military force: one “can‟t call on air-strike on climate change”. A capacity to undertake “complex balancing” which builds on classic balancing of a by-gone era when power discernable (eg: army size, population, empire etc). In the twenty-first century, Copeland sees a “Hetero-polar world” instead, made up of poles with very different sources of power. The US for example is the world‟s leading military power; China the world‟s manufacturer; India the world‟s “back-office”, call centre, providing services in English for very little with a highly-skilled labour force; Brazil leader of the global south; Russia the world‟s major resource pole, energy supplier to Europe which is highly skilled at diplomacy; Europe the world‟s soft-power (the power of attraction) is characterised by liveable cities, excellent public infrastructure, social safety nets that work, social democracy and a rich culture. So, sources of power and influence are difficult to compare. As a result, Copeland sees the need for “complex balancing” - a skill which will be the realm of the Guerrilla Diplomat. Secondly, security is incorrectly seen to be a martial-art. Drawing on human security, Copeland believes that if an individual is insecure (ie: they suffer intense anxiety, exploitation, resentment, and alienation) this is a basis for insecurity. If an individual is free from want, free from fear and feels secure, they are much less likely to put on an explosive vest and blown themselves up, along with many others. Thirdly, important aspects of the Cold War have not yet ended. The priority threat for international policy continues to be seen incorrectly as terrorism. Over-emphasis of terrorism as a primary threat is sustained by “Intellectual baggage” carried over from the Cold War which is illustrated through continuity such as the following: A binary world-view that is black and white. The “with us or against us”, Mantra of the US neoconservative elite espoused in the „War on Terror‟ was a hang-over from the „free‟ versus the „communist‟ world of the Cold War era. The terrorist threat is universal and undifferentiated. Terrorism had a global war declared against it. It is undifferentiated in that Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the Taleban, Islamic Jihad and others are “thrown into the bucket” and seen as a single threat. This universal and undifferentiated nature is again a continuity from „communists‟ as being everywhere: the USSR to Africa to Southeast Asia, even to Hollywood. All actors were grouped together and labelled the „Red Menace‟ which needed to be fought. The third carry-over from the Cold War era has been the „militarisation‟ of international policy, particularly in the US. Copeland drew from evidence such as that there are more musicians in the US military than there are diplomats working in the state department; and that the requested budget increase for the Pentagon in 2011 is more than the total spending for the entire State Department. Diplomacy is having trouble justifying its continued existence. A need to transform the foreign service: As some of the oldest government departments, foreign ministries worldwide suffer from conservatism, resistance to change, and entrenched bureaucratic culture. Copeland believes that authoritarian, hierarchic institutions are outdated in the globalisation age and do not always serve countries well. Ministries that are lean, mean, and very quick to respond should be the goal instead. Also, foreign ministries don‟t tend to reflect the populations they serve. The Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) does not reflect Canada‟s multi-cultural society. Most Western foreign services are similar: they reflect yesterday‟s “demographic” mix. Copeland proposes that spending considerable time and money attempting to make people effective overseas is wasteful when it is considerably easier to recruit talent from domestic diaspora communities. As a result, foreign ministries would not only look like the population it is serving, it would mean that the country would have better language and cross-cultural skills crucial to the conduct of diplomacy in the 21 st century. “Guerrilla Diplomacy”: what is it? Copeland distinguishes three kinds of diplomacy: traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy (“the new diplomacy) and guerrilla diplomacy. Traditional diplomacy involves envoys talking to one another about the business of government, what might be going on out there, rather than finding out for themselves. Borrowing from Mao, Copeland highlighted the importance of being “able to swim like a fish in the sea of the people” rather than flop about like a fish out of water, outside of the diplomatic compound. Many diplomats are “acutely uncomfortable” when they aren‟t conversing with other of their own ilk. Public diplomacy involves the diplomatic agent connecting directly with populations in order “to get them want what we want through the power of attraction” (Joseph Nye‟s concept of “soft power”). Public diplomacy leaves it to another country‟s population to bring their government “on board” aided by strategic use of the media, joint use of civil society, partnerships with likeminded groups. Such an approach to diplomacy makes sense for countries like New Zealand and Canada considering their limited hard power and shrinking relative places in the world. However, both NZ and Canada we have very strong international reputations or “positive brands”: something that one wants to work with and indeed can work with. According to Copeland, Soft power is the “fuel” of public diplomacy. A good brand brings a smile as opposed to a scowl to your interlocutor‟s face. Guerrilla Diplomacy is described as by Bruce Gregory, an advisor to former President Clinton, and a colleague of Copeland, as “public diplomacy on steroids”. Guerrilla Diplomacy takes public diplomacy into unfamiliar places, “into the storefront, into the favela, and into the conflict zone”.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Gordian Knot: Apartheid & the Unmaking of the Liberal World Order, 1960-1970
    THE GORDIAN KNOT: APARTHEID & THE UNMAKING OF THE LIBERAL WORLD ORDER, 1960-1970 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Ryan Irwin, B.A., M.A. History ***** The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Committee: Professor Peter Hahn Professor Robert McMahon Professor Kevin Boyle Professor Martha van Wyk © 2010 by Ryan Irwin All rights reserved. ABSTRACT This dissertation examines the apartheid debate from an international perspective. Positioned at the methodological intersection of intellectual and diplomatic history, it examines how, where, and why African nationalists, Afrikaner nationalists, and American liberals contested South Africa’s place in the global community in the 1960s. It uses this fight to explore the contradictions of international politics in the decade after second-wave decolonization. The apartheid debate was never at the center of global affairs in this period, but it rallied international opinions in ways that attached particular meanings to concepts of development, order, justice, and freedom. As such, the debate about South Africa provides a microcosm of the larger postcolonial moment, exposing the deep-seated differences between politicians and policymakers in the First and Third Worlds, as well as the paradoxical nature of change in the late twentieth century. This dissertation tells three interlocking stories. First, it charts the rise and fall of African nationalism. For a brief yet important moment in the early and mid-1960s, African nationalists felt genuinely that they could remake global norms in Africa’s image and abolish the ideology of white supremacy through U.N.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Science Diplomat?
    The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15 (2020) 409-423 brill.com/hjd What Is a Science Diplomat? Lorenzo Melchor Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT), Madrid, Spain; former FECYT Science Adviser in the Spanish Embassy in London, United Kingdom [email protected] Received: 22 May 2020; revised: 4 July 2020; accepted: 21 July 2020 Summary The COVID-19 crisis has shown how countries initially responded to a global chal- lenge on their own, instead of relying on a multilateral science diplomacy — based response. Although, science diplomacy has received great attention for the past de- cade, its meaning and the nature of the diverse practitioners involved remain elusive. Science diplomacy is a transboundary field sitting across national borders, policy frameworks and stakeholders of all natures and professional backgrounds. But what is a science diplomat? What science diplomacy roles formally exist? Who can become a science diplomat? What knowledge and skills are required? This practitioner’s essay proposes a typology of science diplomacy practitioners who bring science, technology, innovation, foreign policy and the international political system altogether closer in either institutionalised or non-institutionalised roles, and it also provides guidance for pursuing a career in science diplomacy. These science diplomats may promote na- tional competitiveness but also facilitate multilateral responses to global challenges. Keywords science diplomacy – science diplomat – science counsellor – science attaché – science adviser – science advice – science-policy interface – knowledge diplomacy – COVID-19 © Lorenzo Melchor, 2020 | doi:10.1163/1871191X-bja10026 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0Downloaded license. from Brill.com10/01/2021 11:43:18AM via free access 410 Melchor 1 Introduction1 The COVID-19 outbreak has caused a profound global public health and socio- economic crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Thesis Draft No Pics
    A whole new world: Global revolution and Australian social movements in the long Sixties Jon Piccini BA Honours (1st Class) A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2013 School of History, Philosophy, Religion & Classics Abstract This thesis explores Australian social movements during the long Sixties through a transnational prism, identifying how the flow of people and ideas across borders was central to the growth and development of diverse campaigns for political change. By making use of a variety of sources—from archives and government reports to newspapers, interviews and memoirs—it identifies a broadening of the radical imagination within movements seeking rights for Indigenous Australians, the lifting of censorship, women’s liberation, the ending of the war in Vietnam and many others. It locates early global influences, such as the Chinese Revolution and increasing consciousness of anti-racist struggles in South Africa and the American South, and the ways in which ideas from these and other overseas sources became central to the practice of Australian social movements. This was a process aided by activists’ travel. Accordingly, this study analyses the diverse motives and experiences of Australian activists who visited revolutionary hotspots from China and Vietnam to Czechoslovakia, Algeria, France and the United States: to protest, to experience or to bring back lessons. While these overseas exploits, breathlessly recounted in articles, interviews and books, were transformative for some, they also exposed the limits of what a transnational politics could achieve in a local setting. Australia also became a destination for the period’s radical activists, provoking equally divisive responses.
    [Show full text]
  • Lobbying of Canadian Diplomats (2010) of It,” She Says
    Canada’s Strategic Resources: Getting the ‘net benefit’ test right—Pages 11-18 EMBASSYCANADA’S FOREIGN POLICY NEWSWEEKLY OTTAWA, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2011 ISSUE 336 • $3.00 A year later, Haiti remains a riddle wrapped HAITI in an enigma FINDING A WAY Anca Gurzu pages 8-9 early three months after a mas- Nsive earthquake left parts of Haiti in complete devastation, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon stood in front of hundreds of interna- tional delegates at the United Nations in New York speaking about a long- term vision. “While today’s conference is a land- mark event in Haiti’s reconstruction, it LOBBYING should by no means be interpreted as GARY DOER TOP TARGET the end of a process,” he said on March 31. “It is one of the first milestones on page 3 a long road upon which we have just embarked, and Canada is ready to stand by Haiti’s side as long as required.” At the time, with the Afghanistan mission set to wrap up in 2011, many IVORY COAST ‘DE-RECOGNITION’ had expected, if not outright encour- PHOTO: SAM GARCIA aged, the government to make Haiti CATCHES AFRICANS Canada’s next top foreign policy pri- UNAWARES ority. There were many reasons to EMBASSY do so, including geographic proxim- A new hand or chairs on the deck of the Titanic? Prime Minister Stephen Harper started the year off with a mini-Cabinet page 5 shuffle that saw Peter Kent become Canada’s new environment minister and Diane Ablonczy take over as minister of state for ity, the large number of Haitians in the Americas.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Murdered Marigold?
    WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS Lee H. Hamilton, Who Murdered “Marigold” Christian Ostermann, Director Director New Evidence on the Mysterious Failure of BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Poland’s Secret Initiative to Start U.S.-North ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Joseph A. Cari, Jr., Vietnamese Peace Talks, 1966 Chairman William Taubman Steven Alan Bennett, (Amherst College) Vice Chairman Chairman PUBLIC MEMBERS by James G. Hershberg Michael Beschloss The Secretary of State (Historian, Author) Colin Powell; George Washington University The Librarian of Congress (with the Assistance of L.W. Gluchowski) James H. Billington James H. Billington; (Librarian of Congress) The Archivist of the United States Working Paper No. 27 John W. Carlin; Warren I. Cohen The Chairman of the (University of Maryland- National Endowment Baltimore) for the Humanities Bruce Cole; John Lewis Gaddis The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution (Yale University) Lawrence M. Small; The Secretary of Education James Hershberg Roderick R. Paige; (The George Washington The Secretary of Health University) & Human Services Tommy G. Thompson; Washington, D.C. Samuel F. Wells, Jr. PRIVATE MEMBERS (Woodrow Wilson Center) Carol Cartwright, April 2000 John H. Foster, Jean L. Hennessey, Sharon Wolchik Daniel L. Lamaute, (The George Washington Doris O. Mausui, University) Thomas R. Reedy, Nancy M. Zirkin COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL HISTORY PROJECT THE COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL HISTORY PROJECT WORKING PAPER SERIES CHRISTIAN F. OSTERMANN, Series Editor This paper is one of a series of Working Papers published by the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. Established in 1991 by a grant from the John D.
    [Show full text]
  • BILATERAL DIPLOMACY: a PRACTITIONER PERSPECTIVE Kishan S Rana
    Policy Papers and Briefs – 15, 2020 BILATERAL DIPLOMACY: A PRACTITIONER PERSPECTIVE Kishan S Rana Summary • The bilateral process is the oldest form of diplomacy, • The four pillars of bilateral diplomacy are: political, eco- dating to ancient times when kingdoms dealt with one nomic, and public diplomacy, and consular (plus dias- another; often, a search for security and trade were the pora) affairs. Its principal institutions are the foreign drivers. Covering relations between pairs of countries, ministry, embassies and consulates, and the foreign this is the building block of multilateral diplomacy. service. • It has evolved over time, especially after in the fif- • We consider possible taxonomies for bilateral diplo- teenth-century Italian princely states and dukedoms macy. This is a work in progress; it may inspire deeper began the custom in Europe of appointing resident research into diplomacy studies. ambassadors. In the seventeenth century, France cre- ated an office to manage them; that office became the • Today’s diplomatic practices are a consequence of the foreign ministry. Customary diplomatic practices, such globalisation of diplomacy, including the revolution in as procedures, precedence, and reciprocal privileges, information and communication technology (ICT). Yet evolved over time, and were codified in the 1961 Vienna the core tasks are unchanged: the application of intelli- Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR).1 gence to managing relationships with foreign countries across a very broad front in pursuit of the home coun- • The VCDR defines the tasks of bilateral diplomacy as: try’s interests. We are in an age of complexified bilateral representation, protection, negotiation, reporting, and diplomacy as a result of new actors, issues, and inter- promotion.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplomacy, Globalization and Heteropolarity: the Challenge of Adaptation
    Diplomacy, Globalization and Heteropolarity: The Challenge of Adaptation by Daryl Copeland A POLICYAugust PAPER, 2013 POLICY PAPER Diplomacy, Globalization and Heteropolarity: The Challenge of Adaptation* by Daryl Copeland CDFAI Senior Fellow August, 2013 Prepared for the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute 1600, 530 – 8th Avenue S.W., Calgary, AB T2P 3S8 www.cdfai.org ©2013 Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute ISBN: 978-1-927573-18-1 Executive Summary Globalization is the defining historical process of our times, conditioning, if not determining, outcomes across vast swathes of human activity. At the same time, a heteropolar world is emerging, one in which various and competing sources of power and influence are based more on difference than on similarity. In the face of these transformative forces, diplomacy is struggling to evolve. To date, none of the key elements of the diplomatic ecosystem – the foreign ministry, the Foreign Service, or the diplomatic business model – have adapted well, or quickly enough. If diplomacy is to achieve its full potential as a non-violent approach to the management of international relations and global issues through political communications, then radical reform will be required. These observations are particularly apt in Canada, where diplomatic performance has in recent years been troubled. The foreign ministry (formerly DFAIT), still struggling to absorb the deep cuts contained in the federal budget of March 2012, finds itself in the midst of a complicated merger with the aid agency (formerly CIDA). This unanticipated amalgamation has resulted in significant uncertainty and dislocation in both organizations, and is reminiscent of the disastrous split, and then re-integration, of the foreign and trade ministries 2004-06.
    [Show full text]
  • People's Diplomacy of Vietnam
    People’s Diplomacy of Vietnam People’s Diplomacy of Vietnam: Soft Power in the Resistance War, 1965-1972 By Harish C. Mehta People’s Diplomacy of Vietnam: Soft Power in the Resistance War, 1965-1972 By Harish C. Mehta This book first published 2019 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2019 by Harish C. Mehta All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-2309-8 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-2309-8 I dedicate this book to the memory of my parents, Kanta and Daulat Ram Mehta, who lived in, and loved, colonial and postcolonial India Map of Vietnam by the courtesy of the Perry-Castaneda Library. CONTENTS Acknowledgements .................................................................................... ix List of Abbreviations .................................................................................. xi Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 The Missing “People” in the Diplomacy of the Vietnam War Chapter One ............................................................................................... 19 The Origins of People’s Diplomacy: “Peeling the Colonial
    [Show full text]
  • Guerrilla Diplomacy for the 21St Century: Rethinking International Relations in a World of Insecurity Written by Daryl Copeland
    Guerrilla Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Rethinking International Relations in a World of Insecurity Written by Daryl Copeland This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below. Guerrilla Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Rethinking International Relations in a World of Insecurity https://www.e-ir.info/2010/04/06/guerrilla-diplomacy-for-the-21st-century-rethinking-international-relations-in-a-world-of- insecurity/ DARYL COPELAND, APR 6 2010 Diplomacy, in recent years, has been neglected, if not scorned by journalists, think tanks, international relations scholars and, most surprisingly, by governments. That neglect, acute since the events of 9/11, has proven costly. Recent experience with the unsuccessful use of armed force by the USA in Iraq and NATO in Afghanistan suggests that the case for revisiting diplomacy is compelling. With the arrival of the Obama administration and departure of the neoconservatives from Washington, that stage appears set for change, and the case for advancing diplomatic alternatives – and alternative diplomacy – is gaining momentum. The timing is right for a de-militarization of international policy. And the arguments in favour are formidable. The abiding need to rethink key elements of international relations – security and development – from the perspective of diplomacy in the age of globalization is clear. It must be asked: does diplomacy still matter? Yes, but the entire diplomatic edifice is in crisis and radical reconstruction is required. Viewed through the lens of those who favor talking over fighting, dialogue over diktat, and negotiation and compromise over compulsion, too many governments are still relying on armed force as the foreign policy instrument of choice, with calamitous consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • MAIR Presents: Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations in a World of Insecurity a Discussion with Daryl Copeland
    MAIR Presents: Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations in a World of Insecurity A discussion with Daryl Copeland Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10am-noon in Room 208N For anyone with a penchant for negotiation and compromise, and a general preference for talking over fighting and dialogue over diktat, diplomacy should matter. But diplomacy has been sidelined and is facing a crisis of relevance and effectiveness. This may be attributed in large part to its inability to adapt to the exigencies of globalization, that totalizing historical force which continues to condition, if not determine outcomes across a broad range of human activity. A rising tide of violence, inequality, and unaddressed threats provides powerful testament not only to the socialization of globalization’s costs and the privatization of its benefits, but to the abject failure of diplomacy to engage remedially. Join Daryl Copeland, author of Guerrilla Diplomacy and Senior Fellow at the Munk Centre, for a discussion of what might be done to better equip diplomacy, the foreign ministry and the Foreign Service to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Mr. Copeland grew up in downtown Toronto, and received his formal education at the University of Western Ontario (Gold Medal, Political science; Chancellor’s Prize, Social Sciences) and the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs (Canada Council Special MA Scholarship). He has spent years backpacking on six continents, and enjoys travel, photography, arts and the outdoors. Mr. Copeland serves as a peer reviewer for Canadian Foreign Policy, the International Journal, and The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, and is a member of the Editorial Board of the journal Place Branding and Public Diplomacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Virtuality, Diplomacy, and the Foreign Ministry: Does Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada Need a “V Tower”?
    COPELAND VIRTUALITY, DIPLOMACY, AND THE FOREIGN MINISTRY: DOES FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE CANADA NEED A “V TOWER”? Daryl Copeland The vested interests of acquired knowledge and conventional wisdom have always been bypassed and engulfed by new media. Marshall McLuhan Along that ever shorter road from heresy to liturgy, it is no longer news that the much heralded revolution in information and communication technologies (ICTs) has transformed the practice of diplomacy, the management of the foreign ministry, and the nature of foreign service.1 Less clear, however, is where all of this is going, what it may mean for practitioners, and how Canada is performing vis-à-vis the international competition. The purpose of this paper is to address these questions, and to focus on Daryl Copeland is an analyst, author, and educator. He speaks and writes on international policy, global issues, diplomacy, and public management, and has recently completed a book, Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations, released in July 2009 by Lynne Rienner Publishers. See www.guerrilladiplomacy.com From 1981 through mid-2009, Mr. Copeland served as a Canadian diplomat with postings in Thailand, Ethiopia, New Zealand, and Malaysia. During the 1980s and 1990s, he was elected five times to the Executive Committee of the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers. From 1996-1999 he was National Program Director of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs in Toronto and Editor of Behind the Headlines, Canada's international affairs magazine. In 2000 he received the Canadian Foreign Service Officer Award for his “tireless dedication and unyielding commitment to advancing the interests of the diplomatic profession”.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011-2012 James Middleton Essay Prize in History the People's
    2011-2012 James Middleton Essay Prize in History The People’s Republic of China and Vietnam: A Complex Relationship ALLEN KEMPTON 1 The People’s Republic of China and Vietnam: A Complex Relationship The Vietnam War is a war that is often situated in the narrow lens of Eastern Communism versus Western Democracy. Typically, the major players are generalized as the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States of America (USA) facing off in a “satellite” country, where the country itself did not really matter, only the two super powers of the time. What is often overlooked is the complexity of the international dimensions of the war. Many smaller countries, such as Canada, contributed mostly forgotten regiments, technology, and aid to the USA’s intervention in South Vietnam. On the other side, many people either do not know or downplay the significant role the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had in assisting the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRVN). This lack of recognition can be attributed to the tunnel vision of the American government and the Cold War rhetoric delivered to the American people to gain support for intervention in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), also known as South Vietnam. However, it is extremely important to recognize the PRC’s influence on South East Asia issues as a whole. The PRC had a major impact on the development of Vietnam, both negatively and positively. First, the very creation of the PRC in 1949 set the stage for a major shift in the balance of power in Asia. Further, the PRC’s diplomatic strategy towards Vietnam had major impacts on its development in the years leading up to the American intervention.
    [Show full text]