By 
It is very difficult to give an accurate forecast about change in the geopolitical balance in the world of the twenty-first century. According to the analysis carried out by experts, at present time on a global scale complex processes interact with one another
If the beginning of the years 1991-2000 could be called The US, including the West geopolitical, economic and ideological leadership, a different picture emerged in 2003-2010. This weakened the West’s leadership and limited America’s influence. The countries which are candidates to clear and ambitious leadership began to show itself. (China, Russia, India, etc.). However, this changes did not make changes in philosophy and structure of the world management.
Such a situation resulted in contradictions to the global geopolitics. There is still no effective mechanism of regulation of interstate relations. At the same time, the new conditions need making changes in foreign policy and diplomacy. Due to this, brain centers of great countries have already started making analyzes.
I can show several factors as reason to “mix”, “complex” and “complicated” situation on a global scale. First, US can’t function its’ leadership as the previous level. As an argument is foreign policy failures, since 2003. Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, as an example of recent years could be shown.
Secondly, a few countries claimed their candidacy into being a leading place to geopolitical environment. Among them China and Russia are mostly called. In addition, India, Brazil and Turkey’s influence also has increased. As a result, the struggle of competing interests with one another have been increased in geopolitics. In particular, China and the US competition manifests itself on a larger scale. Of course, in the geopolitical environment where a large numbers of forces showing high activity reveals a different reality view rather than twentieth century.
Thirdly, it is much more difficult to manage global governance in the newly formed global geopolitical situation. Classic politics and diplomacy is not sufficient as previous years. Totally, the content of the “Governance” concept needs to be renewed. The point is that, unlike a single leading model, the model where many of the forces that affect management of environment should be based on different criteria. Humanity has not yet been able to find the terms for the effective regulation.
Fourth, international organizations can’t operate effectively on a global scale. They still use methods of “cold war” period. Interestingly, attempts to update mechanisms used by these organizations do not give any results. In my opinion, this is the main issue facing the global political environment. Because, on the one hand, almost everyone understands that previous relationships system is not effective, on the other hand it is not possible to come to a common conclusion. What is the reason?
I suppose that analysts of the West, Russia and China intentionally do not point out some important issues. It is the extreme nature of the leadership ambitions of great powers. The contents of the analysis carried out by analysts, a superficial analysis the strategy and objectives show that, the West, Russia, China and others firstly try to create the international relations system that match their interests. Almost, they do not have confidence in each other. By the way, experts emphasize this issues.
Foreign policy: a new era?
Nevertheless, the great powers have begun to look for a new political-diplomatic methods. This area is already aware of the need for renewal. I have to admit that it is very actual to analyze the strong impact of the new information-communication technologies to the diplomacy. This, in fact, give a new dynamics to the geopolitical environment. The essence of the matter is that in period where the information plays a major role, the foreign policy and diplomatic activities should be formed based on a somewhat different terms. They should meet the challenges of the modern era.
The increasing impact of the policies of countries to each other and importance of information technology makes important to apply new methods. In particular, the availability of trained professionals is important. Currently, Moscow yet has not posses the enough level of cadressphe. For this reason, certain shortcomings emerge in the creation of a positive image in abroad. This issue is the build most important priority in foreign policy.
I can state that there is an increase of importance of “public methods” use in foreign policy. Its’ sign is finding the right balance between “hard power” and “soft power”. Concretely, the increase of impact of information rather than military methods. For example, the ability to work with the leaders of public opinion in foreign policy has a special significance. From here we can conclude that, government with government, society with society, social networks with social networks and the media should work with the media!
No doubt that, it is not easy process to show the diplomatic activity and generally to organize foreign policy with above-mentioned methods. For this, the systematic development course must be found for the country. It should be built up mechanism that will be legible to use efficiently modern information-communication technologies in political spheres. Shortly, a modern diplomacy must be organized on effective use of information.
If foreign policy is built on the principles mentioned above, though, cultural power of the state and society has shown itself in the international arena. Conditionally “soft power” term has become part of political vocabulary. Instead of using common categories, it is much more effective method to make tactical decisions. If the main case is to build a positive image of the country in international arena, businessmen, religious institutions, the media, NGOs and others should match the performance of each other’s work. It is one of the important conditions for a successful foreign policy in the modern era.
All this confirms modern foreign policy and diplomacy are on the eve of significant innovations. In fact, the importance of the community participation in the process is increasing. More and more foreign policy is now largely addressed to ordinary citizens. Thus, to establish a dialogue with all sections of society should take place also in diplomatic activity. Is mankind ready for philosophy dialogue as a whole?
Comments