LEGON CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND DIPLOMACY GHANA’S DIPLOMACY IN THE 21ST CENTURY: PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES BY EUGENIA BOATAA-KORDIE (CANDIDATE ID 10538066) THIS DISSERTATION IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN INTERNATIONAL AFAIRS i Declaration I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of an original research conducted by me under the supervision of Ambassador Dr. Kodzo Alabo and that no part has been submitted anywhere else for any purpose with the exception of the quoted references and acknowledged sources. …………………………………… ……………………………………. EUGENIA BOATAA-KORDIE AMB. DR. KODZO ALABO (STUDENT) (SUPERVISOR) DATE: 02/02/22 DATE02/02/00 Dedication This work is dedicated to the Lord Almighty, without whom I would not have been able to attend the Legon Centre for International Affairs and Diplomacy (LECIAD) or receive His guidance throughout my studies. I stand on the shoulders of many great men and women but Mr. Kennedy Kofi Yayra Darkey is someone EXCEPTIONAL. This work is dedicated to Mr. Kennedy Kofi Yayra Darkey for changing my life forever, in ways unspeakable. Acknowledgements My sincere gratitude goes to God Almighty, whose kindness, protection, and provision saw me through the difficult times and helped me to complete both my course work and this dissertation successfully. I owe a lifetime of gratitude and appreciation to Mr Frank Ohene-Wiafe, for his endless support in every endeavour of my life and ascertaining that I reach higher heights, always!! I am very grateful to Amb. Kodzo Alabo, my supervisor for his guidance and advice. To all my friends and loved ones, thank you for contributing and enriching the experiences of the journey of my life. Table of Contents Declaration i Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents iv List of Tables vii Abstract viii List of Abbreviations ix CHAPTER ONE 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Background to the Study 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem 3 1.3 Research Objectives 4 1.3.1 General objective 4 1.3.2 Specific objectives 4 1.4 Research Questions 5 1.5 Significance of The Study 5 1.6 Scope of The Study 5 1.7 Theoretical Framework 5 1.7.1 Theory of Constructivism 5 1.7.2 Criticism of Constructivism 7 1.7.3 Praise for Constructivism 9 1.7.4 Justification for Constructivism 11 1.8 Literature Review 12 1.8.1 Diplomacy in Africa 12 1.8.2 Impact of Globalization on Diplomacy 14 1.8.3 Impact of Technology on Diplomacy 16 1.8.4 Electronic Diplomacy (E-Diplomacy) 18 1.8.5 Challenges of Technology in Diplomacy 19 1.9 Research Methodology 21 1.9.1 Research Study Design 21 1.9.2 Sources of Data 21 1.9.3 Sampling Method 22 1.9.4 Sample Size 22 1.9.5 Data Analysis 23 1.9.6 Ethical Considerations 23 1.10 Organization of The Study 23 References 24 CHAPTER TWO 28 OVERVIEW OF GHANA’S DIPLOMACY PRIOR TO THE 21ST CENTURY 28 2.0 Introduction 28 2.1 History of Diplomacy 28 2.2 Diplomatic Practices and Processes 29 2.3 Diplomacy Before The 21st Century 30 2.4 Bringing other Countries Onboard 35 2.5 Challenges Encountered During the Process 37 2.6 The Way Forward 37 References 41 CHAPTER THREE 44 DATA PRESENTIONN AND ANALYSIS 44 3.0 Introduction 44 3.1 Data Analysis and Presentation 44 3.2 Importance Diplomacy 45 3.3 Ghana’s Diplomacy before and during the 21st Century 48 3.4 Prospects of Ghana’s Diplomacy 50 3.5 Challenges to Ghana’s Diplomacy 53 CHAPTER FOUR 56 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 56 4.1 Summary of Research Findings 56 4.2 Conclusion 57 4.3 Recommendations for Government and Other Stakeholders 58 BIBLIOGRAPHY 59 APPENDIX 65 List of Tables Table 1: Importance of Ghana’s Diplomacy 45 Table 2: Is the government of Ghana taking steps to improve diplomacy? 45 Table 3: Founders of Ghana’s diplomacy 46 Table 4: Level of Contribution of Key Founders of Ghana's Diplomacy 47 Table 5: Ghana’s Diplomacy Before the 21st century 48 Table 6: Ghana’s Diplomacy in the 21st century 49 Table 7: Changes in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century 49 Table 8: Challenges of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century. 50 Table 9: Prospects of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century 53 Table 10: How can the country overcome these challenges? 54 Table 11: Preparation for Changes Yet to Come 55 Abstract The belief that Ghana’s diplomatic organisation offers far less value than it used to, is the result of people in diplomatic roles not being fully aware of the development that has taken place and currently happening. The study aimed to identify the changes, prospects and challenges in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century. For the purposes of this analysis, a qualitative and deductive method were used. The study used both primary and secondary data. The study used purposive sampling method to select a sample size of 20 respondents. The information gathered for the study was transcribed verbatim and organized into appropriate themes and analyzed (Thematic Analysis). The study found that some changes in Ghana’s diplomacy in the current century include adequate integration of technology in diplomatic operations that has improved communication, transportation, service delivery and ultimately, the overall performance. The study found that some prospects of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century are easy and fast communication, increased promotion and national image building, effective crisis management and conflict resolution, and dynamic roles of foreign mission. The study found that some challenges of diplomacy include difficulties in integrating IT tools into diplomacy, challenges in policy implementation, hacking and information breaches. Some recommendations are that the Government should invest in the right cybersecurity equipment and software to be able to prevent or control the attacks by hackers. Institutions and other stakeholders should use the new media social media to educate the citizenry to practice self-leaning about new technologies in Diplomacy. Keywords: Diplomacy, process and procedures, development, 21st century List of Abbreviations CADTM FAM FCO FOCAC FSOs HIPC IAFS ICT INGOs MFAT MGDs NEPAD NGOs NSA SDGs TICAD UN Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt Foreign Affairs Ministry Foreign and Commonwealth Office Forum on China–Africa Cooperation Foreign service officers Heavily Indebted Poor Countries India–Africa Forum Summit Information and communication technology International Non-Governmental Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Millennium Development Goals New Partnership for Africa's Development Non-Governmental Organizations National Security Agency Sustainable Development Goals Tokyo International Conference on African Development United nations UNGA United Nations General Assembly CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction This chapter presents an introduction to the study on “Ghana’s Diplomacy in the 21st Century: Prospects and Challenges”. The chapter specifically gives the background to the study, states of the research problem, research objectives, research questions, significance of the study, scope of the study, theoretical framework, literature review, sources of data, research methodology and finally the organization of the study. 1.1 Background to the Study Despite the notion that it may have existed since ancient antiquity, diplomacy as a dynamic mechanism for managing foreign affairs is regarded to have arisen in the seventeenth century. Its development paralleled the formation of a contemporary international relations system based on nation-state sovereign equality, as formalized in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. As the emerging nation-states steadily declared their geographical control, a need for a more methodical handling of contacts between these polities arose, based on a widely agreed-upon system of rules, etiquette, and law. Diplomacy arose as a result of the emergence of this new system of international interactions, Volker (2018). Diplomatic processes and procedures, on the other hand, developed slowly over the eighteenth, nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, as a result of the rise of increasingly elaborate governing institutions in human communities, and the ensuing more intricate matters they had to discuss with one another, human civilizations have become more complex (Richard, 2011). Even in the twenty first century, the evolution is still happening and will continue to happen in the years to come throughout every continent and every country, including Ghana. The perception that African diplomacy reflects a certain type of diplomacy is relatively new, given that a lot of African states only attained political liberation in the last fifty years. Certainly, the newest member of the United Nations (UN) is South Sudan, an African country that only attained independence in July 2011. Africa had the fewest representation in the UN when it was created in 1945, with only four original member-states (Ethiopia, Egypt, South Africa and Liberia). This profile has evolved dramatically, and Africa now has more autonomous governments than any other region on the earth, accounting for more than 25% of UN membership in the first twenty years of the twenty-first century (Marsh, 2013). The pursuit of uprightness and fairness in global relations, the Africa's predominant imperative of development and peace, and the desire for diplomacy that accentuates African unity, unity, and integration all demand that the guiding themes in African diplomacy be explained from a historical viewpoint. Undeniably, much of African diplomacy's discourse is shaped by the continent's history of marginalization: a link to the rest of the world that shows vulnerability on a continental scale. Current African diplomacy, on the other hand, is not simply the outcome of unpleasant experiences (Abatan & Spies, 2016). Traditional African and diaspora values, such as a seamless attitude to time, reverence for cultural tradition and influence, a preference for collaborative, unpressured choices, and a stress on society over people, are all present. Harambee (Swahili for "uniting") and Ubuntu (Nguni for "humanity") are two philosophies that encourage collective selflessness. "Building a Better World: The Diplomacy of Ubuntu," for example, is the title of the South African government's latest foreign policy document (UNECA, 2016). The usefulness of diplomacy at the global level is correlated with this idea of sympathetic human connection - the practice exists because there is a continuing demand for mediation and negotiation amongst human groupings. Africans have a holistic view to the notion, and "diplomacy" is thus a regular facet of life; even death. In several parts of Africa, regardless of the religious or political structure of the state, communicating with ancestors is a respected custom. The Incwala, for example, is a Swaziland rite that entails "negotiating" with fore fathers in order to improve the nation's well-being. Diplomacy is a fluid, non-linear undertaking that takes place across the continent, involving all levels of society – including those who have transcended time (Abatan & Spies, 2016). Diplomacy, just like other aspects of government, is affected by the fundamental developments of the twenty-first (21st) century. Jolts to the global order, the upheaval in internet-based worldwide communication, and liberal governments' lawfulness concerns all appear to demand a major re-structuring of foreign policy tools. Diplomacy, according to Otto Von Bismarck, the first Chancellor of the German empire in 1871, is "the never-ending negotiation of reciprocal concessions between powers." If this is the reality, then today, we must braise ourselves for a more complicated art of international relations management (Jönsson, 2011), one that comes with its own set of challenges and opportunities. It is therefore important to continually study how diplomacy is changing in the 21st century, the prospects those changes present and the challenges we are likely to face going forward. 1.2 Statement of the Problem Over the years, there have been claims that diplomats have become old-fashioned, relics of a bygone global framework, and that the conventional roles they play are now filled by a slew of non-diplomatic players. Because the diplomatic occupation is so profoundly reliant on words and information management, the arrival of 24/7 news networks and simple and quick air travel in the twenty-first century has been used to deliberate that diplomat have been made obsolete, at best turned into gatekeepers or travel agents for visiting officials and delegations. As a result, many countries' diplomatic organizations are in jeopardy, as countries and their leadership are weary of paying for a sophisticated out-dated diplomatic system that they no longer believe offers value. The belief that Ghana’s diplomatic organisation offers far less value than it used to, is the result of people in diplomatic roles not being fully aware of the development that has taken place and currently happening. This lack of awareness makes it difficult, if not impossible for our diplomatic institutions to spot and take advantage of the opportunities or more importantly, guard against the challenges this evolution brings. It is the goal of this research to identify these prospects and challenges, and shed light on how they can be controlled to improve the quality of our international relations. 1.3 Research Objectives 1.3.1 General objective The general objective of the research is to examine Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century and identify its prospects and challenges. 1.3.2 Specific objectives 1. To identify the changes that have occurred in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century. 2. To discover the prospects of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century. 3. To investigate challenges of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century. 1.4 Research Questions The study attempted to respond to the following questions: 1. What major changes have occurred in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century? 2. What are the prospects of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century? 3. What are the challenges of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century? 1.5 Significance of The Study The importance of this research is to add to the existing body of knowledge on the subject. It again gives a detailed analysis of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century sheds light on the prospects and challenges it presents. It provides students, scholars, and policymakers with valuable information on the prospects and challenges of Ghana’s diplomacy and how they can be harnessed to improve the quality of the country’s international relations. 1.6 Scope of The Study The contextual scope of the study is limited to diplomacy in Ghana. The specific ministries include the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Defence as well as their related agencies. The study assesses diplomacy before the 21st century to identify some changes in practice, prospects and some pressing challenges of diplomacy. 1.7 Theoretical Framework 1.7.1 Theory of Constructivism This research employed the use of theory of constructivism. Constructivism is defined as "a learning strategy based on the belief that people actively construct or make their own knowledge, and that reality is determined by the learner's experiences" (Elliott et al., 2000). The theory ensures individuals or diplomats in social situations acquire and develop knowledge by generating their own schema based on the information they acquire. In many instances, through diplomacy, countries learn from each other, provide assistance and ensures all conflicts are resolved peacefully. The theory is applied in the learning process where people or countries learn to exist harmoniously. Constructivists believe that learning is an active process that takes place throughout the learners' experiences and the environment in which they learn. Following in the footsteps of social learning pioneers such as Leontiev, Brown, Collin, Vygotsky, and Duguid by accepting constructivist learning theories. Learning, according to all proponents of social learning, is a social, interactive activity. Accepting constructivism also necessitates focusing the majority of our efforts on students and the creation of collaborative, interactive settings. Vygotsky established the Zone of Proximate Development (ZPD) shortly before the birth of constructivism as we know it now, which represents the gap between what learners can attain on their own, their real growth, and what they can accomplish with the support of others. This notion not only highlighted the social character of learning, but it is also one of the most widely used constructivist ideas in education today (Vygotsky, 1978). Learning is a social, interactive activity, according to all proponents of social learning. Accepting constructivism also demands concentrating most of our efforts on students and developing collaborative, interactive environments. Shortly before the emergence of constructivism as we know it today, Vygotsky invented the Zone of Proximate Development (ZPD), which reflects the gap between what learners can accomplish on their own, their real development, and what they can achieve with the help of others. This approach is not just one of the most extensively used constructivist theories in education today, but it also emphasizes the social nature of learning (Vygotsky, 1978). In his seminal work, Onuf (1989) introduced the idea and methodology of constructivism to the international relations ecosystem That helps diplomacy. Onuf says it best: “Constructivism does not offer general explanations for what people do, why societies differ, how the world changes. Instead, constructivism makes it feasible to theorise about matters that seem to be unrelated because the concepts and prepositions normally used to talk about such matters are also unrelated.” The central reason for this approach was the social construction of world politics. In reality, advocates of this approach do not characterize constructivism as a new philosophy for understanding international relations through diplomacy; rather, it is pitched as a new way of attempting to represent and explain the world. It's enough to claim that it's a reinterpretation of the universe. The recognized value-systems and mutual-beneficial construction mechanism between values and actors are highlighted in this approach (Onuf 1989). 1.7.2 Criticism of Constructivism Though constructivism has been hailed by many instructors, it is not without its critics. Constructivist tactics have been met with a slew of counter-arguments. Some scholars who are critical of constructivism, such as the vocal According to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006), constructivism promotes a teaching style that gives students unguided or minimally directed instructions. People become "lost and disappointed" when learning with little instructions, according to Brown and Campione, 1994; Hardiman, Pollatsek, and Weil, 1986; Moreno, 2004; and Tuovinen and Sweller, 1999 (Kirschner et al, 2006). The use of slightly directed teaching ignores the relevance and organization of working memory during learning. Constructivist methods that use minutely guided ways, according to researchers like Kirschner et al. (2006), ignore research evidences that prove that unsupervised directions are ineffectual in educational processes. Another critique levelled by constructivism critics is that learners require concrete objects to ensure that they have learnt anything, and constructivist methodologies fail to provide this requirement. According to these opponents, individuals must demonstrate their knowledge by constructing things; cognitive learning is insufficient (Papert & Harel, 1991). For example, a web design teacher would prepare a lesson plan with the goal of having each student create a web page using Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) by the end of the semester. If the teacher used a constructivist method, the students might work in groups to create a website or solve problems without much supervision from the teacher. Students will learn information through interaction with their classmates, according to the constructivist viewpoint. An instructor who uses a more structured approach, on the other hand, could expect pupils to learn through a lecture and then demonstrate that knowledge with a written exam (Jonassen, 991). In constructivist techniques, students have discovered that they may negotiate meaningfully developing a web page using HTML through dialogue or a problem-based learning approach rather than through the production of the webpage itself. When learners use created knowledge through physical artifacts - in this case, a webpage - it is evident that they have obtained the correct information. Students need to see their learning results in a tangible way, according to critics of constructivist methods, so they can continue to develop and polish their thinking (Kirschner et al, 2006). Other criticisms include Piaget's constructivism's omission of essential background elements in learning settings such as educational resources, the requirement of including media in learning environments, learners' preferences, and students’ ability to think for themselves (Ackermann, 2001). The aforementioned variables, according to critics, contribute to learning environments. This argument contends that constructivist techniques are primarily focused on cognitive characteristics, ignoring environmental and technological factors. Others argue that, despite the fact that learning should promote individual rights, constructivism supports group thinking and opposes students' uniqueness. Some psychologists oppose constructivism because it permits dominant students to dominate classroom dealings while the regular students are ignored (Gupta, 2011). The dominating group, according to these critics, guides the entire class toward their point of view while leaving other students behind. These detractors say that constructivist teaching ignores the growth of many students' skills because the activity is guided by a few. Furthermore, opponents of constructivism believe it is unsound economically, as it is costly to train instructors in constructivist teaching methods, especially when school budgets are frequently in risk. 1.7.3 Praise for Constructivism Despite a slew of criticisms, constructivism remains a strong impact in education, thanks to a large number of proponents. As per advocates of the theory, constructivist-minded teachers assist students in constructing knowledge rather than placing all of the obligation for learning on their shoulders. Diplomats are transformed from passive consumers of knowledge to active learners using constructivist educational strategies (Ackermann, 2001). Constructivist proponents also argue that rather than relying on a lot of instruction, children might be guided by their curiosity. In response to constructivist opponents, backers of constructivism, such as Hmelo-Silveret al. (2007), claim that some constructivist teaching approaches, such as problem-based learning and inquiry - based learning, do not represent minimally-guided instruction. Backers of constructivist approaches, on the other hand, place a strong emphasis on scaffolding and guidance. Critics such as Kirschner et al. (2006), according to constructivism supporters, have a misunderstanding of how these systems function. According to constructivist proponents, students learn best by addressing real-world problems and accumulating experience in learning situations (Kirschner et al., 2006). Some opponents suggest that constructivist students are trying to "reinvent the wheel," while supporters respond that they are aiming to understand how the wheel works (Gupta, 2011). Students' interests are considered to be valued in constructivist classrooms, which provide scaffolding instructions to help them build on what they already know. Supporters of constructivism argue that constructivist systems do not lack direction, but rather give powerful scaffolding guidance during learning processes. Scaffolding, they believe, "reduces cognitive load, gives expert direction, and aids students in acquiring disciplined ways of thinking and acting" while still making opportunity for the creative process (Hmelo-Silver et al. 2007). Some constructivists, such as Hmelo-Silver and Barrows (2006), argue that problem-based learning enables teachers to assist students better explain their reasoning and understand their limitations in the classroom. People of all ages, according to constructivist proponents, know how to generate knowledge, hence extensive teaching is unnecessary because minimal instruction is sufficient for them to construct knowledge based on prior learning (Kirschner et al., 2006). Constructivists believe that offering support through scaffolded instructions while permitting students to be motivated by their curiosity is far more successful than spoon-feeding enormous volumes of information for learners to absorb rapidly. 1.7.4 Justification for Constructivism Constructivism is often attributed with expressing the obvious: actions, interactions, and perceptions all affect reality. In fact, the name of this theory family was inspired by that concept. Our thoughts and actions literally build diplomacy. When applied theoretically, however, this seemingly simple concept has great implications for how we perceive the world. Constructivism adds to the area of diplomacy by addressing themes and notions that standard theories, notably realism, overlook. By doing so, constructivists present alternative explanations and insights into what is going on in the social world. They show, for example, that state conduct may be described by ideas, identities, and norms as well as the distribution of material power, money, and geographical conditions. Also, their focus on conceptual factors show that reality is fluid and changeable. This makes constructivism and its core precepts sufficiently explicative of how Ghana's diplomacy has evolved in the twenty-first century, as well as the opportunities and problems it presents. Despite its alleged flaws, constructivism remains the ideal paradigm for this research. 1.8 Literature Review 1.8.1 Diplomacy in Africa The elements of the global diplomatic agenda, as well as the "demographics" of international relations, have been influenced by African diplomacy. African states fought for equality in a world where they had been oppressed from the moment they attained independence. Obtaining sovereignty offered equality under international law, but the new governments needed to develop socioeconomically as well to end the series of unequal interactions with the rest of the world. This ambition was all the more important given how African resources had fuelled the industrialisation of the developed world. For the first time, development was introduced into African diplomacy by a desire to equalize the economic playing field. It was delivered through a new, extraordinary form of diplomacy: strong and argumentative rather than peace-making; public eloquence led by the executive rather than the cautious, officials-driven negotiations that had previously been the standard in diplomacy (Abatan & Spies, 2016). On September 23, 1966, during a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Senegal's Foreign Minister, Doudou Thiam, suggested an unusual idea (Whelan, 2015). The remainder of the Group of 77 (developing) countries backed African diplomatic efforts to revamp the world economic order in order to eliminate manipulative trade and financial ties and make development a reality for the majority of the world's population. During the 1970s, however, the continent's progress was hampered by oil price shocks and recession in industrialized countries, as well as low commodities prices. African countries, like other indebted countries, have been humiliated by their creditors, not only economically but also politically. The deluge of structural adjustment programs (SAPs) imposed by international financial institutions wrecked Africa's social and political fabric, introducing yet another sour tone into postcolonial diplomatic discourse (Marsh, 2013). Before the end of the Cold War, African diplomacy remained unsatisfied, allowing for new prospects for significant change in the development fight. The United Nations General Assembly accepted the Declaration on the Right to Development in 1986, exactly twenty years after Doudou Thiam's plea, recognizing development as an "essential human right" (UNGA 1986). The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank began a debt-cancellation plan for the world's most heavily indebted impoverished nations (HIPCs) ten years later, in 1996, as a result of continued pressure from African multilateral blocs in global institutions. The majority of these governments were from Sub-Saharan Africa (33 out of 41), a sobering reflection that the world's youngest countries have struggled to develop (CADTM 2016). During his two tenures as UN Secretary-General, Ghanaian Kofi Annan, Africa's second UN Secretary-General, ensured that the imperative of development was integrated throughout all of his reports. In his much-anticipated Millennium Report of 2000, he defined sustainable development to be a fundamental human right (Annan 2000). The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were approved later that year, and world leaders committed to work together in a "global partnership for development." The inclusive strategy was reiterated when the United Nations developed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a successor program to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015. (Whelan, 2015). When it comes to issues of development, Africa's shared diplomacy has been most successful in influencing global rules of engagement. The traditional development assistance argument was associated with hierarchical and paternalistic diplomacy, and African states opposed to aid's "conditionalities," which were essentially political involvement disguised as economic assistance. In 2001, the African Union chose NEPAD as its major economic development initiative, with the purpose of assuring African ownership of all development programs that affect the continent. Africa's collective diplomacy has gained a new sense of confidence and maturity as a result of its goal of engaging the world (donors and other developing states alike) through horizontal alliances and cooperation (Marsh, 2013). Since the end of the Cold War, established and developing countries (together with institutions such as the European Union) have increasingly engaged Africa as a diplomatic unit, recognizing the continent's shared diplomatic identity. A new diplomatic technique has gained traction: specialized "African summits" organized by a single external party, with several of these summits becoming institutionalized. The Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) was founded in 1993, the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in 2000, the India–Africa Forum Summit (IAFS) and the Turkey–Africa Cooperation Summit in 2008, and the United States–Africa Leaders' Summit in Washington, DC in 2014. (2012) (Nweke). 1.8.2 Impact of Globalization on Diplomacy Globalization and its many consequences are having a major impact on international relations and, as a result, diplomacy. The current "international disorder," or the new phase of insecurity for states and diplomats that has evolved since the fall of the Soviet Union, is one of the repercussions of globalization (Cohen, 2002). Long-buried but deeply rooted tribal, ethnic, and religious tensions are resurfacing, leading to an increase in the number of international and, increasingly, internal conflicts that are less foreseeable, more intricate, and asymmetrical. Furthermore, globalization is undermining the governmental institutions of fragile states, leading to an increase in state failures. Furthermore, because globalization is inherently unequal, it produces winners and losers, beneficiaries and victims, leading to heightened social discontent (Copeland, 2009). As a result of the current state of international instability, diplomats' job has become much more difficult. "Multiple threats to global order, which are at least as likely to arise from the activities of supranational or intranational collectivities as from the manipulations of traditional nation-states," writes Daryl Copeland, "have made the peaceful management of the international system more difficult" (Copeland, 2009). Another significant impact of globalization on diplomacy is the shifting global agenda, which is a result of growing interdependence among nations as a result of global integration. As countries' fates have become inextricably linked, issues on the global agenda have gotten more complicated, interrelated, and technological than ever before (Rana, 2005). Trade and investment promotion, worldwide financial system regulation, international terrorism and organized crime prevention, support for sustainable development, conflict prevention, and cooperation on pressing environmental and human rights concerns are only a few of them (Bàtora, 2008). Another significant impact of globalization on diplomacy is the shifting worldwide agenda, which is a result of growing interdependence between nations as a result of global integration. As countries' fates have become inextricably linked, issues on the international agenda have gotten more complicated, interrelated, and technological than ever before (Rana, 2005). Trade and investment promotion, international financial system regulation, international terrorism and organized crime prevention, support for sustainable development, conflict avoidance, and cooperation on pressing environmental and human rights concerns are only a few of them (Bàtora, 2008). Globalization is also linked to the rise of the digital era of new media and the fast expansion of communication technologies that compress time and space while democratizing information. This, in turn, can be linked to a shift in people's and groups' traditional responsibilities, as they now have the power to operate on the global stage without the support of the governmental apparatus (Stacks & Hocking, 1999). As a result of technological improvements, new non-state actors (transnational enterprises, global civil society organizations, global terrorist networks, and so on) have arisen as significant independent players in the international arena. Globalization has had a greater cumulative impact on the way governments engage with one another in the last four decades, according to academic Jan Melissen, than in the 350 years since the Peace of Westphalia (Melissen, 1999). "Never before have the components of international order, their ability to interact, and their aims all changed quite so quickly, comprehensively, or widely," writes American diplomat Henry Kissinger (Kissinger, 1994). Globalization is definitely changing the nature of international relations and, as a result, how diplomatic activities are carried out. In fact, globalization can be considered as the overarching process that unites all of the other factors that influence diplomatic procedures. 1.8.3 Impact of Technology on Diplomacy There is no doubt that technology has greatly influenced diplomatic practice. It has substantially altered the world of diplomacy by altering the socio-political and economic climate for diplomatic actions and agendas (Hardy, 2012). Digital diplomacy, which includes mobile apps and social media, as well as other technological breakthroughs, has altered the mode and practice of diplomacy. According to Hanson, unlike in the 19th and early 20th centuries, technology has changed the way ambassadors conduct their business nowadays (Hanson, 2012). Technology is currently serving as a bridge to ensure that the essential diplomatic tasks of linking a diplomat's home and host countries are fulfilled. Diplomacy's functions include representation, friendly relations development, negotiation, interest protection, information collection, and processing (Mwagiru, 2004). Traditional forms of diplomatic contact between and among ambassadors have been displaced by new electronic channels of communication. Diplomats and Foreign Service officers have unrestricted and constant access to new media in this day and age. Several diplomats have Twitter accounts and utilize it to communicate with colleagues, officials, and policymakers (Martin 1996). Many things in the global arena have been substantially expedited by the rapid technology advancements of recent decades. With these technological advancements and unique ICT developments, the world has truly become smaller (Martin 1996). Because of technological advancements, diplomacy has evolved from simple to complex, traditional to modern, and basic to sophisticated. It is impossible to appreciate the impact of technology on diplomacy today without first understanding where diplomacy came from and where it is now. As Winston Churchill, a former British prime minister, put it in 2013, the further backward the diplomatic community can look, the brighter the future becomes. Reflecting on diplomatic history will undoubtedly serve as a roadmap for comprehending diplomacy in the digital age (Graffy, 2009). The technology revolution is permanently altering the culture, setting, practice, and terrain of diplomacy and foreign policy. ICT has had a significant impact on and transformed the role of missions. The ways and means of conducting formal discussions with the government of the host country and reporting back to the home country have changed. The function of ambassadors has evolved dramatically as a result of technology improvements. Apart from negotiating foreign policy, the ambassador is required to be a good communicator and a good mediator of his or her country's viewpoint on important problems with prominent players in the country of residence (Paschke, 2007). The internet has played an essential role in facilitating diplomatic interactive connections; information and communication technology (ICT) has served as a link between diplomatic missions in both the home and host countries. The daily work of missions and embassies is no longer hindered by large physical distances, time variations, or national territorial boundaries. Foreign service officers (FSOs) are now able transmit vast amounts of information instantly from anywhere in the globe with the touch of a keyboard, as opposed to the old days when diplomatic communication was performed through predictable pathways and mutually agreed-upon methods (Graffy, 2009). 1.8.4 Electronic Diplomacy (E-Diplomacy) According to Hanson, the term "electronic diplomacy" has no clear definition. E-diplomacy, according to him, is simply the use of the internet, online, and ICT to support or assist in the accomplishment of diplomatic aims and objectives (Hanson, 2012). E-Diplomacy, on the other hand, is defined by Assanyo as the integration of information and communication technology into diplomatic practice. We may agree that E-Diplomacy is the integration of technology into diplomacy based on the two definitions. E-diplomacy has been accelerated by technical improvements from the nineteenth century to the twenty-first century. Cyber diplomacy, digital diplomacy, internet diplomacy, virtual diplomacy, and net diplomacy are all terms used to describe e-diplomacy (Assanyo, 2016). 1.8.5 Challenges of Technology in Diplomacy Change and uncertainty characterize the diplomatic scene of the twenty-first century. The emergence of a plethora of worldwide actors as a result of ICT and social media. These actors now include more amorphous non-state actors in addition to well-known INGOs (Paschke, 2007). Information and communication, which are fundamental determinants of diplomacy, have been radically revolutionized by technology. Technology-driven advancements in the twenty-first century have enhanced both the interconnectedness of key global players in international politics and the need for diplomacy as a means of conflict resolution through discussions and amicable settlement. As a result, technological advancements have drastically affected the face of diplomacy, as well as how it is organized and practiced. Many actors who influence diplomacy use technology, and it has a significant impact on how the information economy is controlled in diplomatic circles (Volker, 2018). The introduction and integration of ICT into diplomacy has had a good impact on diplomatic practices, but it has also presented a number of challenges, particularly in terms of how diplomats fulfil their functions. These challenges, on the other hand, can be turned into opportunities provided they are properly thought out and a reasonable solution is found to mitigate them. According to the findings, there are two opposing schools of thought on the use of technology in diplomatic practice as a foreign policy tool. Optimism and pessimism are the two groups (Richard, 2011). The optimists argue that information and communication technology (ICT) should be included into foreign policy. They argue that information and communication technology (ICT) has had a significant impact on diplomatic practice in the twenty-first century. They agree that technology improvements have improved diplomatic communication, boosted awareness about the importance of propagating diplomatic ideas around the world, and empowered citizens all over the world. Their rivals, pessimists55, who are slightly myopic regarding the integration of ICT in foreign policy and diplomatic practice, however, reject this narrative. The major argument of pessimists is that technology has harmed digital security and exacerbated inequality (Emrich & Schulze, 2017). Hillary Clinton, the former US Secretary of State, is one of the optimists who praised the use of ICT in diplomacy throughout her term. “Just as the internet has revolutionized practically every element of how people throughout the world live, learn, consume, and communicate,” she once observed, “connection technologies are redefining the strategic framework for diplomacy in the twenty-first century” (Sending et al, 2015) Efforts to blend diplomacy with technology breakthroughs have been met with a slew of difficulties. These difficulties include poor technology implementation in diplomatic practice, cyber-terrorism, trouble incorporating ICT into foreign policy and diplomacy, difficulty developing and implementing effective policies while balancing public opinion, and so on, lack of effective and efficient decision-making platforms, invasion of diplomats' privacy, difficulty in drafting regulations and rules governing ICT integration, cyber terrorism, and cyber espionage (Schmidt & Cohen, 2013). 1.9 Research Methodology 1.9.1 Research Study Design For the purposes of this analysis, a qualitative and deductive method were used. This method was chosen because it allows the researcher to fully comprehend a social phenomenon. It is primarily based on non-numerical data. In contrast to quantitative research, which depends on finite responses, qualitative research allows respondents to have in-depth insights and answers. Quantitative research allows for less open-ended responses and is generally more expensive than qualitative research. While quantitative analysis provides more objectivity and precision, the qualitative approach is ideally suited for this study because the research relied primarily on the respondents' knowledge and experiences to better analyze the subject under investigation. The research also used a case study since it is focused on a particular topic, namely “Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century; prospects and challenges”, which is better understood in terms of Ghana, specifically its Foreign, Trade and Defence Ministries; and their affiliated departments or agencies. 1.9.2 Sources of Data Primary and secondary data sources are the two types of data sources. Interviews, for example, are primary sources of data that include raw facts and first-hand evidence on a specific subject. Secondary sources, such as journals and scholarly books, give second-hand knowledge from other scholars. Both primary and secondary sources ware included in this investigation. Interviews, specifically semi- or unstructured and open-ended interview styles were the primary tool for gathering primary data. Secondary data was supplemented with academic and peer-reviewed materials to fill in any gaps. Officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Defence, their affiliated departments or agencies, and embassies were the key participants in the interviews. They were interviewed due to their expertise and knowledge of the research topic. 1.9.3 Sampling Method Sampling is the process of selecting members of a population for a study; Probability and non-probability sampling are the two types of sampling procedures. Single random and stratified sampling are examples of probability sampling. Quota and non-purposive sampling are examples of non-probability sampling. The purposive non-probability sampling method was used in this research. Subjects were chosen using this method based on their expertise, experience and knowledge diplomacy. Since the respondents were chosen based on the researcher's judgment, it is presumed that this approach is susceptible to the researcher's biases and may affect the study's final findings. Despite the limitations, it is useful and suitable for this research because it aided in the acquisition of specific and reliable first-hand information that was required for the analysis. 1.9.4 Sample Size For the analysis, a sample size of 20 people was chosen. This number is thought to be ideal due to the nature of the population. Since the sample are resource personnel, information from the sample can be used to make general conclusion for the entire population. 1.9.5 Data Analysis The information gathered for the study was transcribed verbatim and organized into appropriate themes and analyzed (Thematic Analysis). This method was used because it allowed me a lot of flexibility in interpreting the data. 1.9.6 Ethical Considerations Prior to visiting our respondents for data, letters of consent were sent to them to allow them enough time to prepare for the interview. The respondent's choice of venue for the interview was chosen by each respondent. All data gathered during interviews was used exclusively for the reason for which it was obtained. Finally, respondents who said they wanted to remain anonymous had their wishes respected. 1.10 Organization of The Study This research is divided into four Chapters. Chapter one which is the Introduction, entailed background to the study, statement of the research problem, research objectives, research questions, significance of the study, scope of the study, theoretical framework, literature review and the research methodology. Chapter two provides a general overview of Ghana’s Diplomacy in the 21st century and highlight its prospects and challenges. Data presentation and analysis are captured in chapter three, and chapter four presents the summary of the research findings, conclusion and recommendations. A bibliography and appendix are prepared and attached to the research report. References Abatan, E., & Spies, Y. K. (2016). African Solutions to African Problems? The AU, R2P and Côte d’Ivoire. South African Journal of International Affairs 23 (1): 21–38. Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 438. Annan, K., (2000). United Nations Address: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2000-01-10/address-kofi-annan-security-council-situation-africa-impact-aids. Bàtora, J. (2008). Foreign ministries and the information revolution. Leiden, Netherland: Martinus N Publishers. Hocking, B. (1999). Catalytic Diplomacy: Beyond ‘Newness’ and ‘Decline, in Jan Melissen (ed.), United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. Carlson, R. A., Lundy, D. H., & Schneider, W. (1992). Strategy guidance and memory aiding in learning a problem-solving skill. Human Factors, 34,129–145. Jönsson, C. (2011). Diplomacy: Encyclopaedia of Power, ed. Keith M. Dowding (Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE, 188–90. Committee for the Abolition of the Third World Debt (CADTM) (2016) Internet home page of the CADTM. Online at: http://cadtm.org/ Heavily-Indebted-Poor-Countries. Accessed March 2017. Gupta, S. (2011). Constructivism as a paradigm for teaching and learning. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 1(1), 23-47. Elliott et al (2000): Educational Psychology: Effective Teaching, Effective Learning. Boston: McGraw Hill. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning, 42(2), 99–107. Jan Melissen, (999). “Introduction”, in Jan Melissen (ed.), Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, United Kingdom, Palgrave Macmillan, 1999, p. xvii. Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Evaluating constructivist learning. Educational Technology, 28 (11), 13-16. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, Educational Psychologist, 39(3), 5-14. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of The Failure of Constructivist Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist 41(2), 75-86. Marsh, R. (2013) Understanding Africa and the Events that Shaped Its Destiny. Johannesburg: LAPA. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. Onuf, N. G. (1989). World of our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia, S.C.: University of Carolina Press. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Richard, L. C. (2011). Diplomacy in the Twenty-First century: Change and Evolution. Ross, C., (2007) Independent Diplomat – Dispatches from an Unaccountable Elite, United States, Cornell University Press, 2007, p. 25. Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 334–341. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (2016). ECOWAS Economic Community States. Retrieved July 2021 from: http://www.uneca.org/oria/pages/ecowaseconomic-community-west-african-states.. Volker, O. (2018). New Realities in Foreign Affairs: Diplomacy in the 21st Century. Vygotsky,L.S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (London: Harvard University Press) CHAPTER TWO OVERVIEW OF GHANA’S DIPLOMACY PRIOR TO THE 21ST CENTURY 2.0 Introduction This chapter gives an overview of what has gone on before this research. It discusses History of Diplomacy and Ghana’s Diplomacy prior to the 21st Century. 2.1 History of Diplomacy Despite the fact that it may have existed as early as classical antiquity, diplomacy is commonly regarded to have originated in the seventeenth century as a complex instrument for directing international affairs. Its development paralleled the establishment of a new global relations system based on independent equality of nation-states in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. As the new nation-states rapidly asserted their geographic supremacy, based on a commonly known set of rules, protocol, and law, the need for a more orderly handling of contacts between these polities arose (Cohen, 1999). Diplomacy arose as a result of this new system of international relations, as well as contributing in its development. Traditional diplomacy was two-sided in nature, encompassing the representation of nation-state governments as well as intergovernmental contacts (Pigman, 2010). Classical ambassadors were chosen from the societies' aristocratic layers, and the content of interstate connections was deemed a hermetically sealed realm to be entrusted to this professional elite. As a result, diplomacy was almost entirely focused on behind-the-scenes communication among official agents, and ambassadors often had direct personal access to heads of state (Rana, 2005). They dealt with issues such as sovereignty, territory, war, and peace at a high level. 2.2 Diplomatic Practices and Processes Diplomatic processes and practices, on the other hand, evolved steadily throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, becoming more complex as a result of the evolution of more complicated governing structures in human societies, as well as the resulting more complicated issues they had to negotiate with one another (Hamilton & Langhorne, 2011). The emergence of multilateral diplomacy within the framework of global institutions such as the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations, drastically transformed the nature of diplomacy over the first part of the twentieth century (Pigman, 2010). Diplomatic practices continued to evolve during the post-World War II decolonization period, resulting in a significant increase in the number of formally recognized sovereign states in the global system. For the embryonic nation-states, establishing representations abroad and admitting foreign envoys at home, or adopting the traditional diplomatic model, was a top priority and a reflection of their international personality (Rana, 2005). As a result, diplomatic styles did not change significantly during this time, as newly formed states adopted the traditional Western diplomatic culture. In reality, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a broad agreement that benefited younger nation-states in grasping the hitherto mostly de facto rules adopted by older ones, was codified for the first time in 1961. (Hamilton & Langhorne, 2011). Nonetheless, the emergence of new parties with their own goals, as well as the rapid differences in skills and characteristics that formed between them, diversified and complicated the content of diplomatic relations. The end of the Cold War marked the beginning of a new era in diplomatic history. The 'balance of dread' between the Western and Soviet blocs produced defined diplomatic standards, according to expert Daryl Copeland (Copeland, 2009). At least in relation to the two superpowers, individual countries remained the primary actors in international relations, formal alliances were formed, and governments shared a conviction in national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference in other countries' internal affairs. Copeland continues, "interstate diplomacy was essentially set-piece and predictable," and that "the international system had a certain amount of familiarity, a sense of confidence that he refers to as "Cold War comfort." (According to Copeland, 2009). True, the Cold War built a comparatively stable background of international relations that anchored most countries' foreign policy and diplomacy, with pre-determined bloc dynamics (Rana, 2005). The rigidities imposed by the bipolar system also impeded diplomatic inventiveness to some extent. Conditions, on the other hand, were far from solid and predictable. Indeed, the newly formed Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) of the South arose as a challenge to the West's cultural, social, and economic standards, and hence to the methods and mores of Western diplomacy (Hamilton & Langhorne, 2011). Furthermore, new developments like as technological breakthroughs, limited globalization, and the emergence of new non-state actors were already taking place, albeit the curtain was arguably pulled and the extent to which things had changed only after the Cold War. 2.3 Diplomacy Before The 21st Century The independence of the Gold Coast, dubbed "the most important event in modern African history," came at a fortunate time. The United States was represented by Richard Nixon, the United Kingdom by R. A. Butler (as he was at the time), Russia by its minister of state farms, Tunisia by Bourguiba himself, and the ruler of the nascent state of Ghana was represented by the Duchess of Kent. "Our country is no stranger to world affairs," Nkrumah declared at the state banquet, and the nature of the occasion emphasized this point. He also emphasized that Ghana's independence had a material foundation. "We are capable of standing on our own. As a result, Ghana's foreign policy will not be defined by the need to seek help from other countries." Indeed, Nkrumah believed that the most important result of independence was that Ghana could now have a foreign policy that was characterized from the start as a dynamic process concerned with larger goals than just seeking assistance (Zolberg, 1964). Ghana was now a member of the international community. It joined the United Nations as the 81st member, thanks to the support of its Commonwealth partners. It gradually became a member of the major international organizations, including the Commission for Technical Cooperation in Africa South of the Sahara, which was formed by the colonial powers, South Africa, and Liberia. Nkrumah acted cautiously, despite his conviction on Ghana's role as liberator. He stated that he would be happy to develop diplomatic ties with other nations that have "honoured Ghana by sending representatives to the Independence Celebrations. "While efforts to exchange ambassadors with South Africa were made throughout the first year, it would be another two years before a Russian embassy was created in Accra. Ghana appeared safe from the West's perspective; the British and American envoys presented their credentials first, followed by the Australians, French, and West Germans. Ambassadors were not swapped for a year, even with Cairo (which was not called to the festivities), by which time the Israeli envoy had established himself as Accra's most powerful diplomat, (Nkrumah, 1962). Nkrumah's instinct after independence, like Trotsky's in revolutionary Russia, may have been to issue "a few revolutionary proclamations to the peoples of the world, and then shut up shop," emphasizing that "the centre of gravity was not in diplomacy at that time." However, in embracing and cooperating with the British in order to ensure a smooth handover of power, Nkrumah had to prioritize diplomacy, the foreign office, and everything, over revolutionary pan-Africanism, bending his own proclivities to their limited necessities. Nkrumah was in charge of Defence and External Affairs (as he had been until mid-1958), and his principal secretary was A. L. Adu, the most qualified Ghanaian for the job. Twelve officers had been trained for international and Commonwealth service by the time Ghana attained independence, and another group was completing a British diplomat's course in Accra (Boaten, 1962). It's worth noting, too, that the policy gap that would eventually torpedo Ghana's strategy, between professional diplomats on the one hand and self-styled violent revolutionaries on the other, was evident almost from the start (though inadvertently and inevitably). George Padmore went to London in May 1957, but was persuaded to return in September to take up a role as Prime Minister's African adviser. Adu fought the selection vigorously, stating that a West Indian wouldn't be able to teach them anything about Africa (Trotsky, 1930). Padmore, on the other hand, arrived with all of his enormous influence; if his budget was under Adu's control, his office was directly next to Nkrumah's. George sat in a modern office, doing the same work he had done in the Kremlin and in his cramped London flat (James, 1960). Throughout 1957, the household scene was chaotic. There were key "disturbances" in former British Togoland, for example, when the army had to aid the police in quelling armed crowds before to and during the independence celebrations. This highlighted how precarious the situation was in relation to French Togoland, with which the demonstrators aspired to merge. During the summer of 1957, there were extremely dangerous occurrences in Accra. For several months, the Ga people, who are native to the city, created the "Ga Shifimo Kpee" movement-the Ga Standfast Association to oppose the CPP, and rallies and arrests were the norm (Austin, 1964). This resulted in Nkrumah's administration becoming far more powerful, resulting in an angry reaction from some observers. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, international companies in Ghana are deferring investment decisions (Sampson, 1958). From the time Nkrumah arrived into the Governor General's Castle, the British press began to openly criticize the regime. Paradoxically, the Ga movement arose shortly after this symbolic shift, in which Nkrumah appeared to stop the openness that had made his leadership so effective. Overall, in 1957, there was limited likelihood of taking foreign policy actions. As Nkrumah put it, Ghana needs to be "given time to sort herself out" (Apter, 1964). The second year would be diplomatically interesting, and it would be a huge success. Nkrumah had undertaken informal discussions with African delegations prior to independence regarding the potential of convening a meeting of all African states, including South Africa. As Nkrumah wrote to the eight presidents of African states and governments six weeks later, "the general reaction was that such a summit was desirable." The conference took place in April 1958, and Nkrumah established himself as "something more than a local leader" as a result of its success. It was reassuring to the West because it contrasted with Nasser's Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Conference in December 1957 (which involved Russian and Chinese representatives). Nkrumah established the groundwork for a successful diplomatic network across independent Africa by visiting the member governments shortly afterward (Boaten, 1962). Nationalists from unliberated territories also arrived during the first anniversary festivities in March 1958 to hear about Nkrumah and Padmore's plans for a large pan-African summit of all political parties later that year. Nyerere, Mboya, Azikiwe, Murumbi, Apithy, Garba-Jahumpa, and Bakary Djibo were among those present (Trotsky, 1930). The administration had postponed plans to seek funding for the Volta River Project until after independence in 1956. Nkrumah wanted to get funding for it in the first year or two so that he could devote his energies to African freedom after that. He had looked to Britain for help and attended the Commonwealth Conference in 1957 in the hopes of finding encouragement. However, because Britain lacked the necessary cash, he was forced to rely on American backing, as advised by his development adviser, Sir Robert Jackson. (In fact, Jackson was given "something of a policy veto" in order to avoid jeopardizing the potential of financial support.) His trip to America in 1958, like his trip to Britain in 1957, was a personal success that raised his international profile; nevertheless, there was no urgency to build the Volta dam, unlike in the United Kingdom, and it became clear that the Volta Project and Ghana's industrialization were still a long way off (Zolberg, 1964). 2.3 The Conference of Independent African States Despite Western forecasts that the summit of independent African nations would fail, Alex Quaison-Sackey, the high commission's second secretary in London in 1957, later stated, "Kwame Nkrumah was well-intentioned.” He was well aware of the importance of meticulous planning for the sake of its success. This was not a hyperbole. More importantly, the Ghanaians never attempted to monopolize the initiative. Nkrumah organized for the African ambassadors in London to set the basis for the gathering at the Commonwealth conference in 1957, a choice complicated only by the fact that the Egyptians would be unable to attend due to their break with Britain after Suez. By this time, it was also evident that the South Africans would not join at any point, having made their approval conditional on the colonial powers' participation (Quaison-Sackey, 1963). 2.4 Bringing other Countries Onboard On the 15th of August, the first ambassadorial meeting was held in the Sudanese Embassy. It's notable that the host chose John Jantuah, the acting Ghanaian high commissioner, to preside, because "Ghana initiated the concept of a Conference," according to Simpson, the Liberian ambassador. Jantuah not only declined, but also said that Ghana's call for a conference "was not aimed at building a political or ideological bloc, but wanted the States in Africa to know themselves" and create personal relationships, which was typical of Ghanaian diplomacy at the time. He urged them to see it as a "joint effort" rather than a "Ghana affair.... " Nonetheless, Liberia made it plain from the start that Ghana's role would be scrutinized. Liberia demanded another concession after Ghana made one. As a result, Ambassador Simpson pondered if invitations could not be issued by a group of governments, and he inquired as to whether Ghana had "consulted other Governments before issuing the invites," a query that was manifestly improper given Ghana's careful planning (Quaison-Sackey, 1963). There was little planning until the third meeting, when a Ghanaian draft paper on the conference's goals arrived. It was Ghana's most well-articulated foreign policy declaration, calling for policy coordination (bringing actual reality to Nkrumah's concept, "African personality") and for Africa to evaluate the international situation "in the light of her own interests." It made "suggestions to accelerate" the pace of independence in other parts of Africa and, most importantly, hoped that the conference would result in the "setting up of permanent apparatus for co-operation and consultation among countries." The Sudanese diplomat, for one, predicted that such machinery would be in Accra (James, 1960). "In view of the tensions that exist in the globe today, the matter of subversive ideologies or coups d'etat whose aims are to overturn organized governments should be discounted and rejected as subversive and destructive ideas," the Liberians proposed. Tubman saw that Liberia's most difficult days were ahead, and he attempted to protect it from the forces represented by Nkrumah, allowing it a more relaxed introduction into the modern world. As a result, a deaf discussion began, which would last for eight years. The five other delegates, on the other hand, went to Ghana's defense at this point. If the Liberian suggestion is approved, the Libyan ambassador believes it will be "intervention in each country's domestic affairs," while Taiib Slim, a respected Tunisian diplomat, believes that "African Governments must not tie their hands by rejecting" philosophies from outside (Trotsky, 1930). In any case, how was subversion defined? In a corner, Simpson stated that Liberia was concerned about the "coup d'etat method." He desired for it to be documented "that African leader would look the other way when it came to overturning governments. He associated undemocratic actions with subversive acts, which the High Commissioner for Ghana strongly disagreed with." The Liberians presented a much-revised version of their declaration at the following gathering, in February, requesting the conference to condemn plots aimed at African governments from outside Africa. Their bluff had been called, but that wasn't the end of it (Zolberg, 1964). 2.5 Challenges Encountered During the Process These meetings were largely successful, but the shadow of Cairo remained over them, as Cairo had been gaining duplicates of the notes through the Indian High Commission in London. As a result, the Ghanaians launched two additional offensives to guarantee that no preparations were overlooked. In August 1957, Ako Adjei visited Cairo, mainly to inform the Egyptians of Accra's intentions; then, in early 1958, Padmore and Adjei toured all seven member governments, attempting to reassure them that Ghana "was not seeking the leadership of Africa," as Adjei phrased it. They also learned the extent of Ghana's differences with Cairo on two issues, namely, Algeria's representation at the conference and the question of Palestine, as Adjei put it: "No state was willing to go nearly as far as Nkrumah wished in the direction of unity." They also learned about Ghana's disagreements with Cairo over two issues: Algeria's participation in the conference and the Palestinian question (Quaison-Sackey, 1963). 2.6 The Way Forward A joint secretariat was established in Accra, following Cairo's suggestion that top officials assemble to take preparations a step farther than the ambassadors could. The ambassadors appointed Adu as the conference's secretary-general, and by March 27th, officials from the majority of the countries had arrived to begin the joint secretariat's work. Padmore did not believe Adu was capable of organizing the conference (their rivalry was well-known by this point), so he hired Dr. A. Appadorai, the secretary-general of the Indian Council on Foreign Affairs, behind Adu's back. Dr. Appadorai became unwell before leaving for Accra, much to Adu's relief. Padmore's punishment was to be left off Ghana's official delegation to the conference (Zolberg, 1964). In fact, Adu's preparations were so comprehensive that all but two questions were agreed upon. The CCT A had decided to offer translators, but the Ghanaians had not taken into account the security of the meetings, and discovered that they had gotten a South African linguist, among other things. When concerns were raised, a last-minute request to the United Nations for replacements was successful. Furthermore, the Arab states demanded that Arabic be made the official language of the meeting, but the Ghanaians refused. After all, persuading Arabs to "think African" was a primary goal of Ghanaian policy (Quaison-Sackey, 1963). The Ghanaians were first unhappy that only one head of state or government had attended the meeting in Accra. However, there were other benefits: it would change its entire nature if Nasser, the continent's preeminent figure, attended. As a result, the Ghanaians were able to exert significantly more influence over the outcome and establish foundation that would otherwise have been impossible. Liberians profited as well. They had hoped for a ministerial-level meeting, which it was-but because their president was the only head of state present, they were able to influence the outcome significantly more than they might have otherwise (Zolberg, 1964). The debates are crucial because they highlight the participants' individual interests as well as the limitations of Ghana's Africa strategy. It was easy to forget how different the perspective from Accra at the time of the conference's start was in later years. Accra was not the "African diplomatic cockpit," nor was "African unity" a rallying cry of the day or even of the gathering. True, the Ghanaian delegation stressed the country's responsibility to the rest of Africa, but it did so with far more discretion than would be the case in the future. Ghana may have been the first sub-Saharan colony to attain freedom, but it was "the last... to have achieved independence" in the eyes of the other seven (Boaten, 1962). These countries were only beginning to recognize their joint interests, and Ghana, with its caution, played a key role in bringing them together. It desired the emergence of an "African personality," as emphasized by the Tunisian delegate, who stated that the states must "single out the general lines of agreement and cooperation on common challenges." This would not be easy; five of the governments were Arab, and the remaining three had quite different backgrounds and goals (Zolberg, 1964). Nkrumah's remark that the Sahara had been discovered to unite, not divide Africa, was the most memorable sentence of the day. This was true to the extent that collaboration ensued. The meeting, on the other hand, exposed the differences for what they were and provided useful lessons for the future. The Sahara's section was perceived to be relevant on the most important problems. A nascent state like Ghana had a distinct attitude to problems: it was full of idealism. "We may not have armaments, but there is something like moral force in the Universe, and if that moral force stands behind you, you have all the battalions behind you, and that is the way we are going to approach this matter," Nkrumah said in a discussion of the options available to liberate the rest of Africa. The U.A.R., on the other hand, has experience with the UN and its "helplessness" when "someone, backed by enormous influences and forces, says 'no' to it. At a time when Ghana was making its international debut, Egypt's foreign minister, Fawzi, insisted on the country's independence "We can't just yell from the rooftops, "Hands off our independence! Nobody can infringe on our freedom unless we make it active and vigorous." Indeed, the Egyptians must have appeared to the Ghanaians in the same way that the Ghanaians appeared to their proportionately smaller neighbours after 1960: more experienced, suspicious, and eager to fight alone (Quaison-Sackey, 1963). References Apter, D. (1963). Ghana in Transition, New York, 15 Times, p. 208. Austin, D. (1964). Politics in Ghana 1946-1960, London, pp. 373-76. Boaten, F. E. (1962). Brief Notes on Administrative Organisation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Conference of Ghana Envoys, p. 175. Cohen R., (1991). Negotiating Across Cultures: Communication Obstacles in International Diplomacy, Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1991. Cohen S., (2002) “Introduction: L’art de gérer les turbulences mondiales”, in Les Diplomates – Négocier dans un monde chaotique, Paris, Éditions Autrement – Collection Mutations, 2002, p.5. Copeland D., (2009). Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking international relations, United States, Boulder : Lynne Rienner, 2009, p. 7. Economist Intelligence Unit, West Africa Series, No. 18, 30 May 1957. Hamilton K. & Langhorne R., (2011). The Practice of Diplomacy – Its evolution, theory and administration, Second edition, New York, Routledge, 2011, p. 1. James, C.L.R. (1960). Notes on the Life of George Padmore," unpublished manuscript, p. 61. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41(2), 75-86. Marsh, R. (2013) Understanding Africa and the Events that Shaped Its Destiny. Johannesburg: LAPA. Nkrumah, K. (1962). I Speak of Freedom, London, p. 95. Nweke, E., (2012). “Diplomacy in the Era of Digital Governance: Theory and Impact.” Information and Knowledge Management 2, no.3: 22-26. Pigman, G. A. (2010). Contemporary diplomacy: Representation and communication in a globalized world. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Quaison-Sackey, A. (1963)., Africa Unbound, New York, p. 63 Rana, K., (2005). The 21st Century Ambassador – Plenipotentiary to Chief Executive, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 27. Ross, C., (2007) Independent Diplomat – Dispatches from an Unaccountable Elite, United States, Cornell University Press, 2007, p. 25. Sampson, A. (1958). Ghana: The Morning After," Africa South, 2, No. 2. Slusser, R. (1930). The Role of the Foreign Ministry, Russian Foreign Policy, New Haven, 196, p. 212. Stacks, D., & Hocking, F. (1999). Communication research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman Publishers. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (1986) Declaration on the Right to Development. A/Res/41I128 of December 4. Whelan, D. J. (2015) “‘Under the Aegis of Man’: The Right to Development and the Origins of the New International Economic Order.” Humanity Spring: 93–108. Zolberg, A. (1964). One-Party Government in the Ivory Coast, Princeton, p. 219. CHAPTER THREE DATA PRESENTIONN AND ANALYSIS 3.0 Introduction The study analyzes Ghana’s Diplomacy in the 21st Century; Prospects and Challenges. The research sought to identify the changes that have occurred in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century, discover the prospects of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century and finally, investigate challenges of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century. 3.1 Data Analysis and Presentation The researcher performed a series of inquiries from some officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Ethiopian Embassy, German Embassy and Embassy of Libya were the key participants in the interviews. They were interviewed due to their expertise and knowledge of the research topic. The following are the data collected and the analysis that were carried out. The study aimed to answer the following research questions; 1. What major changes have occurred in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century? 2. What are the prospects of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century? 3. What are the challenges of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century? The researcher designed a questionnaire form to collect a series of information from respondents that throw more light on Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century. 3.2 Importance Diplomacy Table 1: Importance of Ghana’s Diplomacy Variable Frequency Promote Negotiations 18 Reduce Conflicts 20 Promote international Development 20 Improved Bilateral relations 16 Improved Communication 17 Enhance Sharing 11  Source: Field data, (2021)     Table 1 presents what the respondents gave as the importance of diplomacy. Analysis shows the respondents’ indicated diplomacy was important because, it promotes negotiations, reduces conflicts, promotes international development, improves bilateral relations and communications and finally enhances sharing. Respondent 5 stated “Diplomacy is very paramount to every country’s development since it provides a reliable platform for countries to communicate and thereby reduce conflict” Respondent 1 stated “diplomacy reduces conflicts and promote harmonious co-existence” Table 2: Is the government of Ghana taking steps to improve diplomacy? Variable Frequency Yes 11 No 6 Rather Not say 3 Total 20 Source: Field data, (2021) The researcher asked the respondents if the government of Ghana is taking steps to improve diplomacy both politically and economically. As shown in Table 2, 11 respondents said YES and 6 respondents said NO, the remaining 3 respondents said they would rather not say. Respondent 15 stated “I know the government of Ghana is taking adequate steps to improve diplomacy between Ghana and other countries” Table 3: Key Founders of Ghana’s diplomacy Variable Frequency Dr. Kwame Nkrumah 20 Dr. Obed Yao Asamoah 14 James Victor Gbeho 8 Source: Field data, (2021) Table 3 presents the name of people that the respondents gave as the key founders of Ghana’s diplomacy. From the data, all the 20 respondents named Dr. Kwame Nkrumah as one of the key founders of Ghana’s Diplomacy. On the other hand, 14 respondents and 8 respondents named Dr. Obed Yao Asamoah and James Victor Gbeho respectively as a key founder, in addition to Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. Respondent 11 stated “Ghana’s diplomacy was founded by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah”. Respondent 3 stated “Nkrumah pioneered Ghana’s diplomacy”. Table 4: Level of Contribution of Key Fonders of Ghana's Diplomacy (Cumulative) Founder 1 2 3 4 5 Cumulative Total Dr. Kwame Nkrumah 0 0 6 8 80 94 Dr. Obed Yao Asamoa 0 4 15 12 20 51 James Victor Gbeho 0 2 6 12 10 30 Source: Field data, (2021) To be able to make a mathematical comparison between the rating the respondents gave for each of the listed founders, the researcher had to calculate the cumulative ratings for each founder. This presented in Table 4. To get the cumulative rating for each founder, the researcher multiplied the rating with the frequency of the rating. For example, 16 people rated Dr. Kwame Nkrumah 5 for his contribution, therefore the cumulative for that rating will be 16 multiplies by 5 (16 x 5), which is 80 as shown in Table 4B. From the table, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah had the highest cumulative total at 94 and Dr. Obed Yao Asamoah and James Victor Gbeho followed with 51 and 30 respectively. 3.3 Ghana’s Diplomacy before and during the 21st Century Table 5: Ghana’s Diplomacy Before the 21st century Variable Frequency Percentage Weak 12 60% Okay 8 40% Strong 0 0% Total 20 100% Source: Field data, (2021) The respondents were asked how they would describe Ghana’s diplomacy before the 21st century and the results are shown in Table 5. Out of the 20 respondents, 12 representing 60% described it as weak and 8 respondents representing 40% described it as okay. But no one described Ghana’s diplomacy before the 21st century as strong. Table 6: Ghana’s Diplomacy in the 21st century Variable Frequency Weak 4 Okay 9 Strong 7 Total 20 Source: Field data, (2021) The respondents were also asked how they would describe Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century and the results are shown in Table 6. Out of the 20 respondents, 4 described it as weak, 9 respondents described it as okay. The remaining 7 described Ghana’s diplomacy before the 21st century as strong. Table 7: Changes in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century Variable Frequency Transportation 15 Communication 20 Participation 16 Source: Field data, (2021) The respondents were asked to share their opinion on changes in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century. The results of this are presented in Table 7. Out of the 20 respondents, 15 said there were massive improvement in transportation and 16 indicated there were changes in stakeholders’ participation in the diplomacy processes and procedures in Ghana. All participants indicated that there has been massive improvement in communication and therefore Ghana’s diplomacy is doing better in the 21st Century. Respondent 19 stated that “I think Ghana’s diplomacy is currently better than previous century in terms of communication, transportation and stakeholders’ participation”. Technological improvements and the application of information technology tools in the 21st century has made it extremely easy to communicate and share information in real time, and this had made diplomatic discussions and decision making quicker than they used to be. There are also introduction of several secured means of communication and data transmission. Travel time and trips of diplomats has reduced drastically as they have several options to in person meeting. This has cut down the annual travel cost of diplomats. In the 21st century, the ordinary citizen or any stakeholder of Ghana’s diplomacy can give information, share their thoughts or complain about anything and everything to our country’s diplomatic institutions and even directly to our diplomats easily and quickly without the usual bureaucracies required before the 21st century. 3.4 Prospects of Ghana’s Diplomacy Table 8: Prospects of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century Variable Frequency Easy and Fast Communications 20 Virtual Embassies 18 Changing Roles of the Foreign Missions 16 Promotion and Image building 20 Crisis Management and Conflict Resolution 19 Source: Field data, (2021) The respondents were asked to give their opinions on the prospects that the changes in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century present, and the responses they gave were grouped into 5 broad categories for easy analysis. Namely, Easy and Fast Communications; Virtual Embassies; Changing Roles of the Foreign Missions; Promotion and Image building; and Crisis Management and Conflict Resolution. The results are shown in Table 9. Data collected shows that all 20 respondents said Easy and Fast Communications and Promotion and Image building were some of the prospects that the changes in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century present; 19 respondents representing named Crisis Management and Conflict Resolution as a prospect; 18 named Virtual Embassies as a prospect; and finally, 16 respondents said Changing Roles of the Foreign Missions is another prospect. Source: Field data, (2021) Respondent 7 stated “The prospects of Ghana’s diplomacy include building a positive image of the country, promoting communication, and ensuring diplomatic missions are achieved” Respondent 2 stated “The prospects of Ghana’s diplomacy encompass promoting Ghana in all fronts and using virtual embassies during epidemic to achieve diplomatic goals”. 3.5 Challenges to Ghana’s Diplomacy Table 9: Challenges of Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century Variable Frequency Percentage Resource Related Challenges 20 100% Implementation Related Challenges 18 90% Challenge of Integrating ICT into Diplomacy 15 75% Decision-Making Challenges 10 50% Policy Implementation Challenge 13 65% The Challenge of New Media 11 55% The Challenge of Privacy 17 85% Wire Tapping 12 60% Hacking 13 65% Source: Field data, (2021)      The respondents were asked to give their opinions on the challenges that the changes in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century present, and the responses they gave were grouped into 9 broad categories for easy analysis. Namely, Resource Related Challenges; Implementation Related Challenges; Challenge of Integrating ICT into Diplomacy; Decision-Making Challenges; Policy Implementation Challenge; The Challenge of New Media; The Challenge of Privacy; Wire Tapping; and Hacking. The results are presented in Table 8. Data collected shows that all 20 respondents said the challenges were resource related; 18 of them said the challenges were implementation related; 17 said the challenges were issues of Privacy; 15 said they were issues with integrating ICT into diplomacy; 13 said the challenges were with Policy Implementation,; another 13 said the challenges were issue of hacking; 12 respondents said challenges were Wire Tapping issues; 11 said there were also challenge of new media; and finally, 10 respondents said some of the challenges had to do with decision-making. Table 10: How can the country overcome these challenges? Variable Frequency Education and Training Key Personnel 20 Investing in the right Technology 20 Adoption of New Media 19 Advocacy 17 Source: Field data, (2021) The respondents were also asked how Ghana as a country can overcome the challenges that the changes in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century present, and the responses they gave were grouped into 4 broad categories for easy analysis. Namely, Education and Training Key Personnel; Investing in the right Technology; Adoption of New Media; and lastly Advocacy. The results are shown in Table 10. Data collected shows that all 20 respondents said Education and Training Key Personnel, and Investing in the right Technology were some of the ways Ghana as a country can overcome the challenges that the changes in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century present; 17 respondents named Advocacy as another way; and finally, 19 respondents said Adoption of New Media is another way to over the challenges. Table 11: Preparation for Changes Yet to Come Variable Frequency Open mindedness and willingness to adopt 20 Self-Learning about New Technologies 20 Source: Field data, (2021) Finally, the respondents were asked how citizens and people in diplomatic roles can prepare themselves for the changes yet to come, and the responses they gave were grouped into 2 broad categories for easy analysis. Namely, Open mindedness and Willingness to Adopt; and Self Learning about New Technologies. The results are shown in Table 11. Data collected shows that all 20 respondents said citizens and people in diplomatic roles, can prepare themselves for the changes yet to come in Ghana’s diplomacy by keeping an open mind and being willing to adopt; and self-learning about new technologies. CHAPTER FOUR SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Summary of Research Findings Data collected shows all the respondents’ indicated diplomacy was important because, it promotes negotiations, reduces conflicts, promotes international development, improves bilateral relations and communications and finally enhances sharing. Respondents described Ghana’s diplomacy before the 21st century as weak and this implied there were many pressing challenges that hindered diplomatic process or procedures before the 21st century. The participants indicated Ghana has a strong diplomatic process during the 21st century. On the other hand, the respondents indicated Ghana’s diplomacy is doing better in the 21st Century. Their reasons summed up to the following: 1. Technology in the 21st century has made it extremely easy to communicate and share information, and this had made diplomatic discussions and decision making quicker than they used to be. 2. In the 21st century, travel time and trips of diplomats has reduced drastically as they have several options to in person meeting. This has cut down the annual travel cost of diplomats. 3. In the 21st century, the ordinary citizen or any stakeholder of Ghana’s diplomacy can give information, share their thoughts or complain about anything and everything to our country’s diplomatic institutions and even directly to our diplomats easily and quickly without the usual bureaucracies required before the 21st century. The results from respondents indicated that some prospects of Ghana’s diplomacy include Easy and Fast Communications and Promotion and Image building, Crisis Management and Conflict Resolution, Virtual Embassies and Changing Roles of the Foreign Missions. Furthermore, respondents were asked to give their opinions on the challenges that the changes in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century present. The results indicated Ghana’s diplomatic challenges were inadequate financial and human resources, difficulties in implementing policies, issues with Privacy, hacking, wiretapping and data breach; difficulties in integrating ICT tools into diplomacy 4.2 Conclusion Undoubtedly, Ghana’s diplomacy has evolved greatly from what it was before the 21st century to what it is now. A lot has changed, from how diplomatic organizations are setup and run; to how they receive, process and communicate information. According to Hanson (2012), unlike in the 19th and early 20th centuries, technology has changed the way ambassadors and other diplomats conduct their business these days, and both the general citizenry and diplomats are aware of them. Data from this research further proves that the current changes that globalization and technology have caused in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century are clear-cut and obvious for everyone to see, and as a result, citizens are able to tell whether the government is doing its part in this evolution or not. This is an indication that there is still a lot that the government can do to improve Ghana’s diplomacy both politically and economically. Technological integration has increase and improved communications; reduction in diplomats’ travel time and number of trips; and finally non-bureaucratic public engagement. The study shows Ghana’s diplomacy has gotten better in the 21st century. 4.3 Recommendations for Government and Other Stakeholders The objective of this study is to provide knowledge on Ghana’s Diplomacy in the 21st century with a focus on the challenges and prospects it presents. The study also intends to make suggestions on how Ghana as a country can overcome these challenges and harness the prospects it presents to our advantage. Based on the findings of this research, the researcher recommends the following: 1. Government should invest in the right cybersecurity equipment and software to be able to prevent or control the attacks by hackers or other unscrupulous people who might try to wiretap conversations and communications carried out over the internet. 2. The government and its agencies should invest in equipping Ghana’s diplomatic institutions with the resources needed to function effectively in this technology age. Also, diplomats and all other staff of our diplomatic institutions should be trained on the right and current technology needed to perform their duties better and more effectively. 3. Government and its agencies should run advocacy campaigns to educate diplomats, staff of diplomatic institutions and the general public about the changes that have occurred in Ghana’s diplomacy in the 21st century and how all stakeholders can accept those changes and better adopt them in their daily dealings. 4. The Government, its institutions and other stakeholders should use the new media social media to educate the citizenry to practice self-leaning about new technologies in Diplomacy and also encourage them to keep an open mind and be willing to adopt new ways of doing things. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abatan, E., & Spies, Y. K. (2016). African Solutions to African Problems? The AU, R2P and Côte d’Ivoire. South African Journal of International Affairs 23 (1): 21–38. Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s Constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism: What’s the Difference. Future of Learning Group Publication, 5(3), 438. Annan, K., (2000). United Nations Address: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2000-01-10/address-kofi-annan-security-council-situation-africa-impact-aids. Apter, D. (1963). Ghana in Transition, New York, 15 Times, p. 208. Austin, D. (1964). Politics in Ghana 1946-1960, London, pp. 373-76. Bàtora, J. (2008). Foreign Ministries and the Information Revolution. Leiden, Netherland: Martinus N Publishers. Boaten, F. E. (1962). Brief Notes on Administrative Organisation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Conference of Ghana Envoys, p. 175. Carlson, R. A., Lundy, D. H., & Schneider, W. (1992). Strategy Guidance and Memory Aiding in Learning a Problem-solving Skill. Human Factors, 34,129–145. Cohen R., (1991). Negotiating Across Cultures: Communication Obstacles in International Diplomacy, Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1991. Cohen S., (2002) “Introduction: L’art de gérer les turbulences mondiales”, in Les Diplomates – Négocier dans un monde chaotique, Paris, Éditions Autrement – Collection Mutations, 2002, p.5. Committee for the Abolition of the Third World Debt (CADTM) (2016) Internet home page of the CADTM. Online at: http://cadtm.org/ Heavily-Indebted-Poor-Countries. Accessed March 2017. Copeland D., (2009). Guerrilla Diplomacy: Rethinking international relations, United States, Boulder : Lynne Rienner, 2009, p. 7. Economist Intelligence Unit, West Africa Series, No. 18, 30 May 1957. Elliott et al (2000): Educational Psychology: Effective Teaching, Effective Learning. Boston: McGraw Hill. Gupta, S. (2011). Constructivism as a paradigm for teaching and learning. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 1(1), 23-47. Hamilton K. & Langhorne R., (2011). The Practice of Diplomacy – Its Evolution, Theory and Administration, Second edition, New York, Routledge, 2011, p. 1. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-based and Inquiry Learning, 42(2), 99–107. Hocking, B. (1999). Catalytic Diplomacy: Beyond ‘Newness’ and ‘Decline, in Jan Melissen (ed.), United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. Jan Melissen, (999). “Introduction”, in Jan Melissen (ed.), Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, United Kingdom, Palgrave Macmillan, 1999, p. xvii. James, C.L.R. (1960). Notes on the Life of George Padmore," unpublished manuscript, p. 61. Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Evaluating Constructivist Learning. Educational Technology, 28 (11), 13-16. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, Educational Psychologist, 39(3), 5-14. Jönsson, C. (2011). Diplomacy: Encyclopaedia of Power, ed. Keith M. Dowding (Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE, 188–90. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of The Failure of Constructivist Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist 41(2), 75-86. Marsh, R. (2013) Understanding Africa and the Events that Shaped Its Destiny. Johannesburg: LAPA. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should There Be a Three-Strikes Rule Against Pure Discovery Learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. Nkrumah, K. (1962). I Speak of Freedom, London, p. 95. Nweke, E., (2012). “Diplomacy in the Era of Digital Governance: Theory and Impact.” Information and Knowledge Management 2, no.3: 22-26. Onuf, N. G. (1989). World of our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia, S.C.: University of Carolina Press. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Pigman, G. A. (2010). Contemporary diplomacy: Representation and communication in a globalized world. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Quaison-Sackey, A. (1963)., Africa Unbound, New York, p. 63 Richard, L. C. (2011). Diplomacy in the Twenty-First century: Change and Evolution. Rana, K., (2005). The 21st Century Ambassador – Plenipotentiary to Chief Executive, New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 27. Ross, C., (2007) Independent Diplomat – Dispatches from an Unaccountable Elite, United States, Cornell University Press, 2007, p. 25. Sampson, A. (1958). Ghana: The Morning After," Africa South, 2, No. 2. Slusser, R. (1930). The Role of the Foreign Ministry, Russian Foreign Policy, New Haven, 196, p. 212. Stacks, D., & Hocking, F. (1999). Communication Research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman Publishers. Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A Comparison of Cognitive Load Associated with Discovery Learning and Worked Examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 334–341. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (2016). ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States. Retrieved July 2021 from: http://www.uneca.org/oria/pages/ecowaseconomic-community-west-african-states. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (1986) Declaration on the Right to Development. A/Res/41I128 of December 4. Volker, O. (2018). New Realities in Foreign Affairs: Diplomacy in the 21st Century. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The development of Higher Psychological Processes (London: Harvard University Press) Whelan, D. J. (2015) “‘Under the Aegis of Man’: The Right to Dev