Diplomacy is the interaction between the states through communication and negotiation, which requires “the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent states”.(Roberts, 2009, p-3) It is the ability to find the balance and wise use of the most important means of diplomacy: persuasion, compromise and threat of force, that conducts “the key process of communication and negotiation in world politics and as an important foreign policy instrument used by global actors”. (White, 2005, 387). Whatever means is used however, the main objective of diplomacy lies and always laid on the “promotion of national interest by peaceful means” (Morgenthau, 1904, p329). Objectives of diplomacy are primarily the assessment of the power available from all perspectives and the ability to acutely employ the means in order to achieve the desired intentions.
Diplomacy in its nature and objectives has been the same throughout its origins until nowadays and the changes that have taken place as a matter of time being has resulted because the world politics has transformed in such a way that diplomacy needed a new way of achieving its means. The following I consider as the most significant changes in the nature of diplomacy.
First of all, since the traditional way of conducting diplomatic relations in secrecy allegedly resulted in World War 1, a need for a more open and publicized diplomacy emerged. This is one of the significant changes. Even though the need has emerged, it does not mean that diplomacy has become completely open and transparent. The rehearsed outcomes of the negotiations during the League of Nations for the public for example shows how the actual decisions are originally not the ones that are shown to the public. On the other hand though, the United Nations has reversed this issue and made diplomacy more transparent nevertheless the concern that diplomacy is still conducted on a secret basis.
The League of Nations and the United Nations denote the other significant change in the nature of diplomacy, that is the emergence of non state actors: international organizations, non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, multinational corporations and etc. In the new parliamentary diplomacy these new non-state actors also play a significant role.
The development of communication and technology is another most significant change in the nature of diplomacy since it resulted in a greater interdependence between the states and easier communication.
Moreover, in addition to “high politics”, the major change in the nature of diplomacy is the greater concern of governments with “low politics”, that is the transformation of governments from “night-watchman states” to “welfare states” that include the economic and social welfare issues.
Finally, one of the major changes in diplomacy is the transformation of world politics in global scope. The addition to the agenda of the issues such as the relations of now not only between the West and the East, but also Global North and the South, the global environment concerns, technology, terrorism and arms control all have the major influence on the change of the nature of diplomacy.
References:
Roberts Sir Ivor, (2009), (ed.) Satow’s Diplomatic Practice, 6th edition, Oxford State University Press, Oxford.
White, B. (2005), “Diplomacy” in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Morgenthau, Hans, J. (1904), 5th ed. Politics Among Nations, Alfred A. Knopf, INC, New York.
Leguey-Feilleux, Jean-Robert, (2009), The Dynamics of Diplomacy , Lynne Rienner Publishers, London.
Hi Leyla,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on all of these points. I especially like your reference to Morgenthau's claim that diplomacy is the promotion of the national interest by peaceful means, and that it is just the way in which diplomacy is conducted that has changed.
I would like to pose a question relating to that:
As we have defined diplomacy here in somewhat realist terms (Morgenthau is a realist, so therefore when he references the national interest we could assume that he is talking in terms of power), is there ever room for ethics and morality when conducting diplomacy? Take for instance Great Britain's continuing support of the Ottoman Empire after its horrendous put down of the Bulgarian uprising in 1876. This led to public outcry in the U.S. and Europe, but the British stood by the Ottoman Empire simply to avoid a potential conflict with Russia. Diplomats therefore arguably took the strategic option rather than the moral one.
I'd really like to hear your's and other's thoughts on this.
Cheers,
Chris
Hi Chris,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment and for your initiation of this debate.
In order to answer your question I thought it would be useful to take into consideration several rules of diplomacy and roles of a diplomat:
o “1st law of diplomacy: Its not the other side you need to worry about, its your own”
o Calculation of powers (available both for their own sides and for the opposite sides)
o Analyse the geopolitical situation in the long term
o Choosing the least worst option
o There are no eternal and perpetual allies, but there are only interests that are eternal and perpetual.
o There should be moral part to foreign policy, but in deciding what to do you should take account of reality
o Because Public opinion tends to be “emotional and oversimplified”, Public opinion should be led, rather than followed.
(These are in reference to Sir Christopher Meyer’s “Getting our way” as well as Morgenthau)
The example you have given is the strongest one in explaining that there is usually no place for ethics or morality when it comes to national interests in conducting diplomacy.
The Bulgarian revolt and their oppression by the Ottoman empire in 1876, is the period of after the decline of Concert of Europe: where the Great Powers (Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria and France) redrew the map of Europe and struggled to keep the agreement reached on the Congress of Vienna with the help of the balance of power. This period can be referred to both realism and liberalism. Liberalism, since there occurred great deal of diplomatic negotiations and more of Realism, since every Great power was concerned with its own security and power. As a result, they managed the international system in such a way that more or less some order in Europe existed until the Crimean War occurred. Since the Crimean war it was important for Britain to keep the Ottoman Empire on their own side in order to “prop up the Ottoman Empire against the “Russian bear”. That is why it was strategically important for Britain to act in Machiavellian way: to drop any morality or ethics when it comes to the security of the nation.
Thus, at this particular issue, the essential rules of diplomacy shown above were employed, which proves that when it comes to the matter of national interests of a sovereign state, ethics and morality do not seem to be appropriate.
And again, thanks a lot for bringing up this debate. I find it very interesting and I really hope that you and others will join in as well.
All the best,
Leyla.