Diplomacy in the 21st Century

A Brief Introduction

Paul Sharp

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351371469
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Diplomacy & Treaties
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book provides an introduction to the theory and practice of diplomacy and its vital role in an era of increasing international uncertainty.

The work employs a distinctive "diplomatic perspective" on international relations and argues that the experience of conducting diplomacy gives rise to a set of priorities: first, the peaceful resolution of disputes; second, the avoidance of unwanted conflict; and, third, the minimization of the intensity of violent conflict where it has become unavoidable. It argues that changes in the international system require a shift in priorities from the diplomacy of problem-solving by building institutionalized cooperation, to the diplomacy of managing relationships between people. Divided into three sections, the first examines what is meant when we talk about diplomacy, why we need diplomats, and the operations of the modern diplomatic system of states. The second discusses the "three bads, " about which people generally worry: bad leaders, bad media, and bad followers. The idea of "bad" is considered in terms of the moral character, professional competence, and the consequences of what people do for us. The final section discusses diplomacy and bad diplomats, reviewing what people can do to help themselves and the professionals be good diplomats.

This book is intended as a primary text for courses in international diplomacy and as a supplementary text for courses on contemporary issues in international relations.

Part 1

Diplomacy and diplomats

1 Introduction

What are we talking about when we talk about diplomacy?

This chapter provides an introduction. The first section notes the book is both a textbook and a work advocating the importance of diplomacy in an era of uncertainty in international relations. It then explores two definitions of diplomacy before looking at four elements which any definition must address. The second section explains why the diplomacy of states remains important, distinguishes between the diplomacy of relations and the diplomacy of problems, and makes an argument for why acting diplomatically is particularly important in contemporary international relations. The final section provides an outline and summary of the subsequent chapters.

1.1 What is diplomacy?

Learning objectives

1. Describe two definitions of diplomacy.
2. Identify the four key elements in any definition of diplomacy.

This book provides a short introduction to diplomacy. Unlike most textbooks, however, it is also a work of advocacy, for it offers an argument as to why diplomats and their work have become so important in an era of increasing international uncertainty. When we think of diplomacy, we tend to think of ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs), embassies, consulates and the people – professional diplomats – who work in them. This is the diplomacy of the sovereign state system which began to emerge in Europe in the 15th century and spread to the rest of the world over several hundred years. It was a way in which first the kings and queens of European states, then their governments, and eventually, other groups of people as well, communicated with each other about war, peace, trade, finance, and eventually just about everything about which human beings care. Today, this diplomacy of states remains very important. There are thousands of professional diplomats, most of whom still work for states like the United States, China, France, Nigeria, and Brazil.¹ However, in what we can call the diplomacy of states and others, increasing numbers of diplomats work for international organizations like the United Nations (UN), and regional organizations like the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In addition, there are thousands of more people who might be said to be doing diplomacy. Presidents and prime ministers sometimes do their own diplomacy – called summit diplomacy because it involves meetings between people at the top or summit. Other parts of the governments of states besides the MFAs – departments of trade, finance, and development, for example, also do diplomacy and, increasingly, it is said that private actors, for example, big corporations like Amazon, humanitarian organizations like Doctors Without Borders, and individual wealthy people like Bill and Melinda Gates, do what we can call people-to-people diplomacy. The big annual meetings of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, provide a nice snapshot of the sorts of people and organizations which might be said to be doing diplomacy today. So too, however, does the idea that when you travel abroad, on a school trip, for example, or simply as a tourist, you are somehow acting as an ambassador for your college, for your home town, and even perhaps for your country. Everyone gets to be a diplomat and do diplomacy some of the time.

While it is easy to see more people acting like diplomats, however, it is much more difficult to define what diplomacy is, and it is becoming harder to do so all the time. One definition of diplomacy, put forward by a famous American humorist (we’re not quite sure which one) defined it as the art of being able to say “nice doggie” until you have time to pick up a rock. This is a rather cruel and general view, but it nicely combines notions of politeness, deception, and potential violence which some people associate with diplomacy. In a second, more serious, attempt at a definition, a famous 19th-century British diplomat, Sir Ernest Satow, defined it as “the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between independent states.” Given how people talk about diplomacy today, this definition is a bit narrow, but it combines three elements which are exceptionally important to understand. First, it says that diplomacy is about relations. Second, it says who the relations are between – for Satow, the official relations of independent states. Third, it says how these relations should be conducted – for Satow, with intelligence and tact. Elsewhere, he and others add a fourth component, that diplomatic relations are undertaken by the officially accredited representatives of states (usually, but not always, professional diplomats). Each element of Satow’s framework may be challenged today, but the framework itself remains a good one. Any attempt to define diplomacy involves the following:

• Classing diplomacy as a form of human relations.
• Specifying the entities between whom the relations are undertaken.
• Identifying the people who undertake the relations.
• Suggesting how the relations are to be undertaken if they are to be successful.

1.2 Why are diplomacy and studying diplomacy important?

Learning objectives

1. Explain why the diplomacy of states is important.
2. Distinguish between the diplomacy of relations and the diplomacy of problems.
3. Describe why the study of acting diplomatically is especially important at the moment.

It might seem obvious that diplomacy, at least in Satow’s terms, is important. If it involves the relations of states, then we all have an idea of the good things like trade agreements and peace treaties which can result when these relations are well-handled and the terrible things like conflict and war that can occur when they are not. It is not so clear, however, why diplomacy is mainly undertaken only between states, why it applies only to their official relations, why it can only be undertaken by their formally accredited representatives, and why those representatives need to employ intelligence and tact. Is that all they need to employ and, if so, is there something special about diplomacy which requires intelligence and tact? Surely both are important to the conduct of most relations between people or, at least, people who recognize each other as people and, as such, as equals? Once we start thinking about diplomacy – even if we are using a simple and apparently clear definition like Satow’s – then what it is, what it does, how it does it, and why it is important rapidly become less clear.

Box 1.1 The case of President Trump, the Russians, and America’s diplomats

The difficulties involved in thinking about diplomacy and its importance are nicely illustrated by an episode in Russian–American relations which occurred in the summer of 2017. In August 2017, the Russian government announced that it was going to expel 755 US diplomats and supporting staff. The Russians objected to economic sanctions which the Americans had placed on them for interfering in the recent US election, and they retaliated by saying the US diplomats were interfering in Russian affairs and needed to leave. The number 755 seems to have been picked, in part at least, because this would bring the US mission down to the same size as its Russian counterpart in the United States.

By international law, the diplomats of one country – referred to as the sending state – can only be in another country – referred to as the receiving state – if the government of that country agrees to them being there. If they are asked to leave, then they generally go. If they are formally declared persona non grata, then they have to go. Sometimes, the government of a receiving state genuinely does not like a particular official from the sending state or that official behaves badly – interfering in the internal affairs of the receiving state, for example, or committing a crime. On occasions, however, states expel diplomats, not because they are cross at them, but because they are cross at the state from which they come and, sometimes, they get into tit-for-tat exchanges expelling each other’s diplomats in turn.

This particular episode attracted some attention. After all, it signalled that the first and second most powerful countries in the world in terms of nuclear weapons were having a falling out. It also attracted attention, however, because of President Trump’s initial response. He said he was glad the Russians were sending US diplomats home because this would reduce the US government’s payroll and save taxpayers’ money. Many people expressed dismay that a US president could undervalue his diplomats – even ones in as important a post as Moscow – so badly. President Trump later said he was being sarcastic, but the budget cuts his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was trying to make at the State Department (www.state.gov/) were very real. Whatever the two of them thought of American diplomacy and the importance of diplomacy in general, it was clear that they thought what it could accomplish could be achieved with fewer people, or did not have to be accomplished at all.

There was lot of politics wrapped up in President Trump’s jibe. He saw the State Department as a defender of an approach to US foreign policy which he wanted to change. His own approach to handling issues – he has little interest in Satow’s “tact,” for example – probably did not help. And, to be fair, there were many in the State Department who did not like what he was trying to achieve and how he was trying to achieve it. Behind the politics, however, was another issue – 755 people. And these were not all the people who were responsible for communicating, explaining, and implementing US foreign policy in Russia. These were the just the diplomats and staff slated by the Russians to be sent home. The Russian–American relationship is a very important one to be sure, but what could these 755 people all have been doing? Indeed, what were the 455 who remained all doing?

Some of the American diplomats in Russia were contributing to what diplomacy has always done and what makes it important. It provides a way for states and other international actors to communicate with one another without the process of communicating itself becoming a source of misunderstanding, difficulty, and danger. We will call this the diplomacy of relations. If states and others must argue and get into conflicts with each other, then we want it to be because this is what they meant to happen, not because they made mistakes which got them into fights nobody really wanted. We shall call this way of communicating, so as to avoid unwanted misunderstandings and arguments, acting diplomatically. People do not have to know a great deal about international relations to recognize the importance of acting diplomatically. This is because the need for it arises in ordinary human relations too. Sometimes, we want to argue and even fight with one another, but most times we do not. Yet we are all aware of the consequences when we do not communicate clearly with one another or, more accurately, do not communicate in such a way as to avoid upsetting one another. We get into arguments or fights which no one really wants, or we want to get out of fights that everyone is tired of. Nearly everyone can see the importance of acting diplomatically in international relations and, indeed, other types of human relations, when they are reminded of it. However, the case of President Trump and his diplomats in Russia suggests that, sometimes, they do need reminding of it.

It is becoming increasingly important that people be reminded of the importance of diplomacy of relations. This is because they have become used to the idea of diplomacy being about something else, what we will call the diplomacy of problems and problem-solving by the construction of international institutions and processes. Much of diplomacy is concerned with solving problems, for example, how to keep international trade open, international finance available, international development ongoing and fair, the production and exchange of arms under control, and human rights respected. Most recently, it has been focused on solving all of the above in ways which do not involve further damaging the ecological environment of the planet on which they are undertaken. This focus on the diplomacy of problems has resulted in a steady increase in the number of people involved in diplomacy and a steady broadening of people’s understandings of what sorts of activities fall under the term diplomacy. The UN and the EU are examples of this process of solving problems by creating institutions, as are the big conferences which involve them, member states, and increasingly, other people acting in groups and as individuals. However, three contemporary cases nicely illustrate how the diplomacy of problems operates at different levels: Brexit; the Belt and Road Initiative; and Armenia’s maneuvering between the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union. The three cases also suggest how the world is changing and why, as a result, more attention is needed to the diplomacy of relations.

Box 1.2 The case of Brexit

In June 2016, a majority of the British people voted for Britain to leave the European Union (https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en) – the process known as “Brexit.” The prime minister at the time of the referendum resigned because he had supported staying in the EU. His replacement, Theresa May, was faced with the challenge of how Brexit – a complex process requiring the renegotiation of hundreds of political, economic, and social arrangements between Britain and the rest of the EU – was to be managed. One of the first things Prime Minister May did was appoint Boris Johnson, a leading figure in the “Brexit” campaign and a recent political rival, to be Britain’s Foreign Secretary and thus head of the approximately 14,000 people employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) (www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office). In addition, however, Prime Minister May established two new government departments. The first is the Department for Exiting the European Union (DEEU) and is intended to be temporary (www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-exiting-the-european-union). It has its own Secretary of State (minister) and a staff of some 300 people responsible for the terms on which Britain would leave the EU, the terms of its future relations with the EU, and the terms of any transitional period between beginning to leave and being completely out. The second is the Department for International Trade (www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-international-trade), again with its own Secretary of State and some 300 people responsible for negotiating trade agreements between Britain and other countries outside the EU, once Brexit is complete. A year later, in January 2018, it was suggested that the British government was considering appointing a minister to the DEEU with special responsibility for handling the consequences of a complete breakdown of the negotiation between Britain and the EU. In short, the process of getting Britain out of the EU involved the creation of two new departments and the involvement of other government departments, including the powerful Treasury. It did so in a way which left the role of the FCO (Britain’s MFA) in the whole process very unclear. And despite all this institutional creativity to solve problems, it also remains unclear how Britain would actually leave the EU if, indeed, it would be able to leave at all.

The case of Brexit, as an example of the diplomacy of problems, is paradoxical in that it involves the creation of institutions to bring about the destruction of a particular relationship. The second case, the Belt and Road Initiative, is more straightforward in that it involves using the diplomacy of problems to construct new relations. Once again, however, the range and complexity of what falls under the term diplomacy, together with the problematic role of the MFA and its diplomats, is well in evidence.

Box 1.3 The case of the Belt and Road Initiative

In September and October of 2013, the Chinese government announced the two parts of its “One Belt, One Road Initiative” (http://en.silkroad.news.cn/). This name referred to the old Silk Road between China and Europe, which had functioned before safer and more efficient (if longer) sea routes were discovered. The new initiative proposed massive Chinese-led investment in mining, energy, manufacturing, and transportation infrastructure across Central Asia, the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and over as far as Western Europe (Africa and South America have since been added). The announcement reflected China’s economic success, the surplus wealth it had built up which was now available for investment, its need for expanding markets for its goods, and its desire to increase its influence in the world. The “Belt and Road Initiative,” as it has now become, was confirmed in Beijing in May of 2017 as a project involving extensive negotiations with multiple stakeholders – states, state-owned and private companies, state-owned and private financial institutions, plus cultural organizations. However, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/), even though it is a senior ministry on China’s State Council, and while the rising professionalism and expertise of its diplomatic service has attracted great praise in recent years, is not the principal agent for undertaking the initiative. Its role is more one of explaining to foreign audiences what the initiative involves and responding to criticisms of it. Other government departments and agencies, together with state-owned companies and banks, seem to conduct negotiations on a case-by-case basis under the guiding hand of the ...