Essentials of modern diplomacy

 

Essentials of modern diplomacy

 

Traditional diplomacy is practised as the art and craft of communicating and interchanging among states acting through their representatives (diplomats) in the national interest (be it political, economic, scientific, social or other) by peaceful means. These means do not exclude the use of (political or economic) pressure (short of war) which is defined as coercive diplomacy. Raymond Aron already distinguished between “L’art de convaincre” and “L’art de contraindre”.1

The difference between diplomacy and foreign policy is related to that of instruments (of execution) and of formulation and contents of policy. Diplo- macy as a method deals with the articulation of foreign policy. It is about the means, not the ends, of foreign policy. Diplomacy thus serves as an instrument of implementing foreign policy. International relations on the other hand is the social science of analysing foreign policy. International relations deal with relations between states, while transnational relations concern transboundary interactions in which at least one societal actor is involved.

Diplomacy uses a certain set of skills, tools, procedures, methods, norms and rules as social practises in order to orchestrate and moderate the dialogue between states and thus to optimize the content and quality of international relations, including the management of change.

The universally recognized legal frameworks for these practices are the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) as well as customary international law. An impor- tant part of these rules are made up of protocol as the guideline for orderly offi- cial or representational behaviour of diplomats. These instruments of diplo- matic interchange are either verbal or written.

The most common form of written communication is the Verbal Note (Note Verbale) informing about a fact or position or initiating/requesting a certain action. The Verbal Note has a standard line of courtesy at the beginning and at the end. The wording of the diplomatic Verbal Note should be courteous, respectful, sober and unemotional. Diplomatic language with its formalisation into special patterns carries a certain subdued tone of understatement. At best, it should also leave a face saving room for the opposing party to respond in kind while protecting the messenger from the responsibility of its impact.

 

In conference diplomacy there are contrasting roles of ambiguity and precision: weaker parties may have an interest in inserting ambiguous provisions, while stronger partners will push for precision. The precision of the wording may (at times deliberately) be clouded by some ambiguity to retain flexibility and the ability to disclaim. This then can lead to different interpretations. Ambiguity allows participants to issue signals they can later disown and gives them more freedom to explore possible policies without changing others’ images of them- selves to their detriment. The advantages of this often outweigh the disadvan- tages and many techniques of signalling are adopted to utilize these potentiali- ties.2 In diplomacy, ambiguity is a central and constructive practice since it creates the necessary room to manoeuvre and momentum for transaction and compromise.3

The verbal communication in diplomatic contacts should follow the same lines respecting the institution of (recognized) states and International Organiza- tions, the sovereignty and equality of states (small or large) as well as the dignity of its representatives. The main feature of any communication among human beings including diplomats is trustworthiness, credibility and integrity. In matters of state it is essential to build up and maintain a high level of respect- ability with your counterparts as well as other official contacts for the enduring success of your mission and your whole diplomatic career.

A caveat for joking diplomats: At times, a joke may generate an awareness of the shared assumptions uniting all members beyond the barriers of cultural divisions. But, any diplomatic joke should be amusing for all and offending to none. The due respect for other cultures may demand necessary adjustments or avoidance altogether.

All diplomats are agents of their state and do not act as private citizens. They have to fulfil an official mission regardless of their personal opinion. The imperative mandate of a diplomat who disagrees with his government's policy forces him, in case of unsuccessful remonstration, to defend his Government's position loyally or to resign from his mission.

Some of the salient features of change impacting on diplomacy are:

1. Acceleration of globalization

2. New participants in globalized relations 3. New information techniques

4. Internationalization of domestic politics.

 

Ad 1: Acceleration of globalization

Contemporary globalization is creating a world where the extensive reach of transnational relations and networks is matched by their high intensity, velocity, and impact propensity across many facets of life, from economic and social to environmental. In a changing global environment the network of inter- national relations is strengthening in all and even new fields of politics, economy and social contacts. Globalization is a process of economic, political and cultural convergence or homogenisation. It can be defined by the following four elements:

Global challenges demanding governmental, intergovernmental or private solutions

Intensification of political and economic integration

Increase in the number of transnational participants and issues Technological leap facilitating new working methods.

Globalization poses a series of new practical questions:

How can effective and legitimate governance be sustained in interdependent global, regional, national, and local spaces?

Which legal, political, economic, social, and cultural problems and conflicts emerge, and how can they be dealt with?

How can governance at the various levels cope with economic globalization, social fragmentation, and heterogeneous cultures and traditions?

Which socio-cultural prerequisites are needed for a global world order and effective global governance beyond the nation-state in view of increasing ethnic, cultural, and religious divisions?

How can we develop a systematic understanding of the emergence of, and solutions to, long-term and inter-generational policy problems?

Globalization refers to processes of social, economic, and cultural change that systematically reduce the significance of national societies in favour of intensi- fied transboundary interactions on all levels. Globalization vastly increases our exposure to other participants, spaces, and environments.

Ad 2: New participants in globalized relations

Whereas the traditional participants in international relations were limited to states and International Organizations (as original subjects in international law) a growing number of participants has emerged due to the globalization process: Sub state entities (local and regional) NGOs, transnational companies, the media, academia, foundations, political parties etc.). Today, foreign policy in a larger sense is not only performed by states through their representatives but also by any of these new participants. The practice of diplomacy is shared with many more partners than before. Diplomacy has become privatized and popularized.

In the future, the sovereign state is unlikely to remain the main locus of authority. New constellations and participants are transcending the divide between the domestic and the international spheres replacing old forms of governance. While the sovereign state is likely to structurally remain the prin- cipal source of authority due to its structural endurance and normative rele- vance the principle of sovereignty will undergo profound changes leading to a modernized concept. Sovereignty today is not any more monopolized by the state, but – through changes across time and space – can be divided and shared among state and non-state participants depending on the issue, problem and political situation of the community.4 Due to these internal challenges to state sovereignty at sub-national levels of governance, sovereignty as relational interface between law and politics has become a continuous variable. Thus, sovereignty is transferred and relocated in some issue areas to other levels than state entities.

Governance has been recognized (by the Report of the Commission on Global Governance in 1995) as the sum of the many ways indiviuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs.

The new modes of governance must lead to adjustments in constitutional provi- sions to ensure legitimacy and accountability as well as the rule of law. The rule of law means that the exercise of political power is permissible only on the basis of the constitution and of laws whose form and substance complies with the constitution, and with a view to ensuring human dignity, freedom, justice and legal certainty. Such constitutionalism is an indispensable normative frame for thinking about the complex problems of viable and legitimate regulation of the transboundary communities. Legitimacy is meant to be the morally justifi- able and acceptable exercise of political power. The conditions of progressive internationalization are impacting on the new political culture and its accept- ance and will entail a reduction in the standards and expectations of legitimacy (legitimacy-deficit), certainly for the private authority.

The new participants are capable of prejudicing and possibly binding the posi- tion of the state to varying degrees. The foreign ministries no longer play a role of gatekeepers in external affairs but can at best become coordinators. Depending on the form, time and content of the external actions of other partic- ipants this can be a blessing or a curse for any coordination of policy by the foreign ministry. The internal and external coordination function is not an entirely new preoccupation, but it has become more central since it involves simultaneous operations in different public and private arenas in search for a unified voice on policy matters.

 

Ad 3: New information technologies

The new information technologies will not usurp the rationale for diplomacy and for diplomats.5 Diplomacy, by its very nature, is an ongoing process which does not lend itself easily to short-termism. Diplomacy requires knowledge, judgement, and expertise. Negotiating over the Internet does not change that. It just demands adaptation to the world around us. This adaptation is not a matter of choice but of necessity. Technology is having an impact, not only on how diplomats do business, but on what the business of diplomacy is.

New information techniques have improved not only the speed but also the depth of available material. This also affects diplomacy as the art of communi- cating and interacting among the participants in globalized relations. This communication evolution has not only accelerated the flow of information but has also broadened the mentality and the ways of thinking within the diplo- matic community. Reaction time has unavoidably shortened in this dialogue. A diplomat can seldom beat the modern media in velocity but he is constantly challenged to analyse the events with the in-depth quality and continuity of his special and wide-spread sources which can influence domestic opinion as well as the policy formulating process at home.

In the future, a diplomat will be assessed by the depth and specificity of the detailed information and the critical analysis he provides. Thereby he should be able to foresee in the medium as well as long term social and political trends which can be dealt with at an early stage through public diplomacy.

In spite of any new technology such as e-mail, fax or telephone nothing can really replace a personal contact and dialogue confirmed by a handshake.

On the other hand any diplomatic initiative and activity on the ground can be constantly monitored by his administration at home which is able to provide more detailed and frequent and even real-time instructions according to domestic interests.

Ad 4: Internationalization of domestic politics

Due to advancing globalization and the increase in transnational relations and interdependencies foreign policy today is not only formulated in the foreign ministry but in other ministries and agencies with international contacts (administrative diversification of foreign policy). In as much as other depart- ments according to their domestic competences are developing their own inter- national networks (epistemic community) and obtaining concomitant decision- making power a process of internationalization of domestic politics and domes- ticating of international relations is emanating. Thus the diplomat abroad may be confronted at times with multiple chains of principals representing differing interests and giving varying instructions. In order to secure that the government consistently and coherently speaks with one voice in matters of foreign policy it is the task of the diplomat to find a consolidated position respecting the primacy of the foreign ministry as the coordinating authority.6 The foreign ministry itself might use inter-ministerial working groups to co-ordinate government policy. On the international level, other ministries are also participating in regular (bilateral/trilateral) government to government consultations.

This coordinating role of the foreign ministry in matters of foreign policy is challenged by the multitude of co-participants in international relations. Since the state has lost its monopoly on information and decision making in this field it has to regain its capacity and credibility to shape foreign policy on a daily basis. This can be achieved if (foreign) policy making is understood as a “learning system” for decisions, their control and correction. Foreign policy can learn a lot from international social sciences with regard to political-moral expertise and the assessment of the consequences. Social sciences can provide valuable historic and multidisciplinary insights and analyses to facilitate the decision making process by the diplomats. Practice-orientated science can contribute to the solutions of many institutional as well as existential problems created by the transformation of statehood.

Similar to business science takes on a social responsibility towards the state and civil society in a public-private-partnership. Political consultancy through the sciences is not only desirable but it becomes existential. Progress in science also opens new fields of activity and perspectives to diplomacy.

In consequence, the practical roles of a diplomat have changed. His traditional mission used to be:

Representation and promotion of state interests (political, economic, cultural, scientific and others)

Protection of citizens-interest

Negotiation

Gathering and transmitting of information.

Today, additional tasks come to the fore:

Project manager

Moderator

Multiplier (public diplomacy) Analyst

Conceptional thinker

Crisis manager

 

A modern diplomat is involved in cultural, scientific, development, human aid as well as environmental projects. In case of natural or man-made disasters he takes on the role of crises management coordinating the interests of his state and citizens on the ground.

In practical terms the diplomat is seen as the first mediator and moderator of interests between the sending and the receiving state.

In an age of globally interlinked media, diplomacy must go beyond the tradi- tional forms of state-to-state relations. A modern foreign service will increas- ingly find itself directly addressing the broader public.

With the technology-leap in information public diplomacy has taken on a new significance. Public diplomacy is defined as the sum of all communication activities directed towards selected elite, contact organizations, and the broader public worldwide. The long-term goal is to modernize and revitalize a country’s image and thereby make it more attractive for partners, investors, consumers, and tourists. In addition, public diplomacy helps to explain current domestic and foreign policy to a worldwide audience in an understandable manner, resulting in increased support for national positions.

Public diplomacy, thus, deals with the influence of public opinions and atti- tudes towards the formation and execution of foreign policies. Public diplo- macy, therefore, is about getting people on one’s side. It concerns the relation- ship between diplomats and foreign societies, particularly multipliers of opinions in those societies, and the facilitation by diplomats of the relationship between people in their own civil society with their counterparts in the receiving state.7 Today’s diplomat has the personal task to explain and defend all aspects of life in his country with all modern means in a proactive and convincing way. This cross-medial communication should be geared in a credible and convincing way towards specific audiences (for example political, economic or cultural decision makers, elites, journalists, students or youth as multipliers) aiming at sustainable effects of informing and opinion-building.

American diplomacy in the 21st century is planning to advance public diplo- macy into transformational diplomacy in order to localize the diplomatic posture.8 Out of the need to enhance the ability to work more effectively at the critical intersections of diplomacy, democracy promotion, economic recon- struction and military security, transformational diplomacy requires to move the diplomatic presence out of foreign capitals and to spread it more widely across countries. A more economical idea than to build new consulates is tested (in Egypt and Indonesia): American Presence Posts. A diplomat moves outside the embassy to live and work and represent his country in an emerging commu- nity of change and to engage with private citizens in regional centers. Another way to adopt a more local posture is through a Virtual Presence Post: a young diplomatic officer creates and manages an internet site (Net Diplomacy) that is focused on key population centers. In digital meeting rooms foreign (mostly young) citizens can engage online with American diplomats in embassies or consulates. This system seems to be feasible for spread out areas of Asia and Latin America.

With modern means of communication, information – whether true or false, verifiable or not – is readily available in abundance at any place and any time. The genuine task of today's diplomat lies in scrutinising and analysing the sources, content and credibility of all available facts and opinions. This diplo- matic analysis should put the facts into a broader and deeper political context. Thus it could provide an appropriate background assessment and guideline for decisions by his foreign ministry.

On the basis of his long-standing and far-reaching background knowledge as well as his continuous presence, normally for 3-5 years, the diplomat can even- tually prove himself as a conceptional thinker providing to his principals exclu- sive proposals for future-orientated policy guidance.

In order to master the complexity and acceleration of change in globalized rela- tions any participant has to find structural guidance in the following dominant features of modern diplomacy, its procedures and dynamics as they have been experienced by a practitioner:

internalization of diplomacy versus internationalization of domestic policy symbolism and rituals in diplomacy

flexibility and pragmatism as response to global challenges

reciprocity versus communitarianism

corporate diplomacy

diplomatic culture and the relevance of language diplomacy as an instrument of globalized societies. 

 

 

Chapter 2

Internalization of diplomacy or internationalization of domestic policy

On the one hand the traditional nation state is transferring powers and compe- tences to supra-national-bodies (like the EU), on the other hand the central government often sees its exclusive foreign policy responsibility undermined from regional governments with considerable devolved powers. Formerly, the ministry of foreign affairs played the role of a gatekeeper vis-à-vis the outside world. But this notion of gateway is too hegemonic because it hinges on the assumption that domestic and international affairs are conducted in two very different political arenas: one within the state’s boundaries, the other outside them. It implies exclusive control over the domestic-international interface. In the gobalized situation of state-society and society-society interaction the foreign ministry needs to share or relinquish its gatekeeper status with refer- ence to other participants.1 With varying degree of constitutional and political independence some of these regional entities are very active in international relations.

As foreign policy – through the interference of other government ministries and agencies – has ceased to be the sole domain of the ministry of foreign affairs one can observe the phenomenon of “degovernmentalization” of foreign affairs by sub-state authorities (provincial, regional or local). In the modern practice of democracy the search for belonging has strengthened collective identities at the regional and local level (regions such as Normandy, Catalonia, and Cornwall). As a reaction to the impact of globalization this development has been called “glocalization”.2

For the participation of official sub state entities in external actions (for example in the USA, Canada, Belgium, Spain and Germany) the term of “para diplomacy” (“Nebenaussenpolitik”)3 has been coined. Though these sub-state entities do not dispose of the requisite capacities of fully fledged international participants (for example recognition as subjects of international law), in fact their international interactions are becoming increasingly intensive and perma- nent and thus important in positioning themselves between sovereign states and non-governmental organisations. They very often dispose of an extensive margin of autonomy and numerous resources4 which might be more sizable than those of a vast majority of sovereign states empowering them with greater influence over international affairs than the central state. Originally these external activities only concerned “soft areas” such as city or regional partner- ships, visits of communal delegations, lately they extend to solidarity actions in humanitarian and development aid and effect even core-issues of national representation and foreign policy (economic, political and even military).5 As cities become centres of economic development their external offices exchange experiences and share interests across national and regional boundaries and develop global economic networks outside the knowledge and influence of traditional diplomats.

In German federalism with its delegation of powers to the European Union the functional and normative dynamics spreading sub-national involvement in international affairs lead to a parallel foreign policy (“Nebenaussenpolitik”). German states (“Länder”) act side by side with the federal state level and even set up their separate missions and representations in Brussels. Constitutionally, foreign affairs remain under the responsibility of the federal government but both sides make use of their own diplomacy (micro diplomacy or multilayered diplomacy). This parallelism, at times, can cause frictions in policy matters.

The development of regional networks can pose challenges to traditional diplo- matic services by undermining embassies’ hegemony over bilateral relations between states. Some of their activities are carried out outside the control or at least without knowledge of the bilateral embassies. They can even cause polit- ical and constitutional problems when the central government has to bear the responsibility before supra-national tribunals for international situations created by regional governments.