Diplomacy stands accepted as the mainstay and the core process of relations among nations. The process of establishment of relations among nations begins effectively with the establishment of diplomatic relations among nations. A new state becomes a full and active member of the family of nations only after it gets recognition by existing states.
The common way in which this recognition is granted is the announcement of the decision to establish diplomatic relations. Thereafter diplomats are exchanged and relations among nations get underway. As such diplomacy is the means through which nations begin to develop their relations.
“Diplomacy is the management of international relations by means of negotiations; the method by which these relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys the business or art of the diplomats” —Harold Nicholson.
“Diplomacy is the inevitable outcome of the coexistence of separate political units (states) with any degree of contact.” —Frankel
Diplomacy is a basic means by which a nation seeks to secure the goals of its national interest. Foreign policy always travels on the shoulders of diplomacy and gets operationalized in other states.
What is Diplomacy?
The term Diplomacy is used in a variety of ways. Sometimes it is described as “the art of telling lies on behalf of the nation”, or “as an instrument for employing deceit and duplicity in international relations.”
Stalin once observed:
“A diplomat’s words must have no relation to the action—otherwise what kind of diplomacy is it? Good words are a mask for the concealment of bad deeds. Sincere diplomacy is no more possible than dry water or wooden iron.” Another statesman has also observed, “When a diplomat says yes, he means perhaps; when he says perhaps, it means no; and when he says no, he is not a diplomat.”
Such general characterizations of diplomacy have been quite popular but these do not reflect the true nature of diplomacy. No doubt, diplomacy at times attempts to cloak the real goals of national interests with several ideational principles or morality or rules of international behavior, yet it cannot be described as the art of deceit and concealment. Diplomacy is, in fact, the art of negotiations and the conduct of foreign relations. It is the key instrument for implementing the foreign policy of the nation.
Definitions:
(1) “Diplomacy is the process of representation and negotiation by which states customarily deal with one another in times of peace.” —Padelford and Lincoln
(2) “Diplomacy is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between governments of independent states.” —Sir Ernest Satow
(3) “Diplomacy is “the art of forwarding one’s interests in relation to other countries.” —K.M. Panikar
(4) “Diplomacy is the management of international relations by means of negotiations; the method by which these relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys the business or art of the diplomats.” —Harold Nicholson
(5) “Diplomacy is the promotion of the national interest by peaceful means.”—Hans J. Morgenthau
On the basis of these definitions, it can be said that Diplomacy is the mechanism for the promotion of the national interest of the nation that it represents. It is done by means of negotiations and conduct of relations with other nations. Diplomacy is always guided and conditioned by the foreign policy of the nation that it represents.
Nature of Diplomacy:
(1) Diplomacy is not Immoral:
Diplomacy is neither the art of deceit nor mere lies or propaganda and nor even something immoral.
(2) Diplomacy is a means of International Relations:
Diplomacy is a normal means of conducting relations. It consists of techniques and procedures for conducting relations among nations.
(3) Diplomacy is machinery for action:
In itself, diplomacy is recognized as the official machinery for the conduct of relations among nations.
(4) Diplomacy acts through Settled Procedures:
Diplomacy functions through a network of foreign offices, embassies, legations, consulates, and special missions all over the world. It always works according to definite and settled procedures and protocol.
(5) Bilateral as well as Multilateral in Form:
Diplomacy is commonly bilateral in character. However, as a result of the growing importance of international conferences, international organizations, regional negotiations, it has now also developed a plural character. It is concerned with all issues and problems among nations.
(6) Diplomacy handles all types of Matters:
Diplomacy may embrace a multitude of interests—from the simplest issues to vital issues to that of war and peace.
(7) Breakdown of Diplomacy always leads to Crisis:
When diplomacy breaks down, the danger of war, or at least of a major crisis develops.
(8) Diplomacy operates both in times of Peace as well as War:
Some writers hold that diplomacy operates only in times of peace and when war breaks out diplomacy comes to an end. However, this is not a correct view. Diplomacy continues to operate even when war breaks out. Of course, during the war its nature undergoes a change; from peace diplomacy, it takes the form of war diplomacy.
(9) Diplomacy works in an environment characterized both by Conflict and Cooperation:
Diplomacy works in a situation involving both cooperation and conflict. A certain degree of cooperation among nations is essential for the working of diplomacy because, in its absence, diplomatic relations cannot be maintained. Similarly when there is no conflict diplomacy becomes superfluous because there is no need for negotiations. Thus the existence of cooperation as well as conflict is essential for the working of diplomacy.
(10) Diplomacy always works for securing the national interests of the nation it represents:
The purpose of diplomacy is to secure the goals of national interest as defined and specified by the foreign policy of the nation. Diplomacy always works for the nation it represents.
(11) Diplomacy is backed by National Power. Diplomacy is backed by national power:
Strong diplomacy means diplomacy backed by a strong national power. Diplomacy uses persuasion and influence as the means for exercising power in international relations. It cannot use force and violence. However, it can issue warnings, give ultimatums, promise rewards, and threaten punishment, but beyond this, it cannot directly exercise force. “Diplomacy is the promotion of national interest by peaceful means.”
(12) Test of Success of Diplomacy:
Success in Diplomacy is measured in terms of the amount of success achieved towards the fulfillment of the goals of national interest in international relations.
All these characteristics highlight the nature of Diplomacy. One can describe Diplomacy as an instrument of national interest and a tool of foreign policy.
Objectives of Diplomacy:
Broadly speaking, Diplomacy seeks to secure two types of primary objectives for the nation it represents. These are:
(i) Political Objectives, and
(ii) Non-political Objectives.
(1) Political Objectives of Diplomacy:
Diplomacy always works to secure the goals of national interest as defined by foreign policy. It always works for increasing the influence of the state over other states. It uses persuasion, promises of rewards, and other such means for this purpose. Through rational negotiations, it seeks to justify the objectives of the foreign policy of the nation. It seeks to promote friendship and cooperation with other nations.
(2) Non-political Objectives of Diplomacy:
The interdependence among nations is the most important and valuable fact of international living. Each nation depends upon others for economic and industrial links and trade. Diplomacy always seeks to promote the economic, commercial, and cultural links of the nation with other nations. Diplomacy depends upon peaceful means, persuasive methods for promoting the interests of the nation and this is indeed an important non-political objective of Diplomacy.
Means of Diplomacy:
For securing its objectives, Diplomacy depends upon three major means: persuasion, compromise, and the threat of use of force. Diplomacy has to depend upon several tactics or techniques. The chances of the success of diplomacy are directly related to the ability to use appropriate means through appropriate tactics. The main diplomacy uses six techniques, which have been defined by the Hostile? A selection of a method or means is done on the basis of the time and circumstances of the situation. Any wrong decision in this respect can lead to failure.
Six Main Devices of Diplomacy:
(i) Persuasion:
Through logical reasoning, Diplomacy seeks to convince others of the justification of the goals which it is trying to uphold or promote.
ii) Rewards:
Diplomacy can offer rewards for securing acceptance of the desired view of a particular international dispute or issue or problem.
(iii) Promise of Reward and Concessions:
Diplomacy can promise matching rewards and concessions for securing a particular change or maintaining a particular view in the policies of other nations.
(iv) Threat of use of Force:
Diplomacy cannot use force or violence in promoting the national interest. However, it can use the threat of use of force—ultimatums, symbolic boycotts, protest walkouts, or even threat of war, etc., for securing its objectives.
(v) Non-violent Punishment:
By depriving a promised reward or concession, Diplomacy can inflict non-violent punishment on other nations.
(vi) Use of Pressure:
By using pressure tactics Diplomacy can force other nations to accept the desired view or policy or decision or goals that it represents. Besides these, Diplomacy also uses propaganda, cultural links, exploitation of situations, creation of particular scenes and situations, rigidity or flexibility in negotiations, etc. Kautilya, in his Arthashastra, suggests “Sam, Dam, Danda Bheda and Niti” as the tactics of Diplomacy.
Functions and Role of Diplomacy:
In performing its tasks and securing its national objectives, Diplomacy has to undertake a number of functions.
Major Functions:
(1) Ceremonial/Symbolic Functions:
The diplomats of a nation are the symbolic representatives of the state and they represent their state and government in all official ceremonies and functions as well as in non-official, social, and cultural functions held in the place of their postings.
(2) Representation:
A diplomat formally represents his country in a foreign state. He is the normal agent of communication between his home office and that of the state to which he is accredited. His representation is legal and political. He can vote in the name of his government. Of course, in doing so he is totally bound by the directions of his home office and the Foreign Policy of the nation.
(3) Negotiations:
To conduct negotiations with other states is a substantive function of diplomacy. Diplomats, observe Palmer and Perkins, are by definition negotiators. They are the channels of communication that handle the transmission of messages between the foreign ministries of the parent state and the host state. Along with the nature of the message, the manner and style of delivering the message greatly influence the course of negotiations. It is mainly through negotiations that a diplomat seeks to secure agreements and compromises over various conflictual issues and problems among states.
The role of diplomacy in conducting negotiations has, however, declined in our times because of the emergence of multilateral diplomacy, personal diplomacy political diplomacy, summit diplomacy, and the direct communication links among the world leaders and top statesmen. The diplomats today do not play as great a role in international negotiations as used to be previously played by them. Nevertheless, they continue to be the legal and formal channels of negotiations in international relations.
(4) Reporting:
Reporting involves the observation of the political, economic, military, and social conditions of the host country and the accurate transmission of the findings of the diplomat to his home country. Political reporting involves a report about the assessment of the roles of various political parties in the politics of the host country. It seeks to assess the friendliness or hostility of the various political groupings towards the home state and the power potential of each party or organization.
Economic reporting involves sending reports to the home office containing general information about the economic health and trade potential of the host country. Military reporting involves an assessment of the military might, intentions and capabilities, and the strategic importance of the host country.
The level of social and cultural conflicts among the people of the host country and the level of social harmony and cohesion are assessed for determining the level of stability of the host country. Thus reporting is an important and valuable function of diplomacy.
(5) Protection of Interests:
Diplomacy is always at work for protecting and promoting the interests of the nation and its people living abroad. Protection of interests is the “bedrock of the practice of diplomacy.” It works to secure compatibility out of incompatibility through accommodation, reconciliation, and goodwill.
A diplomat always attempts to prevent or change practices which he feels are discriminatory to the interests of his country. It is his responsibility to protect the persons, property, and interests of such citizens of his country as are living in the territory of the state to which he stands posted.
Through all these functions, diplomacy plays an important role in international relations.
Change in the Character of Diplomacy: From Old Diplomacy to New Diplomacy:
In contemporary times the nature of Diplomacy has undergone a big change. From its traditional dress (Old Diplomacy) it has come to acquire several new features. This change has earned for it the name New Diplomacy.
Old Diplomacy:
Diplomacy in its traditional form is known as Old Diplomacy and its main features have been:
(i) European Diplomacy:
Old Diplomacy was primarily confined to Europe. Being an imperial continent that controlled and ruled the continents of Asia and Africa, Europe was the center of all international activities. Old Diplomacy had its origin in Europe and continued, till 1914, to handle the relations among the European states.
(ii) Aristocratic:
In Old Diplomacy, the conduct of foreign relations was considered to be the prerogatives of the kings or rulers and their trusted ambassadors. The diplomats used to be selected by the monarchs and were responsible to their ‘lords’. Diplomacy was conducted by a class of professional diplomats and was characterized by an air of aristocracy, nobility, and class consciousness. It was both formal and elitist in nature and approach.
(iii) Special Emphasis upon Virtues:
The Old Diplomacy was aristocratic and hence regarded several well-defined and accepted principles as cardinal principles or virtues of diplomats. Honesty, integrity, truthfulness, politeness, fairness, strict conformity to protocol, secrecy, and total commitment to national interests were considered to be the essential qualities of diplomats. However, in actual operation, the Old Diplomacy was characterized by ‘honest lies,’ integrity in appearance, qualified truthfulness, outward politeness, self-satisfying fairness, and strict observance of protocol and secrecy.
(iv) Secrecy:
Secrecy was considered to be the hallmark of Old Diplomacy. Complete secrecy in respect of the negotiations as well as about the outcome of these negotiations was considered to be a vitally important condition of old diplomacy. Diplomats communicated only with their counterparts in other countries. Secret negotiations leading to secret undertakings, agreements or treaties, or alliances were considered to be the ideal ways of conducting relations for the preservation of peace and problem-solving.
(v) Freedom of Action for the Ambassadors:
Within the broad limits of agreed policy, the diplomats handling diplomatic negotiations used to enjoy the freedom of action. During the era of Old Diplomacy, the ambassadors enjoyed considerable freedom in matters of negotiations. Lack of speedy and continuous means of communications made it essential for the state to give wide powers to its diplomats.
The inability to maintain continuous speedy communications with the ambassadors made it essential for the ruler of the state to give freedom of action and full power to his ambassadors. Ambassadors always used their authority freely without much fear of the ‘home office.’
Old Diplomacy continued to remain in operation till the middle of the 20th century. Thereafter, it had to change due to several big changes in the international system as well as because of the development of fast and comprehensive means of transport and communications. It now came to be a New Diplomacy.
New Diplomacy and Distinction with Old Diplomacy:
New Diplomacy has the following salient features which have been totally different from the features of Old Diplomacy.
(i) New Diplomacy is Global, Old Diplomacy was mainly European:
The New Diplomacy is truly global in nature and scope. The rise of Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the emergence of a large number of sovereign independent states changed the character of post-war international relations. From mostly European relations these came to be truly international relations involving all the sovereign states. Consequently, diplomacy had to abandon its European character and become truly global in nature and approach.
(ii) New Diplomacy is mostly Multilateral, whereas Old Diplomacy was mostly Bilateral:
Multilateral negotiations in international conferences, institutionalized diplomacy at the United Nations, and the emergence of direct personal contacts among the statesmen and leaders of various states, have all combined to give a new look and content to New Diplomacy. Old Diplomacy was mostly bilateral and limited; the New Diplomacy is mostly multilateral and global.
(iii) New Diplomacy is less formal than Old Diplomacy:
New Diplomacy is not as formal and rigid in respect of rules or procedures as was the case with the Old Diplomacy. Presently, there exist quite informal and direct contacts among the leaders and diplomats of various states.
(iv) New Diplomacy is mostly open and Old Diplomacy was mostly secret:
In New Diplomacy the negotiations are open and the results are, invariably always, made public soon after the reaching of agreements or treaties or alliances or settlements. Diplomatic negotiations are given full coverage over the Radio, Press, Television, and other means of mass media. Old Diplomacy favored secrecy as its governing principle.
(v) Democratic Nature of New Diplomacy versus Aristocratic nature of Old Diplomacy:
The New Diplomacy is democratic, whereas Old Diplomacy was aristocratic in nature. In the era of the latter, a special elitist class of diplomats, who were professionals to the core, used to conduct diplomatic negotiations and relations.
However, at present, the increased influence of public opinion, political parties, pressure groups, world public opinion, the rise of a more democratic and less aristocratic class of civil servants, have all given a new dimension and look to diplomacy. Modern ambassadors and consolers are democratic in their outlook towards diplomacy. A degree of informality has come to characterize their functioning in international relations.
(vi) New Diplomacy depends more on Propaganda than Old Diplomacy:
The use of propaganda/publicity as an important instrument of political warfare in international relations is accepted and used by New Diplomacy as a means for securing the goals of national interest that it represents. Old Diplomacy was mostly secret and hence avoided propaganda. It concentrated upon legal and formal communications as the means for conveying its wishes, desires, and objectives.
(vii) Under New Diplomacy, the role of a Diplomat has suffered a Decline:
In the era of New Diplomacy, the role of a diplomat has suffered a decline. Due to the development of speedy means of transport and communications, it has become possible for the political leaders of the states to develop and maintain direct, continuous, and active contacts with one another.
This development has reduced the role of an ambassador as a link between his home state and the host state. In Old Diplomacy, diplomats were regarded as the most important vital links among the states and were full representatives of their nations in international relations.
They enjoyed a lot of discretion and freedom of action. New Diplomacy has reduced the role of diplomats to glorified representatives who really act as highly dignified messengers and actors with the responsibility of faithfully carrying out the instructions of the foreign office and political leadership of their states. The control of the foreign office over the diplomats has considerably increased in this reality New Diplomacy.
Thus, the features of New Diplomacy are almost entirely different from the features of Old Diplomacy.
Secret Diplomacy and Open Diplomacy:
(A) What is Secret Diplomacy?
The term Secret Diplomacy is used to designate the diplomatic practice of conducting secret negotiations and making secret pacts, decisions, alliances, and treaties. In Secret Diplomacy, no attempt is made to take the people into confidence, and little information about the diplomatic activity is provided to the public. Secrecy is considered vital for the success of diplomacy.
(B) What is Open Diplomacy?
Open Diplomacy is the opposite of Secret Diplomacy. In the age of democracy, it is argued that the people have the right and duty to know and to participate in foreign policy decision-making. As such, it is considered essential that diplomacy must take into account popular wishes and public opinion. It is expected to inform the public about the nature and progress of all diplomatic negotiations as well as about the final agreement or disagreement resulting from such negotiations.
Diplomacy must be accountable and for this, it is essential that people must know what diplomacy is doing and what are its achievements and failures. People and their groups should have the opportunity to influence the working of diplomacy.
(1) Arguments in favor of Open Diplomacy or Arguments against Secret Diplomacy:
1. It is the natural right of the people to know everything about the affairs of their government.
2. It is the right of the people to keep the government responsible for its acts.
3. It is the duty of the people to keep Diplomacy under check and prevent it from leading the nation into an environment of tensions, strains, and war.
4. Open Diplomacy is the best way of involving the people in the process of securing national interests and making them politically conscious.
5. Secret Diplomacy leads to deceit, double-dealings, and irresponsibility on the part of diplomats.
6. There exists no justification for making secret treaties and alliances because every such instrument has a direct bearing upon the future of the people of the state.
(2) Arguments against Open Diplomacy or Arguments in favor of Secret Diplomacy:
1. Secrecy in the interest of the nation is an absolutely necessary condition for the success of diplomacy.
2. Secret negotiations help the diplomats to be free and frank in expressing their views.
3. Open Diplomacy can be misleading in practice because the need for securing public sympathy for an essential state act can make the diplomats practice window-dressing and false propaganda.
4. General public has neither the ability nor the time to participate constructively in a diplomatic debate that may emerge as a result of public access to all information regarding diplomatic negotiations.
Use of both Secret and Open Diplomacy:
Thus, there are arguments both for and against Open Diplomacy. Open Diplomacy is democratic and hence can be helpful in securing international peace. However, it can lead to unwanted and harmful popular decisions and reduce efficiency. Secret Diplomacy on the other hand can be more active and efficient. However, it appears to be undemocratic in this age of democracy as it can lead to certain unpopular and aristocratic or elitist negotiations and decisions.
The best way, therefore, can be the middle way— Open Diplomacy in respect of the facts of treaties, alliances, and agreements which a nation makes with other nations and some Secret Diplomacy in respect of diplomatic negotiations. The ideal is to let the public know what is considered good for the protection and promotion of national interest. Sharing of all details and negotiations can have a harmful effect on relations with other nations and can hinder the process of attainment of national goals.
The guiding principle in determining whether a particular diplomatic negotiation is to be kept secret or made public should be the considerations for the national interest. If national interest demands secrecy, it must be maintained otherwise it is always better to make things public.
Decline and Future of Diplomacy:
The decline of Diplomacy:
In this age of science, technology, and IT revolution, Diplomacy has suffered a substantial decline. Its role has suffered a big setback. It no longer performs that spectacular role that it used to perform in the 19th Century.
Four Factors Responsible for the Decline of Diplomacy:
(1) Speedy means of Communication:
Previously, in the absence of speedy means of communications, the governments of the states used to be forced to depend upon their diplomats stationed in foreign countries for conducting negotiations and maintaining relations with one another. Presently, the technological revolution has made it possible for governments to maintain direct and continuous contacts with their diplomats as well as among themselves. The dependence of the government upon diplomats has sharply decreased.
(2) The Deprecation of Diplomacy:
The feeling that diplomacy is a source of secret, underhand, double-dealing, and undesirable power politics has been the second factor responsible for a decline of diplomacy. Many people, today believe that diplomacy is an ineffective instrument of world peace. Some even go to the extent of describing it as a dangerous device that endangers peace. Diplomacy emerged in the era of the rise of the nation-state and hence it is a means of power politics and nationalism, which needs elimination in this age of internationalism.
(3) Advent of New Diplomacy:
The emergence of New Diplomacy, more so Parliamentary Diplomacy, Conference Diplomacy, and Personal Diplomacy, has led to a decline of diplomacy. Love for open democracy and open negotiations has forced the transformation of Old Diplomacy into New Diplomacy.
These changes and the trend towards public parliamentary procedure instead of traditional diplomatic negotiations have adversely affected the role of diplomacy in international relations. The New Diplomacy offers a middle way of combining secrecy with openness, formality with informality, deliberations with leisure, and business with increased personal contacts, and hence, it has made traditional diplomacy unpopular.
(4) The Nature of International System and Role of Diplomacy:
The nature of international relations of the cold war period (1945-90) acted as a hindering factor for diplomacy. The presence of the cold war, two superpowers, nuclear weapons, the end of the balance of power, the transformation of war into total war, the birth of new states, alliances and counter alliances, the rise of the United Nations and other international agencies, etc., all combined to produce a big change in the nature of post-war international relations.
These changes adversely affected the role of diplomacy as a device of power management in international relations. In the era of the cold war “persuasion tantamount to trickery, compromise meant treason and threat of force spelled war”; and all this discouraged the use of diplomacy for conducting relations.
As such, due to several factors, a decline in the role of Diplomacy took place in the 20th century. It had to become open and tolerate direct personal diplomacy among political leaders and power holders of various states.
Diplomacy had to undergo a change under the impact of several big changes in the international environment and relations among nations. In the process, Diplomacy suffered a decline in the role. Its popularity as a means of conflict-resolution registered a fall. This situation prevails even today.
Future of Diplomacy:
Despite a change in its role and functions, Diplomacy still continues to be a valuable instrument of international relations. It continues to be an important element of both National Power and Foreign Policy. A change or decline in its role does not mean that Diplomacy stands rejected as an instrument of international relations.
Diplomacy in its new form, the new diplomacy, continues to be regarded as one of the most important means of securing national interest as well as preserving peace against war. So long as the need to eliminate, or at least to reduce the chances of war remains, Diplomacy as a means for the conduct of relations is bound to be used by all the nations.
With its new dress, Diplomacy can be successfully used as a valuable instrument for the resolution of conflict and crisis management among nations. Diplomats have been trying to help the international community to overcome some of its problems and to secure a resolution of international disputes.
Comments
Post a Comment