Lecture 4- questions of diplomacy PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Lecture 4- questions of diplomacy PDF

Description

Fundamental questions - What is “diplomacy” as its most basic - What is diplomacy used for - Who is a “diplomat” - What is a “diplomatic mission” Key questions - How do we theoretically explain modern diplomacy? What are the key theoretical questions of diplomacy? - How important is diplomacy to our way of life? - What are some different types of contemporary diplomacy, and how do these change what diplomacy means? - Where do NGOs and IOs fit in this framework? Diplomacy: standardised practice - The Armarna Letters are a series of clay tablets primarily consisting of diplomatic correspondence between the Egyptian administration and its representatives in Canaan and Amurru during the New Kingdom, between c. 1360-1332 BC, and spans between twenty and thirty years of correspondence - These are of particular interest as they are mostly written in a script known as Akkadian cuneiform, the writing system of ancient Mesopotamia, rather than that of ancient Egypt as a mixed language, Canaanite-Akkadian “diplomacy” as a term - Observably, diplomacy seems to not be just a modern conception, but a major fixture of all international systems - Think of diplomacy writ large as a system of structured communication between two or more parties - Just not called diplomacy until recently. The term ‘diplomacy’ seems to have only been in use, as we know it now, since 1796. Before that, ‘diplomats’ were bureaucrats and members of governments that handled specific governmental documents, but not necessarily related to international matters The renaissance - ‘diplomacy’ as we know it today can be arguably traced to the burgeoning relations between small ‘city’ states inhabiting the Italian peninsula and the Ottoman Empire, between the 14th and the middle third of the 16th centuries - By the end of the 15th century, representatives – sometimes described as ‘Ambassadors’- were popping up all over Europe The professionalisation of “diplomacy” - The maritime republics of Genoa and Venice and various other small states- like Florence- all were depending more on the perpetuation of good relations with the Ottomans for trade - Interactions between various merchants, diplomats and clergymen from the Italian and Ottoman empires became organised and normalised

-

Willingness to engage with other states in such an organised way brought about a set of normative behaviours Inaugurated forms we might reasonably recognise as ‘diplomacy’ Between 1500 and 1700, the noble ranks of emissaries, along with notions of etiquette that rule diplomatic behaviour, were becoming set and created a system of complex diplomacy

The ‘diplomatic mission’ - Out of the need of staff to accommodate often wildly inadequate Ambassadors, states began to start employing members of their population who had experiencethrough merchant careers, a propensity of language, or other connections to elsewhere in the world- to provide support for an education, upper-class (but potential inadequate) representative - ‘diplomatic mission’ refers to the people, not the place (common misconception) - However, this meant a structured, concrete place from which the ‘mission’ worked in those other states was (and still is) usually essential Types of missions today - An embassy: diplomatic mission generally located in the capital city of another country which offers a full range of services, including consular services - A high commission: embassy of a commonwealth country located in another commonwealth country - A permanent mission: a diplomatic mission to a major international organisation - A consulate general: a diplomatic mission located in a major city, usually other than the capital city, which provides a full range of consular services - A consulate: diplomatic mission that is similar to a consulate general, but may not provide a full range of services Members of those missions: the ‘diplomat’ - A diplomat, quite simply, is someone appointed and accredited by a state (or sometimes a supranational or multinational entity) to represent that State in conducting diplomacy with other states - Although anyone can be appointed as a diplomat, many states maintain an institutionalised group of cirizens who are known as ‘career’ diplomats - The word comes from the Greek “diploma” referring to the documents of accreditation a diplomat much present upon appointment 19th and 20th centuries: Diplomatic change and regimentation - The Congresses of Vienna in 1815, which established an international system of diplomatic rank, and of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818, tried to codify diplomatic representation - The concert of Europe- which lasted for about a century- produced what has been called the ‘Vienna system’ of international cooperation. These attempts at large-scale multinational diplomatic bodies were the forerunners for the League of Nations and the United Nations - Although ultimately failing, the ‘congress’ system set a lot of the precedent for certain diplomatic protocol

-

Through WW2 and following its end, that protocol was exported and codified through extensive negotiation

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations - Defines the framework for diplomatic relations today - Signed in 1961 - One of the most widely adopted treaties established through the UN. 192 parties as of today - Articles are considered the cornerstone of modern international relations o Diplomatic immunity (article 21?) - It is within this system that we have continued to conduct ‘contemporary’ diplomacy What is modern diplomacy? - Two influential ways of thinking of modern diplomacy o An institution that governs out international system o A tool used by our states - Oran Young, in international cooperation: building regimes for natural resources and the Environment, presents a broad definition of diplomacy: as an established and consistent set of practices with recognisable roles, fundamental norms that govern behaviour, and rules and guidelines that control appropriate behaviour for the management of interstate relations o The value of such a definition is 1) It aligns with the common belief that diplomacy is about mediation between states and 2) That diplomacy is a solution to the shared difficulty all international systems have as Paul Sharp puts it, “of living separately and wanting to do so, while having to conduct relations with others” modern diplomacy as institution - Diplomacy seems to be a way in which states can recognise another state as being “legitimate” - This is one of the reasons that the UN is important - NY Times: “one of the most momentous issues to come before the United Nationsthe representation of China- may be decided by a single roll-call vote.” – Following Albania’s motion to recognise People’s Republic of china as the legitimate holder of China’s seat at UN Institutional diplomacy - Can you have an international system without diplomacy? - Is diplomacy just what we call the thing that allows us to live in a world with multiple groups of people to live in (relative) peace? The United Nations - Example of the type of institution that can be explained through this method of understanding. Not the only one - Deep levels of interdependence in the current international system Institutional diplomatic membership

-

This interdependence of members of the international system for their recognition as actors is displayed in diplomatic reciprocity Polities recognised as legitimate members of the international system exhibit behaviour (and so do their representatives) regarded as appropriate and proportional, according to the rules and norms of that specific international system

Consequences for non-adherence - If behaviour strays from those accepted norms, consequences are often considered reciprocal. In contemporary diplomacy, the act of expelling diplomats for acts that circumvent or break diplomatic rules and norms is almost always met with the expulsion of a similar number of diplomatic staff - E.g. Western allies expel Russian diplomats over Skripal attack In other words - States in the contemporary international order only exist because they are recognised by, and related in a broad and deep sense to, other states in the system - Diplomacy becomes, in the words of Garrett Mattingly, fundamental to giving polities the ability to “live and let live” - The ability for diplomacy to present a mechanism for recognising actors as being able to speak; the essential roles that reciprocity and interdependence play in defining normative behaviours in diplomacy; and, the acknowledgement inherent in international systems that actors endure because of their coexistence, not in spite of it Diplomacy as technique - Hans Morgenthau, in his eminent work Politics Among Nations argued diplomacy is a technique of international relations. Diplomacy is a state-based apparatus with four responsibilities o To define a state’s power to achieve international goals o To evaluate and judge other states o To determine harmony of other states’ interests with yours and o To pursue one’s international goals peaceably - This is a very influential idea and has been widely adopted in scholarship - However it leads to legitimate forms of diplomacy e.g. UN, resembling less and less where we started this lecture

-

The US defines its public diplomacy program as aiming to “inform and influence foreign publics”. The Australian parliament similarly describes its public diplomacy program as “activities undertaken to…inform and engage individuals and organisations in other countries to shape their perceptions”. Does this sound diplomatic?

Public diplomacy and propaganda - Propaganda isn’t a dirty word- it’s a legitimate means of a state trying to achieve its goals - Jan Melissen directly argues that practices ike propaganda can now be considered as diplomatic, as propaganda can be considered a form of public diplomacy (some would consider this a tautology) - Mark Leonard identifies three dimensions of public diplomacy that distinguish it from propaganda: o daily communication that explains foreign policy decisions affecting foreign publics o strategic communication, similar to advertising campaigns, that plans symbolic communications or events o development of long-term relationships with key individuals using scholarships, exchanges and training Complex diplomacy for complex world - There seems to be a blurring of the lines between diplomacy and trade - As more and more the notion of “cultural exports” becomes an important part of “public diplomacy”, states see their brands as capital Diplomacy: is it an institution or technique? - Regardless, it seems to lead to a proliferation of “diplomacy” - Living in a world where “diplomacy” is no longer that simplistic picture of a representative, but rather a complex set of interactions NGOs and IOs: legitimate actors? - There have been increasing calls in the 21st century to acknowledge NGOs and IOs as having roles in diplomacy - Seems to be having important role in advocacy and negotiations on key issues of the contemporary international order - Question of ‘representation.’ Arguments around the representation of interests

Key question to think through - What do you think of different conceptions of diplomacy: is diplomacy purely a tool for getting what states to get what they want, or does it have a more fundamental role to play as an institution? - Do we need to think bigger than just states in the 21st century? Can IOs and NGOs have ‘diplomats’? - Has diplomacy expanded now beyond its boundaries? Has the vast increase in what diplomats now do effectively changed the job beyond all previous recognitions?

-

Can a diplomat really be a ‘representative’ in the age of instant communication? o Quicker to send message than go and talk to representative...