RICHARD L1TTLE

Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P.,and Rittberger, V. (1997), Tneoties oflntemational Regimes(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Argues that in addition to Realism that focuseson power, and neo-liberalism that focuses on ínterests, cognitivism, facusing on ideas,now forms a third school of thought in the regime literature.

Keohane, R. O. (1984), After Hegemony: Cooperatiorl and Discord in the World Political Economy(princeton: Princeton University Press). One of the most influential Liberal Institutionaltexts on the theory underlying regime formation.

Keohane, R. O., and ye, J. S. (1977), Power and Interdependence (Boston: Little Brown).Examines the role of regímes in an interdependent world, advancing four models toaccount for regíme change.

Krasner, S. D. (ed.) (1983), Intemational Regimes (lthaca, NY:Cornell University Press). Aseinínal text setting out the main theoretical issues

- (1985), Structllral Conflict: Tne TJ¡ird World Against Global Liberalism (Berkeley:University of California Press). This is one of the rnajor Realist texts. It explores North-South disputes over regímes.

Oye, K.A. (ed.) (1986), Cooperation Under Anarclty (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Aninfluential set of theoretical essays on how cooperation takes place under anarchicconditions.

Rittberger, V. (ed.) (1993), Regime Theoty and lntemationol Relations (Oxford: ClarendonPress). This important book examines regime theory from European and Americanperspectives.

Zacher, M. w., with Sutton, B.A. (1996), Goveming Global Networks: lmemaiional Regimes forTmnspottation and Coml/lunicatiorzs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). A LiberalInstitutional account of regímes, arguing that they are based on mutual interests, and notthe dictates of the most powerful states.

www.state.gov/t/np/cl0527.htmlnformation on the non-proliferation regime.

www.ciesln.org/TG/PI/TRADE/tradhmpg.htmlInformation on trade regímes and theenvironment.

http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/index.jsp Environmental regimes.

www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/site/tradeinthtrnl Trade regimes.

DiplomacyBRIAN WHlTE

• Introduction: what is diplomacy?

• Diplomacy and world politics

• Diplomacy and foreign policy

• Challenges to a state-based diplomacy

• Conclusion

388

389

396

400

402

READER'S GUIDEThis chapter identifies diplomacy as a key pracess of communication and negotiation inworld politics and as an important foreign policy instrument used by global actors. Thefirst section focuses on prablems of definition moving fram general to specific meaningsof the termo The second section looks historically at different stages in the developmentof modern diplomacy-fram 'traditional' to 'new'; fram cold war to post-cold war. Eachhistorical system is compared by reference to their common and divergent structuresprocesses, and agenda. The third section looks at diplomacy as used by global actors as ameans of achieving their foreign policy objectives. A final section looks more briefly atsome contemporary challenges to a diplomacy traditionally based upon the state andinter-state relations. The chapter concludes by arguing that the context and forms ofdiplomacy have changed but it remains a highly relevant pracess in contemporary worldpolitics and a useful instrument for a wide range of global actors.

388 BRIAN WH!TE

Introduction: what is diplomacy?

Diplomacy is one of those infuriatingly vague termsthat can have different meanings depending uponuser and usage. We can begín to make sense of it inrelation to two major perspectives on world politicsthat might be labelled 'macro' (the big picture) and'rnicro' (the smal! picture). The macro perspectivetries to make sense of world politics as a whole. Whatare its constituent parts? How do they all fittogether? The micro perspective tries to explaínworld politics from the different but complementaryperspective of the actors involved in world politics.Traditionally, the micro perspective focused onstates and the governments that act on theír behalfin world politics. But, as we shall see, this con-ventional state-centred focus is no longer adequateto cover the range of actors involved and the differ-en t processes that feature in a globalized system ofworld politics.

The conscientíous reader will be able to find usesof this term elsewhere that are so general that'diplomacy' appears to be synonymous with 'worldpolitics' or 'foreign polícy' as a whole. You wíllfind references to, for example, great powerdiplomacy, summit diplomacy, or developmentdiplomacy which-particularly in media reports-appear to describe a process that is much widerthan a specific discussion of one facet of diplo-macy. Links between international relations andinternational history-often referred to as díplo-matic history-help to reinforce this notion ofinterchangeability of terms. Similarly, references to,for exarnple, 'British diplornacy', 'Russian diplo-macy', or 'South African diplomacy' often suggestthat the writer is referring not just to diplomacy assuch but to Brítish, Russian, or South African for-eígn policy as a whole.

Uses of the term diplomacy in such general waysare a potentially misleading shorthand, but at leastthey alert us to the fact that diplomacy is centralboth to an understanding of a global system ofworld politics and to the foreign policies of statesand other actors on the international stage. Fromthe 'macro' perspective of world politics, diplomacyrefers to a process of communication that is central

Diplomacy in world politics

Diplomacy in world politics refers to a communicationsprocess between intemational actors that seeks throughnegotiation to resolve conflict short of war. This processhas been refined, institutionalized, and professionalizedover many centuries.

to the workings of the global system. Indeed, ifworld politics is characterized simply by the tensionbetween conllict and cooperation, diplomacytogether with war, can be said to represent its defin-ing institutions (see Box 17.1). If conflict andcooperation are placed at two ends of a spectrum(see Fig. 17.1) diplomacy can be located at thecooperation end representing forms of interactionthat focus on the resolution of conflict by dialogueand negotiation. Diplomacy therefore is funda-mentally related to attempts to create stability andorder within a global system, the object being toprevent conllict spilling over into war. This chaptercharacterizes the essential features of the diplomaticprocess.

From the 'rnicro' perspective of in ternational actorslike states, an understanding of diplomacy providesrevealing insights into the behaviour of the actorsthemselves in the global system. From this perspec-tive, however, diplomacy can be identified as a pol-icy instrument rather than a global process (seeBox 17.2). AII actors have goals or ends towardswhich their foreign polícy behaviour is directed. In

World politics

Conflict Cooperation

War Diplomacy

Fig.17.1 World politics

Diplomacy and foreign policy

. Diplomacy in foreign policy refers to the use of diplomacyas a policy instrument possibly in association with otherinstruments such as economic or military force to enable

. an intemational actor to achieve its policy objectives.

Diplomacy and world politics

DIPLOMACY 389

order to achieve ends, actors clearly need means-often called policy instruments. Diplomacy providesone instrument that international actors use toimplement their foreign policy. It may be used dir-ectly ('pure' diplomacy) with other partíes or as ameans of communicating the use or threatened use ofother instruments ('mixed' diplomacy). A secondmajor function of this chapter is to characterize theessential features of diplomacy as a policy instrumento

Diplomacy as a communications process betweenpolitical entities has existed for literally thousands ofyears. The earliest diploma tic document in our pos-session, discovered in the 1970s, is a letter ínscríbedon a tablet which has been dated some time around2500 Be. It was sent from a kingdom called Ebla nearthe Mediterranean coast in what we would call theMiddle East to the kingdom of Hamazi in what isnow Northern Iran. It was carried by a messengerwho made a round trip of almost 2,000 kilometres.In this one brief message, as Cohen (1995: 3) notes,

we have evidence of a fully-fledged diplomatic system: a work-ing relationship between two distant kingdoms; the use of anemissary to convey a letter over a long distance; protocol,induding the concept of equal status, an understood mediumof communication, and a conventional form of address; adomestic organization for making and implementing foreignpolicy; an archive; a set of normative expectations aboutright and proper behaviour; a sense of ... fellowship orbrotherhood; trade or reciprocal gift-givlng via envoys.

Traditional diplomacy

While the conventions and machinery of diplomacyhave evolved over a long historical period-the city-states in Ancient Greece, for example, introduced adiplomatic system that had many remarkably mod-ern features-our global diplomatic system has itsorígíns in fifteenth-century Italy where permanentembassies were ñrst established (Hamilton andLanghorne 1995: chs 1, 2). A 'traditional' diplo-

matic system developed thereafter which hadsome distinctive features. These can be usefullycharacterized under the headings of structureprocess, and agenda-broadly relating to who wasinvolved in diplomacy, how diploma tic activity wasorganized, and the substance of diplomacy. Thisframework will help us to compare traditionaldiplomacy with diploma tic systems that preceded itand those that followed.

StructureTraditional diplomacy can be distinguished from itspredecessors in the ancient and medieval worldsprimarily because it constituted a communicationsprocess between recognizably modern statesrather than between other forms of political organ-ization like, for exarnple, the Catholic Church.As relations between states expanded, politicallead-ers (usually monarchs) found it increasinglynecessary to negotiate with each other on a regularbasis. But, given the distances involved, negotiationshad to be indirect and diplomats were sent abroadfor this purpose. If diplomacy as a state-basedactivity is central to the structure of traditional dip-lomacy, diplomatic agents acting on behalf of stateslater became institutionalized and eventuallyprofessionalized.

By instítutíonalized, we mean that particularínstítutíons emerged which had diplomacy as theirmain function and diplomacy ceased to be an irregu-lar activity undertaken by ad hoc representatives. Asalready noted, the ltalian city-states were the ñrst toestablish permanent, resident missions or embassies

390 BRIAN WHITE

abroad and other states in Europe soon followedtheir lead. The advantages of permanent representa-tion abroad included practicality and continuity.Embassies became an important embodiment ofstate interests and a network of permanent embassieslater became linked to specialized foreign depart-ments established within home states. The insti-tutionalization of diplomacy with a dedicatedworkforce of diplomats at home and abroad wasfollowed by the professionalization of diplomacy asan occupation.

ProcessesIn the traditional system, diplomacy was organizedlargely on a bilateral (two-party) basis and usuallyundertaken in secrecy. When two states developed arelationship of mutual importance, it becamenormal to exchange permanent embassies and toconduct diplomacy through those embassies on astate-to-state basis. Unless one state forced the otherto accept a position, mutual agreement was the onlymeans of achieving a settlement of any disputes.Limiting the relationship to two partíes, of course,made it easier to keep negotiations secret, althoughthere were other good reasons in terms of the negoti-ating process itself for maintaining as much secrecyas possible. No good card or chess player reveals hisor her 'hand' in advance, and diplomatic negoti-ations are similar to these games in importantrespects.

The traditionaI process of diplomacy also drewupon mies and procedures for behaviour from earlierdiplomatic systems. From the fifteenth centuryonwards, diplomacy became not [ust a regularprocess but also a regularized process. Pro-cedural rules known as diplomatic protocol weredeveloped which included rather ostentatious cere-monies and also more practical procedures relatingto such things as the order in which a treaty is signedby the parties involved in a negotiation. A series ofrights, privileges, and immunities beca me attachedboth to diplomats and to diploma tic activities.

These derived from two principIes. The first essen-tially practical consideration was that diplomatsshould be able to conduct their business without fearor hindrance. The popular phrase 'don't shoot themessenger!' not only suggests the need to safeguardthe messenger who does not deserve to be blamed for

the content of the message carríed, but also indicatesthe importance of safeguarding the whole system ofcommunications between international actors. Thesecond principie was derived from the idea that theambassador in particular is the direct representativeof a sovereign monarch and, therefore, should betreated wíth the same consideration that a monarchwould receive. This idea of representation wasexpanded to include the controversial idea of extra-territoriality which in this context simply meansthat the resident embassy abroad is regarded as partof the territory of the home state and subject to thelaws of that state and, likewise, that the resident dip-loma tic staft are subject only to the laws of the homestate.

AgendaTraditional diplomacy can be characterízed finallyby its agenda-what issues did diplomats negotíateabout? The important point to note here is that theagenda of traditional diplomacy was narrow cer-tainly by comparison with later periods. Not onlywas the agenda set by the relatively underdevelopedsta te of bilateral relations but, more importantly, thepreoccupations of diplomacy reflected the pre-occupations of politicalleaders themselves.

For hundreds of years, foreign policy was seen asthe exclusive province of monarchs and theiradvisers and, not surprisingly, personal ambitions-the acquisition of territory perhaps, or anotherthrone-together with more general issues of warand peace constituted the most important issues onthe diploma tic agenda. In a highly personalizedstructure, diplomats in essence were sent abroad byone monarch to win over another. Less desirableaspects of diplomacy occasionally surfaced as díplo-mats carne under pressure to 'get a result' whateverthe means employed. This prompted at least onecynical definition of a diplomat as 'an honest mansent abroad to lie on behalf of his country' (a remar kusually credited to Sir Henry Wotton, an Elizabethandiplomat). In general, however, it was quickly dís-covered that honesty rather than deceit is morelikely to be effective in achieving objectives, what-ever short-term gains might be made by more duplí-citous behaviour. TraditionaJ diplomacy reached itsmost developed form and was arguably most effect-ive as a system for ordering international relations in

nineteenth-century Europe. This is the periodknown, in a classic piece of historical overstatement,as the 'century of peace' in Europe.

New diplomacy

However successful traditional diplomacy may havebeen in promoting stability, order, and peace innineteenth-century Europe, its failure to prevent thePírst World War and, for some índeed, its role inactually causing that war, led to a widespread beliefthat a new form of diplomacy was needed. Thoughthls was commonly referred to after the First WorldWar as the 'new' diplomacy, elements of thisallegedly new form of diplomacy were already inevidence in the nineteenth century if not before, andthere was a long transition period between trad-itianal forms and the new system of diplomacy thatevolved in the first half of the twentieth century.What was identifiably new about the 'new' diplo-

t macy emerged from two important ideas (seeHamilton and Langhorne 1995: 137).

First, there was a demand that diplomacy shouldbe more open to public scmtiny and control.This demand related less to a public involvement inthe process than to the provision of information tothe public about agreements reached. This focusedattention on two interlinked elements of traditionaldiplomacy that were now seen to be problematic:excessive secrecy and the fact that diplomats werenormaJly members of a closed social elite-the aris-tocracy. The second idea related to the importanceof establishing an international organization-which initially took the form of the League ofNations after the First World War-that would actbath as an international forum for the peacefulsettlement of disputes and as a deterrent againstanother world war by the threat of collective actionagainst potential aggressors. Historically then thenew diplomacy represented the widespread hope fora new start after 1918.

StructureThe structure of the new diplomacy remained similarin form to traditional diplomacy to the extent thatstates and governments remained the major actorsin this system and were represented internationally

DIPLOMACY 391

by what was now a well-established network of per-manent embassies abroad attached to foreigndepartrnents at home. There are two importantchanges to note, however, that have implicationsnot only for the structure but also for the processesand the issues that characterized the new diplomacy.First, states were no Ionger the only actorsinvolved. Increasingly, they had to share the ínter-national stage with other actors such as inter-national organizations which were also engaged indiplomacy. These organizations were of two types,intergovernmental .(with governments only asmembers) and non-governmental (with privateindividuals and groups as members).

The second important change to note is that gov-ernments themselves were beginning to change interms of the scope of their activities and the extent towhich they sought to regulate the lives of their cit-ízens, Where once they had simply provided for thephysical security of their citizens they now hadbroader concern with their social and economicwell-being. Thus, the twentieth century saw animportant change from the so-called 'night-watchman state' to the 'welfare state'. This hasimplications for the range of issues that statesneeded to negotiate about in their internationalactivity.

ProcessesThe changing interests of states as international act-ors and the growing number of non-state actorsinvolved changed the nature of the new diplomacyas a process of negotiation. Most obvíously, it madediplomacy a more complex activity involving moreand different actors. States continued to negotiatebilaterally with each other on a state-to-state basis,but groups of states typically negotiated multilater-ally through the auspices of intergovernmentalorganizations like the League of Nations and its suc-cessor the United Nations and, increasingly, with thegrowing range of non-governrnental organizationswhich sought to influence ínter-state behaviour toachieve their own objectives. Again, it must bestressed that multilateral diplomacy was not strictlynew in the sense that what had been called confer-ence diplomacy between the Great Powers had beenan important feature of nineteenth-century Euro-pean diplomacy. or did multilateral diplomacy

392 BRIAN WHITE

replace bilateral diplomacy. But, to the extent that itwas more difficult to keep secret a process involvingso many different actors, it is fair to say that the newdiplomacy was a more open process than itspredecessor.

AgendaThe agenda of the new diplomacy contained a num-ber of new issues as well as a reinforced emphasis onmilitary security. The avoidance of war now becamea priority as the 'new' diplomats sought to make theFirst World War 'the war to end all wars', but diplo-matic activity also began to focus more on eco-nomic, social, and welfare issues relating to materialwell-being. These became known as 'Iow politics'issues in contrast to the 'hígh politics' issuesassociated with the traditional diploma tic agenda.These new issues reflected not only the wider inter-ests and responsibilities of governments but alsothe often narrowly focused interests of non-stateactors.

The other distinctive feature of the new agenda isthat it increasingly featured highly specializedissues that raised questions about the adequacy ofthe training given to diplomats. lf the specializationrequired of new diplomats challenged their com-petence, their distinctive role was also challenged bytwo other trends: the direct role political leadersthemselves often played in diplomacy and the grow-ing tendency of political leaders in the inter-warperiod to appoint personal envoys to representthem. Clearly, professional diplomats were nolonger the only 'players' involved in the new diplo-matíc 'game' and they enjoyed far less autonomythan traditional diplomats had enjoyed in earlierperiods.

Cold war diplomaey

Many of the characteristics of the new diplomacycontinued to evolve in the period after the SecondWorld War, indeed multilateralism and an increas-ingly specialized agenda now contained issues likethe envíronment, technology, and arms control. Interms of changing structures and processes, a host ofnew states joined an already complex array of stateand non-state actors as the former colonies of the

European powers gained their independence. Thefact that these new states were unfamiliar with theestablished rules and principies of diplomacy led tothe first important attempt to give them the status ofinternational law, notably in the 1961 ViennaConvention on Diplomatic Relations (see Berridge1995: 20-31).

The term 'cold war diplomacy' refers to somevery specific aspects of diplomacy that emerged afterthe Second World War. From the late 1940s until theend of the 1980s, world politics was dominated bythe ideological confrontation between the UnitedStates and the Soviet Union. Each superpower sup-ported by a network of allies sought to undermineand 'defeat' the other by al! means short of a real or a'hot war'-hence the 'cold war' description of thísconfrontational system. The diplomatic activityassociated with 'East-West' confrontation had a sin-gle drarnatic focus-the absolute necessity ofavoiding a global, nuclear conflict that coulddestroy the intemational system. The most import-ant types of cold war diplomacy, nuclear, crisis, andsummit diplomacy are defined in Box 17.3.

There was nothing new about nuclear diplomacyto the extent that states have always hoped that thesize of their military forces would help to persuade ordissuade potential adversaries. The distinctiveness ofnuclear diplomacy, however, is the extent to whichboth sides of the East-West divide relied upon their

Types of cold war diplomacy••••••.....-.....;...:;,,;¡

Nuclear diplomacy: refers to the interactions betweennuclear-armed states where one or more of themthreatens to use nuclear weapons either to dissuade anopponent from undertaking an action or to persuadethem to call a halt to some action that has begun. The t

former is also known as deterrence and the latter ascompellence.Crisis diplomacy: refers to the delicate communicationsand negotiations involved in a crisis. A crisis may bedefined as a short, intensive period in which the possi-bilityof (nuclear)waris perceivedto increase dramatically.Summit diplomacy: refers to a direct meeting betweenheads of govemment (of the superpowers in particular)to resolvemajorproblems.The'summit' became a regularmode of contact duringthe coldwar.

nuclear weapons in political and psychologicalterms to achieve their objectives, but also sought toavoid triggering a nuclear war. Given the destructivenature of nuclear weapons, however, there wereunprecedented risks attached to thís type of diplo-macy and crises frequently emerged as a result,whích in turn required a particular diplomaticresponse. The successful resolution of the most ser-íous nuclear crisis in October 1962 over Sovietmissiles in Cuba led politicalleaders and analysts tolook fOI clues about behaviour in that crisis thatmíght provide principies of crisis management (seeRichardson 1994: ch.3).

But there are problems with the notion of 'crisismanagement'-as Richardson's extended commentexplains (see Box 17.4)-and many analysts includ-ing Richardson prefer the more traditional term'crisis diplomacy'. From this perspective, the mostimportant outcome of the Cuban missile crisis wasnot a check1ist of guidelines for future crisis man-agement but the agreement to set up a 'hot line'-adirect communications link between Moscow andWashington-that would maxirnize the chances ofnegotiating a direct settlement between the princi-pal parties. Another form of direct cornrnunicationwas the surnrnit meeting between the superpowerspioneered by the Geneva surnrnit in 1955. lnitially,surnmit meetíngs had symbolic value only but, bythe 1970s, they had become a useful forum fOInegotiating tangible agreements which contributedto a reduction of East-West tensions. By the mid-

Crisis management

'Theterm [crisismanagement) is often taken to mean theexercise of restraint in order to reduce the risk of war.However,this usage obscures the central problem con-frontingdecision-makersin nuclear-agecrises-that eachparty seeks to pursue simultaneously two potentiallyincompatiblegoals: to prevailoverthe adversary,whileatthe same time avoidingnuclearwar. "Crisismanagement"must address the tension between the two goals, but thisbrings out the questionable character of the conceptitself.Thedilemmas of choice are glossed over bythe useofthe term "management", with its overtones of technicalrationalityand efficiency.'

(Richardson 1994: 25)

DIPLOMACY 393

1980s, a series of superpower summits played asignificant role in bringing the cold war to an end.

Diplomaey after the eold war

The end of the cold war represented a dramaticchange in the intemational context within whichdiplomacy is conducted. The end of the ideologicalEast-West conflict and the demise of the SovietUnion raised popular expectations about whatmight now be achieved by diplomacy and negoti-ation. The successful ousting of the invading Iraqiforces from Kuwait in 1991 by a US-Ied militarycoalition sanctioned by a UN resolution appeared toprovide a model fOI the future. But optimism wassoon replaced by a realization that the end of thecold war may have resolved so me problems but otherproblems had merely been hidden from view duringthe cold war periodo The failure of diplomacy toresolve the breakdown of order in the former Yugo-slavia (see Box 17.5) illustrates the intractable natureof many post-cold war problems on the inter- C,national agenda.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century,diplomacy at the level of world politics could becharacterized in two ways. First, diplomacy is nowgenuinely global in scope. Gone are the East-Westideological divisions that excluded a large number ofstates from 'normal' diplomatic intercourse duringthe cold war periodo A good illustration of this is theextent to whích 'North-South' dimensions of inter-national diplomacy were obscured by the East-Westfocus. From a cold war perspective, developing stateswere the object of superpower attention only in sofar as they might be tempted to side with one or theother. Problems of poverty and development wereeffectively sidelined. Since the end of the cold war,however, the specific concems of developmentdiplomacy (see Box F6) have occupied a muchhigher-profile position in global diplomacy. Second,contemporary diplomacy can also be characterizedas complex and fragmented. In terms of the ana-Iytical categories used here, there are multiple actorsinvolved, complex multilateral as well as bilateralprocesses at work, and the substance of globaldiplomacy covers a wider agenda of issues Iban everbefore.

I

I~

~

BRIAN WHITE

La!i~:!!!itJDiplomacy in the Balkans

The breakdown of order in the Balkan region followedIhe disintegralion of the federal state of Yugoslavia.Theproblems began in 1991 when Croatia and Sloveniadeclared their independence and Serbia used militaryforce in an attempl to mainlain Ihe terrilorial integrityofYugoslavia. Problems quickly spread lo other membersof the federalion, lo Bosnia·Hercegovina,and by 1998-9lo Kosovo. Instability in the region also sparked acrisis in Albania in 1997. Conflict took a convenlionalmililary form but was also complicated by inter-ethnicviolence between different groups, Serbians, Croats, andMuslims in particular. Huge dislocations of populationoccurred with widespread evidence of attempts al 'ethniccleansing'. The international community has struggled touse various forms of diplomacy to stabilize the region.The forms have included bilateral and multílateral(conference) diplomacy, peacekeeping with mililaryobservers, the use of economic and humanitarian aid toassist civilianreconslruclion, and (particularlyin Kosovo)peacemaking-the use of overt mililary force in anattempt to enforce a peace. A variety of different comobinations of state and non-state actors have beeninvolved, induding Ihe European Union, the UnitedNations, NATO,and the 'Conlact Group' (the UniledStates, Russia, Germany,Britain, and France).Diplomacyhas had one qualified success-the 1995 DaytonAgree-ment on Bosnia·Hercegovina-and thereafter it has madea significant contribution to some semblance of stabilityand order in the region. However, complex problemsremain unresolved.

t.!:t!~:tJ' Developmental diplomaey

Developmenlal diplomacy: refers to 'the process wherebyThird Worldcountries attempt to negotiale improvementsin their posilion in Ihe internalional politlcal economy.~ese negotiations largely take the form of bargainingwith Western industrialized countries.'

(Williams 1994: 46)

Diplomacy and the 'war against terrorism' Iraq: shutting the diplomacy window

DIPlOMACY 395

The long build-up to war in lraq was punctuated on twooccasions by attempls lo use diplomacy lo avert war or alleasl lo provide inlernalional support for il, Ihrough theauspices of Ihe United Nalions. On both occasions the roleofBritishPrime MinisterBlairwas significant. The first carnein Seplember 2002 at a meeling al Camp Davidwhen Blairbacked Bush on Iraq but said that he needed lo show thatthey had tried UN diplomacy. With the issue presented inteflllSof the threal posed by weapons of mass deslruclionin Iraq rather Ihe need for 'regime change', the UNSecurityCouncilunanimously passed Resolulion 1441 in November2002. The second occasion resulted from Bush's apparenlconcern that the Blair Government might be in dangeroffallingbecause of its overt support forIhe hard USline onIraq.He, therefore, acceded to Blair's request for a follow-upresolulion that would spell out Ihe 'serious consequences'

If the end of the cold war spawned an optimisticmood about what might be achieved by diplomacy,the sudden and devastating attack on the WorldTrade Center in New York on 11 September 2001produced the very opposite mood of deep pessim_ism. What became known as 9/11 symbolized a newphase of globalization in which the contributionthat diplomacy might make to the resolution ofterror-related conflict was unclear to say the least.This was partly because the perpetrating actor, AlQaeda, is not a sta te or even a conventional non-state actor, but rather an amorphous transnationalnetwork with whom communication and negoti-ation would be inherently difficult even if theprecise causes of 9/11 and subsequent attacks couldbe established. A second key reason for a sense oípessimism about diplomacy was the decision ofthe George W. Bush Adminstration to frame theresponse to 9/11 in terms of a 'war againstterrorism'which suggested that military force and othercoercive mea sures would be the instruments ofchoice.

evertheless, in the first few months after 11 Sep- ~tember 2001 intense negotiations did produce a •broad coalition which rallied to the side of theUnited States and supported a range of counter-measures which included the military invasion ofAfghanistan, the main base of Al Qaeda and itsleader Osama bin Laden. The subsequent invasion ofIraq in March 2003, however, split that coalitionand, in particular, created an unprecedented rift inthe transatlantic alliance. From a European perspec-tíve, there were three interrelated concerns thatrelate to diplomacy. First, unilateralism. It wasapparent that the US Government was determinedto invade Iraq, ostensibly in the cause of counter-terrorism, whether or not its allies were in supportand whether or not a legitimizing resolution couldbe obtained at the United Nations. The 'diplomacywindow' was opened largely as a result of theconcems of the Blair Government but it quicklybeca me clear that this was merely a cover todistract attention from the extensive military build-up in the Persian Gulf that preceeded the invasionof Iraq (see Box 17.7). Second, there was concern

~"""~.Ibóa

that Resolulion 1441 had stated would follow Iraqi non-compliance wilh .Ihe UN arms inspectors. A second reso-lulion declaring lraq in material breach of íts obligalion todisarm was withdrawn on 17 March by its backers, IheUnited States, Britain, and Spain, when il became clear thatil would nol attract sufficient support from other SecurityCouncil members. These attempls to reach a diplomatícsolution need to be sel againsl the USdomeslic process ofdeciding upon and implemenling the decision lo go lo warin Iraq. This process began as early as December 2001,with inlensive military and intelligence planning Ihrough2002 creating lts own momentum, The final decision by thepresidenl to go lo war was laken in January 2003 with Iheplanned attack delayed only lo aeeommodatethe forlornattempt lo get Ihe second UNresolution passed.

(See Woodward 2004)

al]oul the new US military doctrine of pre-ernptíonwhich irnplied at least a rejection of bothcontainment and deterrence, the twin pillarsof US diplomacy in the cold war. The fear in Europewas that the invasion of Iraq would be followedby the use of military force against other 'rogue'states.

The third related concem refers more broadly tothe relationship between what are called 'hard' and'soft' instruments of power. As defined by Christo-pher HilI, 'hard' power refers to 'that which is tar-geted, coercive, often irnmediate and physícal',whereas 'soft' power refers to 'that which is indirect,long term and works more through persuasion thanforce' (HilI2003: 135; see also Nye 2004). This is nota new debate, of course, but the 'war against terror-

ism' has provided a dramatic new focus for it. With-out denying that hard power has a place in an inte-grated counter-terrorist strategy, the Europeans haveargued that excessive reliance on 'sticks' rather than'carrots' is likely to be counterproductive. Twelvemonths after the miJitary intervention in Iraq, theabsence of a stable, secure post-Saddarn Hussein statewas posing major questions about the efficacy ofrniJitary force and strong arguments were beingmade in favour of a soft power approach to theglobal problem of terror. These arguments werestrengthened by some evidence of success for thisapproach in Iran and Libya. The role of diplomacy asa policy instrument and its relationship to otherinstruments is taken up in more detail in the nextsection.

• Diplomacy is a key eoncept in world politics. It refers toa process of communication and negotiation betweenstates and other international actors.

• Diplomacy began in the ancient world but took on arecognizably modern form from the fifteenth centuryanwards with the establishmenl of the permanenlembassy.

• By the end af the nineteenth century all states hada network of embassies abroad linked to foreigndepartments at hame. Diplomacy had also become anestablished profession.

• The Firsl World War was a 'watershed' in the hisloryof diplomacy. The perceived failure of diplomacy loprevent this war led to a demand for a 'new' diplomaey

BRIAN WHITE

that would be less secretive and more subject todemocratic control. The outbreak of the Second WorldWarrevealed the limits of the 'new' diplomacy.

• Cold war diplomacy relates to the pericd after theSecond WortdWar when intemational relations weredominated by a global confrontation between thesuperpowers and their allies. The imperative needto avoid a nuclear war, but also to 'win' the coldwar produced a very delicate, dangerous form ofdiplomacy.

As noted in the introduction to this chapter,diplomacy not only helps us to understand thenature of world politics as a whole but, from adifferent perspective, also reveals much about thebehaviour of the actors in a global system ofworld politics. The focus of this second majorsection of this chapter is the relationship betweendiplomacy and the foreign policies of states. Whilethis section will generalize from the experience ofdeveloped states, it should be apparent from the dís-cussion so far in this chapter that developed statesare not the only state actors in the system. The roleof diplomacy in the behaviour of developing statesand other non-state actors will also be discussed.

The making and the implementation offoreign policy

We need first to locate diplomacy within the foreignpolicy process of states. There are two major stages inthat process-the making and the implementation(or the carrying out) of policy. A simple view sug-gests that the making of foreígn policy is theexdusive business of government. So important isforeign policy to the achievement of the 'nationalinterests' of the state that the most senior membersof government will oversee and control the policyprocess. Having made the key decisions, they then

• The end of the cold war produced a new moodof optimism that diplomacy could resolve all majorinternational problems. Such optimism quickly dis-sipated when a host of new problems and oldproblems in a new guise emerged.

• The war against terrorism after 11 September 2001has posed a major challenge to the role of diplomacyin global politics. This challenge has been framedwithin a debate about the appropriate relationshipbetween hard and soft instruments of power.

hand them over to their foreign departrnents forimplementation. Diplomacy is one of a set 01instruments through which decisions are írnpls,mented, policy activated, and policy objectives-also established by the political leadership-achieved.

This is a reassuring picture in that, while the díf-ficulties of successful implementation are under-played, it does suggest that it is the politicians whoestablish the policy objectives and make the importoant decisions. If they are elected, this suggests thepossibility of democratic control of foreign policy-in principie at least. The foreign policy bureaucracy,not elected of course, plays a subordina te, non-political, essentially instrumental role. This picture,however, is an idealized one, unlikely to match therealities of the process, particularly in developedstates with their highly bureaucratized systems ofgovernment. As we shall see in the next section, themaking and the implementation of foreign policycannot be so easily split. The two stages can be separ-ated for analysis but in practice they are parts of acontinuous and interactive process.

Diplomacy as policy instrument

. stitutionalized form of a foreign departrnentW·th a dedicated staff. In Britain, for example, the:evant department is the Foreign and Common-wealth Office and, in the United States, the Depart-Illent of State performs the same function. Thespecialized staff are known respectively as theDiplomatic Service and Foreign Service Officers .Every foreign department is linked to a networkof embassies abroad and this constitutes the díp-lomatic machinery of government. If we identifyihe main functions performed by this 'machíne', itwill become apparent that they relate not only tothe implementation but also to the actual makingof foreign policy. Diplomacy as a governmentalactivity then refers not only to a particular policyinstrument but also to the whole process ofpolicymaking and implementation.

Aslisted in Box 17.8, there are five major functionsperformed by the diplomatic machine. The first two01 these functions are essential to the making of for-eign policy. Information and data are the rawIllaterials of foreign policy and it is part of the job ofdiplomats abroad to gather information and reportback to the political leadership via the foreigndepartment at home.lnformation relevant to polícy-making can be gathered from both formal andinformal sources. The formal sources include thelocal media and government reports. Informalsources include personal contacts among the localpolitical elite and the rest of the diplomatic corps-other states' diplomatic representatives based in thatlocation. Given the expanded agenda of modern for-eign policy, the scope and range of informationrequíred by government for policymaking purposeshas increased dramatically. As much of this informa-tion is specíalízed, it is normal for trained representa-tives called attachés to be attached (as their name

: Functions of the diplomatic machine

• Informationgathering

• Policyadvice

• Representa!ion• Negotiation• ConsularservicesThere is a specialized section of every govemment

devoted to foreign policy. This usually takes lh!:,e~..J~.:."" _

DIPLOMACY 397

suggests) to the larger embassies. These may includecommercial, military, scientific, or cultural attachés,or some relevant mix of experts depending upon theprecise nature of the relationship between theparties.

lt is difficult in practice to separate the function ofinformation gatheríng and political reporting fromthe expectation that diplomats will offer policyadvice to government. Part of the purpose of havingpermanent representatives abroad is that theydevelop a familiarity with the country in which theyare based and are able to use this together with otherskills and experience to interpret data and to 'put agloss' on their reports. They make assessments aboutlikely developments and also make reports on thereception home government policies have receivedor are likely to receive. The distinction between giv-ing advice and making policy is often blurred. Theinfonnation and advice given by diplomats will cer-tainly limit the perceived options available and;nayeffectively structure the choices of the politicalleadership.

If diplomats contribute to policymaking by pro-viding information and advice, the diplomaticmachinery provides an importan! policy instrumentrelevant to policy implementation through the func-tions of representation, negotiation, and consularservices. Embassies not only represent the govern-ment abroad but also represent the wider interests ofthe home state which go beyond the narrowly po lit-ical realm. The ambassador and hís/her staff willattempt to maintain good relations with the hoststa te, to network with local elítes, to be present atrelevant ceremonial occasions and events wherehome interests need to be promoted-at trade faírs,for example. The status and size of the embassy pro-vides a symbolic representation of the importanceattached to relations with the host country. Increas-ing or decreasing the number of diplomats can beused politically to signal the current state of a rela-tionship, or to indicate problerns, as the cases in Box17.9 illustrate.

Negotiation is perhaps the single most importan!function of the diplomatic machine. This covers avariety of activities from simple consultation-known as an 'exchange of views'-to detailed nego-tiations on a specific issue. Professional diplomatsmay take the lead on negotiations or they may playa

It is clear that that diplomaey is an important policyinstrument in its own right. Persuasion or 'puredíplomacy' may indeed be .sufficient to achieve astate's poliey objectives abroad. Typicaliy, however,diplomacy is linked to other policy instruments toproduce what is called 'mixed diplomacy'. Here,diplomacy becomes a communications channelthrough which the use or threatened use of otherinstruments is transmitted to other parties. Stateslearned long ago that persuasion is often more sucocessful if 'stícks' and/or 'carrots' are attached (a pointmade earlier in the context of the war against terror.ism). There are three other types of policy ínstru-ment that may be used in various ways either aspotential rewards or as punishments in the attemptto secure compliant behaviour in another party.

supportive role if political leaders themselves or I First, military force may be threatened or deployedother envoys are involved. Whenever states require to give 'rnuscle' to a negotiation. Diplomaey andthe agreement of other states or third parties, díplo- military force, often in combination, have been used .maey is the technique used to secure that agreement. by states for so many centuries that they may beThe ability to persuade other parties is central to the regarded as the traditional instruments of foreignart of diplomacy. On some íssues, persuasion itself poliey. The growing costs of warfare, however, havemay suffice, But, not infrequently, some pressure led developed states at least to look for altemativemay be required and the parties involved may then instrurnents to strengthen their hand in negotí-agree to compromise and to adjust their original ations. A second instrument, economic measures, ispositions. Pressure may take various forms including not new-trade diplomacy also has a long history.the imposition of time limits on the negotiation, But trade and aid have been used increasingly sínceseeking to isolate the other party diplomatically, or, the Second World War to influence the outcome ofin extreme circumstances, threatening to break off negotiations. Both trade and aid can be Ihreateneddiploma tic relations. or used as a stick or as a carrot in the sense that eíther

The final function of the machine, the provision of can be offered or withheld. The third instrument isconsular servíces, has two elements of which the"1 the most recent in terms of regular usage and can besecond is more directly related to diplomacy as a pol- labelled subversion. Where the other instrumentsicy instrument, The first type of consular activity are used to target govemments directly, subversion isinvolves action to support and protect home citizens rather different in that it is focused on particularabroad. This work, together wilh the processing of groups within other states wilh the object of under-immigration applications from host country citizens mining or overthrowing the govemment of thatmay be handled separately from embassy work. The sta te. Subversion may include a variety of techniquessecond type of consular work is dedicated to como including propaganda, intelligence activities, andmercial work, supporting trade relations wilh the assisting rebel groups (see Box 17.10).host state. This type of work has increased drarnatic- The effectiveness of mixed diplomacy in achíevíngally in recent years and embassies are often evaluated poliey objectives depends upon a variety of factorsin part at least in terms of theír ability to boost home including the nature of the objective sought, theexport promotion and trade activity generally. availability of relevant instruments, the nature of the _...J.._

398 BRIAN WHITE

, Diplomacy by expulsion The relationship between diplomacy andother policy instrumentsIn May 1996, the BritishGovernment both initiated and

was on the receivingend of diplomatic actions designedto signal displeasure.ln the firstcase, the RussianGovern-ment required the removalof four Britishdiplomats in theMoscow embassy who had allegedly been involved inespionage.ln a 'tit for tat' response, preserving honour onboth sides, the British Government then required fourRussian diplomats in London to be sent home. In asecond, unrelated case, the BritishGovernmentexpelledthree Sudanese diplomats in response to a UnitedNations Security Councilresolution to impose diplomaticand travel sanctions on Sudan because of concerns overcomplicity by the Sudanese military regime in acts ofterrorismo In addition to the expulsions, the remainingSudanese diplomats were required to give prior notice ofUKtravel outside Londonand entry visas were denied tomembers of the Sudanese Governmentand military.·

I Diplomacy by subversion

In September 1970, Salvador Allende was electedPresidentofChile,the first democraticallyelected Marxistleader. The United States Government decided there-after to use all means short of militaryinvasion to bringdown the Allende Government. A combination of diplo-matic, economic, and subversion instruments were usedto support a policyof destabilization. Chilewas isolateddiplomatically from the international community. USinfluence with international banks was used to with-hold economic loans and the Chilean economy wasthrówn into chaos. Trade in its principal export, copper,was effectively paralysed. Some $8 million was madeavailable to the Central Intelligence Agency (ClA) for';Ia~destine interference in Chilewhich was used to fundthe activities of opposition political parties and para-~ilitary groups hostile to Allende. The Allende Govern-mentwas finallyousted bya coup inSeptember 1973 andAllendehimselfwas killed.

(See Hersh 1983: chs 21, 22)

'míx' used, the costs attached to the use of particularínstruments, and so on. In terms of selection, díplo-macy continues to occupy a favoured positionbecause it has certain comparative advantages-eventhough it may need to be supplemented by otherinstruments to be effective. First, diplomaticresources are readily available. AlI states and otheractors have at least some capacity to cornmunicatewith other parties. Second, diplomaey has relativelyfew costs directly associated with it. While the use ofother instruments may be regarded as politicallyunacceptable in certain circumstances-militaryforce in particular-diplomacy, as Hocking andSmith suggest, is widely regarded as legitima te'because of its association with negotiation and con-cíliation, which are valued as norms of internationalbehaviour' (Hocking and Smith 1990: 205).

Diplomacy and developing states

The discussion in the previous sections has assumedthat all states are similar with respect to diplomaeyand foreign policy. TIme are however, importantdifferences between developed and developing stateswhich must qualify some of the generalizations we

DIPLOMACY 399

have made about 'states', In particular, developingstates are handicapped as effective international actoors by having relatively underdeveloped diploma ticmachines and by a restricted range of policy instru-ments. They tend to have a patchy system of repre-sentation abroad and lirnited resources available forpolicy analysis. They also have a límited range of pol-iey instruments for bargaining wilh other actors andfor implementing decisions made. For many devel-oping states, the use of intemational organizationsat both regional and globallevels is crucíal to comopensate for weaknesses in national capabilities. Weshould note here the special role of the UnitedNations as a Iorum in which all developing states arerepresented and where they can attempt to coordinoate theír common interests and maximize theirimpact on world politics.

Key points

. -• Diplomacy plays a key rale in the foreign policies of

states and other international actors.

• A diplomatic 'machinery'. (mi~imally a foreigndepartment and overseas representation) performsimportant functions in the making and the imple-mentation of foreign policy.· .s

• Diplomacy involves persuading other actors to do(or not to do). what you want (do not want) themto do. To be effective, ('pure') diplomacy mayneed to be supplemented by other instruments, butnegotiating skilis are central to the traditional art of. .)

diplomacy.

• Diplomacy : combined w¡th" other instruments. (military, economic, subversión) is called mixed

diplomacy. Here, diplomacy becomes a comomunications channel through .which .the use orthreatened' use of other instruments is transmittedto other parties.

• Diplomacy usually has comparative advantagesover other instruments in terms of availability andcost.

• Developing states are handicapped as effectiveinternational actors by having a relatively under-developed diplomatic machinery and by a restrictedrange of policy instruments.

BRIAN WHITE

Challenges to a state-based diplomacy

The last section of this chapter focused on diplomacyas an instrument of state behaviour, whether we aretalking about developed or developing states.Indeed, diplomacy used to be called 'statecraft' toemphasize the traditional dominance of states asinternational actors. However, even the most power-fui states are no longer the only significant inter-national actors in a global diplomatic system.Bilateral state-to-state diplomacy rernaíns animportant structural feature of that system but it hasbeen increasingly supplemented by multilateralforms of diplomacy with a mixture of state and non-state actors involved. What forms does multilateraldiplomacy take and how do actors seek to managethese complex relationships?

International organízatíons tend to act diplo-matically in very much the same way as states. Theymay not have the extensive diplomatic apparatusperforming a wide range of functions that is charac-teristic of developed states, but all have at least arudimentary diplomatic machinery-whether theyare intergovernmental organizations like the UN ornon-governrnental organízations like the majormultinationaI corporations. They can cornmunicatetheir interests and deploy their resources to influ-ence the outcome of negotiations. Indeed, many ofthese actors have a greater ability to influence thediplomatic process at a global level than smallerstates. At a regionallevel, complex multilateral typesof diplomacy have evolved which have reached theirmost developed form in Eurape and can be illus-trated by looking at foreign or external policymaking in the European Union (see Box 17.11).

These developments raise important questionsabout the extent to which the state and the statesystem remain, or indeed should remaín, the mainvehicles fOI a global diplomacy. At least one scholarhas argued that diplomacy's linkage to the sta te is'paradoxícal and problema tic' and that diplomacyshould be tranformed into a 'concept that embodiessocial relationships which are ordered without thestate' (Hoffman 2003: 526). This may be a radicalposition but other scholars have stressed thechallenges that new developments pose to a

External diplomaey of theEuropean Union

TheEuropeanUnion(EU)is arguablya unique multilateralactor in world politics to the extent that state and non-state actors withinthe Unioncombine in differentways toact diplomaticallyon the international stage. The precisecombination of actors and associated policy processesdepend largely upon the nature of the issue. Thereare three major types of European foreign policy.Foreignpolicy'proper', referredto in Euro-jargonas the 'CommonForeignand Security Policy', can be characterized as anintergovernmentalprocess, largelythough not exclusivelY.controlledby the member states. Foreigneconomicpolicyor 'external relations', on the other hand, can be charac-terized as more of a transnational process, with EUinstitutions like the European Commission playingmajor role. In trade diplomacy, for example, the Comomission acts on behalf of the member states thoughagreements with third parties need to be agreed by theCouncil of Ministers representing the member states.Finally,all25 memberstates continue to pursue their owndiplomatic activities though, over time, national foreignpolicies have been increasingly 'Europeanized'-adaptedto a greater or lesser extent to conform to a commonEUpolicy.

(See White 2001)

state-centred view of diplomacy. Hacking, fOIexample, notes that the traditional 'identification ofdiplomacy as a means of securing the state fromits international environment is being modified bydiplomacy conceived of as a "boundary-spanníng"activity. Here, diplomats are operating not so muchwithin the well-defined "shell" of the state, butwithin shifting and reconstituting boundaries asstate sovereignty is redefined in the face of globalis-ing and regionalising pressures' (Hocking 2004: 92).It is worth notíng that these pressures can in certaincircumstances put diplomats and embassies in a-dangerously exposed position, as illustrated in Box17.12. Hocking goes on to conclude that 'there ísan increasíng recognition that the execution ofintemational policy demands the construction of

Diplomats in danger

The importance of safeguarding diplomats and securingthe whole system of communications between inter-nationalartors was underlined in an eartier section of thischapter. One unfortunate consequence of terrorism hasbeen the targeting of embassies by suicide bombers.Following the Al Qaeda attacks on United Statesembassies in Kenyaand Tanzania in 1998, the Britishconsulate (and a Britishbank) in Istanbul were attackedin November2003. As a result, millions of dollars andpounds are being spent on moving embassies to safersites and improving security. Britain has 230 overseasmissions and those in the Middle East and North Africaare, regarded as being most at risk. While the safetyof embassy staff is an obvious priority, diplomatsthemselves are concerned about losing contact with thelocal population and remain opposed to the building of

f' fortress·style embassies located outside capitals. This is. bound to make the crucial information·gatheringtask of_ diplomats that much more difficult.

networks of interaction based on the exchange ofresources which are no longer the sole preserve ofgovernment'. This recognizes the challenge posed toínter-state diplomacy by the growth of civil societyand non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in par-ticular (Hocking 2004: 94. See also Cooper and Hock-ing 2000).

But it is far too soon to conclude that state-baseddiplomacy does not remain highly significant. AsHill notes, 'most diplomatic agency is still the pre-serve of states' and intergovemmental relations as awhole remain important (Hill2003: 138). Given thechangíng nature of foreign policy, many parts of thestate machinery, apart from ministries of foreígnaffairs, now engage in international diplomacy. Thismay challenge the traditional 'gatekeeper' role of

DIPLOMACY 401

foreign ministries and professional diplomats but itincreases the volume of governmental agentsínvolved in diplomacy broadly conceived. Oneinteresting new area of diploma tic activity in whichstates have taken a lead is known as 'public diplo-macy'. This has some sin1ilarities to the policyinstrument described earlier as subversión, in that itseeks to influence foreign societies as much as othergovernments. But, often linked to older notions ofcommercial and cultural diplomacy, public diplo-macy is less concerned to destabilize those societiesby clandestine operations and more con cernedopenly to project a positive image of the state to theoutside world in order to influence the policy ofothers towards it. As Hill comments, public diplo-macy constitutes 'a curious revival of statism in thisage of globalization. A state has become somethingto sell through an image which effectively promotesits strengths and downplays its weaknesses' (Hill2003: 280. See also Intemational Studies Perspectives2004).

The demands of multilateral diplomacy today,however, impose constraints upon the ability of allactors to control outcomes. This is not only becauseit is a diverse and complex pracess with multipleactors negotiating about a wider range of issuesthan ever before. The intemational context withinwhich those negotiations take place has also beenradically transíormed by levels of interconnected-ness or interdependence between societies and theeffect of the revolution in communications tech-nology which has transformed diplomacy as pro-cess and as instrument. The result is that diplomacyhas become less of a traditional art form with apremium on negotiating skills and 'wínning' andmore of a management process with actors seekingto reach agreements through a process ofadjustment.

Key points ------~~--~--~~----~~------~--~~~~• Even the most powerful states are no longer the only

significant international actors. Bilateral state-to-statediplomacy has been increasingly supplemented bymultilateral forms of diplomacy.

• International organizations, both inter-governmentaland non-governmental, have become significant dlp-lomatic actors. With at least a rudimentary diplomaticmachinery, they can communicate their interests and

".t

deploy their resources to influence the outcome ofnegotiations.

o Complex multilateral types of diplomacy have evolvedat the regional level and have reached their mostdeveloped form in Europe.

o In complex, multilateral negotiations, diplomacy has.become less an art form and more a managementprocess reflecting high levels of interdependencebetween societies.

DIPLOMACY 403

9 What is the difference between 'pure' and 'mixed' diplomacy?

10 What factors contribute to the successful use of diplomacy?

o There is now a Iively debate about the extent towhich states and the state syste.m remain, or shouldremain, the major vehicles for global diplomacy.Globalization challenges a traditional state·baseddiplomacy but there are indications that states areadapting to these changes. It is certainly too soon toconclude that state-based diplomacy does not remainhighly significant in global diplomacy.

11 What are the characteristics of multilateral diplomacy in a global system of world politicsin terms of actors, processes, and issues

12 Towhat extent do states and the state system remain the main vehicles for diplomaticactivity in a globalized world?

I Conclusion'111-"--- -._.~!It •••__ ,..~ __ ~~~

\r

O·'1-";.¡o'

r'

This chapter has tried to demonstrate that diplo-macy is neither a vague concept nor an internationalactivity that is of interest only to diplomatic histor-íans, As an international process and a policyinstrument, diplomacy preceded the modern states-system. It then played a central role in the operationof that system for hundreds of years. Today, adaptedto the demands of the contemporary global system,diplomacy continues to make an important contri-bution to cooperation and arder in that system. Butdiplomacy is no panacea. Jt cannot guarantee ínter-

.'~'.'.';i.'p'

'1~.'o'.'".,

, I

Barston, R. P. (1997), Modem Diplomacy (London: Longman, 2nd edn). A useful summary ofdiplomacy as a policy instrument of states. It is an updated textbook aimed specifically atundergraduates with little prior knowledge of diplomacy.

Berridge, G. R. (1995), Diplomacy: TJ¡eory and Practice (Hemel Hempstead: HarvesterWheatsheaf). This textbook is aimed at graduate students but it contains digestiblematerial for undergraduates on forms of diplomacy and the negotiating process.

Berridge, G. R., and james, A. (2001), A Dictionary ofDiplomacy (Basingstoke: Palgrave),A useful relatively recent reference source.

Hamilton, K., and Langhorne, R. (1995), TJ¡ePractice ofDiplomacy (London: Routledge). Thisscholarly book analyses the evolution and development of the modern diplomaticsystem. It is excellent on historical detall and the changing context of diplomacy.

Hocking, B. (ed.) (1999), Foreign Minismes: Change and Adaptation (Basingstoke: Macmillan).This is a useful, up-to-date, comparative study which analyses how efféctively foreignministries and the diplomatic machinery of states have adapted to the challenges ofoperating in a fragmented, multilateral policy environment.

Richardson, J. L. (1994), Crisis Diplumacy: TI/e Great Powets Since the Mid-nineteentlr Century(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). The most comprehensive book on crisisdiplomacy published to date. It considers a wide range of case studies from thepre-nuclear as well as the nuclear era and contains an important critique of 'crisismanagement'.

Watson, A. (1982), Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States (London: Methuen). A 'classíc'book on diplomacy written by a former practitioner. It makes a strong case for thecontinuing relevance of diplomacy to solving the problems of world politics.lt still offersimportant insights into the world of the diplomat.

national cooperation but, gíven goodwill on aUsides, it can provide the means to make it happenthrough dialogue and negotiation. The problemnow is that diplomatic systems have become socomplex that a range of management skills beyondthose deployed by the traditional diplomat isessentiaJ. , ,

For further resources, please visit theOnline Resource Centre atwww.oxfordtextbooks.co.ukjorcjbaylis_smith3ej I

What is the difference between diplomacy as a 'process' and diplomacy as an'instrument'?

2 What are the essential elements of 'traditional' diplomacy?

3 What was 'new' about the 'new diplomacy'?

4 What is the difference between the 'nightwatchman sta te' and the 'welfare sta te' andwhy is this difference important to the diplomatic agenda?

What was distinctive about 'cold war diplomacy'?

6 What is 'development diplomacy'?

'1.'

7 What is the difference between 'crisis management' and 'crisis diplomacy'?

8 What is the foreign policy 'machine'? What functions does it perform?