Diplomacy

The Dialogue Between States

Adam Watson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781134963799
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politique et relations internationales
• Subtopic: Politique

In the first major assessment of diplomatic dialogue since Nicolson's Diplomacy in 1939, Adam Watson traces the changing techniques of diplomacy from ancient times through the 'diplomatic society' of Europe to the present global system. In examining the conventions and institutions which help to shape the international system the author aims not so much to preserve diplomatic order which worked well in the past but rather to identify the continuities and the new conditions which will enable the dialogue to function in the future. He pays special attention to the extension of the dialogue into new fields and to the impact of the newly independent states of the third world. This leads him to argue strongly that the world's growing interdependence has increased rather than lessened the scope of diplomacy in the nuclear age.

CHAPTER I: The Nature of Diplomacy

States are committed to diplomacy by the nature of the world in which they exist. In times and places where there are several separate states and their actions affect one another, they cannot function in a vacuum of isolation, with each community considering only how to manage its internal affairs. Each state is obliged, by the very desire to control its own destiny as far as possible, to take account of the neighbours who impinge on its interests and those of its citizens, whatever it considers those interests to be. In more formal terms, members of a group of independent states are obliged to manage the consequences of the fact that they enjoy their independences not absolutely and in isolation but in a setting of interdependence. When a group of states forms a closely knit system, the involvement of many self-willed political actors imposes upon each state a continuous awareness that the others have interests and purposes distinct from its own, and that the things other states do or may do limit and partly determine its own policies. Jean-Jacques Rousseau expressed this succinctly in the late eighteenth century when the states system he knew was a European affair. ‘The body politic,’ as he called the state, ‘is forced to look outside itself in order to know itself; it depends on its whole environment and has to take an interest in everything that happens.’ So today every state in our global system depends not merely on itself but on its whole worldwide environment.

States which are aware that their domestic policies are affected by ‘everything that happens’ outside, are not content merely to observe one another at a distance. They feel the need to enter into a dialogue with one another. This dialogue between independent states-the machinery by which their governments conduct it, and the networks of promises, contracts, institutions and codes of conduct which develop out of it-is the substance of diplomacy.

The essential condition of diplomacy is thus plurality. It arises out of the coexistence of a multitude of independent states in an interdependent world. Like household arrangements, diplomacy is a response to the recognition by several decision-making beings that the performance of each one is a matter of permanent consequence to some or all the others. Initially diplomacy appears as a sporadic communication between very separate states, such as the Kingdom of the Pharaohs in ancient Egypt and the Kingdom of the Hittites, which found themselves in contact with one another through the trade conducted by their merchants and through disputes over border territories. To put it more formally, the purpose of diplomacy was initially, and still is, to reconcile the assertion of political will by independent entities with what Edmund Burke called ‘the empire of circumstances’ around them. And we should notice at the outset that much of this empire of circumstances has always been military, and much of it economic.

Many thinkers about the nature of statehood have claimed that this ability to deal with the outside world is an essential aspect of that nature, and that what constitutes a state is not simply the machinery for ordering the domestic life of a community. They hold that if a community does not have a collective authority which is in a position to determine for itself the extent and the force of its dealings with other states then it lacks in a crucial respect the very powers which gave substance to its claims to statehood. Some thinkers see the ability to deal with other states, and therefore to conduct a dialogue with them, as the very heart of ‘sovereignty'. While the ability to conduct a diplomatic dialogue with other states is a hallmark of statehood, the importance which external contacts have varies in practice from one state to another. Sometimes the interests of a number of states are so closely intertwined, and the activities and indeed the existence of every state are sometimes so largely determined by what its neighbours do, that there is a ‘primacy of foreign policy’ in every such state's decisions. This concept, attributed to the German historian Ranke, refers not only to political and strategic relations in the narrow sense, but to the whole range of external contacts from military conflict to the goods and ideas which states with entwined communities habitually import from one another.

Where a group of states are so involved with each other that without their losing their independence what one state does directly or indirectly affects all the others, it is useful to talk of a states system, in the sense that we talk about the solar system for instance. The term has been in general use since it was put forward by Pufendorf, a seventeenth-century professional diplomat who worked for various countries and published De Systematibus Civitatum while in the service of the king of Sweden. There is room for discussion as to whether there have been a number of states systems in the past, or whether the only fully developed states system, conscious of itself as such, was the European one which grew up after the Renaissance and has now developed into the contemporary worldwide system. These distinctions, in so far as they affect diplomacy, are covered in Chapters VII and VIII.

Moreover, where there is a shared cultural heritage, or at any rate common values, and where the communities which compose the states in a system are engaged in active exchanges of goods and ideas so that there is a high degree of interdependence, those states may as a result ‘conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions', as Professor Hedley Bull puts it. In such cases it is possible to go further and to regard the system as a single international or interstate society, whose member states, though politically independent, are not absolutely separate entities but parts of a whole. In such cases each sovereign and individual state has not achieved its civilization and its standard of living, and the needs and aspirations of its people, in isolation, but has only been able to do so within the wider society. It takes, says Professor Charles Taylor, ‘a long development of certain institutions and practices, of the rule of law, of rules of equal respect, of habits of common deliberation, of common association’ and, one may add, of cultural cross-fertilization and an equipoise or balance of forces and interests, to produce the modern individual state in an international society. The preservation and the effective functioning of that society as a whole is therefore a real interest of the states which form its parts, to be weighed along with their more particular and individual interests and aspirations in the same general way as the individual human beings in a civilized community have an interest in the functioning of the community as a whole. We are used to regarding individual human beings as having not merely interests but certain moral responsibilities towards the community in which they live; and some of their responsibilities are formulated as legal obligations. But the prudential and moral responsibilities of states towards international society are much less clear cut. This imperative question, and the role of diplomacy in this context, are discussed in Chapter XIII.

Historically, an effective multilateral diplomatic dialogue within a states system has required more than the chance coexistence of a plurality of independent states with entangled interests. In the past, sustained dialogues developed and flourished between groups of states in a circumscribed geographical area and with a history of close contacts. Such groups of states formed, so to speak, a single magnetic field of political forces. Their identity was determined by membership of, or close contact with, a common civilization. Their diplomatic dialogue was conducted, and the pursuit of their separate interests was mediated, in terms of the concepts of law, honour, morality and prudence which prevailed in that civilization. Even war between them was not indiscriminate violence: it was regulated by the rules of the system. In war, such groups of states recognized not only ‘laws of war’ which regulated the right of a state to resort to force and how war might be waged, but beyond that certain codes of conduct towards enemies and neutrals, and the right of other member states, including enemies, to some degree of independence. If these groups of states expanded outside their original geographical area, they inevitably took their assumptions, their laws and codes of conduct with them.

For example, in the European society of states, diplomacy emerged as an organizing institution, bearing its distinctive styles and manners and its own networks of procedures, rules, treaties and other commitments. The European system, so organized, was able to exercise influence and restraint over the assertiveness of its members because they were bound from the beginning by much more than a mere political arrangement. The states of Europe had in common the strong traditions of medieval Latin Christendom, and the inherited elements of unity were never entirely subordinated to the newer movements of fragmentation and diversity. Other systems of states, such as the Hellenic, early Chinese and Indian, also developed highly sophisticated diplomacy. But all of these were after many centuries finally absorbed into a conquering empire like Rome or China without expanding to encompass other comparable states which remained outside their civilization. Western Europe was an exception. And it is generally recognized that the sophisticated techniques and heightened awareness of how the states system operated, which European diplomacy required from its independent member states, contributed not a little to the remarkable phenomenon, contrary to the experience of other states systems, that no single state proved to be so powerful that it could for any length of time absorb or even dominate all the others. If there was not always a strict multiple balance of power between the states of Europe, for most of the period between about 1500 when the system began to operate and the middle of the present century when it became effectively worldwide, there was a consciously maintained balance or equipoise between the great powers sufficient to prevent the consolidation of power in the hands of a single hegemonic authority. These are the circumstances in which diplomacy is most necessary and in which it flourishes best. European diplomacy could therefore develop to the point where it could expand to organise a worldwide system.

Only in this century has a states system become for the first time truly global, encompassing a variety of civilizations and beliefs. What are the consequences of this expansion for the rules and practices of diplomacy? The European diplomacy which our global system inherited developed as a dialogue between members of a system which (as always in the past) had a cultural and historical identity strong enough to ensure that its members recognized certain rules. It is necessary to look at the historical origins and the cultural context of any given diplomatic practice in order to understand it. Therefore we must keep in mind the European origins of present-day diplomacy if we are to see where it has become inadequate and how it can successfully be adapted and in some respects wholly transformed to meet the requirements of its global expansion and of radical change. For in spite of optimistic talk about a global international society, the common assumptions and codes of conduct which derive from a shared European cultural heritage hardly receive general recognition outside the West. This major challenge to an effective dialogue and other problems of adaptation required to enable modern diplomatic practice to deal with unprecedented and rapidly changing conditions constitute an important aspect of this book.

That there are advantages in the diplomatic dialogue is obvious. But is it necessary for all states? And if not, in what conditions can some states, or at least special classes of states, dispense with diplomacy? It is difficult to find examples of an important state in a system which tries to manage without a regular diplomatic dialogue. Nevertheless it is historically true that there have been both powerful and miniscule states which have remained isolated or aloof from the pell-mell of international relations for long periods of time. These states have been on the political or geographical margins of integrated systems of states, or outside them altogether. Remote states, separated from an active states system by natural obstacles such as an ocean or desert, can afford to be marginal members of it and to maintain fitful and selective relations with the states more closely involved in the system. George Washington warned his countrymen against entangling alliances, by which he meant that degree of involvement in the European states system which made alliances necessary. Since then, however, the United States has become increasingly entangled, and isolation has become an ever less realizable ideal. States too small to carry weight in the diplomatic dialogue can sometimes also, by historical accident, become excluded from it. Andorra, Lichtenstein and Sikkim are examples.

However, what was possible at certain periods for the United States or Tibet or Andorra is not an option open as a general rule. The most striking case is that of China. For many centuries the Chinese Empire, more a civilization with a suzerain structure than a state, maintained no regular dialogue with other states: there was, so to speak, isolation behind a wall, with nomads from Central Asia occasionally able to gain control of the apex of imperial government. The ‘central kingdom', once established, forgot the indigenous traditions of diplomacy which had developed to a high degree by the time of Confucius, because the unified empire which replaced the Chinese states system was powerful enough to command its immediate neighbours and to remain indifferent to matters further afield. China first consented to a regular diplomatic dialogue and exchanges of envoys with Western states in the middle of the nineteenth century, when the fortunes of the last ruling dynasty were diminished and when the powers of the West could no longer be ignored. China was obliged to have dealings with other states when European powers, with superior military and maritime technology and a determination to trade with her on their terms, progressively involved her in international politics: that is, when she found herself up against independent and uncoercible fellow states. The consequences for China were profound and exceptionally unfortunate.

To grasp the evolving pattern of modern diplomacy, it is equally important to notice the effects on a states system itself of the incorporation of more distant states into the relentless and inescapable mesh of international affairs that makes the system. Where it has been a matter of bringing single states into a ready-made system, the acceptance of a diplomatic dialogue carried with it the need for important adjustments by the incoming state. For instance in Western Europe, where diplomacy in its recognizably modern forms had its origins, one of the principal conditions making for the elaboration of permanent contacts between the independent parts was precisely the rough and ready moral and legal equality of the society's constituent states, large and small. This condition of the European dialogue appeared almost unacceptably alien to the Chinese Empire. For somewhat different reasons the Moslem Ottoman Khalifate for a long period, and the Soviet revolutionary government for a much shorter one, were also reluctant to concede this equality to other states. But these three major powers agreed to conform to the outward rules and conventions of European diplomacy because as the European powers impinged ever more insistently on their interests and purposes, all three found the diplomatic dialogue with those powers indispensable. How far these three states remained alien to the cultural and historical assumptions which engendered the rules and conventions of European diplomacy is another question.

The position is different when a large number of outside states come into a system in a short time, so that in effect the system itself is extended far beyond its cultural cradle. Then the adjustments are not so one-sided, and many concessions have to be made by the original members to the new-comers. Today the contemporary global system is gradually evolving new rules and conventions to replace those of its more purely European predecessor.

Because states talk to each other privately and confidentially, and this aspect of their dialogue naturally excites curiosity, diplomacy is sometimes thought of as essentially bilateral. But the ties which bind states in systems are by definition multilateral. Consequently the calculations which shape the policy of each member state towards the others are multilateral; and the dialogue between them also becomes more multilateral as the system develops. Only the most primitive diplomatic contacts have ever been purely bilateral. Leagues and alliances, and indeed also all occasions on which representatives of three or more powers are gathered together, are examples of multilateral diplomacy. But these dialogues only include some players in the game. Comprehensive multilateral or ‘omnilateraP diplomacy, that is to say the attempt to include all or at least all significant members of a system in a simultaneous negotiation, is characteristic of a more advanced stage. It usually first appears as a negotiation for a general peace after prolonged warfare, and is later organized into permanent institutions like the League of Nations and the United Nations. So far, multilateral diplomacy has complemented the bilateral dialogue: it shows no sign of replacing bilateral contacts between sovereign states.

Independent states deal bilaterally with each other and meet together in multilateral organizations not only because they have interests in common, but also because they have interests which conflict. Moreover, the fact of independence fosters suspicion and doubts. Another power may be insincere in what it says and promises; or if sincere it may change its mind. History is full of examples of conflict, duplicity and reversals of policy, and the news brings fresh examples every day. Diplomacy is intimately concerned with these problems. It is an organized pattern of communication and negotiation, nowadays continuous, which enables each independent government to learn what other governments want and what they object to. In a developed international society it becomes more than an instrument of communication and bargaining. It also affects its practitioners. It is an activity which even if often abused has a bias towards the resolution of conflicts. It is a function of the diplomatic dialogue to mitigate and civilize the differences between states, and if possible to reconcile them, without suppressing or ignoring them. Conflicts of interest are a major subject of diplomacy, which can function effectively only when the necessary level of understanding exists between the parties to the dialogue about the maintenance of the system as a whole and about the rules for the promotion of their separate interests within the system. The diplomatic dialogue is thus the instrument of international society: a civilized process based on awareness and respect for other people's points of view; and a civilizing one also, because the continuous exchange of ideas, and the attempts to find mutually acceptable solutions to conflicts of interest, increase that awareness and respect. This civilizing tendency visibly does not prevent diplomacy from being perverted and misused-its methods lend themselves to duplicity. But the bias towards understanding other points of view and other needs, towards a search for common ground and a resolution of differences, is unmistakably there.

CHAPTER II: Alternatives to Diplomacy

What are the alternatives to diplomacy? In order to dispense with diplomacy, that is with the methods used by independent governments to work out their own relations with one another, mankind would either have to let independent governments exist without the diplomatic dialogue, or else dispense with independence and ‘sovereign states’ altogether.

I consider the first alternative purely fanciful. It would mean a world which would have to resign itself to a condition of anarchy and isolation, of chronic insecurity and war: something like what Hobbes called a state of nature. States would have to live by and for themselves. They would not be able to conclude peace settlements or treaties with their neighbours, for such settlements are the essence of diplomacy. Each would have to stand alone against a more powerful and aggressive neighbour. They would not be able to get into touch with one another, to band together or form leagues and alliances for mutual protection. For these activities too are works of diplomacy, and, incidentally, ones which are particularly criticized by those who argue that a diplomatic network of alliances helps to spread wars and conflicts beyond the limits which they would otherwise have, by involving other states which are not directly concerned. Nor could there be nuclear or other arms limitation agreements which require sustained diplomatic negotiation both to bring them into being and to maintain them as circumstances change. In the absence of dialogue or agreement, each state would have to concentrate on its own defence. In an age of primitive weapons and communications this was possible-at a price-especially for those whose territory lay away from the mainstream of world affairs. But in a nuclear age such an arrangement, or lack of arrangement, is hardly practicable at all. Apart from the problem of defence, the citizens of a state in isolation, without diplomatic contacts, would have difficulty in organizing either trade or those exchanges of men and ideas which develop civilization.

Altogether, the idea of armed sovereign states existing in a highly developed technical world without diplomacy is quite impractical. For this reason, people who distrust diplomacy have preferred to look to the abolition of independent states.

What then about the abolition of independent states? Can we, and should we, work towards a world government or a world federation? Is the world of states as we know them destined to wither away, in spite of present appearances? Here the prospects seem rather more realistic. There are viable alternatives to international society as it now exists and as it has existed at various periods in the past. Such alternatives have functioned at other periods in history; and it is not difficult to imagine how they might work again. A world of many independent states is not the only practical world.

The most obvious alternative is what is often called world government. This is the fullest opposite to the plurality of independences in a states system. World government can, broadly speaking, be of two kinds. It can be government from one centre, by a single ruling authority, established and maintained by superior and unchallengeable force; or it can be a system formed by a voluntary union of all the important states in the world who surrender some of their independent authority to a central decision-making body that represents and governs them all. The more voluntary the formation of such a union is, the more federal it is likely to be, with a greater degree of autonomy for the constituent parts.

Government of the world by a single authority, and maintained by the ultimate sanction of unchallengeable force, has worked fairly well at times in the past. Such, within the limits of their worlds, were the Roman and Chinese Empires. They were not democracies, nor was there any right of secession. The Emperor governed through a bureaucracy, backed by armed force that could be effectively challenged only by a rival military commander. The role of the subject peoples was not to choose their rulers, but to obey them. Nevertheless, under wise government people were contented. There was not freedom. But there were peace and order, which are major blessings in themselves, and arguably the conditions in which individual liberties are most likely to develop. Gibbon concluded that the Roman Empire under the enlightened Antonines was the happiest period mankind has known; and others have believed this about the best periods of the Chinese Empire too. In the anarchy of the Middle Ages, Dante in his De Monarchia extolled a single empire for all Christendom which could ensure the blessings of peace and the rule of law. Could, but not necessarily always did. When the Government was oppressive in such empires, everyone suffered helplessly.

A world government of this kind is certainly imaginable today. To take one example, it could come by the extension of Soviet authority beyond the Soviet Union and the present ‘Socialist Commonwe...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• REVISED PREFACE
• PREFACE
• CHAPTER I: THE NATURE OF DIPLOMACY
• CHAPTER II: ALTERNATIVES TO DIPLOMACY
• CHAPTER III: AIMS AND POLICIES OF STATES
• CHAPTER IV: DIPLOMACY, LAW AND JUSTICE
• CHAPTER V: POWER AND PERSUASION
• CHAPTER VI: IDEOLOGIES AND DIPLOMACY
• CHAPTER VII: OTHER DIPLOMATIC SYSTEMS
• CHAPTER VIII: THE DIPLOMATIC SOCIETY OF EUROPE
• CHAPTER IX: PROFESSIONAL DIPLOMACY TODAY
• CHAPTER X: CRITICISMS OF CONTEMPORARY DIPLOMACY
• CHAPTER XI: DIPLOMATIC NEEDS OF NEW AND LESS DEVELOPED STATES
• CHAPTER XII: THE GROWTH OF STATE POWER AND INTERDEPENDENCE
• CHAPTER XIII: DIPLOMACY AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATES
• CONCLUSION: THE SCOPE AND LIMITS OF DIPLOMACY
• SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING