This book and its companion, âGlobal South Perspectives on Diplomacyâ, are all about diplomacyâits context, its theory and practice, and the big themes that drive its evolution. It is not the story of any part of the world; it is not Eurocentric (most diplomatic writing is); it is not complete; and it is not unbiased (is anything?). Iâm writing as a former diplomat who now teaches the subject and who constantly has to explain an ancient, maddeningly complex institution to young people.
It took me ten years to finish the two books, which I wrote simultaneously. It was obviously much, much longer than I had hoped it would take. Yet, I do not regret the time spent. When I started, I had just joined the world of academia, and while my practical experience will always be valuableâirreplaceably soâthe theoretical perspectives gleaned over the past decade have disciplined my analysis.
Incidentally, the more time I spent teaching diplomacy at university level, the more I wanted to write the books. This is because both diplomacy and the Developing World (or Global South , as some prefer to call it) are understudied within the field of International Relations. It is a bizarre notion, when one considers the perennial and universal nature of diplomacy, and the reality that most of humanity lives in developing countries. Modest change is underway: diplomatic studies are experiencing a surge and the Global South , including Africa is making its collective footprint on the discipline of International Relations. What is still lacking is the nexus: we need much more research on diplomacy from a Developing World perspective. This book and its companion are small contributions to that objective.
To be sure, even in the Global North diplomatic studies tend to be daunting. For students and lecturers alike the field is intimidating because it is immense: it is interdisciplinary, spans the entirety of human history and is beholden to daily events in a multitude of states, societies and organisations, across the globe. There are few fields of study in International Relations where the practice-theory node is as important as in diplomatic studies , yet diplomatic practice defies easy examination. Formidable government bureaucracies obscure the records of interstate relations and diplomats are subjected to âsecurity clearancesâ that effectively limit what they may say or do. This is understandable: diplomats have to be totally trustworthy because they become repositories of secrets, confidences and (often simply embarrassing) information about government dealings. Even when they are retired, and thus no longer restricted by government contracts, a career in diplomacy would have made them resolutely âdiplomaticâ: unlikely to seek publicity or controversy and unlikely to ruffle any feathers. Unfortunately, it also makes them less likely to publish or to share their experience with researchers who are willing to do so.
The demand for diplomatic studies has never been greater. More democratic accountability and access to information result in more people wanting to join the practice of, or asking questions about, diplomacy. It is important that this interest should be encouraged. Like Olympic athletes, diplomats represent countries and compete with others who do so. They should therefore be held to the highest standards. If they are doing their jobs, they are securing peace and prosperity for the people they represent. Their diplomatic status gives them unique legal and circumstantial opportunity to do so. If they donât, they are wasting taxpayersâ money or worse.
One of the reasons that diplomacy is not analysed more thoroughly is that its routine functions are so low-key. Most of its day-to-day activities are utterly unremarkable. This might sound incongruous because there is a public (mis)conception about the profession being âglamorousâ. In reality, and except for the highest level of international negotiations , diplomats are not supposed to grace the headlines with their names and faces. They are meant to work behind the scenesâanalysing, advocating, negotiating, finding solutions and advising principals. Much of their diplomatic skills might actually be used to deal with their own principlesâpolitical leaders are not always appreciative of candid counsel!
But if the work of diplomats can sometimes be mundane, the stakes are always high. In todayâs world, international developments impact more than ever on even the most isolated or poorest state. The weaker the state, the more important its diplomatic representation âdiplomatic recognition and relations can be a matter of state survival. Diplomacy is often the most viable (or the only) foreign policy tool with which to counter marginalisation in the gruelling competition of international relations. On the other side of the spectrum, powerful states find that when they scorn diplomacy, they also become marginalised within international society . It is a deeply uncomfortable position to lose the respect of oneâs peers, and states tend to gravitate back to international society .
The discussion thus far has emphasised states (or âcountriesâ) mainly because the legal and institutional framework of diplomacy supports state-centric relations. The thousands of individuals who travel on diplomatic passports are all officially sanctioned to do so and reciprocally allowed to do so by other governments. But diplomacy is by no means only a state-centric activity. There are many de facto diplomats in the worldâthey might not have diplomatic immunities and privileges , but they represent groups or organisations that are for all intents and purposes diplomatic actors .
The state-centric system itself is only a few hundred years old, after all. Diplomacy, on the other hand, is timeless and possibly not even limited to the temporal world. Fans of sci-fi films will know how often diplomacy features in inter-galactic relations! Here on Earth (the only realm that I have experience of), diplomacy takes place whenever representatives interact on behalf of human groups. By its very nature, diplomacy is therefore a continuous bridging endeavour. It seeks to connect entities that are dissimilar, removed from one another, in conflict with one another, yet need each other. As human beings, we share the planet: its space, resources, problems and bounty. None of us, and no single group of us, can âgo it aloneâ.
This brings me to the second part of the bookâs title: the idea of international society . More precisely, the idea that diplomacy anchors and foments international society. States and most other international actors share a critical mass of interests and values, prompting them to commit to a modus vivendi. Their broad agreement on how to coexist peacefully leads them to develop common, in some cases permanent, institutions. States thus coalesce in a âsocietyâ that manifests extensively at the practical levelâeven if the society is essentially conjectured; a subjective and abstract construct. Diplomacy is the glue that holds together this society of humankind. It incubates the society wherever and whenever diplomacy takes place, and the growth of the one drives the growth of the other.
Within International Relations theory , writing on international society tends to conform to a specific, rather narrow paradigmatic templateâfound mostly in liberal, rationalist and, to a lesser extent, constructivist scholarship. Unfortunately, when one approaches IR theory âin silosâ it limits understanding of the world. It can reinforce stereotypes, create tunnel vision and, as many critics warn, marginalise understanding of large swathes of humanity. For these critics (and I agree with them, despite being a proponent of the idea!), international society is an equivocal concept. Their argument lies in the heterogeneity of our world: diversification of the identities and interests of an enlarging pool of actors undermines consensus on the rules of engagement . To use IR jargon: at an ontological level, the inter-subjective processes that constitute international society are increasingly marked by contested normative spaces.
In large part, this is because the history of this particular society is fraught with unresolved tension. A foremost point of contention is the assumption that its inherent norms of civilisation, and its mechanisms to maintain âorderâ, are Eurocentric . The conceptual discourse on international society is therefore prone to the broader fault-lines in IR narratives. Axioms such as the âWest against the Restâ , âparallel universesâ and so forth find their way into diplomatic theory as well. This is not a problem that we should avoid. To the contrary, it is exactly this diversity and evolving landscape that diplomatic studies must address. Diplomacy is the currency of international society and is therefore the key to constructingâand reconstructing, as requiredâthe global social commons.
But this is not a book about theoretical battles. On the other hand, it is not a âhow toâ book either: it is not a manual to learn diplomatic skills such as negotiation , protocol and etiquette, report writing and so forth. Indeed, let me make it quite clear what the book will not do, so as to spare the reader a futile search. It does not, as many books on diplomacy do, cover the content of foreign policy . Foreign policy and diplomacy tend to be confused, and diplomacy can be tagged with any number of foreign policy concerns: nuclear disarmament, health, human rights, environmental degradation, science and technologyâthe list is very long, and it keeps getting longer. When the word diplomacy is defined by one of these prefixes, it indicates a substantive area of foreign policy specialisation. A book on such a âtypeâ of diplomacy usually addresses the substance of the issue and the surrounding politics.
Issue-linked diplomacy does not change the fundamental nature of diplomacy because diplomacy per se is a neutral vehicle for any content that might be loaded in it. This is why my book sticks to the basics of diplomacy; those aspects that can serve as a framework for analysis regardless of the âissuesâ that get into the mix.
Whereas the companion book delves into the modes of diplomacy, this book essentially addresses the contexts in which diplomacy is practised. The first context is conceptual: it provides a picture of how the subject of diplomacy is theorised. I only encountered this abstract part of diplomacyâthe dreaded âdiplomatic theory ââwhen I started to do doctoral studies. I wish I had done so earlier, because it is surprisingly useful! Students as well as practitioners (most people, actually) tend to be intimidated by the idea of âtheoryâ, and this is unfortunate. Theory is like using a recipe for baking; one can do so consciously by following set instructions; or unconsciously by relying on experience and common sense. Theories, like recipes, are invented by people to simplify a complex range of variables, to construct a cognitive map. The âmapâ offers structure and method to guide analysis of real-life events. If it does not do so, it should be amended, reconsidered or supplemented with other theories. What I am saying is that theory should help us understand events (and predict them, ideally). It should not burden or confuse us with incomprehensible prattle.
The second contextual chapter considers the historical evolution of diplomacy. I start at the very beginning of humankind and stop more or less at the end of the Cold War âa rollercoaster of an overview!âto arrive at what I call the contemporary era. The demarcation of âcontemporaryâ is subjective, of course, as any historian would be quick to point out, but it felt like the most practical thing to do. It also allowed me opportunity to point out various contributions to the evolution of diplomacy: the prominence given to it by civilisations in antiquity , the institutional structure that is a European legacy, the American-led âNew World â emphasis on inclusivity and transparency in diplomacy and the more recent struggle by the Developing World to âlevel the global playing field â through the use of diplomacy. As is my feeling about every single chapter of this book, the chapter on history really deserves to be a series of books!
After the historical perspective, I turn to the legal context. This is particularly important for professional diplomatic practice, and for some or other reason very few books on diplomacy venture into this terrain. Diplomacy is rooted in legality, whether that legality is codified or not, and knowledge of diplomatic law enables us to understand the parameters of diplomatic activity. Legal rules disarm the political rhetoric and remedy the uncertainty of dealing at the global level. There is a good reason why, over the past century, diplomatic law has become one of the most codified areas of international law ! It has always been one of its least contentious branches; a poignant reminder of international societyâs consensus on the imperative for diplomacy.
The fourth context is the institutional: the bureaucratic âarchitectureâ of diplomacy. Like the chapter on diplomatic law , it is also essentially state-centric because it focuses on the way in which individual states organise and regularise their diplomatic practice. The generic structure, replicated by states across the world, is that of a foreign ministry: a separate and permanent state bureaucracy that coordinates foreign polic...