The Practice of Diplomacy

Its Evolution, Theory and Administration

Keith Hamilton,Professor Richard Langhorne

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781136901911
• Auflage: 2
• Thema: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Thema: Política

Practice of Diplomacy has become established as a classic text in the study of diplomacy. This much-needed second edition is completely reworked and updated throughout and builds on the strengths of the original text with a strong empirical and historical focus.

Topics new and updated for this edition include:

• 
  
  

• discussion of Ancient and non-European diplomacy including a more thorough treatment of pre-Hellenic and Muslim diplomacy and the diplomatic methods prevalent in the inter-state system of the Indian sub-continent

• 
  
  

• evaluation of human rights diplomacy from the nineteenth-century campaign against the slave trade onwards

• 
  
  

• a fully updated and revised account of the inter-war years and the diplomacy of the Cold War, drawing on the latest scholarship in the field

• 
  
  

• an entirely new chapter discussing core issues such as climate change; NGOs and coalitions of NGOs; trans-national corporations; foreign ministries and IGOs; the revolution in electronic communications; public diplomacy; transformational diplomacy and faith-based diplomacy.

This text has established itself as a core text in the field of diplomacy and this new edition is absolutely essential reading for students and practitioners of diplomacy.

Part I
From the beginnings until 1815

1
The Old World

And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon King of the Amorites, saying, Let me pass through thy land: we will not turn into the fields or into the vineyards; we will not drink of the waters of the well: but we will go along by the King’s highway, until we be past thy borders.

(Book of Numbers 22, vv. 21–22)

Despite the fact that Sihon did not accept this request for a laissez-passer and suffered dreadfully for not doing so, it is often and correctly observed that the beginnings of diplomacy occurred when the first human societies decided that it was better to hear a message than to eat the messenger. If that has been agreed then there have to be rules which assure the safety of the messenger, and if there are rules, there has to be some sanction for them. This must have been true from times before we have any record at all, and from early recorded history, when the evidence is derived almost entirely from epigraphic sources – often frustratingly broken just at the crucial point – it is clear that diplomatic exchanges were quite frequent, that they led to what were evidently treaties, that good faith and enforcement were even then perennial problems and that the sanction for the safety and general good treatment of ambassadors was divine. It was no doubt the more effective in a world where the local pantheon would be expected to intervene regularly in daily life and to be the source of sudden and nastily effective retribution in the case of wrongdoing, either directly or by human agency.¹

What is also clear is that there is now enough evidence for us to form more than a shadowy view of what truly ancient diplomacy was really like. Certainly it was intermittent and generated no permanent institutions; and how far rulers recorded transactions or negotiations and to what degree they differed in their practices, we know rather patchily. There exists, however, one rare exception.

The ancient Near East

Recent historical scholarship and translations of the earliest known writings and epistolary exchanges have shown that diplomatic practice – as we understand the concept – began in the ancient Near East from around the mid-third millennium BC.² These translations include Letters from Early Mesopotamia, seventeenth century BC Mari (Syria) archives, and Amarna Letters (consisting of about 400 diplomatic correspondences between the Eighteenth Dynastic Court of Egypt and the political entities of the ancient Near East).³ The geography of the ancient Near East (or ancient Western Asia, as the region is also known) covered the modern states of Cyprus, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, south-western Russia, Syria, Turkey, the Mediterranean coast and Egypt. A number of political entities – kingdoms, dynasties, empires, states and other organized polities – with varying degrees of size, power, autonomy, dominance and longevity operated in this region. Among them were Mesopotamia, Ekallâtum, Babylonia, Hatti, Hasura, Alahah, Elam, Hamzi, Assyria, Karanâ, Amorite, Ugarit and Mari. Others were E

nunna, Mittani, Yamhad, Egypt, E

nunna, Qabara, Qatanum, Arrapha, Lagash, Agade and Ur. These entities were ruled by powerful kings and emperors, including Hammurabi of Babylon, Rim-Sin of Larsa, Ibal-pi-El of E

nunna, Amut-pi-il of Qatanum, Yarim-Lim of Yamhad and the Pharaohs.

These letters (written originally on clay tablets) open valuable windows of information about the interstate relations that existed among these political entities. From them we have diplomatic stories about competition and control over trade routes,⁴ strategic military cooperation and counter-alliances, treaty negotiations and ratification, extradition of political fugitives and deserters, emissary orders and dynastic marriages, and exchange of political, artistic and ‘luxuriously crafted’ gifts.⁵ They also contain terms and expressions that explain the offer of friendship as well as alliance formation and acceptance. For instance, in the Mari archives, the term salâmum means ‘to be friendly’ or ‘to ally with’, and salîman lêqum means ‘to receive friendship’. Salîman

akânum means ‘to establish’ and salîman epê

um means ‘to form friendship’. Qâtam napâsum means ‘to strike the hand’ or to reject an offer of alliance. We also know from these documents what gestures and rituals diplomats used to conclude or reject treaties and alliances. For instance, the term sissiktum in the Mari archives refers to the hem of outer clothing or strap that could be bound. To hold a sissiktum means to conclude an alliance by seizing or tangling the hem of the garment. The touch of the throat also symbolized the conclusion of an agreement or a treaty. Qaran subât X wu

urum means ‘to let go the hem of a garment’ or to breach a treaty/alliance.⁶ More familiarly, the exchange of royal gifts was a diplomatic gesture of friendship; and the lack of it was as a sign of hostility.⁷

In addition to these terms and symbolisms, the letters contain evidence of arbitration and mediation, diplomatic codes of conduct, customs and conventions, the exchange of envoys and description of their missions. Ambassadors were appointed for specific missions with specific sets of instructions. They were chosen from among the senior officials of administration who demonstrated profound knowledge of state affairs and policies. Their primary functions included coordinating the military, trade and diplomatic efforts of their sovereigns.⁸ They promoted the interests of their states and defended their policies. In some instances, officials of the host entity made arrival, safety, comfort and departure arrangements for visiting diplomats. They also reserved the right to approve visiting envoys’ departure, and in some cases, provided armed escorts for their return.⁹ Some sovereigns invested full authority in their diplomatic agents while on duty. For instance, Zimri-Lim, the king of Mari, appointed Abum-ekin ambassador plenipotentiary to negotiate a treaty with Hammurabi, the king of Babylon. Abum-ekin exercised this prerogative power by objecting to a clause in the treaty and then descriptively reported it to his king as follows:

I arrived in Babylon and laid the whole matter before Hammurabi. Concerning the touching of the throat I apprised him of the matter but he made difficulties about the town of Hît. He abased me in the matter, but I was not in agreement with him. I had the affair conducted in a proper manner. I made him reduce (?) his demands. (?) Only the town of Hît is still in dispute. On the 25th day he had not touched his throat.¹⁰

The exercise of plenipotentiary powers was not a widespread practice; it only worked among political entities with equal powers and influence. Great kings imposed degrees of obligation on less powerful entities. For instance, vassal states had no diplomatic relations with the enemies of their overlords; their policies were subordinated to the interest of their overlords. In fact, overlords made frequent requests for military support from their dependent entities. ‘Whereas the vassal has many obligations’, William Moran writes, ‘the suzerain has none.’¹¹ In brief, a ‘paternity’, abûtum or ‘father and son’ relationship existed between overlords and their vassals.

When everything is extracted from the sources that exist, two features stand out. The first is the overarching conceptual framework within which equal and allied powers conducted interstate relations. They did so in a humanistic spirit of ‘brotherhood’ and ‘fraternity’, ahûtum, athûtum. For instance, Šamši-Adad, the king of Assyria, referred to himself as a ‘brother’ of the ruler of E

nunna and Išhi-Adad of Qatanum. Hammurabi, the king of Babylon, also referred to Zimri-Lim of Mari in the same manner. The kings of Išhi-Adad and Zimri-Lim addressed the rulers of Išme-Dagan and Babylon, respectively as brothers.¹² The concept of brotherhood is more pronounced in a letter Ibubu, a high official of Jirkab-Damu, the king of Ebla, addressed to an agent of Zizi, the ruler of Hamazi. He wrote:

Thus (says) Ibubu, the steward of the palace of the king to the envoy: I am (your) brother and you are (my) brother. What is (appropriate) to brother(s): whatever desire you express, I shall grant and you, (whatever) desire (I express), you shall grant.¹³

It is obvious from the preceding references and quotations that the metaphor of brotherhood guided relations among equal political entities. What underpinned this metaphor was the concept of the extended family. Raymond Cohen’s assessment of this concept in the Amarna letters is revealing. He observes:

family matters – greetings, recollection of family history, inquiries after health and sickness, respect for the dead, marriage, invitations to visit, gift-giving and so on – take up a larger proportion of the correspondence. Even the negotiation of a defensive alliance is framed in terms of fraternal piety rather than national interest.¹⁴

It is important to note that the concept of ‘family’ as expressed in these diplomatic letters was not limited to biological blood groups, nor was it confined only to sovereign lords; it was also used to describe relations between overlords and the leaders of their vassal states as well. Some princes and sub-kings also addressed one another in such terms.¹⁵ Thus, the concept of fraternity provided the route to a political alliance.

The second feature is the impact of religion on diplomatic relations. Religious views shaped interstate relations to an extent that may be described, to borrow Brian Cox and Daniel Philpott’s words, as ‘faith-based diplomacy’.¹⁶ They note that politics and interstate relations in the ancient world possessed a ‘two-vectored spiritual orientation’;¹⁷ politics was orientated towards the supernatural and the transcendent was believed to be active in human affairs. Put another way, the political order of ancient Near Eastern societies was structured on divine principles, with the heads of the pantheon as the owners and ultimate rulers of states. And diplomatic relations were conceived of as relations between the gods. This concept is profoundly illustrated in a treaty between the Hittite, Hattusilis, and Ramses II of Egypt:

The king of the land of Egypt, in order to bring about the relationship that the Sun-god and the Storm-god have effected for the land of Egypt with the Hatti land, finds himself in relationship valid since eternity which [does not permi]t the making of hostilities between [them] until all and everlasting time. … Behold the holy ordinance (valid) for ever, which the Sun-god and the Storm-god had brought about for the land of Egypt with Hatti land (calls for) peace and brotherhood so as not to make hostility between them.¹⁸

The quotation above shows that interstate treaties were held to be divinely sanctioned. In other words, the gods were the ultimate contracting parties with kings as their earthly representatives. Because the gods were the ultimate source of power and authority, treaties were concluded and sworn in their presence, and treaty tablets placed before them.¹⁹ Treaties were the oaths of the gods who served as witnesses to their swearing. That is why treaty documents were referred to as a ‘tablet of the life of the gods’, tuppa nîš ilâni, or ‘tablet of the bond’ in Mari archives.²⁰ As godly authorized agreements, treaties were supposed to last forever. The gods were believed to punish the party that breached a treaty. It has been argued that this concept explains why contracting parties performed the ritual of touching the throat to conclude an accord.

Despite the generally friendly nature of relations among these political entities, there were plenty of instances of wars and conquests.²¹ Foreign conquests were carried out only as divine will of the gods with the kings as their generals. Conquest was deemed to be a gift to the deities while defeat was regarded as a punishment from the gods for sins committed. So ever present was the pantheon that it raises a question about its relative role: did the concept come first or was it more a useful way of finding a basis for at least some kind of diplomacy?

One may argue that the fraternal mode of address symbolized equality of status among the entities. No single entity enjoyed significant superiority either in human or natural resources to dominate other entities for a long period of time.²² Evidence of Abum-ekin rejecting a clause in a treaty with Hammurabi attests to the balance of power that existed across the region. We know that states of equal power act in concert. The majority of the leaders of those states had equality of status and were independent of one another. As is evident in their letters, alliances did not last long because of the lack of ‘sustained common purpose’. Ambitious and powerful kings strengthened their positions and reinforced their political ends by forming coalitions. From these diplomatic sources, we are able to deduce that a profound sense of community, an organic relationship, grounded in friendship and kinship rather than inorganic abstractions of national interest, pervaded these relations.²³ As in many other and later cultures, these political relationships were strengthened and reinforced by dynastic marriages.²⁴ However limited the record may be, Cohen argues that there is more than enough evidence to conclude that the roots of modern-day diplomatic principles and frameworks go deep into the ancient Near Eastern world.

This evidence is exceptional and it is likely that the general scarcity of information does not hide more sophisticated diplomatic structures which have been lost. For most of the state structures took the form of large, loosely formed empires, with porous boundaries, slow communications and little need to deal on any continuous basis with any other entity which had to be treated as an equal. Such conditions did not give rise to the development of very complicated diplomacy nor to the devices required to pursue it. We have an idea of the kind of attitude that must once have been general. It arises out of the survival of the Chinese Empire from ancient times into the modern world.

Ancient China

As to the request made in your memorial, O King, to send one of your nationals to stay at the Celestial Court to take care of your country’s trade with China, this is not in harmony with the state system of our dynasty and will definitely not be permitted. Traditionally people of the European nations who wished to render some service at the Celestial Court have been permitted to come to the capital. But after their arrival they are obliged to wear Chinese court costumes, are placed in a certain residence and are never allowed to return to their own countries.

(Quianlong, Emperor of China, to King George III, 1793)²⁵

When Lord Macartney attempted to open diplomatic relations with the Chinese Emperor in 1793 on behalf of King George III, this was the Chinese reply: he had encountered the response of a diplomatic dinosaur. The Chinese approach to diplomacy thus illustrated predated the empire itself. To understand this attitude requires some understanding of the structure and political organization of ancient Chinese society from the Warring States era (656–221 BC) and beyond. The Warring States period was characterized by the emergence of territorial sovereign states with centralized bureaucracies. It also marked the birth of state–society relations and the expansion of Chinese trade abroad. Like the European system of 1495–1815, state formation in China was marked by ‘countervailing mechanisms of balance of power’.²⁶ In other words, Chinese international relations were a ‘game of fleeting alliances without permanent friends and enemies’.²⁷ Instead of negotiations, ruthless strategies and warfare dominated great power rivalry. Diplomacy before 656 BC was bilateral and mi...

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• Contents
• Preface to the second edition
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part I From the beginnings until 1815
• Part II From 1815 to the present
• Part III Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index