Selcuk University - Neba Wais Alqorni - International Politics Week 8,9,11,12,13, Assignments of Political Theory

Download Selcuk University - Neba Wais Alqorni - International Politics Week 8,9,11,12,13 and more Assignments Political Theory in PDF only on Docsity! International Politics 9th Week: Diplomacy e Defining diplomacy: what is diplomacy and who are the diplomats? • Diplomacy is conventionally understood as the processes and institutions by which the interests and identities of sovereign states are represented to one another. • Diplomats are understood to be people accredited by those they represent to undertake this work (Wiseman ve Sharp, 2012: 257). Defining diplomacy: what is diplomacy and who are the diplomats? • Thus, some definitions of diplomacy emphasise a particular diplomatic activity: for example, negotiation. • Others stress the manner in which the activity should be undertaken: for example, with honesty, tact and understanding or peacefully. • Still others pay attention to who is entitled to undertake it and on behalf of whom – claiming, for example, that only the official representatives of sovereign states and international organisations may be properly viewed as engaging in diplomacy (Vienna Convention 1961). The evolution of diplomacy • Pre-modern diplomacy • Something like diplomacy must have occurred between peoples in pre- history once messengers were granted immunity from unfriendly protocols governing relations with strangers. • Archaeological and anthropological research, however, casts doubt on the idea of communities evolving separately until encountering others. • Rather, the record suggests a single group from which peoples separated early on, and processes of peoples both coming together and pulling apart ever since (Wiseman ve Sharp, 2012: 257). The evolution of diplomacy • There are historical records of negotiations in the Old Testament, and older fragments exist including an archive of relations between pharaohs, their clients and other great kings in the fourteenth century BC (Amarna). • From the latter, we obtain glimpses of missions travelling with trade caravans to arrange dynastic marriages, secure gifts, reassure allies and negotiate with rivals. • For some this is the first diplomatic system and illustrates how diplomacy is ‘hardwired’ into the human species.(Wiseman ve Sharp, 2012: 258-260). The evolution of diplomacy • The Romans, as hegemons, are presented as uninterested in the give-and-take of diplomacy (Nicolson 1954). • The Renaissance Italians, in contrast, are credited with preparing the ground for modern diplomacy. They established permanent resident missions (embassies) whose ministers (ambassadors) had plenipotentiary powers and developed a collective sense of themselves as a diplomatic corps sharing common professional interests and values. • The first embassy was started in the 13th century in Northern Italy – Milan, where city states had embassies with each other. • As for the rest of the world – China, India, the Americas and Africa – its diplomatic achievements are judged unimportant since it was eventually absorbed by the expansion of Europe’s international society (Wiseman ve Sharp, 2012: 258-260). The evolution of diplomacy • Modern diplomacy in the Westphalian era • Modern diplomacy is generally associated with the traditional agenda of sovereign states (especially the larger, more powerful ones), the balance of power, war, and international law. • Modern diplomacy can essentially be divided into two forms, bilateral and multilateral. • Seen as the older more traditional form, bilateral diplomacy is the conduct of relations between two political actors with ‘standing’, usually sovereign territorial states. • Multilateral diplomacy, the conduct of relations between three or more such states, is seen as a ‘newer’ form of diplomacy. (Wiseman ve Sharp, 2012: 258-260). The evolution of diplomacy • Diplomatic historians tend to see modern diplomacy in its bilateral form emerging on the Italian Peninsula during the Renaissance. • The key diplomatic players of the time included Florence, Venice, Naples, Milan and the papacy in Rome. • Machiavelli, the Florentine diplomat who authored The prince [1513] and other works on how best to negotiate with other sovereigns, did so in terms that are now synonymous with a power politics worldview. • Thus, Renaissance Italy’s main contribution to the development of the ideas and practices of diplomacy was the creation of resident ambassadors. The evolution of diplomacy • However, while Westphalia’s significance is usually associated with the rise of modern sovereign-state diplomacy, it is equally significant as a major step in the development of multilateral diplomacy (Hamilton and Langhorne 2011; Davis Cross 2007). • In short, Westphalia reinforced bilateral diplomacy, which was already recognisable on the Italian Peninsula, while also pointing to a more multilateral future for diplomacy. (Wiseman ve Sharp, 2012: 258-260). The evolution of diplomacy • With bilateral diplomacy (the resident mission) and multilateral diplomacy (such as the congresses surrounding Westphalia) in place by the seventeenth century, other innovations followed. • Notable here was the invention by Cardinal Richelieu – first minister of France under Louis XIII from 1624–1642 – of the foreign ministry: the now taken-for- granted institution under one roof in a country’s capital that works with government ministers to formulate foreign policy and supervises a country’s international network of diplomats and embassies (Berridge et al. 2001). • Thus was born the idea of the professional diplomat as a key feature of modern diplomacy and international relations. (Wiseman ve Sharp, 2012: 258- 260). The evolution of diplomacy • For most writers on diplomacy, the diplomacy of the great powers mattered most. • They were supposed to be responsible for maintaining the balance of power but, as the Napoleonic Wars had demonstrated, were also capable of posing deadly threats to the peace of Europe. • Great-power dominance of modern diplomacy’s evolution is well demonstrated by the Concert of Europe, an informal yet powerful periodic meeting of European states that negotiated treaties, but typically did not meet in a single assembly (plenary) which would have allowed the smaller powers a larger voice in proceedings. The evolution of diplomacy • However, the establishment of the United Nations (UN) in San Francisco in 1945 (Schlesinger 2003) represented a further, and this time more successful, attempt at institutionalising the multilateral diplomatic method. • An important lesson seemed to be that sovereign states were willing to try again, rather than give up on a promising idea. • World War II had also initiated renewed interest in the role of public opinion in the formation of foreign policy, and to some extent in its conduct by Professional diplomats. • After the war, the ideological conflict known as the Cold War (roughly 1945– 1989) saw the re-emergence and general acceptance of institutionalised multilateralism, with the establishment of the extensive UN system (Wiseman ve Sharp, 2012: 258-260). The evolution of diplomacy • Traditional bilateral diplomacy, so vilified after World War I, continued in a new conceptual guise known as bipolarity – under this wider concept, large numbers of countries lined up, some of them reluctantly, behind the US and Soviet superpowers. • The main features of this Cold War diplomacy included nuclear diplomacy, crisis diplomacy and summit diplomacy. • The advent of nuclear weapons and their use by the US in 1945 against Japan introduced a novel and sharply dangerous element into the management of crises and the convening of high-level meetings by political leaders. • If the over-riding strategic concept of the nuclear age was mutual nuclear deterrence, the underlying foreign policy concept was containment – an idea advanced by George Kennan, a serving professional US diplomat, that Soviet communism could be managed (contained) without the use of military force (Wiseman ve Sharp, 2012: 258-260). The evolution of diplomacy • Decolonisation provided an important context in which Cold War diplomacy played out. • This process whereby the colonies of the European powers achieved their independence had a dramatic impact on international relations in general, and diplomacy in particular. • First, while many of the newly independent countries identified and allied with one or the other superpower, many others sought to keep some political distance from them, forming groupings such as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of 77 (G77) in order to strengthen their independence from the Cold War giants. • A small minority of the new states, such as China, Cuba and Libya, branded themselves, or were seen by others, as revolutionary states, at first rejecting but later accepting diplomatic norms and procedures (Wiseman ve Sharp, 2012: 258-260). The evolution of diplomacy • The trappings of sovereignty –embassies, ambassadors and UN membership – were attractive at a time when the political goal was sovereign independence. • Given the divisions created by the Cold War and the decolonisation process, it is striking that the international community could come together to agree – in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations – on the formal rules governing their diplomatic conduct (Langhorne 1992). • The Convention set out the five key tasks of diplomacy. It also codified the immunities and privileges accorded to diplomats while serving abroad. (Wiseman ve Sharp, 2012: 258-260). The 1961 Vienna Convention: functions of a diplomatic mission • According to Article 3 of the 1961 Vienna Convention, the functions of a diplomatic mission consist, among other things, in: • (a) Representing the sending State in the receiving State; • (b) Protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law; • (c) Negotiating with the Government of the receiving State; • (d) Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State; • (e) Promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations. The 1961 Vienna Convention: diplomatic immunity • Under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomats cannot be arrested, no matter what their crime; they cannot be forced to testify in court proceedings, unless their home state ‘waives’ (lifts) their immunity. The host state may expel them, declaring them persona non grata (Leguey-Feuilleux: 155–6). • In diplomacy, a persona non grata (Latin: "person not welcome") is a status sometimes applied by a host country to foreign diplomats to remove their protection by diplomatic immunity from arrest and other normal kinds of prosecution. Trends: Modern diplomacy still rules • The most obvious trend is the persistence of the Westphalian or modern system of diplomacy. • In general, sovereign states are still regarded as the most important actors in international relations and they continue to deploy an extensive system of embassies and consulates by which they and their interests are represented to each other. • In particular cases this claim can be modified. Budgetary constraints, for example, can result in the closure of missions or, together with political developments like regional associations such as the European Union (EU), can result in various forms of shared or collective representation. Trends: Modern diplomacy still rules • The claim that globalisation – developments in the technologies of travel, communication and information- transfer, together with the ensuing ‘collapse of distance’ has rendered on-the-spot diplomatic representation unimportant has so far not been substantiated. • Indeed, the need for such representation, especially in the great diplomatic cities of big powers and international organisations, continues unabated, leading some to speak of a ‘diplomatic counter-revolution’ in terms of the persistence and extension of traditional diplomatic practices. Trends: Modern diplomacy still rules • Less negotiating, more representation and lobbying • There has been a shift away from traditional diplomatic functions like negotiating and reporting towards both traditional and new forms of representation. • Sovereign states may still be the most important actors, but their sovereignty seems to buy them less independence, security and prosperity than in the past, on an international stage that they now have to share with other sorts of international actors. • Increasingly they must engage in ‘polylateral’ or ‘triangular’ diplomacy. • As a result, diplomats spend more time lobbying important political and economic actors in their host states than would have been previously thought appropriate given the core diplomatic principle of non-interference in internal affairs and domestic matters. (Wiseman 2004; Strange 1992). Soft Power and Public Diplomacy • Image cultivation, propaganda and activities that we would now label as public diplomacy are nearly as old as diplomacy itself. • Even in ancient times, prestige-conscious princes and their representatives never completely ignored the potential of public opinion in foreign lands. • References to the nation and its image go as far back as the Bible, and international relations in ancient Greece and Rome, Byzantium and the Italian Renaissance were familiar with diplomatic activity aimed at foreign publics. (Melissen, 2006: 3-6) Soft Power and Public Diplomacy • The First World War saw the birth of professional image cultivation across national borders, and it was inevitable after the war that the emerging academic study of international politics would wake up to the importance of ‘soft power’. • In the era of growing inter-state conflict between the two world wars, E. H. Carr wrote that ‘power over opinion’ was ‘not less essential for political purposes than military and economic power, and has always been closely associated with them’. (Melissen, 2006: 3-6) Soft Power and Public Diplomacy • Power is the ability to affect others to get the outcomes one prefers, and that can be accomplished by coercion, payment, or attraction and persuasion. • Soft power is the ability to obtain preferred outcomes by attraction rather than coercion or payment. • Nye: «Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others.» • Soft power uses a different type of currency—not force, not money—to engender cooperation. It uses an attraction to shared values, and the justness and duty of contributing to the achievement of those values. Soft Power and Public Diplomacy • Political commentators in many countries have become gripped by the notion of soft power and ministries of foreign affairs wonder how to wield it most effectively. • As Nye argued, countries that are likely to be more attractive in postmodern international relations are those that help to frame issues, whose culture and ideas are closer to prevailing international norms, and whose credibility abroad is reinforced by their values and policies (Melissen, 2006: 3-6). Soft Power and Public Diplomacy • Public diplomacy is one of soft power’s key instruments, and this was recognized in diplomatic practice long before the contemporary debate on public diplomacy. • The United States, the former Soviet Union and Europe’s three major powers invested particularly heavily in their ‘communications with the world’ during the Cold War. • Although conventional diplomatic activity and public diplomacy were mostly pursued on parallel tracks, it became increasingly hard to see how the former could be effective without giving sufficient attention to the latter. (Melissen, 2006: 3-6) Soft Power and Public Diplomacy • In fact, as early as 1917–18, Wilson and Lenin had already challenged one another at the soft power level, long before their countries turned into global superpowers and started colliding in the military and economic fields. • The battle of values and ideas that dominated international relations in the second half of the twentieth century evolved into competition in the sphere of hard power, and not vice versa. • The world diplomatic community nevertheless woke up late to the fundamental challenges of communication with foreign publics rather than then habitual international dialogue with foreign officials. (Melissen, 2006: 3-6) Soft Power and Public Diplomacy • Existing definitions of diplomacy have either stressed its main purpose (‘the art of resolving international difficulties peacefully’), its principal agents (‘the conduct of relations between sovereign states through the medium of accredited representatives’) or its chief function (‘the management of international relations by negotiation’). • In a sense, such definitions do not take into account the transformation of the environment in which diplomacy is at work. (Melissen, 2006: 3-6) Soft Power and Public Diplomacy • Students of diplomacy saw diplomatic communication in principle as an activity between symmetrical actors. • A more inclusive view of diplomacy as ‘the mechanism of representation, communication and negotiation through which states and other international actors conduct their business’ still suggests a neat international environment consisting of a range of clearly identifiable players. (Melissen, 2006: 3-6) Soft Power and Public Diplomacy • Diplomacy in a traditionalist view is depicted as a game where the roles and responsibilities of actors in international relations are clearly delineated. • This picture no longer resembles the much more fuzzy world of postmodern transnational relations – a world, for that matter, in which most actors are not nearly as much in control as they would like to be. • Moreover, the interlocutors of today’s foreign service officers are not necessarily their counterparts, but a wide variety of people that are either involved in diplomatic activity or are at the receiving end of international politics. (Melissen, 2006: 3-6)