A HISTORY OF DIPLOMACY
By Jeremy Black
Reaktion Books, 312pp.
Reviewed: 15 May, 2010
Perhaps the first recorded “diplomatic incident” occurred in Eden, when Adam acted on advice from Eve, based upon credible representations by the Serpent (on behalf of Satan and his allies). Soon after, Adam received a stern demarche that downgraded his relations with God, delivered in person by an Archangel plenipotentiary.
From early historic times, the written records of Hittite and Egyptian empires give detailed descriptions of the protocols and ceremonies for the reception of foreign envoys, to ensure that relations between competing states and individual rulers should not be more violent, nor costly, than necessary.
When a 13th Century Persian Shah executed an envoy of Chinggis Khan, then singed the beards of his escorts, this breach of etiquette brought down a full and bloody Mongol conquest of Persia that had, prior to the beard-singeing, not been inevitable.
Diplomacy, in Jeremy Black’s history, is the function and culture of mutually-recognised arrangements to mediate communication between states. He acknowledges the challenge of addressing the whole span and scope of human political history this way, and decides to tackle it chronologically. Black is Professor of History at the University of Exeter, UK.
Black’s recurring themes include the development of diplomacy as a specialist profession and challenges to that status; the continuing tug-of-war between ideology, idealism and realism affecting diplomatic relations; and the modern complexity caused by growth of numbers and kinds of states that need to be accommodated in any national or international diplomatic practice.
Australian Heads of Mission are still accredited by the Crown (through the Governor-General), reflecting the old realities that envoys were personal representatives of an individual sovereign. It used to be required of ambassadors to put up a display of pomp and conspicuous life-style at least as grand as their competitors at a foreign court. Scandals and even traffic accidents arose from diplomats vying for protocol precedence.
Diplomatic privileges and immunities have had many functions apart from the protection of foreign legates. Amongst them was royal shopping – Louis XV of France ordered hunting dogs and condoms to be delivered from London, through diplomatic channels.
The slow evolution of states, from absolute monarchies toward versions of electoral democracy, has in many ways complicated the lives of diplomats, though rendering them generally less liable to be beheaded for a failed mission or a protocol blunder. Diplomats formerly subject to the whims of a despotic monarch may now instead find their briefs being reversed (diplomatically speaking) as a result of opinion polls and the imperatives of the electoral cycle.
Though the working principle is that all states are equal in diplomacy, the actual sovereignty represented by particular diplomats is not always equal. Representatives of a Federal nation, such as the USA, may have limited ability to guarantee the performance of their constituent member States on matters such as “free trade” agreements. Member states of the European Union have, in principle, surrendered certain aspects of their sovereignty to the EU authorities, but local compliance may be uncertain (as currently in Greece), casting a cloud over negotiations purporting to represent the whole EU.
Contested sovereignty and claims for independence have always created problems on the status of representation and recognition – current glaring examples are Taiwan and Palestine. The finessing of these issues, such as in the arrangements that permitted a Taiwan team to participate in the Beijing Olympics, relies on diplomatic conventions that would not have made sense to earlier Chinese emperors, nor to their European equivalents. Australia’s flip-flop on the independence of East Timor is a painful example closer to home, with political decisions leaving diplomats hard-pressed to explain.
The shrinking of distance and time, by transport and communications developments, has radically re-cast the diplomatic role. Where resident Ambassadors in the past were expected to manage a local crisis or negotiate for months pending sea-borne instructions from home, a Foreign Minister may now receive news of events over his breakfast before the relevant Ambassador, in a far away time zone, has had time to consider a briefing.
Worse still, Ministers and Prime Ministers (sometimes accompanied by imperious spouses) can jump on a plane and turn up at short notice, throwing the local embassy into a panic.
Resident diplomats still have a very practical role in providing deeper information and intelligence to their home government, aided by conventions such as immunity from local laws. Increasingly, they are also called upon to participate in forms of public relations activity that would been unthinkable in earlier times, when diplomats were a privileged, often secretive, elite.
Modern diplomats may be called to participate in “public diplomacy” as media performers, both in their place of posting and for the communications media of their home country. In liberal democracies, they now serve governments that expect diplomats to be part of their public information strategy, speaking to a more or less educated public that demands at least the appearance of being kept informed.
When political leaders seek direct involvement, through bilateral visits or multilateral “summits”, there is a reversion to something like the personal royal diplomacy of earlier ages. Professional diplomats may be thrown into a frenzy of preparation and second-guessing, but cannot accurately predict what the personal interactions at the “summit” may leave them to deal with. Copenhagen left many sore heads (and behinds) among diplomatic ranks.
For most of history, Empires and hegemonic powers have played a significant role in managing conflicts between lesser states. Now, an interdependant, globalized world is supposedly organized into almost two hundred sovereign states enjoying nominally equal status, in fora such as the United Nations or World Trade Organisation. Diplomats have endless work to do seeking alliances and support for their national advantage on anything from territorial claims to food labelling.
Black considers the greatest weakness of diplomacy to lie in its inability to resolve differences that are ideological, religious, or otherwise irrational. Such differences persist with remarkable stubbornness, though changing with each generation. The value-add of diplomacy is to seek outcomes of most advantage to most parties – and that absolutely requires compromise. Neither Jihadists nor Neo-Cons may see the point of that.
Diplomacy as a profession may have lost some of the mystique it enjoyed in the heyday of Empire and gold braid. It faces future challenges from rising powers, such as China, that may see advantage in repudiating “Western” notions of international diplomatic practice. But Black’s critical history suggests that the tested methods and conventions of diplomacy remain a vital tool as, at least, one of several tracks for managing the relations between sovereign powers. The specialist understanding of local nuance can be the difference between conflict and resolution.
This book certainly provides a wealth of example and anecdote on how diplomacy has worked so far.
Richard Thwaites spent many years on the fringes of the diplomatic world, as observer and as participant