Brian White on Diplomacy

Brian White highlights both the issues and merits that can be associated with diplomacy. He also analyses the changes that have occurred within diplomacy and underlines its continued relevance as an instrument in world politics.

Firstly, White draws upon the difficulty of defining diplomacy, as it is very much dependant upon who wishes to define it. We can break this down into “macro” and “micro” perspectives which can help us to understand world politics. “Micro” perspectives can help us to understand the smaller parts of world politics by looking at the involvement of states and other actors. “Macro” perspectives refer to the larger scope (or ‘the big picture’) in an attempt to understand global politics.

White also describes diplomacy as a “process of communication” which includes negotiations between states and non-state actors such as global institutions, TNCs and NGOs.

White acknowledges that diplomacy was evident in the ancient world, however, traditional diplomacy took hold from the fifteenth century onwards, and by the nineteenth century all states had established permanent embassies that served to communicate with other states and also foreign departments at home – and therefore the profession of diplomacy was also born.

We can see changes in diplomacy when looking back over recent history – the failure of the diplomatic network to prevent the First World War meant that there was a sudden demand for a “new” diplomacy, which would be more inclusive and open to democratic control. It was to be less secretive and not be exclusive to the aristocracy. However, again this “new” diplomacy was subject to criticism as it failed to prevent a Second World War.

During the Cold War, diplomacy took a new form again which required very careful control of diplomatic relations in order to avoid nuclear conflict - the various types of diplomacy (nuclear, crisis and summit diplomacy) successfully brought the Cold War to an end without the use of nuclear weapons. However, it should be noted that there were many “close calls” during the Cold War where diplomatic relations between the USA and Soviet Union were weakened.

The success of the Cold War diplomacy in resolving conflict gave the world a new faith in diplomacy. It was felt that many, if not all problems to arise within the international system could be solved with the use of good diplomacy.

This unfortunately was short lived and with the events of 9/11, the role of diplomacy has once again come into question. White believes this is because communication, negotiation or indeed any form of diplomatic relations with global terrorist networks such as Al-Qaeda will clearly be extremely difficult and surrounded by controversy. This pessimism became very evident during the Bush Administration and his lack of use of diplomacy as a political instrument within the “War on Terror”.

Problems arise today within diplomacy, with non state actors gaining more political influence; it becomes increasingly difficult to determine who should remain the major players within diplomacy. Furthermore, the stunted diplomatic machinery of the developing world has restricted the way in which global diplomacy can work in a successful and fair manner.

White concludes that in spite of the many shortcomings of diplomacy today, it should be noted that it continues to have great relevance within the International System in terms of co-operation and world order. While it cannot ensure the co-operation of all states involved it provides an opportunity for dialogue, negotiation and eventually progressive change. We can see examples of sophisticated types of diplomacy which have developed in Europe at a regional level, that show what good diplomacy can possibly achieve, but White once more highlights the difficulty diplomacy faces today in a far more complex system.