Brian White on diplomacy

White says that diplomacy is a term difficult to explain in one way only. It is important to indicate that there are two main perspectives: macro and micro. Macro perspective looks at diplomacy as a whole, it is a communication process in world politics. From micro perspective diplomacy is understood through a range of instruments used by players to practise foreign policy.

First of all lets focus on macro perspective. White divides diplomacy into five major stages. Each characterizes diplomacy in a slightly more evolved and different way. There is: traditional diplomacy, new diplomacy, cold war diplomacy, after cold war diplomacy and diplomacy after 9/11.

White presents diplomacy beginning with traditional diplomacy. It took its first steps in Ancient Greece, where the city-states were communicating between each other. However modern global diplomatic system has its roots in the fifteenth century as White says.  First embassies where set up in Italy. Then proper structure, process and agenda could evolve. In traditional diplomacy, communication was held between states, thus embassies were important part of every state. Characteristic for traditional diplomacy was its secrecy and bilateralism. While that, diplomacy has not only been a regular process but also regularized one. As White indicates two principals emerged. One of the rules describes a quote 'don't shoot the messenger!' and it means that diplomats should be able to conduct their business without fear. Second one says that the ambassador should be treated exactly like the monarch, as diplomats were formal representatives of kings. That was a diplomatic protocol. Foreign policy that times was just about kings' personal ambitions. And diplomats were sent to 'lie on behalf of his country'. However it was quickly discovered that honesty is more efficient. Traditional diplomacy got to the top in nineteenth century, as the century of peace in Europe.

After the First World War things have changed and there was a public strong demand to keep diplomacy negotiations more open. The public did not have to necessarily be involved in the process but at least public had a need to be informed and conscious about situations. It was in the opposite to the traditional diplomacy that was characterised with secrecy and exclusiveness. New diplomacy create an opportunity for international organizations to enter public arena (the League of Nations). Important was a policy of states, they changed their form from night-watchman state to welfare state, where public security, social and economic wellbeing of citizens were important. Key issue was military security, 'the First World War was the end of all wars'. Because of topics discussed on the international panels, diplomacy started to be very specialized, diplomats were no longer only players, because also non governmental actors involved.

After the Second World War, the new age of diplomacy was created. Because of new countries which joined the international arena, which weren't familiar to diplomacy rules, it was decided to gather all regulations and in 1961 in Vienna established the Convention on Diplomatic Regulations. However mainly all discussions were focused on the East - West relations because of the Cold War. New way of diplomacy communication was for example 'hot line' between Washington and Moscow leaders. Direct communication was also used in various summits which initially had only symbolical meaning. New issues to agenda were  environment and technology. Cold war diplomacy divides into tree main streams: nuclear, crisis and summi diplomacy.

After cold war public was very optimistic about the role and success of diplomacy and negotiations. However soon after US operation in Kuwait another operation in Yugoslavia failed. Basically diplomacy after cold war was characterised with multilateralism, global scope and complexity. Diplomacy's agenda of issues was wider than ever before.

Another phase was diplomacy after 9/11, so called 'the war against terrorism' with its unilateralism. Public opinion was very pessimistic about the Bush policy. After tough negotiations Bush created a broad coalition to invade Afghanistan, however this situation was different from all others because Al Quaeda was not formal actor.

As White mentioned on the beginning, diplomacy mainly is described as a process of communication and as instruments of foreign policy. Briefly on micro perspective: every foreign department is connected to a network of embassies. There is a machinery which is about, both making and implementing foreign policy. Its main instruments are: gathering information, advising policy, representing and negotiating and providing consular services. Sometimes these pure diplomacy does not make the accurate effect and so mixed diplomacy is used. Its examples are: military force, economic measurements and subversion.

Finally, White realises that diplomacy in developing states is different, and sometimes plays not the same roles as in developed countries.

Agnieszka Moldach