White, Morgenthau and Diplomacy

Brian White provides a very useful and interesting overview of the history of diplomacy and how its characteristics have developed. He dates the origin of the traditional diplomacy back to the 15th century and he looks at how diplomacy has evolved over time by examining its distinctive features of structure, processes and agenda. The New diplomacy, which emerged after the failure to prevent the break out of World War One, has seen important changes or additions with regards to structure, processes and agenda compared to traditional diplomacy. States are no longer the only actors involved in diplomacy and thus the processes have become much more complex. Furthermore, there has been a shift in the diplomatic agenda. Where traditional diplomacy focused primarily on issues of so-called ‘high-politics’, new diplomacy has a more diverse agenda and the focus is increasingly on matters of so-called ‘low-politics’.
Diplomacy took yet another turn after World War Two with the advent of what White terms ‘Cold War diplomacy’. The management of nuclear weapons, and their use as instruments to achieve goals while at the same time preventing their actual application, came to characterise diplomacy during the Cold War. Moreover, diplomacy in that period tended to be crisis or summit diplomacy. White ends his historical tale of the evolving nature of diplomacy by questioning what role diplomacy will or can have in the ‘war against terrorism’. Diplomacy seems to have been overlooked as an option by the previous American administration when it formed the response to the threat of terrorism.
As White questions the role of diplomacy in this new phase of globalisation, Morgenthau, in Politics Among Nations, also questions the applicability of diplomacy, arguing that the end of World War One also saw the decline of diplomacy. For Morgenthau the ideas behind New Diplomacy are partly to blame for the decline of diplomacy. Diplomacy by parliamentary procedures, introduced with the establishment of the League of Nations and subsequently the United Nations, does not help solve problems even though a decision must have a two thirds majority in the United Nations General Assembly. Furthermore, Morgenthau also highlights the problematical aspects of conducting diplomacy publicly. Governments, especially those democratically elected, are unlikely to want to compromise and thus negotiate with the intention of reaching an agreement when they have to do it publicly. Hence, diplomacy conducted in public becomes what Morgenthau calls a “propaganda match” which is highly likely to deepen conflicts rather than solve them. Morgenthau goes on to establish four fundamental rules of diplomacy and the rules of compromise, which he argues must be obeyed if diplomacy is to be possible and effective in the future. Yet, with regards to the current proclaimed ‘war on terrorism’ many of these rules have arguably been broken. As White notes, the Bush administration opted for military force and coercion as its instruments of choice instead of diplomacy. However, many more issues, also complex and fragmented, are facing the world today and it is for us to see how diplomacy will play a role in those issues.