New Generation University College School of Graduate Studies

Dep’t of Global Studies and International Relations

Course Title: Theory and Practices of Diplomacy

Course Code: GSIR: 712
Cr. Hr.: 4

Teaching Material

Prepared by: Urgessa Deressa Gutu (PhD Cand.)

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

 CHAPTER ONE
NATIONAL INTERESTS
1.1.1 Defining National Interest
Before defining the concept of “national interest”, we must examine the concept of “interest”, to
complete our definition of “national interest”. Interest is a broad social concept. Generally
speaking, material or spiritual need may be considered person’s interest. Realizing interests is
meeting needs. There are two kinds of misunderstanding about interest. One is a mechanistic
materialist viewpoint. It emphasizes only the material nature of interest, and it believes that
interests only seek to meet the needs for existence and development of the human being. In fact,
human needs have two aspects: material and spiritual. For instance, human beings need food,
money, sex, and also social recognition and love. Therefore, it is a lopsided view to regard
interest merely as matters related to the material existence and development needs of human
beings because this view ignores people’s spiritual needs.

Another viewpoint is an idealistic one that focuses only on the spiritual nature of interest. It
lopsidedly believes that interest is something concerned with satisfying people’s desires as
opposed to their needs. In fact, desire is completely different from need. Desires change
according to a human being’s subjective will and the objective environment does not necessarily
limit them. However, need emerges from the objective environment in which human beings live.
For example, a beggar may have the desire to be rich when he is really hungry. But his realistic
need is to eat and get full. In other words, the beggar’s need is to find food. His desire is to get
rich. If one equates desire to interest one has deleted the objective nature of interest and has
made it an illusory concept.

The term "national interest" has been used by statesmen and scholars since the founding of
nation-states to describe the aspirations and goals of sovereign entities in the international arena.
It is the general and continuing ends for which a nation acts. Also it is defined as the general,
long-term and continuing purpose which the states, the nation, and the government all see
themselves as serving. It is the vital interests of a state. In its simplest form, the national interest
is the perceived needs and desires of one sovereign state in relation to other sovereign states
comprising the external environment. Hence, national interest is a country's goal and ambition in
international relations.

2|Page
The term national interest is the common material and spiritual need of all the people of a nation/
state. In material terms a nation needs security and development. In spiritual terms, a nation
needs respect and recognition from the international community. Especially for a big country
spiritual needs can be as important as material needs.

1.1.2 Classification of National Interest

National interests vary. They can be classified into various types according to different
standards. Based on content national interests can be classified into political interests, security
interests, economic interests, and cultural interests. Under each of these general categories
interests can be subdivided into even more concrete interests. Political interests can be divided
into political independence, state sovereignty, international status, etc. Security interests can be
divided into military superiority, territorial security, maritime interests and so on. Economic
interests can be divided into the export/import trade, the attraction of international financing,
overseas investment, import/export of technology, etc. Cultural interests may include national
culture propagation, protection from foreign decadent ideas, etc. A nation’s political interests are
the concentrated expression of all national interests, with the core being state sovereignty.
Security interests are the foundation of the national interest. Only when security interests are met
to a certain degree can other national interests be realized. Economic interests are the most
constant national interests. When a country’s survival is reasonably secured, its foreign policy
pursues economic interest as the most important interest. Therefore, economic interests may also
be called a fundamental interest or ultimate interest. Cultural interests are the spiritual aspect of
the national interest, one that is relatively difficult to realize.

Based on the time span for attaining an interest, national interests can be divided into constant
interests and variable interests. The former are perpetual; the latter can be further divided into
long-term, middle-term and short-term interests. Perpetual interests are the most stable. They
will not disappear until the nation state itself disappears. If a nation state wants to exist, it cannot
give up this kind of interest. Examples include territorial integrity, national independence, state
sovereignty, and the ability to pursue economic development. Long-term interests are relatively
stable national interests. They are pursued by a nation state over a long period of time and
include interests like the ecological balance, advance in military force and industrial

3|Page
modernization. These interests arise when human society develops to a certain level. Among
these interests, some may end with the demise of nation-states. But most interests will disappear
before the disappearance of the nation state as an entity, depending in part on the progress of
science and technology. During WWI and WWII, copper was the only material used in shells
and therefore was an important strategic material. With the development of the plastics industry
and the invention of new materials, the strategic use of copper was drastically decreased. Since
the second half of the 1960s, the price of copper has dropped dramatically. Today, the need for
copper is no longer an important national economic interest for most countries.

Mid-term interests are national interests over a fixed period of time. They usually last a few
years or several decades. Examples include importing certain types of advanced military or
scientific technology, striving for a certain kind of economic aid and so on. Short-term interests
are the most unstable of all interests. They change with almost any other change in the
international environment. They are temporal interests that most countries pursue. Examples
include striving for commercial loans, adjusting tariffs and lobbying for a price change in a
particular commodity.

Based on importance, national interests can be divided into vital interests, extremely important
interests, just important interests and less important interests. Vital interests are related to
people's life and security as well as to the long-term stability of a country's political system and
economic life, territorial integrity, political independence, economic independence and the
continuation of the political system. Extremely important interests include a favorable
international strategic balance, the maintenance of national prestige, the ability to choose one’s
model for development, and the guarantee of important economic interests, etc. The difference
between extremely important and vital interests is that the former are under less of a threat than
the latter. Just important interests are interests pursued when there is not an obvious threat, such
as expansion of the export market, maintenance of technological superiority, attracting
international investment, maintaining international political stability, improving friendly bilateral
relations and so on. Less important interests are interests that do not seriously affect national
security or strategic economic interests. Examples would be a company or an individual's
security and economic interest overseas.

4|Page
Based on the scope of an interest, national interests can be divided into universal interests, partial
interests and individual interests. Universal interests are those interests pursued by every
sovereign state, such as state sovereignty, international status, the security of the population and
so on. Partial interests are those pursued only by some countries. They would include the
international order and leadership position pursued by superpowers; dominating roles in regional
affairs and regional cooperation pursued by countries in a defined area, mutual security and
alliances pursued by militarily allied countries and so forth. Individual interests include those of
a single country that are different from the interests of other countries. For example, after the
Cold War, China accelerated its economic development and pursued modernization to catch up
with developed countries; Russia is striving for political stability, seeking to avoid further
national splintering; and the US wants to maintain American dominance, establishing a new
world order under its leadership.

National interests can also be classified into common versus conflicting interests, according to
the nature of the interest; unified or supplemental interests, based on the relationship between
interests; general and special interests, as determined by the function of the interest; physical and
spiritual interests, based on the attributes of the interest; developed countries’ and developing
countries’ interests, as determined by the level of development; and, finally, socialist countries’
versus capitalist countries’ interests, based on the political systems involved. The classification
of national interests then depends on the problems in international relations that we deal with. In
order to clarify the nature and content of various problems we must classify national interests
scientifically and reasonably.

1.1.3 Contending Debates about Essence of National Interest

The idea of using national interest as a cornerstone of foreign policy is the road more traveled by
in world politics. But, there are other analysts who reject the use of national interest as a guide
for foreign policy.
i. The first criticism is that there is no such thing as an objective national interest. Instead,
these critics say, what is in the national interest is totally subjective and exists entirely in
the eye of the beholder. Analysts can accurately point out that national interest has been
used to describe every sort of good and evil. As used by decision makers, it is a

5|Page
 projection of the perceptions of a particular regime or even a single political leader in a
given international or domestic environment.
ii. A second criticism of using national interest as a basis of policy is that it incorrectly
assumes that there is a common interest. The contention here is that every society is a
collection of diverse subgroups, each of which has its own set of interests. Furthermore,
the concept of national interest inherently includes the assumption that if a collective
interest can be determined, then that interest takes precedence over the interests of
subgroups and individuals.
iii. A third difficulty with the idea of national interest is the charge that operating according
to one's self-defined, inherently selfish national interest inevitably leads to conflict and
inequity on the world stage. The logic is simple. If you and I both pursue our national
interests and those objectives are incompatible, then one likely possibility is that we will
clash. Another possibility is that the interest of whichever of us is the more powerful will
prevail. That is, power, not justice, will win out. Certainly, we might negotiate and
compromise, as countries often do. But in an anarchical international system that
emphasizes self-interest and self-help, the chances of a peaceful and equitable resolution
are less than in a hierarchical domestic system that restrains the contending actors and
offers institutions (such as courts) that can decide disputes if negotiation fails.
iv. A fourth common charge is that the way that national interest is applied frequently
involves double standards. This is a political golden-rule principle; at least for idealists
that hold that a country should do unto other countries what it would have done unto
itself. In other words, what a state does must also be right or wrong for other actors in
similar circumstances.
v. A fifth objection to national interest and the way that it is applied contend that it is too
often shortsighted.
One alternative to national interest is to adopt a standard of global interest. Proponents of this
standard contend that the world would be better served if people defined themselves politically
as citizens of the world along with, or perhaps in place of, their sense of national political
identification. Writers of such advocate argue that the apparent vast disjunction between what
humankind must do to survive on the planet in a reasonably decent condition and the way world
society has typically worked throughout history points to the need for substantial evolution of

6|Page
world society in the direction of world community. A significant point in this internationalist
argument is that its advocates claim that they do not reject national interest as such. Instead, they
reject national interest in the shortsighted, narrowly self-interested way that the globalists think it
is usually understood. States should pursue their interest responsibly; that is, with attention to
the consequences for other states. What this means is that leaders should consider the
consequences of a proposed action on the global village as well as on their own state.
Individual interests are another alternative to national interest. Virtually all individuals are
rightly concerned with their own welfare. To consider your own interests could be construed as
the ultimate narrow-mindedness, but it also may be liberating. It may be that your interests, even
your political identification, may shift from issue to issue. In any given situation, it is the nature
of identification that determines how the boundaries of the self are drawn.
It is appropriate to ask, then, whether your individual interests, your nation's interests, and your
world's interests are the same, mutually exclusive, or a mixed bag of congruencies and
divergences.

7|Page
 CHAPTER TWO
FOREIGN POLICY
2.1 Concept of Foreign Policy

A policy is a course of action. They are explicit plans of action that include distinct expectations,
interests and objectives. Policies are reasoned decisions reached after careful deliberations,
analysis and consideration of consequences and competing options. A policy cannot only be a
range of actions; it also represents principles influencing those actions or the purposes they are
intended to serve. Policies could be domestic or foreign. In the field of international relations,
specific policies and actions implemented by State actors in response to external demands and
particular or practical situations domestically, what we refer to as foreign policy. Foreign policy
can therefore be said to “transcend boundaries”. No country can live in complete isolation in the
present day world. As all nations carry on some intercourse with other countries every nation
must have its foreign policy apart from its domestic policy.

Foreign policy has been variously defined. According to some, the foreign policy of a state is the
expression of its national interest vis-à-vis other states. Foreign policy is one of the wheels with
which the process of international politics operates. Foreign policy is not separate from the
national policy; instead it is a part of it. It consists of national interests that are to be furthered in
relation to other states. Almost all the states determine the course of their foreign policies within
the limits of their strengths and the realities of the external environment. The nonpolitical
relations also fall in the scope of foreign policy.

The term “foreign policy” has been defined in number of ways. George Modelski defines it as,
“The system of activities evolved by communities for changing the behaviour of other states and
for adjusting their own activities to the international environment”. Modelski, in his definition,
has emphasized only those aspects of policy, which aim at the change in the existing behaviour
of states, as the primary objectives of foreign policy. In fact, foreign policy includes both the
change in the existing behaviour and continuation of the behaviour at different times. It is
concerned both with the change and the status quo in so far as they serve the national interests
(Modelski, 1962, pp.6-7).

8|Page
F.S. Northedge considers foreign policy to be the use of political influence in order to induce
other states to exercise their law making power in a manner desired by the state concerned. It is
an interaction between forces originating outside the country’s borders and those working within
them (Northedge, 1968, pp. 6-7). Joseph Frankel writes that foreign policy “consists of decisions
and actions which involve to some appreciable extent relations between one state and others
(Frankel, 1968, p. 1)”.

Hugh Gibson defines foreign policy as “a well-rounded, comprehensive plan, based on

knowledge and experience, for conducting the business of government with the rest of the world.
It is aimed at promoting and protecting the interests of the nation. This calls for a clear
understanding of what, whose interests are and how far we can help to go with the means at our
disposal. Anything less than this falls short of being a national foreign policy (Gibson, 1944, p.
9)”.

It is also defined as the sum of official external relations conducted by an independent actor
(Usually a state) in international relations. It includes processes, principles, strategies, methods,
means and objectives. It also refers to a set of priorities and plan of action or percepts established
by national leaders to serve the guideline for choosing various courses of action (behavior) in
specific situation as they strive to achieve their goals.

Foreign policy may generally be described as the official policy actions taken by one state
towards other states. It involves the formulation and implementation of a group of principles
which guide the actions of a state while negotiating with other state to protect or further its
national interest. It should, however, be noted that not all international contacts and relations are
associated with foreign policy. Only those matters that originate with, or are openly or secretly
sponsored by the government of a state may be considered as belonging to its foreign policy.
That is, only “official” or government directed relations between states is included in the concept
of foreign policy.

Foreign policy is defined as general objectives that guide the activities and relationships of one
state in its interactions with other states. It is a consistent course of actions followed by one
nation to deal with another nation or region, or international issue. Foreign policy encapsulates
aspirations and ambitions of a State in the international community and its development is

9|Page
conditioned by a combination domestic politics, external demands, or plans to advance specific
geopolitical and cultural designs. A country’s foreign policy may reflect broad national
objectives or be a very specific response to a particular situation.

The analysis of foreign policy has traditionally focused on government actions, particularly those
related to political and military issues. But in recent decades the focus has changed. Today many
nongovernmental organizations play an important role in foreign policy. Groups as diverse as
Amnesty International, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of political
prisoners, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), a political organization working to
create an independent nation in Palestine, bring different perspectives to foreign policy. Foreign
policy is also formed by organizations representing a group of governments, such as The North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a multinational defense alliance. These groups have
adopted foreign policies on a wider range of issues than in the past, including human rights,
trade, and arms control. As a result, the array of foreign policy issues has become increasingly
diverse.

2.2 Objectives of Foreign Policy

The formulation of a desired foreign policy objective and its proper execution depend to a great
extent on the possession of power. And it is a fact that, national power is limited for all states,
big as well as small. Consequently the formulation of a realistic foreign policy depends on
appraisal of the power reserve and other available resources. The fundamental task of foreign
policy is usually defined as a continuous process of assessing of one’s own and other nations’
capacities and intentions. This virtually might mean;
1) Determining one’s own objectives in the light of one’s own and allied power, that is
actually and potentially available for the pursuit of these objectives;
2) Evaluating the objectives of unfriendly, neutral and friendly nations as well as their actual
and potential capacity to realize them.
Therefore formulation of foreign policy should be preceded by a good deal of situational analysis
in both internal and external to one’s own state. The information gathering and reporting
function of diplomacy is of greater importance in providing input to the formulation of foreign

10 | P a g e
policy. The goals and objectives of any state foreign policy constitute national interest as a basis.
Accordingly the objectives of any state’s foreign policy can be broadly classified in to four;
a. Security

This concept in international politics is vague and has been used and abused by many
governments to justify external aggression and the stifling of internal oppositions. Some
governments claim to intervene in foreign aggression to defend their foreign policy strategy of
preserving national security. For example US intervention in Nicaragua (1980s) and Iraq’s attack
on Kuwait (1990) were claimed as vital for their security. The search for security is a universal
for the fact that, except a few countries like Iceland & Costa Rica, states maintain armed forces
and they commit sizable percentage of GNP for armament. These expenses may be used to:
deter, cope with crimes, rebellion, revolutions, secession, and coup de tat. It can also be thought
of controlling some perceived threats in the future, like terrorists directing against the state,
territorial integrity, sovereignty, and citizens and their ways of life.

b. Autonomy

Autonomy is the ability to formulate and carry out domestic and external policies in terms of a
government’s own priority, whatever those might be. It is the capacity to withstand influences,
coercions, or rules by others. The doctrine of sovereignty provides legal basis for autonomy.
Third world countries charge the asymmetric vulnerabilities as a result of which is enjoying little
autonomy being sovereign; they have little latitude of choice in the international economic
structure. Western policy prescriptions to the LDCs are ones meriting erosion of autonomy.
Voluntary, rational, and proportional responsibility (via treaty) does not mean inexistence of
autonomy. Autonomy can be maintained via reducing erosion: Building up military, scientific
and economic strength; reducing reliance upon external sources (esp. asymmetrical);
strategies of economic diversification (new export markets and multiple sources of needed
imports); and increase the latitude of choice. The long-range trend in the global system, however,
is in the direction of autonomy erosion-globalization is tending to turn states, analogously, to the
status of city municipal authorities of a state.

c. Welfare

11 | P a g e
Since the 20th C., it has become an article of public faith and a wide spread expectation that in
addition to security, governments’ main tasks are to provide their citizens with social services
and promote economic growth and efficiency; these tasks generally enhance or sustain public
welfare. This term is relatively new that up until the 18 thC in Europe, ‘good’ government was
who provide justice and order, was no obligation to deliver a variety of services ranging from
free protection to pension to the elderly. The concept of welfare state today has gone far beyond
providing for those unable (health and economic prospects are absent or limited): maximizing
economic growth& reducing unemployment, providing services to enhance the quality of life of
citizens, sustainable development (care for the environment) rather than just amassing more
wealth for their citizens. Exactly how a government will try to maximize wealth is a matter of
choice. Many of the economic conflicts of in the world today arise from countries’ different
approaches to wealth maximization. Here are some of the main foreign trade strategies:

o Autarky (economic self sufficiency) –this was the behavior of many units in the pre-
industrial age.
o Mercantilism- its basic premise is that trade is a zero-sum-game. It is economic
nationalism.
o Free trade- letting the market determines the location of economic activities-based on
liberal principles.
o Economic coalitions-a strategy of forming grand diplomatic coalitions to seek
fundamental reforms and restructuring of the world trade system. It began initially under
the G-77 and continued via NIEO-N-S dialogue.
o Cartel, regional free trade agreements and new protectionism and so forth.
d. Status and prestige
Traditionally, status and prestige were earned primarily via military prowess/ability and might
(i.e. military parades in Moscow, Athens and France were the international leaders of the 5 th & 8-
9th C in Hellenistic culture and literature & arts respectively. Recently, leadership in science and
technology became the source of status and prestige. Sports have also become a major indicator
of status and prestige. More people know Ethiopia for the excellence of its long distance runners
than for any thing its government has done in international relations.

2.3 Approaches to Foreign Policy

12 | P a g e
In the previous sections you have learned how foreign policy is differentiated form diplomacy
and the contribution of diplomacy to its framing. In this section you will acquaint yourself with
the two broader approaches to foreign policy named; the ideological and analytical approaches.
A. The Ideological approach
The ideological views policies of states vis-à-vis the rest of the world as merely expressions of
prevailing political, social, and religious beliefs. In this approach, foreign policies are classified
as democratic or totalitarian, libertarian or socialist, and peace loving or aggressive.

This dominant approach views foreign relations primarily in psychological terms; it looks to the
motives or ideologies of leaders or governments as the essential, if not the sole, determinant of
policy. It maintains that a democratic regime pursues one type of foreign policy, an autocratic
government another, a communist government a third and a democratic-socialist administration
still another. Its simplistic approach makes it widely acceptable and easily understood. Foreign
policy is considered a function of a political system in action or of the preferences or convictions
of political leaders who carry out its programs.

B. The Analytical approach

As per the analytical approach foreign policy is analytical. At the heart of this view point is the
proposition that policy rests on multiple determinants, including the state’s historic tradition,
geographical location, national interest, and purposes and security needs. To understand foreign
policy, the observer must take into account and analyze a host of factors.
Therefore, in a period of a little more than two decades there has been a reaction against the
ideological approach to the study of international relations. It should perhaps have been obvious
that a conception in which foreign policy is nothing more than a by-product of domestic politics
could hardly do justice to the elements of continuity in national policy. At some point, it became
necessary to recognize that objective requirements of the national interest place certain
irremovable limits place upon any statesman seeking to formulate foreign policy. Regardless of
the intentions, social philosophy, or religious outlook of individuals, there are broad strategic
interests intimately bound up with a nation’s geographic position and international role that
must be safeguarded if its independence is to be preserved.

13 | P a g e
However intangible, the “national mind,” which interprets the national interest, is itself a factor
in the permanence of foreign policy. Out of the interplay of a durable international position with
permanent traditions and institutions, the larger nation states have fashioned foreign policies to
be consistently maintained over long periods, even in the face of drastic changes on the domestic
political scene.
According to this second approach, foreign policy demands, of policy makers, choices and
discriminations of a basic order. Not only are the interests of a nation permanent in character, but
they range themselves in a hierarchy of greater and lesser interests.
Certain interests must be defended at all costs; others should be safeguarded under particular
circumstances; and certain others, although desirable, can almost never be defended. It is the task
of foreign policy, in the first instance, to determine its own hierarchy of interests and next, to
examine the scale of interests revealed in the principles or practice of other nations foreign
policies.

The interests of states, and their power to pursue their claims, are of course immutable for any
given historical period only in the sense that they set broad limits within which choices in foreign
policy are made. They set the framework within which the domestic political contest over
external policies must be waged.

2.4 Instruments of Foreign Policy Implementation

The relation of any two states with in any situation may range from total agreement to total
hostility. Whether they are in state of peace or war, states try to achieve their objective by
influencing each other using different mechanisms. The different techniques they use are the
following:

a) Power as instrument of foreign policy

Power can be defined as the general capacity of a state to control the behavior of others.
Moreover, power may be viewed from several aspects; it is a means; it is based on capabilities; it
is a relationship and process; and it can be measured at least crudely. The multi dimensional
facets of power as an instrument of foreign policy among others include secret intelligence,
propaganda, and economic statecraft.

14 | P a g e
Secret Intelligence-Intelligence is the process of collecting and analyzing information for the
benefit of policy makers. Traditionally the information sought has concerned the intentions and
capabilities of opponents that can threaten a country’s military security. Increasingly, the desired
information has come to include political, economic and social data about other countries. Trade
strategies, foreign investment opportunities, foreign aid planning and much else may depend on
massive data stored in a computer’s memory. Rarely, however, does the collection of data offer a
clear picture with obvious conclusions for policy makers. Information usually comes into on
intelligence agency in bits and pieces from varied sources at different times. While intelligence
activities usually suggest espionage, or spying, to the mind of the public, the proper analysis of
collected information may have become more important than spying itself.

An intelligence agency is a veritable ‘think tank,’ and it needs to be. The information age has
created on ‘all-source glut’ of information. Millions of words pour into an agency daily from
telecommunication interceptors, thousands of embassy and attaché communiqués, satellite
photographs, secret agents’ reports, and other sources. Someone has to distinguish the
significant intelligence from all the ‘background noise’ only after a long periods of sifting and
sorting can intelligence analysis produce patterns of evidence that allow them to brief policy
makers with confidence.

State not only collect information about other states, including military secrets, but also conduct
counterintelligence activities. These activities include protecting one’s own secrets and
neutralizing any threats posed by foreign intelligence agencies.

The usefulness of intelligence activities is difficult to assess because of their clandestine nature.
At this point we at least know that many governments value intelligence activities as a way to
avoid unpleasant surprise, particularly in matters of military security. Today worldwide
intelligence personnel probably number well over a million people and intelligence expenditure
run into the millions of dollars. These facts suggest the importance of intelligence to countries.
Some of the most successful intelligence agencies include CIA of US, KGB of Russia, MI-6 of
Britain, and MOSAD of Israel.

Propaganda

15 | P a g e
States in particular have made sophisticated efforts to penetrate other societies with their
messages. These efforts fall under the rubric of propaganda.

In the international context, propaganda refers to a process of using information and symbols to
change the attitude and thus the behavior of a target population in another country. Usage has
rendered the term pejorative in its connotation. To refer to a message as propaganda is to
suggest somehow that the message involves falsehood and fabrication. Sophisticated efforts at
propaganda frequently include a deliberate mixture of fact and fiction to make a message more
palatable.

Ultimately, in politics what is true, what is false and what is merely slanted or distorted is a
matter of perspective.

Since propaganda involves essentially a process of persuasion, it cannot be equated with

scientific efforts to arrive at some truth. It is not logical discourse or dialectical investigation. It
relies more on selection of facts, partial explanations, and predetermined answer. The content of
propaganda is therefore seldom completely "true" but neither is it wholly “false” as is so often
assumed. The propagandist is concerned with maximizing persuasiveness, not with adhering to
some standard of scholarship or in covering new fact. The common tendency to equate
propaganda with falsehood may itself be a result of propaganda.

A useful "color code" has emerged to characterize the degree of deceptiveness in a propaganda
message. These include:

i. White propaganda: It is information disseminated that what an actor thinks is true and is
at least an honest point of view. The information is from a known source. Most public
relations program by various actors are no worse than white propaganda.
ii. Gray Propaganda: It involves selective reporting if not some actually falsehood and it is
combative in tone. The sources of the message normally announce their identities with
the message.
iii. Black Propaganda: It occurs in a hostile relationship such as war a message designed to
confuse, weaken, demoralize and divide an opponent.

16 | P a g e
iv. Subversive propaganda: It amounts to psychological warfare and carries the purpose of
undermining an opponent. Radio messages, leaflets dropped from planes, and other
means encourage the enemy's soldiers to surrender, or an abuse minority to revolt.

Propaganda is systematic attempt to affect the minds, emotions, and actions of a given group for
public purposes. It is an organized effort by governments to convince foreign states to accept
policies favorable to them. The great bulk of the propaganda messages put out by state aims at
creating a favorable view of a state by other states. Effective propaganda may help increase the
acceptability of diplomatic, economic or military moves.

Propaganda has been one of the prominent instruments that states used to get the foreign policy
accomplished. It involves manipulation of public opinion by symbols and words through mass
media with the aim of “political advertising” and “Psychological warfare”. The end result that
propaganda serves is as varied as the aims of foreign policy itself.

Propaganda has been used for many purposes by countries as an instrument of foreign policy,
among others these includes;

 Encouragement of internal opposition to unfriendly regimes

 Undermining the morale of the other side‟s armed forces
 To indirectly influence the target government to take a friendly and positive attitude
towards one’s own purpose.
As an instrument of foreign policy, propaganda is an attempt primarily to influence another
state/s through emotional techniques rather than logical discussion or presentation of empirical
evidence. It is therefore a process of appealing to emotions rather than minds by creating fear,
doubt, sympathy, anger, or a variety of other feelings. There are a Variety of techniques for
projecting effective propaganda. These are: (a), Telling the Truth: sometimes the truth can be
very damaging to the other side in that it can create public impression that the propagandist state
is justifiable than their own state or government. (b), Lying: outright lies are not common
practices, because they are difficult to support and run the risk of being exposed. Lies which are
sometimes called disinformation can effectively convince the public in another state and create a
distorted image on the targeted state (and its government). (c), Half –Truths: this is a more
common technique than lying. It has three approaches. First, it involves taking a kernel of truth

17 | P a g e
and projecting it as a general statement. Second, it includes presenting controversial information
whose truth or falsehood has never been ascertained as a fact. The third approach is deliberate
omission of information. In this case, the information presented is true but is incomplete.
b) Economic Instrument

Just as modern nations are politically and technology interdependent, so do they rely upon each
other for resource and commodities that enables them to develop and sustain viable economies.
Some economic systems are particularly dependent upon external markets and sources of supply
and could not function more than a few weeks if they were cut off from the rest the world.

Needs that cannot be filled within national frontiers create dependencies on other states. As we
have suggested, degree of need is one variable element in the successful exercise of influence in
international politics. Because economic resources are often scarce needs in the modern world
are frequently of an economic nature. Possession of this resource can be transformed easily into
political influence. It is the need for key raw materials by industrial powers that helps to explain
how ‘weak’ countries, as measured by military or economic capabilities are able to influence the
action of the "strong." Economic resources are among the major capabilities that can be
mobilized for political purpose.

Usually rewards and punishment are the two basic approaches that countries use their economic
power to influence others. When rewards are offered or economic punishments are threatened, at
least two conditions must be satisfied to make the exercise of influence effective.

 The target of the influence act must perceive that there is a genuine need for the reward
or for avoidance of punishment, and
 No alternative markets or source of supply is easily available to the target.

Generally the specific techniques that can be used to reward or punish constitute various controls
over the how of goods between countries; tariffs, quotas boycotts and embargoes. Loans, credits
and currency manipulations can be used for reward as well.

Trade policies and foreign aid are known as economical instruments. The economic techniques
that are used to influence the relationship between states can generally be classified in to two:
persuasive economic techniques and coercive economic techniques. Persuasive economic

18 | P a g e
techniques use the method of offering economic reward or advantage in return for a satisfactory
modification of another state‟s behavior. Coercion is a method through which a state threatens
the other with deprivation or impoverishment unless it submits.

a. Persuasive Economic Techniques: are those methods of offering economic rewards or

advantages in turn for a satisfactory modification of another state‟s behaviors. These instruments
in turn include favorable trade policies, foreign aid, and debt relief. i. Favorable Trade
Policies:- includes Provision of free access to their markets, The lifting up of trade barriers,
Advocacy of imports and Technology transfers and subsidies. ii- Foreign Aid:- Also called
Foreign Assistance (or over seas development assistance), is a policy instrument that is
employed by the developed North to help at least in principle, third world states speed up
economic development or simply meet basic humanitarian needs. Foreign aid constitutes of
different types or forms. These include:

Grants – are funds given free to a recipient state, usually for some stated purpose/s. Loans – are
funds given to help in economic development, which must be repaid in the future out of the
surplus generated by the development process. Loan guarantees--which are sued only
occasionally, are promises by the donor state to back up commercial loans to the recipient state.

Technical cooperation – refers to grants given in the form of expert assistance in some project
than just money or goods. Credits – are grants that can be used to buy certain products from the
donor state. For example, the U.S.A regularly gives credits that can be used for purchases of U.S.
grain.

Military aid –It refers to both the money and the military armaments that are transferred from
the North to the South in a form of aid.

iii- Debt Relief :-Whatever the problems and draw backs, poor states are justifiably determined
to increase their levels of development. To do this they need massive amounts of capital to
supplement their own internal efforts to improve socio-economic conditions. Many things can be
accompanied with domestic resources and drive, but such capital needs require outside resources
as well.

19 | P a g e
b. Coercive Economic Techniques:-is a method through which a state threatens the other with
deprivation or impoverishment unless it submits. It is classified into two ;(i), Economic embargo
refers to limited restrictions of economic relations particularly foreign aid, trade and investment
imposed by usually the developed states to impinge up on the poor but disobedient states of the
South. (ii), economic sanction refers to an outright interruption or blockage of economic
interactions of a state vis – a –vis another state/s.

Use of force/military: Military techniques of foreign policy are usually used as an ultimate
option immediately after diplomacy (or negotiation) fails. There are four ways of application of
military power:

i. Military power as a diplomatic back drop

ii. Military power as a threatening force
iii. Military power through limited demonstration of Violence
iv. Military power as a Direct Action
There are two ways of measuring the effectiveness of war: (1) The state must apply cost
/benefit analysis. This includes comparing the outcomes of military action with the actual loss of
life, human anguish an economic destruction and act accordingly. (2) The second way is in terms
of goal attainment. The issue is whether the accumulation and use of military power achieve the
desired results or not. As far as conditions of success are concerned, the following rules are
believed to lead to successful use of military force. These are: Action should be taken in areas
where there is a clearly defined probably long–standing and previously demonstration
commitment. A state‟s felt and announced Commitment should be strong. Military force is most
successful when used to counter other military force, rather than to try to control political events.
A state ought to early and decisively (with sufficient force) use force than to threaten and then
escalate slowly. Establish clear goals. Work to secure widespread domestic support of the action
and goals.
c) Diplomacy as instrument of foreign policy

In seeking to achieve objectives, realize values, or define interests, governments must

communicate with those whose actions and behaviors they wish to deter, alter, or reinforce.
Today, there are many occasions and media of communications, which are used by government

20 | P a g e
officials to transmit their wishes and hopes to foreign governments and peoples. Nevertheless,
most official attempts to wield influence aboard are carried out through formal diplomatic
channels or by direct communication between foreign ministers and heads of states. Having this
introduction we will discuss diplomacy in the next section in detail.

2.5 Types Foreign Policy

Generally speaking, we can identify two types of foreign policies:
A. The policy of the status quo: This policy, whether followed by a large or small state,
seeks to maintain a stabilized set of international relationship that includes the relatively
advantageous situation the state now enjoys. When a state that follows this policy is faced
with conflict, it tries to avoid the aggravation of the conflict. It works for the resolution of
the dispute at low level of tension.
B. The policy of revisionism: This policy is strategically offensive. A state that follows this
kind of policy will not seek or agree to a stabilization of international relationship until it
achieves what it seeks. Such a state will not only accept conflict, but also actively seeks it
as long as it offers a hope for the attainment of an objective.

2.6 Foreign Policy Behavior

Foreign policy behavior refers to the actions states take towards each other that might mainly
include; formation of alliance, establishment or suspension of diplomatic relations, threat of
actual use of force, giving or withdrawal of foreign aid, voting in international organizations,
conclusion of trade agreements etc…These acts are not end in themselves but are tied in some
way to larger purposes ranging from regional dominance to aims such as acquisition of territory.

Not all foreign policy acts are called foreign policy and not all foreign policy is called foreign
policy behavior, since the policy might be different from the behavior and vice versa. In short
foreign policy and behavior of foreign policy might not always correspond to each other. We
can know whether policies and behavior correspond to each other by observing governments’
action or statements or words and deeds which usually correspond to patterns of friendship and
hostility. In a friendly relationship between countries, statements and actions would show the
extent of friendship while in hostile relationship statements and actions would exhibit them
clearly. Sometimes rhetoric and action diverge. There could be critical statement made against a

21 | P a g e
government but it might accompany cooperative behavior and vice versa. Occasionally such
discrepancy might reflect conflicting policy priorities.
The best example in case is Iran’s nomination of USA, Israel and The Soviet Union as the “three
great satans” in the 1980’s while at the same time receiving military assistance from them in the
war against Iraq. Here the security threat posed by Iraq was much more important to the Iranian
leaders than the ideologically based crusade or opposing the great satans. Therefore, what may
appear to be erratic behavior and inconsistency in actions on the part of states has a certain logic
to it that is grounded in broader policy consideration.
This being the case various factors (emanating from within and outside) could contribute to
states actual behavior to depart from the already stated foreign policy doctrines. Among other the
following could be the most considerable ones;
 Lack of united voice within the government
 The role of influential domestic actors in disturbing or depart from foreign policy
doctrines
 Failed states: due to civil war, ethnic factions and other kinds of internal crisis
 Factors emanating from outside like drastic change in the international system,
influences from powerful states or even unexpected behavioral change from other
external actors
 Lack of foreign policy consensus within government: sometimes decision makers might
not agree on the elements and alternative courses of actions of the foreign policy
formulated. That could cause discrepancy in terms of behavior from the doctrines.
There are three major patterns of foreign policy behavior that includes;
A. Self preservation: Maintaining the status quo
B. Self extension : revising the status quo in one’s favor
C. Self abnegation: revising the status quo in someone else’s favor or self sacrificing
The first two patterns, according to realists is possible but not the third one. For them seldom
states self sacrifice their own interests to others.
It must be noted that, the behavior of state’s change overtime and with different sets of leaders
and conditions. These changes of behavior could be due to change of leadership or change of
certain other conditions.
2.7 Foreign Policy Orientation

22 | P a g e
Foreign Policy Orientation is a course or strategy states follow/ choose depending on their
position in the international system to attain their foreign policy objectives. It can also be defined
as states general attitudes and commitments towards the external environment based on the
examination of global structure of power and influence. State’s foreign policy orientations could
be an outcome of cumulative factors dictated by internal and external political, economic,
environment and etc. Let us see some examples of foreign policy orientations.

Isolationism: is none or low level of involvement in most issue areas in the international system.
This is characterized by low degree or no level of involvement in interactions like diplomatic
contacts and economic linkages. It may be influenced by the following factors:

a. The assumption that state security can be assured by reducing transaction with other
state/s,
b. The existence of diffused multi-polar system,
c. Geographic features particularly distance,
d. the level of self-sufficiency,
e. the roles of leadership and
f. Domestic need to produce what the nation wants.
This foreign policy orientation is primarily characterized by the principle of delinking also called
Autarky on the basis of which the state follows a close the door policy (which can be partial or
complete) with the outside world. Isolationism has economic and political dimensions.

Neutrality: This implies the lack of commitment by a state to provide its military and diplomatic
support for the purpose of another state. States with this foreign policy orientation do not usually
form military alliance and do not help states in times of war. They may not also offer their
territory for the passage of especially military goods of another state. They may however let the
passage of non-military goods for humanitarian purposes. But depending on their will, they can
offer their good offices for the mediation and negotiation of other states. In fact, neutralism is a
legal status recognized by other states and the international law.

Non alignment: is a foreign policy course adopted by states to refrain from alignment with
military and ideological blocs of the cold war. During the cold war period states either join either
of the blocs or remain neutral and the later is considered as a strategy pursued to escape the

23 | P a g e
bipolar trap as a gesture of political neutrality. This foreign policy orientation is similar with
neutralism in two aspects:

I. First likewise neutral states, states that pursue non-alignment do not commit themselves
militarily to support other state/states.
II. In addition, they do not form military alliance with other states.
Non-alignment differs from neutralism in two aspects:
i. A state with non-alignment policy may give different diplomatic support for
blocs/alliances or for states in a fight.

ii. Moreover, non-alignment is not a legal status. It is simply the wish of that state and
therefore it is not recognized by other states and the international law.

Alliance Formation:-Alliance formation can have economic, military and religious

dimensions/forms.

Economic alliances are in principle formed on the basis of states‟ interest to achieve mutual
economic benefits and gains. They include: - (a), Cartels (like the OPEC), (b), Free Trade Area
(like the NAFTA), (c), Common Market in a form of Economic Community (like the EEC,
COMESA and EAC) and at last (d), Economic Integration (with common economic policy and
monetary system), like the one realized by the EEC-EU organizational framework.

Military Alliances are purely political motivated by the desire to forge common military defense
system through setting up an organization against another counter military bloc. E.g. NATO

Religious Alliances are another form of alliance system through which states with common
official state religion organize themselves towards achieving mutual economic, political and
socio-cultural/religious cooperation amongst one another. E.g. Arab League (AL).

2.8 Determinants of Foreign Policy

A) Domestic factors

24 | P a g e
Multitude of domestic factors might affect the substances of a state’s foreign policy. Domestic
factors are those conditions or elements that make the totality of relations of a particular state.
The content of domestic factors include the following

I. Geographic/Topographic characteristics

This comprises location, natural recourses, size, state boundaries, population, climate, soil and so
on. Some examples of such factors include;

Strategic location of the state:-Djibouti is advantageous as a result of its access to open sea
unlike Ethiopia (which is land locked). Shape and topography:-The shape of the country can
either be compact like Ethiopia or elongated/disjoined like Chili and Italy. Compact shaped
countries are easier to defend and topography offers boundaries with natural defense barriers
(mountains, forests, rivers, deserts, oceans etc).Number and nature of neighboring countries:-
Sudan and Ethiopia having numerous neighbors than Djibouti would imply the potential negative
effect on security than Djibouti could have. It influences the state’s foreign policy positively or
negatively parallel to their multiplicity.

II. Historical tradition:-A state’s foreign policy action may be influenced by historical styles and
cultures. For example Ethiopia has long standing history in maintaining its territorial integrity
and non-interference in the affairs of other states. This foreign policy principle is result of its
historical tradition.

III. Natural resource:-Whether a country is richly or poorly endowed with natural resources, it
will be influenced by this fact in making its foreign policy. Oil and water resources in the Middle
East and the horn of Africa respectively are influential resources on states’ foreign policy issues.

IV. National capacity:-This refers to military strength, level of technological advancement,

economic development, quality of the population etc. Foreign policy must be compatible with
the national capacity for better outcome.

B) International environment/external determinants

I. International Law: International laws and regulations do also affect the substance of a state’s
foreign policy. These are rules of conduct in the international system that foreign policy decision
25 | P a g e
makers have to reckon accurately with. Interstate regulations cannot be maintained without a
certain minimum regulation (conventional, customary, ethical or institutional). These to some
extent govern and constrain the behavior of the actors in their intricate relations and limit their
degree of freedom. As a result policy outputs needs to meet the demands of international law. A
state or some group of states acting a contrary to international law might enter in to difficulty to
settle their relations with other states since the law facilitates a common ground for states to
interact amongst each. Otherwise the conduct of cross boundary interaction among them would
appear inconsistent and somehow difficult to settle. Therefore, states should definitely take the
exiting international rules in to account in designing their foreign policy.

II. Globalization: The existing high level interdependence among nations of the world does also
affect the modes and contents of foreign policy followed and adopted. In the exiting competitive
global system states are trying to get the best for the prosperity of their economy. In this regard
currently they are giving due emphasis to economic diplomacy and excreting much of their effort
to improve their economic interaction with countries and regions of the world where they
believed would promote their economic interest.

III. Policies and actions of others: Policymaking requires taking sufficient account of what
others have done, are doing and are likely to do in response to a particular policy. However, how
much account policy makers will take depends upon the relative capabilities (power) of sates.
Generally, foreign policy depends on power. Limited power is equivalent to limited foreign
policy objectives. Therefore who gates what depends one’s ability to influence or persuade the
behavior of others. In this regard, how much state’s consider the policies and actions of others
depends on the extent of power that they wield compared to others.

26 | P a g e
 CHAPTER THREE

FOREIGN POLICY MAKING AND EVALUATIONS

3.1 Foreign Policy Decision Making

Decision making must be the starting point if we wish to understand the dilemmas of acting in
the complex international system. Those who are formally responsible for taking decisions in
foreign policy and carrying it out are politicians of various descriptions. Their precise titles and
locations in the political structure will vary a great deal according to the type of state or other
international actor they represent. The delineation of the roles of responsible decision makers
will involve a discussion of the various institutions which tend to be involved such as; executive
councils, inner cabinets and the providers of intelligence.

The nominal chief of foreign policy operation in most states is the foreign ministers. They are
still considerably important by virtue of specializing in external policy but they struggle to keep
control of their vast portfolio, increasingly invaded by colleagues running other ministries.
Moreover they are increasingly influenced by head of governments who decides to take a direct
interest in foreign affairs. Heads of governments, whether they intend or not are invariably drawn
in to foreign affairs and a large proportion of their time is spent up on it.

Regarding foreign policy decision, those who occupy the highest position in a state have the
opportunity to dispose of a great deal of influence. Such officials have the state resource at their
disposal and foreign policy decision does not require frequent legislation from parliaments or the
legislature that gives a fairly unstructured decision environment. As a result this provides a
considerable opportunity for the relatively small group of men and women who are the formal
political decision makers to exert leadership in foreign policy and personify the state in their
actions. How do such higher officials influence foreign policy decisions might depend up on a
mix of factors including; the personal and political qualities of the personalities, the nature of the
issue being decided and the political structure of the state in question.

The making of foreign policy has traditionally been regarded as one of the key features of
international politics. It reflects the importance of statecraft as an activity through which national
governments manage their relations with other states and international bodies. Indeed, foreign

27 | P a g e
policy-making has sometimes been thought of as a noble activity, seen as ‘high’ politics in that it
deals with issues of sovereignty and security – in fact, the very survival of the state – as opposed
to the ‘low’ politics of economics and other less important state activities. However, recent
developments have called the concept of ‘foreign policy’ into question, certainly casting doubt
on the conventional notion of foreign policy as a discrete activity, engaged in at a senior political
level and involving formal diplomatic interactions between and amongst states. These pressures
have came from various directions. In the first place, the emergence of neo-realism in the late
1970s appeared to suggest that foreign policy, and indeed the wider process of decision-making
in international politics, was simply no longer relevant. In the view of Kenneth Waltz and
others, state behavior could essentially be explained through the power balances that shape the
international system. As systemic factors were seen as decisively important, little or no role
discretion was left to foreign policy actors, such as heads of government, foreign ministers,
defence ministers, leading diplomats and so forth. The ‘logic of anarchy’ explained everything.

Further pressures have been generated by the advance of globalization and the growth of
‘complex interdependence’. These developments dramatically widened and deepened the scope
of the interactions between and amongst states. As the distinctions between home and abroad,
inside and outside, and ‘high’ and ‘low’ politics became perhaps hopelessly blurred, the divide
between ‘foreign’ politics and ‘domestic’ politics became increasingly difficult to sustain. If the
notion of ‘the foreign’ is meaningless, can foreign policy any longer exist? The matter was made
yet more problematical by the fact that globalizing trends have also been associated with the
advent of post-sovereign governance and the burgeoning importance of non-state actors: TNCs,
NGOs, terrorist groups, international organizations and so on. At the very least this meant that
foreign policy can no longer be thought of simply as ‘what states do to, or with, other states’.

Nevertheless, the study of foreign policy remains a worthwhile activity, for at least two reasons.
First, although the foreign/domestic divide may have become blurred, it has not been rendered
redundant. The simple fact is that the world is still more separated into distinctive communities
than it is a single, homogenizing entity (Hill 2003). How these communities attempt to manage
the relations between and among them therefore continues to be an interesting and important
issue. Second, foreign policy highlights the crucial interplay between structure and agency,
emphasizing that events can neither be explained entirely through ‘top-down’ systemic pressures

28 | P a g e
nor entirely through ‘bottom-up’ individual decision-making (see Structure or agency? p. 72). In
so doing, foreign policy underlines the crucial significance of a sphere of decision, choice and
intentionality within global politics.

The making of decisions, and specifically of bundles of decisions, is clearly central to the policy
process. Although policy-making also relates to the acts of initiation and implementation, the
making of decisions and reaching of conclusions is usually seen as its key feature. However, it
may be difficult to establish how and why decisions are made. In foreign policy-making a levels-
of-analysis is commonly adopted, in line with the three levels at which Waltz (1959) analyzed
the causes of war:

 The level of the individual decision-maker (involving personal priorities, psychological

and cognitive dispositions and so on)
 The nation-state level (involving the nature of the state, type of government, bureaucratic
structure and so on)
 The systemic level (involving power balances within the international system, the web of
state interdependence, dynamics of global capitalism and so on)

Nevertheless, a number of general theories of political decision-making have been advanced. The
most important of these are rational actor models, incremental models, bureaucratic organization
models, and cognitive processes and belief-system models.

3.2 Theories of Foreign policy making

Rational actor models

Decision-making models that emphasize human rationality have generally been constructed on
the basis of economic theories that have themselves been derived from utilitarianism. Developed
by thinkers such as Anthony Downs (1957), these theories are usually based on the notion of so-
called ‘economic man’, a model of human nature that stresses the self-interested pursuit of
material satisfaction, calculated in terms of utility (use-value; the balance of pleasure over pain).
In this light, decisions can be seen to be reached using the following procedures:

 The nature of the problem is identified.

29 | P a g e
  An objective or goal is selected on the basis of an ordering of individual preferences.
 The available means of achieving this objective are evaluated in terms of their
effectiveness, reliability, costs and so on.
 A decision is made through the selection of the means most likely to secure the desired
end.

This type of process assumes both that clear-cut objectives exist, and that human beings are able
to pursue them in a rational and consistent manner. The best example of such an approach to
decision-making is found in the use of cost–benefit analysis in the making of business decisions.
In line with the goal of profit maximization, business people make decisions that will ensure the
least possible cost and the greatest possible benefit, both calculated in monetary terms. Realist
theorists make similar assumptions about decision-making in international politics. In their view,
foreign policy is guided by a single overriding goal: the pursuit of vital national interests,
understood, at minimum, as ensuring state survival, and beyond that the pursuit of power to
enable the state to achieve its national ambitions. This may be dictated by system-level pressures
(as neorealists suggest) or by egoistical pressures that operate in and through the state itself (as
classical realists argue); either way, it implies that the role of individual decision-makers is
largely restricted to the selection of the best means of achieving a pre-determined end.

The rational actor model is attractive, in part, because it reflects how most people believe
decisions should be made. Certainly, politicians and others are strongly inclined to portray their
actions as both goal-orientated and the product of careful thought and deliberation. When
examined more closely, however, rational calculation may not appear to be a particularly
convincing model of decision-making. In the first place, in practice, decisions are often made on
the basis of inadequate and sometimes inaccurate information. Such difficulties encouraged
Herbert Simon (1983) to develop the notion of ‘bounded rationality’. This acknowledges that, as
it is impossible to analyze and select all possible courses of action, decision-making is essentially
an act of compromising between differently valued and imprecisely calculated outcomes. Simon
described this process as ‘satisficing’. The second problem with rational actor models is that they
ignore the role of perception: that is, the degree to which actions are shaped by belief and
assumptions about reality, rather than by reality itself. Little or no importance is thus attached to
individual and collective psychology or to the values and ideological leanings of decisionmakers.

30 | P a g e
Incremental models

Incrementalism is often portrayed as the principal alternative to rational decision- making. David
Braybrooke and Charles Lindblom (1963) termed this model ‘disjointed incrementalism’, neatly
summed up by Lindblom (1959) as the ‘science of muddling through’. This position holds that,
in practice, decisions tend to be made on the basis of inadequate information and low levels of
understanding, and this discourages decision-makers from pursuing bold and innovative courses
of action. Policy-making is therefore a continuous, exploratory process: lacking overriding goals
and clear-cut ends, policy-makers tend to operate within an existing pattern or framework,
adjusting their position in the light of feedback in the form of information about the impact of
earlier decisions.

Indeed, incrementalism may suggest a strategy of avoidance or evasion, policy-makers being

inclined to move away from problems, rather than trying to solve them. Lindblom’s case for
incrementalism is normative as well as descriptive. In addition to providing a perhaps more
accurate account of how decisions are made in the real world, he argued that this approach also
has the merit of allowing for flexibility and the expression of divergent views. ‘Muddling
through’ at least implies responsiveness and flexibility, consultation and compromise. However,
the model is clearly best suited to situations in which policy-makers are more inclined towards
inertia rather than innovation. It thus explains the foreign policy trends of pro-status-quo states
more easily than those that seek to revise or overturn the status quo. For example, incremental
appears to explain the policy of appeasement, pursued by the UK and increasingly also France in
the 1930s. This involved giving in to hostile demand from Hitler’s Germany in the hope of
avoiding war, but ended up emboldening Germany, if only by convincing Hitler that the western
powers would never act to prevent Nazi expansionism. On the other hand, Nazi expansionism
itself, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in 1942, and, for that matter, more recent examples,
such as the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, can hardly be described as incremental adjustments.

Neorealists would further argue that the different foreign policy strategies of status-quo states
and revisionist states can better be explained by the larger balance of power than by an
inclination amongst certain policy-makers to ‘muddle through’. Finally, incrementalism places

31 | P a g e
little or no emphasis on the role of beliefs and values, which may, for instance, have been a
crucial factor driving foreign policy decision-making in Nazi Germany.

Bureaucratic Organization models

Both rational actor and incremental models are essentially ‘black box’ theories of decision-
making; neither pays attention to the impact that the structure of the policy-making process has
on the resulting decisions. Operating on the nation-state level, bureaucratic or organizational
models try, on the other hand, to get inside the black box by highlighting the degree to which
process influences product. This approach was pioneered by Graham Allison (1971) in his
examination of US and USSR decision-making during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Two
contrasting, but related, models emerged from this study.

The first, usually called the ‘organizational process’ model, highlights the impact on decisions of
the values, assumptions and regular patterns of behavior that are found in any large organization.
Rather than corresponding to rational analysis and objective evaluation, decisions are seen to
reflect the entrenched culture of the government department or agency that makes them.

The second theory, the ‘bureaucratic politics’ model, emphasizes the impact on decisions of
bargaining between personnel and agencies each pursuing different perceived interests. This
approach dismisses the idea of the state as a monolith united around a single view or a single
interest, and suggests that decisions arise from an arena of contest in which the balance of
advantage is constantly shifting.

Although these models undoubtedly draw attention to important aspects of decision-making, they
also have their drawbacks. In the first place, the organizational process model allows little scope
for political leadership to be imposed from above. It would be foolish, for example, to suggest
that all decisions are shaped by organizational pressures and perceptions, for this would be to
ignore the personal role played by, say, George W. Bush in initiating the ‘war on terror’, or
Hitler’s influence on Germany’s decision to invade Poland. Second, it is simplistic to suggest, as
the bureaucratic politics model does, that political actors simply hold views that are based on
their own position and on the interests of the organizations in which they work. Although the
aphorism ‘where you stand depends on where you sit’ may often be applicable, personal

32 | P a g e
sympathies and individual goals cannot be altogether discounted. Finally, to explain decisions
entirely in terms of black box considerations is to fail to give any weight to the external pressures
that emanate from the broader political, economic, cultural and ideological context.

Cognitive processes and belief-system models

Models of decision-making that place an emphasis on the role of cognitive processes and beliefs
highlight the degree to which behaviour is structured by perception. What people see and
understand is, to an extent, what their concepts and values allow them, or encourage them, to see
and understand.

This tendency is particularly entrenched because, in most cases, it is largely unconscious.

Although decision-makers may believe that they are being rational, rigorous and strictly
impartial, their social and political values may act as a powerful filter, defining for them what is
thinkable, what is possible, and what is desirable. Certain information and particular options are
therefore not appreciated or even considered, while other pieces of information and other courses
of action feature prominently in the calculus of decision-making. Indeed, Kenneth Boulding
(1956) underlined the vital importance of this process by pointing out that, without a mechanism
to filter information, decision-makers would simply be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of data
confronting them.

However, there are different views about the origin and nature of this filtering process. Robert
Jervis (1968, 1976), for instance, drew attention to evidence of consistent misperception on the
part of decision-makers in international affairs. In his view, this stemmed largely from
ethnocentrism. The inclination of Anthony Eden and the UK government to view General Nasser
as a ‘second Hitler’ during the 1956 Suez Crisis, and the tendency of the USA in 1959 to regard
Fidel Castro as a Marxist revolutionary, may be examples of this phenomenon. Irving Janis
(1982), on the other hand, suggested that many decisions in the field of international relations
could be explained in terms of what he called ‘groupthink’. This helps to explain how and why
contrary or inconvenient views may be squeezed out of consideration in the decision-making
process.

33 | P a g e
Radical theorists, constructivists and feminists have each, in their different ways, highlighted the
important role played by beliefs in the formulation of foreign policy. Radical theorists have
tended to argue that senior policy-makers, both at a state level and within international
organizations, are influenced by ideological biases that favour the interests of dominant
economic and social groups. Capitalist economic structures are therefore seen as ‘natural’ and
beneficial, meaning that free trade, market reforms and globalization are viewed in positive
terms, with alternatives to them seldom being seriously considered. For Marxists, this is a
reflection of ruling class ideology.

Constructivists regard foreign policy-making as an intersubjective world, shaped more by ideas

and identities than by supposedly objective facts. The interests that guide foreign policy do not
therefore emerge out of the systemic pressures of the international system or from the nature of
the state, but are fashioned by ideational processes at either a domestic or international level. In
short, ideas and identities determine interests.

Feminists, for their part, may argue that a preponderance of men amongst policy-makers ensures
that the ‘glue’ of politics is provided by patriarchal ideas and values. This results in policy biases
that help to sustain a system of male power.

Foreign policy decision-making whether in a democratic or dictatorial states, is limited by an

intricate web of government and social restraints. This web can be understood in terms of three
general aspects of foreign policy making: (1) types of government, (2) types of situations and (3)
types of policy.

Types of Government

One variable that affect the foreign policy process is a country's type of domestic political
system. It is important that we classify political systems such as democratic and authoritarian
governments as a preliminary step to studying their variance in policy and process. This is
because differences in the process (how policy is decided) results in differences in policy
substance (which policy is adopted.). The difference between democratic governments and
authoritarian government is not exact. However, the standard that differentiates the two is how
many and what types of people can participate in making political decision(s). For example, in

34 | P a g e
Canada, political participation is extensive, because only few adults are formally excluded from
the political process. In other countries such as China and North Korea, participation is limited to
an elite based on an individual's political party, economic standard and social or some other
factor (Nathan 1998). The second criterion for judging forms of government is how many forms
of participation available: For example, in the United States, political dissent is public, frequent,
often strident, and touches on issues ranging from the president’s foreign and domestic policies
through his personal life. By contrast, China tolerates very little open disagreements with
government’s policy. Although the government in Beijing has tried to present a less authoritarian
image in recent years, there are still instances of arrest of dissidents, the oppression of minorities
(especially Muslims and Tibetans, the lack of democracy, and other restrictions).

Types of Situations

Irrespective of the form of government, policy-making process in not always the same. Situation
is one variable that determines the exact nature of the foreign policy process. For example, there
are differences in policy making in crisis situations compared to non-crisis situations. A crisis is
a circumstance in which decision makers are (1) surprised by an event (2) feel threatened
(especially military), and (3) believe that they have only a short time in which to make a decision
(Brecher and Wilkenfield 1997). The more intense each of the three factors is, the more acute the
sense of crisis. Decision makers usually strive during a crisis to make rational decisions, but their
ability to gather and analyze information is hampered by the exigency of time. Anxiety or anger
engendered by a crisis often increase the emotional content of decisions. Thus, with limited
information, little time to think, and with heightened emotions, leaders rely heavily o preexisting
images. The result of these is that only rarely does a coherent picture emerge. This means that
decision- makers will respond to a situation according to the images they already have. If
leaders, for example, perceive another country as aggressive and if that country mobilizes its
forces during a crisis, then decision maker will probably see that act as preparing for attack
rather than a preparation for defense.

Types of Policy

Policies are of various types. How foreign policy is decided also varies according to the nature of
the issue area involved. Analyzing this depends on the idea that issues that address different

35 | P a g e
subject areas will be decided by different decision makers and by different process. Arguably
presidents and other lenders have greater power to decide foreign policy than they do to
determine domestic policy. Domestic policy is an area in which legislatures, interest groups, and
even public opinion play a greater role.

One explanation for this argument may be that many policies are neither purely domestic nor
purely foreign. Instead they have elements of both policy types (foreign and domestic), and thus,
constitute a third type called intermestic policy. Foreign trade is a classic example of an
intermestic issue because it affects both international relations and domestic economy in terms -
of jobs, prices and other factors. The influence of political leaders is less on such intermestic
issues because they, like domestic issues, directly impact and activate interest groups, legislators,
and other sensational actors more than do foreign policy issues. It follows that presidential
leadership is strongest on pure foreign/defense policy issues, weaker on mixed (intermestic)
issues, and weakest on pure domestic issues (Rourke and Boyer, 2003). Generally, the process of
foreign policy involves a number of stages, including;

1. Assessment of the international and domestic political environment: Foreign policy is

made and implemented within an international and domestic political context, which must be
understood by a state in order to determine the best foreign policy option. For example, a state
may need to respond to an international crisis.

2. Goal setting: A state has multiple foreign policy goals. A state must determine which goal is
affected by the international and domestic political environment at any given time. In addition,
foreign policy goals may conflict, which will require the state to prioritize.

3. Determination of policy options: A state must then determine what policy options are
available to meet the goal or goals set in light of the political environment. This will involve an
assessment of the state's capacity to implement policy options and an assessment of the
consequences of each policy option.

4. Formal decision making action: A formal foreign policy decision will be taken at some level
within a government. Foreign policy decisions are usually made by the executive branch of
government. Common governmental actors or institutions which make foreign policy decisions

36 | P a g e
include: the head of state (such as a president) or head of government (such as a prime minister),
cabinet, or minister.

5. Implementation of chosen policy option: Once a foreign policy option has been chosen, and
a formal decision has been made, then the policy must be implemented. Foreign policy is most
commonly implemented by specialist foreign policy arms of the state bureaucracy, such as a
Ministry of Foreign Affairs or State Department. Other departments may also have a role in
implementing foreign policy, such as departments for trade, defense and finance.

3.3 Foreign policy Evaluations

As the reader goes through the analysis of foreign policy making of individual countries, he
unavoidably is concerned with evaluating them. Have the policy makers made a “good” or a
“bad” decision? Has the foreign policy pursued by a given country been successful” or
“unsuccessful”? In terms of what criteria and what canons shall we judge and render a verdict?

The student generally is inclined to be very sympathetic to foreign policy analysis in terms of
basic ethical criteria. This is not, however, an easy job-nor is it analytically satisfactory. The first
difficulty is that of agreeing on ethics. For those who consider an ethical principle more
important than human life, outright destruction in its name is preferable to peace. War and
destruction may be inevitable to preserve what is so highly valued. In other words, it is not
always easy to find people agreeing on the highest normative goal.

It is based on the assumption that, at least for the time being nation-states are here to stay and
that their foreign policy must be evaluated in terms of the success and failure to implement the
goals they pursue. In the international community each and every state is allotted some power,
which alone or in combination with others allows it to keep its autonomy and way of life or,
conversely, prevents destruction by others.

Power relations, it must be noted express themselves in number of form. Alliances, international
law, cooperative schemes, and even integrating schemes express and regularize power relations
akin to what constitution, a judiciary, and a police system do at the domestic level.

37 | P a g e
Evaluation of foreign policy might also involve an aspect of cost analysis. We must undertake a
cost-factor analysis-that is to say we must try to asses the nature of the means used and their
effectiveness in terms of the costs they entail. Given a scarcity of resources, a high-cost policy,
even if successful, may be failure if it is shown that it has deprived a given system of the means
required to meet other and perhaps more pressing needs.

Last but not least, whether a given policy has succeeded or failed is incumbent upon the analysis
to show that success could not be obtained by any other means or alternatively, that failure could
have been averted by the choice of different means. Otherwise, no conclusive and coherent
explanation can be given regarding the relationship between means and ends.

The difficulty in evaluating foreign policy, it should now be clear may well be insurmountable.
They are only compounded by the following requirements, which alone can prove the proper
context in which we may dare evaluate;

1. We must first provide a clear description of the predicament: it is more important to

identify how the predicament was perceived. In other words, to determine why a certain
situation was or is considered by policy makers to be a predicament.

2. The next step, related to the first, is to make an effort to assess the flow of information and
intelligence that goes into the formation of the perception of the policy makers: Is there only
one source? Which one? Do they provide the same facts and figures, or do they differ? If
they differ, how are differences resolved in accepting one set of information flows and
rejecting another?

3. This leads us to our third required piece of information: Which governmental units are
most responsible for coping with the predicament? And if it falls (at least technically) within
the jurisdiction of more than one, what types of intergovernmental and inter unit
arrangements exist to allow for a concerted action?

38 | P a g e
 4. At this stage, assuming that the information sources, the nature of the predicament, the
perception of the predicament, and the particular governmental units and procedures used in
order to make a decision are known, we need to have a clear statement and description of the
action resulting from the decision actually made e.g. an ambassador was recalled; economic
aid was offered; an official was bribed; the Marines were dispatched.

5. A knowledge of the action taken (or contemplated) must be coupled, at least when
analyzing democratic foreign policy making with the possession of an unambiguous
declaration of the anticipated consequences of the action or decision. The simpler and the
smaller the number or numbers of consequences anticipated, the easier the evaluation. The
greater the number and the more complex the goal, the more difficult the assessment unless
one is able to peel often rhetoric that often accompanies a decision from its substance, or
unless we can establish a set of priorities of goals ranging from the imperative ones through
the desirable ones down to the least-expected but simply hoped-for. Such priority
assessments are not always easy to make, for the time dimension within which policies are
implemented constantly forces reconsideration and reshuffling of priorities.

39 | P a g e
 CHAPTER FOUR: DIPLOMACY

4.1 The Concept of Diplomacy

The word ‘diplomacy’ is believed to have originated from the Greek word ‘diploun’ meaning
‘two fold’. In the days of the Roman Empire all passports, passes along imperial roads and way-
bills were stamped on double metal plates, folded and sewn together in a particular manner.
These metal passes were called ‘diplomas’. At a later date this word ‘diploma’ was extended to
cover other and less metallic official documents, especially those conferring privileges or
embodying arrangements with foreign tribes. As these treaties accumulated, the imperial
archives became encumbered with innumerable little documents folded and endorsed in a
particular manner.

It was found necessary to employ trained hands to index, decipher and preserve these documents.
The subject matter of these collected state-papers, kept in the archives, which were connected
with international relations were known in the middle ages by the titles diplomaticus or
diplomatique. Those who deal with theses papers were said to belong to res diplomatique or
diplomatic business. From these antecedents gradually the word ‘diplomacy’ came to be related
with the management of international relations, and those who managed them came to be
regarded as diplomats.

Different authors have provided varying definitions of the word diplomacy. Let us examine some
of the important ones;

‘Diplomacy is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between
the governments of independent states, extending sometimes also to their relations with vassal
states; or, more briefly still, the conduct of business between states by peaceful means’ (Ernest
Satow [1917] 1979: 1).

‘Diplomacy is the management of international relations by negotiation; the method by which

these relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys; the business or art of the
diplomatist’ (Harold Nicolson [1939] 1969: 4–5).

40 | P a g e
‘Diplomacy is the conduct of relations between states and other entities with standing in world
politics by official agents and by peaceful means’ (Hedley Bull 1977: 162).

‘Diplomacy is concerned with the management of relations between states and other actors.
From a state perspective diplomacy is concerned with advising, shaping and implementing
foreign policy’ (R. P. Barston 1988: 1).

‘Diplomacy is the conduct of international relations by negotiation rather than by force,

propaganda, or recourse to law, and by other peaceful means (such as gathering information or
engendering goodwill) which are either directly or indirectly designed to promote negotiation’
(G. R. Berridge 1995: 1).

Diplomacy is ‘the peaceful conduct of relations amongst political entities, their principals and
accredited agents’ (Hamilton and Langhorne 2011: 1).

Thus, some definitions of diplomacy emphasize 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 organizations may be properly viewed as engaging in
diplomacy (Vienna Convention 1961). Rather than trying to pin down the best definitions of
diplomacy, therefore, it is more interesting to chart how and why the popularity and use of
different ones changed over time and from place to place.

While examining the above-mentioned definitions put forward by different authors, a few points
are quite evident. First, it is clear that the most important constituent of diplomacy is
“negotiation”. Second, these negotiations are conducted to further the interests of the state
concerned. So, a primary concern of diplomacy is to further the interests of the state. Third,
diplomatic measures are adopted to safeguard and advance the state interest as far as practicable
through peaceful means. Hence, maintenance of peace without injuring state interest is a major
aim of diplomacy. But if peaceful means fail to safeguard the national interest, force may be
employed. It is an acknowledged fact that there are close links between diplomacy and war.
Fourth, diplomacy is closely connected with the aims of foreign policy of the state concerned.

41 | P a g e
Fifth, modern diplomacy is closely related to the state-system. Thus, diplomacy is inseparably
bound to inter-state representation.

4.2 Foreign policy and Diplomacy

Any policy or decision has to be put in to practice so that its main objectives are realized. The
same is true for foreign policy. Foreign policy has many such instruments that contribute to its
successful accomplishment and diplomacy is one of them. Therefore the main focus of this
section is to show how foreign policy is related with diplomacy and the contribution of the later
for the realization of foreign policy.

It can be stated that foreign policy is the process of identifying the elements which a state
considers constitute its vital national interest and designing effective strategies to attain and
protect them. Diplomacy on the other hand, is a set of tools and techniques at the disposal of
foreign policy. It promotes conversation, negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration. At
its best, diplomacy searches for areas of agreement among the competing interests of states and
strives to harmonize them so that there would emerge a situation which would not give sufficient
cause to any of the parties to go to war.

Foreign policy in its dynamic aspect is a system of actions of one government towards another or
of one state towards another. It includes the sum total of a state’s foreign relations and the
current form of its interests and objectives. Framing of foreign policy is perhaps the highest
political function of a state. Errors in its formulations can lead to most serious repercussion.
Because of its significance, the formulation of foreign policy has been the prerogative of the
chief executives of a state in all ages.

In many respects and to many persons foreign policy and diplomacy appear to be almost
identical. Though there are intimate connections between foreign policy and diplomacy they are
not identical and have definite distinctions. The foreign policy of a state, is the substance of
foreign relations, whereas diplomacy is the process by which policy is carried out. In other
words, the purpose of diplomacy is to provide the machinery and the personnel by which foreign
policy is executed. Thus while foreign policy is the substance diplomacy is the method.

42 | P a g e
Foreign policy is based upon a general conception of national interests. Diplomacy, on the other
hand, is not an end but a means; not a purpose but a method it seeks, by the use of reason,
conciliation and the exchange of interests, to prevent major conflicts arising between sovereign
states. It is the agency through which foreign policy seeks to attain its purpose by agreement
rather than by war. Thus when agreement becomes impossible, diplomacy, which is the
instrument of peace, becomes inoperative; and foreign policy, the final sanction of which is war,
alone becomes operative.

Foreign policy of a nation is aimed at promoting and protecting the interests of that nation. A
primary function of diplomacy is also to protect and further the national interests. Thus
apparently both foreign policy and diplomacy seem to have identical functions. But there are
some fundamental differences between them. In this multinational world, in order to safeguard
and further the national interests, every state, has to decide upon its attitude towards the other
states of the world and the course of action to be adopted and pursued in world affairs. This
attitude can be regarded as the foundation stone of the formulation of the foreign policy of a
nation. Once this foundation is laid down and the foreign policy is formulated, then emerges the
role of a diplomat to implement the decision by his activities. Thus if the primary function of the
foreign policy is to take decisions about foreign relations the primary task of diplomacy is to
execute them properly and effectively.

Indeed, diplomacy is intimately related with foreign policy. But while foreign policy is more
concerned with formulation of a decision, diplomacy is chiefly connected with its execution. It
however, helps in the foreign policy formulation as well. It is the diplomats who send
information regarding other states their attitude, strength, weakness, aspirations etc. on the basis
of which the executives frame foreign policy. Thus diplomacy influences the decision making
organ to a great extent.

Each nation has its own objectives and aspirations. To fulfill these objectives and aspirations a
nation frames its own foreign policy. The quality and the success of a foreign policy does not
depend on the abstract goals of that policy but upon its concrete execution. In this field
diplomacy has a great part to play. Though diplomacy is not concerned with the actual
formulation of foreign policy, it assists in its formulation by various means; it transmits the

43 | P a g e
policy adopted, tries to explain it and negotiates agreements which ensure the security of a state
both in times of war and peace. Diplomacy thus attempts to adjust and reconcile differences by
intermediating intelligently and tactfully between the governments. It will be wrong to
conjecture, as some people viewed it that, while diplomacy is chiefly concerned with
negotiations it becomes inoperative during war. As has been pointed out elsewhere war is a
continuation of diplomacy through means other than peaceful. That during wartime diplomacy
plays a different but expanded role, has been actually proved during various wars.

The ultimate decision is taken by the foreign office and the decision taken becomes the foreign
policy of that state. But after a foreign policy is adopted it becomes the duty of a diplomat to
execute it to the best interest of his nation. In the fast-moving process of international politics a
diplomat is required to utilize all his talents to reach an agreement that will be beneficial to his
state. The success or failure of the foreign policy of a state thus depends to a large extent on the
ability of its diplomats to conduct purposeful diplomacy.

A diplomat who is supposed to execute the foreign policy decisions sometimes can influence
these decisions by his activities. One of his main functions is the gathering and reporting of
information. By the selection and evaluation of the data which he forwards to his home
government he can also influence the thinking of the high level decision makers so as to
practically stack the cards he personally prefers. In addition, this on-the-spot re-commendations
carry an aura of authenticity that gives them much weight at home. The diplomats are aware of
this fact. As a result some diplomats try to influence the foreign policy decisions of their
governments and they sometimes obtain considerable success in their endeavor.

Thus diplomacy has intimate relations with foreign policy and its principal purpose is to provide
machinery and personnel for the execution of foreign policy decisions taken by the government.
But because of this intimate relation diplomacy can also play an important part in the foreign
policy formulation. At the same time it should be borne in mind that, though a close relation
exists between diplomacy and foreign policy, and sometimes diplomacy has even been regarded
as a synonym for foreign policy and one cannot be thought of without the other, the two are not
identical.

44 | P a g e
To sum, diplomacy is the machinery States utilise to achieve foreign policy objectives. It is one
of a set of instruments through which actions are executed and policy objectives established.
Diplomacy is the manner of action or reaction of a state towards the external environment, with
the ultimate aim and objective of achieving specific goals towards the enhancement of national
interest.

However, diplomacy should not be confused with foreign policy: the latter is the substance of
State objectives while the former is the process by which policies are implemented in the
international community. Diplomacy is the medium for the achievement of the specific foreign
policy objectives of states. Diplomacy is the central technique of foreign policy, other techniques
revolve around it. As a human concept, diplomacy is dynamic and does not occur in a vacuum: it
is set in the international system, in a specific diplomatic environment (hostile, adversarial,
coalition, and mediation diplomacy), and the domestic context influences its conduct, but its core
function remains gathering information and impressions to analyse and report to the home office.

4.3 Historical Development of Diplomacy

Under this sub section we will discuss the origin and evolution of diplomacy. This discussion is
divided in three time periods.

i. 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. 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. For others, the Amarna period fails the test of being a

45 | P a g e
proper diplomatic system because the parties exhibit no self-restraint in the interests of
preserving their system and achieve no institutional expression of that system; for example,
resident embassies.

The answer to when diplomacy started, as argued above, seems bound up with how diplomacy is
defined and by whom. For example, until very recently it has been conventional in the Western
world to interpret the earlier diplomatic experience of humanity as a precursor to the emergence
of modern diplomacy in seventeenth-century Europe. In this story, while most peoples only
managed to send missions when there was something to negotiate, the Greeks are distinguished
by their permitting proxenoi (local citizens) to represent them, although without plenipotentiary
(negotiating) powers. The Romans, as hegemons, are presented as uninterested in the give-and-
take of diplomacy.

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 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. On this model, and
unlike in the past when ambassadors tended to go on short-term diplomatic missions,
ambassadors would reside in the host country for years, sending reports to their governments
back home by whatever means were available. A product of the exchange of resident diplomats,
as noted earlier, was the development of a diplomatic corps, the corporate collection of diplomats
in any one capital, from Constantinople to London.

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.

46 | P a g e
As we shall see below, this story of how modern diplomacy emerged and was perfected in its
essentials remains important and useful. However, as power now appears to be shifting away
from Europe and America, and power itself may be transforming in such ways as to make
sovereign states less powerful and important, there is a growing sense that the conventional story
does not exhaust all the possibilities for diplomacy. Recently therefore, interest has revived in
how diplomacy used to be conducted in Europe before its states-system was consolidated, in
other parts of the world before the Europeans arrived, and between the Europeans and
indigenous peoples they encountered. Interest has also revived in how so-called primitive
peoples conducted (and in some cases still conduct) their diplomatic relations with others.

ii. Modern diplomacy in the Westphalia 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.

As noted above, diplomatic historians tend to see modern diplomacy in its bilateral form
emerging on the Italian Peninsula during the Renaissance.

Many scholars regard the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) that ended Europe’s Thirty Years’ War
between Protestants and Catholics, as formalising (but by no means inventing) the principle of
state sovereignty and thus ‘ushering in the era of modern diplomacy’. Thus, Westphalia’s
association with the sovereign state became synonymous with modern diplomacy. Even though
the resident bilateral diplomatic mission emerged earlier, in the fifteenth century as we have
seen, Westphalia’s importance in the seventeenth century was that it both represented and
constituted the notion of modern 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. In short, Westphalia reinforced
bilateral diplomacy, which was already recognisable on the Italian Peninsula, while also pointing
to a more multilateral future for diplomacy. With bilateral diplomacy (the resident mission) and

47 | P a g e
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. Thus was born the idea of the professional diplomat as a
key feature of modern diplomacy and international relations.

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. Thus, the Concert was dominated by small, exclusive
meetings of the leading statesmen from Austria, Prussia, Russia, Britain and France, such as
Prince Metternich (Austria), Lord Castlereagh (Britain) and Prince Talleyrand (France). The

Concert is widely associated with a period of relative peace in Europe for much of the nineteenth
century and up to the outbreak of war in 1914.

In diplomacy’s long history, World War I (1914–1918) stands out for two reasons. One, the war
was blamed on diplomats conducting the ‘old diplomacy’ of secret treaties, shifting alliances and
great-power backroom deals. Two, in the war’s aftermath, the multilateral method was taken to a
new institutionalised level with the creation of the League of Nations (the ‘new diplomacy’).
Under the League, diplomats conducting multilateral diplomacy would no longer meet for a few
days at a time in a European capital and then return home (on the Concert model). Now, some
diplomats at least would be permanently accredited to an international organisation, rather than
to a country. This represented an important conceptual shift – albeit one that failed in this
instance, with the disbandment of the League during World War II, which it manifestly failed to
prevent.

48 | P a g e
However, the establishment of the United Nations (UN) in San Francisco in 1945 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 (roughly1945–1989) saw the re-
emergence and general acceptance of institutionalized multilateralism, with the establishment of
the extensive UN system, even if there was a sense that the UN was not central to the diplomacy
of the great power contest that was surfacing at the time. 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.

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, as just
noted, 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.

49 | P a g e
A second effect of decolonisation was a dramatic proliferation of sovereign states in the
international system. Some 51 countries signed the UN Charter in 1945. By 1989, the UN’s
membership had grown to 159. In 2010, the world body had 192 members

Proliferation of sovereign states

 1919: 25 states participated in the Paris Peace Conference, formally ending World War I
and setting up the League of Nations.
 1945: 51 states participated in the 1945 San Francisco Conference, establishing the UN.
 1990: the United Nations has 159 member states.
 2010: the United Nations has 192 member states.

At the UN, the impact of the proliferation of new states had two almost contradictory effects:
radicalisation and socialisation. Radicalisation was manifested in claims for economic and social
development and declarations like the infamous 1975 Zionism is Racism General Assembly
resolution. Socialisation was manifested, for example, in acceptance of the idea that the UN now
acted as the membership committee for the international community (where previously this had
been left to countries acting bilaterally). In addition, new members generally accepted the norms
and routine practices of UN-style multilateral diplomacy.

In short, 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. The Convention set out the
five key tasks of diplomacy. It also codified the immunities and privileges accorded to diplomats
while serving abroad. Dear learners, we will discuss the tasks & immunities of diplomacy in
other sections.

How does diplomacy operate under hegemonic conditions? Until recently, it has been common
to talk of a unipolar world, as distinct from a bipolar or even multipolar one, revolving around
the sole remaining superpower, the US. The Cold War’s end in 1989 led to yet another expansion
of international society, with the addition of over twenty new countries from the disintegrating

50 | P a g e
Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, a series of events that reinforced the persistence of
sovereignty and a state-based diplomatic culture. And, even as the rise of emerging powers such
as Brazil, India, China and South Africa challenges any unipolar US claims, the new powers in
no way suggest that these power shifts will be undertaken without diplomacy and diplomats.

This early post-Cold War conventional wisdom was that the US conducted a form of hegemonic
diplomacy, not unlike imperial Rome. As former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali
(1999: 198) remarked pointedly in his memoirs: ‘The Roman Empire had no need for diplomacy.
Nor does the United States’. In fact, the US conducts its relations unilaterally, bilaterally, and
multilaterally. The George W. Bush administration tended to emphasise the unilateral (while in
practice operating in all three spheres); the Obama administration tends to emphasise the
multilateral (while also in practice operating in all three spheres) in ways that no other country
can presently match.

Yet, as we discuss further below, there are countervailing trends, pointing to a world less
dominated by a state-based diplomatic culture grounded unmistakably in sovereignty. The UN
today is not simply a meeting place for over 190 sovereign state diplomats, but is becoming an
amalgam of players from the sovereign, business, and non-governmental worlds, where
sovereignty-questioning norms such as the responsibility to protect (R2P) – the idea that the
international community could intervene with force after the state had failed to protect its own
citizens – are evolving.

To sum up this section, the norms, assumptions and practices of the modern Westphalian
institution of diplomacy have some of their origins in ancient forms of practice dating back to the
Amarna era. But they are also impressively different and, as we now argue, still useful.

iii. The future of diplomacy in a post-Westphalian world

Prediction is always difficult, especially in the social sciences. The relationship between the
social world and people’s ideas about it is complex, and scholars argue over what is changing
and what is meant by change. Consider the question of whether or not sovereign states and their
diplomacy are disappearing. Common sense suggests they are not. In fact there are probably
more states and more diplomatic missions now than at any time before the unifications of Italy

51 | P a g e
and Germany in the nineteenth century (1861 and 1871 respectively). Reflection suggests they
might be disappearing. It is possible that states and their diplomacy are no longer what they used
to be presented as being: namely, the most important actors and processes in international
politics.

The world no longer turns on cable traffic between the embassies and chancelleries of a few
great powers as it did at the start of World War I in August 1914. To complicate matters further,
however, empirical analysis reveals that states were never as sovereign or as important as was
assumed in their heyday. August 1914 was an exceptional and decisive moment, perhaps, but
outside the parameters set by that great-power crisis there was a great deal of international
relations going on to which sovereign states, their foreign offices and their diplomats were not
central. In considering the future of diplomacy, therefore, we begin by acknowledging that at any
given moment one can identify a number of possible trends, and that the present is always
capable of yielding multiple possible futures, although some seem more likely than others.

In general our review of the premodern, modern, and postmodern ideas of diplomacy confirms a
very long history indeed. Even if there is disagreement about the premodern origins of
diplomatic practices in forms that we would recognise today, there is little doubt that diplomacy
preceded the sovereign states-system. Throughout these three broad historical periods, our
review provided many examples of a diplomatic system that is capable of reproducing itself, but
also of reconstituting itself in significantly different forms. The evidence of diplomacy from the
pre-Westphalian period is important, because it seriously challenges the state-diplomacy link
assumed in the literature and indeed by many, but by no means all, contemporary practitioners.
We can therefore imagine a future without the state. But as we have conceived of the subject
here, we cannot imagine any future without diplomacy. Even within the context of a state-based
international order, diplomacy is becoming more important because it and the people who are
said to practise it are increasingly needed (Sharp 2009). Moreover, if indeed international
relations are moving in a post-hegemonic direction, then diplomacy is more likely to prosper. In
one form or another, the US, China and other major players see advantage in returning to it.
Moreover, there is clear evidence of an emerging non-state diplomatic conception in which well-
organised groups are now acting, or claiming to act, diplomatically, at least in a minimal sense

52 | P a g e
even if not yet in the full Vienna Convention sense. Students of IR therefore need a good
understanding of diplomacy and diplomats (and the many conceptual issues involved).

4.4 Objectives of Diplomacy

A. Political Objectives

For any state, primary concern of its diplomacy is the safeguarding of its political independence
and territorial integrity. This can be done by the strengthening of relationships with the friendly
countries, cultivating cordial relations with the countries that have so long been indifferent to it
and the neutralization of the hostile forces. Friendship can be commenced and new friends
obtained through fruitful negotiations. This is further made easier if there is a mutual
identification of interests.

One of the essential objectives of fruitful diplomacy is to prevent other states from combining
against one particular state. This purpose can be achieved through various means such as, by
entering into an understanding with some powers, showing favors to some and sowing doubts in
the minds of others regarding one’s political allies etc.

As the outcome of a war is often unpredictable, diplomatic means are taken recourse to shun a
mishap as far as possible, though not at the cost of national interest. But if a state feels that its
interests can be served only by armed conflict, it will not hesitate to plunge into it. Before
starting such a war a state will try to gauge properly its strength vis-à-vis its adversary. By skilful
diplomacy it will also try to isolate its opponent; there by weakening it morally. At the same time
the state concerned will endeavor to get as much support as possible from its friends so that none
of them would go against it. In the modern period it is also essential for it to mobilize the world
public opinion in its favor in order to justify its cause.

A fundamental political objective of diplomacy is to achieve its ends peacefully. But if that is not
possible, other measures can also be adopted. Richard W. Sterling states these preferences in the
following order: agreement rather than disagreement, disagreement rather than sacrifice or even
risk of interests, peace if it avoids such sacrifices or risks and war if deemed necessary to protect
the interests of a state. Such an ethos, he points out, “implies a fundamental lack of responsibility
to anything other than the self-regarding state, and where there is a multiplicity of such states, the

53 | P a g e
incidence of violence and such other unpleasant things as secretiveness and deception is bound to
be high. The rate of incidence can decline only with the growth of a more inclusive sense of
responsibility to replace the exclusivity of micro politics.”

But until a macro political system emerges, diplomacy as means to gain political objective will
remain operative both during peace and war. It cannot be denied that war and peace are hardly
mutually exclusive conditions. In cases, political conflict and bargaining play equally important
roles. The axiom “when diplomacy stops war starts” has, therefore, no real foundation.
Bargaining, which in peace time is called diplomacy, continues even when the shooting starts;
only its character changes; and war can be regarded as a continuation of bargaining through
violent means. Whether bargaining is carried on through peaceful negotiations or violent means,
power especially military power, always lurks in the background. That is why Fredrick the Great
commented “Diplomacy without armaments is like music without instruments.” Diplomacy,
thus, can fulfill its political objective only if it is effectively backed by power.

B. Economic Objectives

Though apparently political considerations appear to be the prime concern of a state’s

diplomacy, the economic factors are also no less important. The capitalist countries of the world
are constantly busy in acquiring foothold in new markets and at the same time are eager to
safeguard their economic interests in the region where they have been able to secure a strong
footing by eliminating competition. During the last hundred years commercial diplomacy as an
objective of national policy has been gaining ground. Technologically developed nations have
been trying to exploit the weak and underdeveloped countries economically. The use of the terms
like ‘financial imperialism’ ‘dollar diplomacy’ etc., testifies to this fact. With the breakdown of
laissez faire and free-trade system and the consequent emphasis on national economics, both the
developed as well as the underdeveloped nations have found that trade and commerce can be
used as major instruments of national policy. As a result, attainment of economic gains has
become an important objective of diplomacy.

After the Second World War a considerable number of colonies acquired freedom and emerged
as sovereign states. But they knew that political freedom alone would not be sufficient, unless
accompanied by economic advancement. The industrialized countries tried to exploit this

54 | P a g e
situation to their advantage. Panikkar has most appropriately remarked that, “Industrialization
depends, among other things, on capital goods and the great industrial countries which alone can
supply these goods are thereby placed in a position to bargain for political and economic
advantageous terms for financial investments, for freedom to trade etc. Quotas, licenses,
currency control and other techniques of commercial intercourse have now become normal
instruments of diplomacy. The developed countries are bound to seek privileges from the
underdeveloped countries after having provided assistance to them. Sometimes, these privileges,
if obtained, encroach upon the sovereign status of the newly independent states. So a tussle goes
on between the potential aid-giver and the aid-seeker for getting better terms. It is here that
diplomacy is called upon to play a significant role, as both the sides have their respective
national interests at stake.

Revolutionary improvements in the field of communication and the consequent interlinking of

different countries have facilitated international trade to a great extent. The international trade is
now mainly controlled by the state and obviously each country seeks to establish a pattern of
trade suitable to its economy. Diplomatic negotiations are carried to promote the trade interest.
To serve trade and economic interests modern diplomacy has developed special machinery that
is entirely different from the old consulates.

2.3 Cultural Objectives

In the modern world cultural delegations are often sent to foster good relations with the other
countries. They act as the ambassadors of good will. Cultural exchanges, thus, enable the
inhabitants of the countries’ exchanging delegates to understand each other’s views in a better
way. The diplomatic objectives of sending cultural delegates is to exhibit cultural greatness of a
country and, if possible, to influence the public opinion of the recipient country in its favor . If a
country can impress upon its cultural heritage and export it to other parts of the globe, it can
facilitate the building up of a strong base for gaining support in those areas in diverse matters.
Exhibition of cultural superiority is often more powerful than exhibition of military power. That
cultural connections can substantially bring two sets of people closer, is a recognized fact now.
That is why nations are now busy in establishing cultural contacts. They organize cultural

55 | P a g e
exchange programmers and build permanent cultural centers in other countries. These cultural
centers have now become an effective tool of diplomacy.

D. Ideological objectives

Ideologies have long been regarded as a major factor in molding international politics. This
power of ideology has become fairly manifested in the modern world which is broadly divided
into opposing ideological camps.

The ideologization of modern international politics has tended to embitter relations to such an
extent that rational solutions to political problems are becoming more difficult. Ideologies rather
than ‘political ideas’ or formulas which have been monopolizing political thoughts and political
proposals are often criticized on the ground that they lack ideological content. This has often
proved to be a stumbling block in settling matters through diplomacy.

In spite of these adverse effects of ideology on diplomacy, it is a fact that ideology in the
present-day world has become intimately connected with diplomacy. Indeed, it is the diplomatic
objective of both the camps (in the cold war period) to win over as many countries as possible to
their view points. If they cannot convert a country to accept their ideology, they try at least to
bring them out of the orbit of the other side. In other words, the ideological objective of
diplomacy is to bring as many nations as possible, to one’s ideological fold and in case it is not
possible at least to neutralize them so that they do not join the opposite camp.

For instance in the cold war period the two superpowers are more or less recognized as the
leaders of two opposing ideological camps, other powerful states belonging to the two camps
often compete for obtaining regional leadership. This competition may, sometimes, even cause a
split within a camp. The ideological struggle between the superpowers increased the bargaining
capacity of the comparatively weaker nations. In this ideological conflict their aim was to derive
advantage from both the camps. As a result a large number of states in the modern world claimed
that they were non-aligned, i.e. they did not belong to any camp or follow the lead of any
superpower. They formed a loose group of their own which is not free of competition and where
they view with one another to be recognized as the leader of the third world.

4.5 Importance and Functions of Diplomacy/diplomats

56 | P a g e
 4.5.1 Importance of diplomacy
Diplomacy has many and varied important roles to play in international relations. It has been
appropriately regarded as the oldest method that men have devised for resolving the problems of
war and peace. In the conduct of relations among organized societies, diplomacy reduces the
possibility of the use of force by adopting the methods of negotiation, persuasion, exchange of
ideas etc.. that often lurks in the background.

In a world consisting of so many sovereign states two factors; diplomacy and international law
are most important in the maintenance of peace. While international law has given some
semblance of order in an otherwise anarchical world, diplomacy as a preserver of balance and
peaceful international order has been greatly elevated in the modern world . As Morgenthau
points out, a pre-condition for the creation of a peaceful world is the development of a new
international consensus in the foundation of which diplomacy can contribute peace through
accommodation. This international consensus provides favorable situation upon which more
adequate world political institutions can be built. Kissinger, like most other realists, also assigns
an important role to diplomacy in the adjustment of differences among nations.

Diplomacy has always played a very great role in adjusting international policies. It is evident
that very few problems in international relations can be completely erased. Majority of them
have to be adjusted or settled through compromise. This can be done through diplomacy. In this
respect Richard W. Sterling’s observation deserves notice. He says, “Diplomacy is, indeed, the
politics of international relations, it is international politics in the most precise sense of the term”

He says, “Apart from the differing contexts, the purposes of politics and diplomacy are identical.
Both seek to unite a plurality of interests or at least make them compatible, or both seek to make
some interests prevail over others. Indeed, it goes to the credit of diplomacy that it seeks to
reconcile plurality of interests there by reducing the chances of conflict.

The other importance of diplomacy is relating to conflicts, disputes and international order.
Diplomacy plays crucial roles of creating, drafting and amendment of variety of international
rules of normative and regulatory kind and provides structure to the international system. In the

57 | P a g e
event of potential or actual bilateral or wider conflicts or dispute, diplomacy is concerned with
reducing tension, clarification, seeking acceptable formulae and, through personal contact,
“oiling the wheels” of bilateral and multilateral relations.

4.5.2 Functions of Diplomacy

The function of the diplomat is not so much to formulate his government’s goals as to explain
them aboard and attempt to persuade others to adjust their own policies to conform to those
objectives. A diplomat is partially successful when he/she can get the government to which
he/she is accredited to see a particular situation, as his own government perceives it; he/she is
totally successful when he/she is able to alter or maintain the actions of a foreign government.

Diplomacy is conducted by officials with a variety of titles such as president, prime minister,
ambassador, or special envoy. Diplomats not only seek to represent their states to the world, but
also seek to represent the world back to their respective states, with the objective of keeping the
whole ensemble together. Diplomats play special roles in promoting and upholding national
interest in the international scene.

According to article 3 of the 1961 Vienna Convention 3, the functions of a diplomatic mission
are as follows:

1) Representing the sending State in the receiving State;

2) Protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals,
3) Negotiating with the Government of the receiving State;
4) Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and
reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State;
5) Promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and
developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations.

Functions of diplomacy are organically interlinked and segregation could lead to a distorted
image of the diplomatic institution. Let us discuss the above functions in detail;

1) Representation – Whether substantive or symbolic, diplomats personify the states in their

host countries. They are agents of communication between the home office and the host country

58 | P a g e
which they have been accredited. A diplomat’s function as a representative could be symbolic,
legal and political.

It is the function which permanent missions performed more visibly since their establishment as
organs of external relations of States. The representation function means that diplomatic agents
participate to events in public life, standing for the sending State, i.e. the approval attitude which
it assumes with respect to significant moments in the public life of the country of residence. The
diplomatic mission doesn’t represent the chief of State nor the Government, but the sending State
as subject of international law. This is why it is necessary to make a clear distinction between the
function of representation of a diplomatic mission and the juridical act of representation in
international law. International representation of States is a juridical rapport on whose ground a
State grants another State the right to fulfill juridical actions towards a third State. Subsequently,
in the case of international representation we can identify three subjects of international law. It is
not the case of diplomatic mission, which is not a subject of international law, but an organ that
helps maintaining and developing relations between two States as subjects of the diplomatic
rapport.

2) Negotiation: – The core function of negotiation is to provide a channel for peaceful resolution
of disputes. Diplomats are negotiators. Negotiation is a cocktail of tact and technical skill that
attempts to find a common ground among two or more divergent parties. Because diplomats are
involved in drafting and discussing bilateral and multilateral agreements - treaties, conventions,
communiqués, protocols, etc. The skill of negotiation is pertinent: they must always be conscious
of the country’s national interest.

Similar to representation, it is one of the functions that permanent diplomatic missions performed
since their establishment. Negotiation means examining a problem of common interest in order
to solve it. From this point of view, negotiation cannot be limited to discussions in the process of
sealing international accords. Currently, they represent an important field in the activity of a
diplomatic mission, performing the negotiation function when conducting discussions with
competent organs of the receiving State on problems of mutual concern: defending the interests
of the sending State’s citizens on the territory of the receiving State, solving litigations, obtaining
advantages and preventing any political and economical measures that would handicap one State

59 | P a g e
or the other etc. Negotiations can be official (initiated formally in the name of two States) or
officious (probe contacts that do not commit the States in any way). Official negotiations are
direct (between the chief of the diplomatic mission and the chief of State) or indirect (between
the chief of the diplomatic mission and the international affairs ministry or the subordinates of
the latter). Negotiation is often considered a mixture of scientific and artistic methods, since the
diplomat must have knowledge, experience and talent to be a good negotiator. Study of history,
in general, and history of diplomatic relations, in particular, are very useful in developing the
mastery of negotiation.

3) Information. A primary diplomatic role has always been to gather information and keep their
governments posted with development in the host state. The analyses and report of diplomats are
of good value: they inform the formulation of policies in their home country. For example, if a
Nigerian diplomat stationed in India reports back home about the economic impact of
outsourcing in India’s IT industry, it might influence Nigeria’s foreign policy on technical
assistance.

Promoting friendly relations, neighborliness and cooperation between States depends on mutual
understanding of States’ economical, social and political realities. Hereby the information and
observation function. By performing this function, the diplomatic mission provides the sending
State data obtained by lawful means, regarding domestic life and international politics in the
country of residence. The diplomatic mission must perform its functions using official and
officious contacts, mass media and local journals, literary and scientific publications. Concerning
this aspect, under section (d) from article 3, the 1961 Vienna Convention stresses the lawful
character that any information source used by the diplomatic mission must have.

4) Diplomatic protection. There is a close connection between representation, negotiation and

protection functions. By performing the latter, the diplomatic mission achieves protection of
interests that the sending State and the personnel under its authority might have in the country of
residence. Actually, when the diplomatic mission represents its State and negotiates with
authorities in the receiving State, then it acts in the name of specific interests, in order to accredit
and promote these interests. The defense function as recognized by international law allows the
diplomatic mission to offer diplomatic protection to citizens of the sending State, who are or live

60 | P a g e
in the receiving State. Interventions at a diplomatic level can eliminate prejudicial pursuit, repair
prejudice suffered by these citizens and try by lawful means to defend them against unlawfulness
they could be subjected to.

5) International cooperation. The aim of the diplomatic mission is expressed by a central

function that polarizes the attitude of all other functions in the direction of the other goal:
promoting friendly relations and cooperation between the sending State and the receiving State.
Hence, diplomatic missions fulfill an essential role when investing in the bilateral relation virtues
that transform it in the primary positive element in the process of placing international relations
on moral, fairness and lawful principles. If we imagine international relations as an immense
network, the bilateral relation constitutes the basic rapport of this structure, while the dominating
climate of this bilateral rapport, cultivated according to requests of neighborliness, friendship,
cooperation, mutual understanding and respect between peoples, can be disseminated in the
whole structure of international relations causing their positive development. In the economic
field, the diplomatic mission can negotiate cooperation agreements in various domains, can take
measures to perform them or intensify by various means material and spiritual changes between
the respective peoples.

Furthermore, diplomats can perform the following functions such as;

A. Public Relations: As the legal and symbolic representative of his country a diplomat is
engaged in continuous efforts to create and propagate goodwill in favor of his own state
and its policies. This can be done by effective propaganda as well as by maintaining good
public relations. Giving and attending parties and dinners, delivering lectures and other
speeches, attendance at or participation in dedications of monuments, buildings, foreign
assistance projects etc., are the various ways of maintaining public relations. Some
scholars question the effectiveness of such public relation activities, because they are
unsuitable yardsticks of a diplomat’s success. But if a diplomat refrains from
participating in these social gatherings it may give cause to unnecessary ill-will; it will at
least fail to brighten the image of his country. Therefore, diplomats always endeavor to
maintain good public relations by various means.

61 | P a g e
 B. Crisis management: is related to handling conflicts between the concerned states since
diplomats are in the front line for conflict management and resolution, communication
conveying and clarifying of messages between governments.
C. Promoting and cultivating friendly relations: states usually interact in multitude of
areas and sectors. As a result diplomats nurture a gesture of good interaction in the fields
of politics, economics, military, culture, science, technology and others. This creates
feelings of respect and cordiality and smoothes the general courses of actions in their
interactions.
D. Administration: Administration of office is technically not the duty of a diplomat. But a
diplomatic mission sent to other countries now consists of a large entourage. The
ambassador or the minister as the head of the mission, therefore, has to shoulder the
responsibility of managing and coordinating the work of the mission. He may have
departmental heads, placed under him who assists him in this matter. But, finally, he is
the person responsible for the proper functioning of embassy or legation, and ultimate
administrative responsibility lies with him.

4.6 Major Types of Diplomacy

There are various ways of classifying diplomacy based on different criteria such as the purpose,
actors/rank /status of personnel’s, numbers of states involved, the context/situation/environment
in which it is conducted, etc. Hence, below we will discuss these various types of diplomacy as
follows;

a. Bilateral Diplomacy

It signifies /connotes communication in international relations limited to two parties on matters

of exclusive interest on bilateral agenda. It is about the conduct of relations on state to state basis
via resident missions when the states enjoy diplomatic relations through official representatives
located in permanent missions. This method is much more important when states may have not
exchanged missions or one state may not have mission on the other’s territory.

b. Multilateral diplomacy

62 | P a g e
Refers to conference attended by three and more states. Multilateral diplomacy is prompted by
multitude of reasons that includes symbolic and practical ones. Multilateral diplomacy has now
become established and diverse feature of modern diplomacy, conducted through global
institutions, permanent conferences and a variety of regional and sub regional institutions.
Multilateral international institutions provide a global arena for states and other actors in which
participation demonstrates their sovereign equality masking disparities in terms of the real
economic and political power that they hold. The state is able to project its views and receive
diplomatic recognition of its identity. Multilateral institutions also provide a frame work or sense
of solidarity, within which states are able to display independence and operate within a large
group. The institutions are also seen as the preferred route or vehicle for articulating concepts of
international order. General rule making in a wide variety of areas and the containment of
conflicts and conflict resolutions could be considered as the main area of achievements by
multilateral institutions.

Multilateral diplomacy;

1. Provides best chance for successful negotiation. A conference is focused and thus
concentrates minds on one issue or series of related issue.
2. Brings all parties whose agreements are necessary.
3. encourages informality
4. its members may even develop certain esprit de corps
5. has a president with vested interest in its success
6. will embody a deadline which will also help to concentrate because it cannot go forever
7. Has enormous value to states prestige when they are invited to participate, selected as home
venue for the conference etc.
8. is a valuable device for advancing negotiation between numerous parties simultaneously
9. Gives impetus/energy to bilateral diplomacy by providing participants to discuss matters
outside the formal agenda, particularly of special value to states that do not enjoy
diplomatic relations. Moreover, a multilateral conference can be held by powerful mediators
to kick start a series of essentially bilateral negotiations
In conclusion, multilateral diplomacy allows all concerned parties to meet together, thus
facilitating problem solving and agreement. As a long term effect, sharing experiences and

63 | P a g e
problems and seeking joint solutions are helping to form a sense of an international society
among states and INGOs.

c. Economic or Commercial Diplomacy

We must take into account that money is one of the most important elements of national power.
And as the primary consideration of diplomacy is the enhancement of national interest, it has to
deal with the financial understanding reached between the states too. Because of technological
revolution, the economic aspect of diplomacy is assuming greater importance everyday. Today a
nation’s strength depends, to a great extent, on its economic resources. So every state attempts to
augment its economic resources through diplomacy and pacific means. Powerful nations also
often try to extend their influence through skilful handling of different economic measures. Of
these economic instruments, trade is most important. Along with trade and commerce,
sanctioning economic aid also has become now-a-days an important tool of diplomacy. We can
call this type of diplomatic dealing as commercial diplomacy or diplomacy by economics, i.e..
Diplomacy connected with economic factors.

Economic instruments are widely employed both in times of peace and war and international
trade and assistance are used as convenient tools of diplomacy in peace time.

The increased importance of international commerce has its inevitable impact on diplomacy and
diplomatic practices. In fact, in the origin of professional diplomacy and in its subsequent
growth, the role played by commercial interests has been substantial. The rapid development of
industries in different nations in the west increased the power and prestige of the capitalists and
merchants. They started to exert greater pressure on their respective governments to find new
markets and obtain concessions for their merchandise.

For a long time economic measures had been in use as a method of coercion. During war time a
country tried to inflict economic hardship on its adversary through blockade. As war has been
described as ‘a continuation of diplomacy by other means’ the economic measures adopted
during war could be regarded as economic diplomacy in wartime. The effectiveness of economic
measures as coercive method gave rise to the idea of ‘economic sanctions’.

64 | P a g e
Conversely, by giving economic advantages, a powerful state can exert considerable influence
over the weaker nations. After the Second World War importance of economic factors in
international relations has increased considerably. The case of the newly independent nations
presented an interesting study in this regard. These countries voiced their determination to
industrialize themselves and develop their economy.

The great importance which commercial diplomacy has attained in recent times may be gauged
from the number of new posts, connected with diplomatic missions and commercial activities
that are being created. In what may be called field work, commercial attaches and trade
Commissioners are now considered indispensable adjuncts to a diplomatic mission. As
international trade is now mainly state controlled and each country is anxious to establish a
pattern of trade suitable to its economy, obviously it is only by proper diplomatic negotiation that
trade can be promoted.

The threat of a nuclear war is now a great deterrent to the use of force to settle disputes,
especially when the interests of big powers are involved. So to settle differences, instead of
plunging into armed conflict often other measures, chiefly the economic measures, are adopted
to bring about a favorable solution of the disputes. With the passage of time economic
interdependence is increasing and economic assistance is assuming vital role in diplomacy.

Economic factors have always played a part in diplomatic dealings. But in the present day world
economic aspects of diplomacy have assumed greater importance. They may now be regarded as
an integral part of diplomacy.

d. Cultural Diplomacy

Culture comprises the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional
features that characterize a society or social group. It includes not only the arts but also mode of
life, the fundamental rights of human beings, value systems, traditions and beliefs. Arts and
culture are gifts of civilization rather than messages of politics, artists and philosophers are not
political ambassadors. However cultural dialogues among states essentially help to build
language of communication and initiate a link among based on their own free will. This is the
essence of all diplomacy in the battle for men’s and women’s minds. Cultural diplomacy,

65 | P a g e
diplomacy through cultural presence is expressed through exchange of program/ cultural
agreements, covering fields like science and technology.

The standard delivery system of cultural diplomacy includes;

 Holding occasionally cultural fairs and festivals

 Supporting tours of own artists teaching own language to foreign public, showing
music, films, cultural relics etc…to the foreign public
 Providing scholarship opportunities to citizens in other countries
 Sending professionals and technical experts to support other countries
 Teaching own language to foreign public
e. Resource Diplomacy
Strategic raw materials like coal, iron, petroleum, uranium etc. Play an important part in
industrial developments. They also contribute greatly in enhancing the power of a state. Only
countries well-supplied with these materials can become great powers. That is why a constant
competition is going on to obtain control over the areas which possess these materials in
abundance. Some countries are more fortunate in having these strategic materials within their
borders. Those powerful nations which are not so fortunate try to acquire some kind of control
over the areas possessing them. A constant tussle is going on between the different big states for
the same purpose. This attempt has given rise to a new type of diplomacy, known as ‘resource
diplomacy’.

The oil, which until now is the chief source of energy, has thus made much impact on world-
politics. That is why in the world diplomatic arena oil is now playing such an important role and
oil diplomacy has become a well-known feature of diplomatic process.

There are many other raw materials such as coal, iron, lead, tungsten, aluminum, chromium
manganese, nickel platinum, etc. Which are essential for industries. Some of these raw materials
can be found only in a limited number of states. It is yet to be seen how far these states,
following the example of the OPEC, will be able to combine and bargain collectively to raise the
prices of these commodities. So far this trend is not very discernible.

f. Summit diplomacy

66 | P a g e
This is diplomatic communication at the level of heads of government and heads of states. It is a
multilateral diplomacy of very special kind and bilateral diplomacy also takes place at this level.
The high level exchange of views by heads of governments and states who visit several countries
on a foreign tour usually engage in this kind of activity.

This diplomatic method is significance in that it has educational role since it is held at the level
of higher official (heads of states) and it is also crucial to clarify intentions at higher levels. The
rise in importance of several countries as economic powers has moved summitry into the trade
context as well as the security context. In particular, the economic interdependence of the major
industrial powers of the world periodically has drawn many leaders together to attend economic
summits. The representatives of top industrial countries have met for years, in variously sized
groups. The advantage of summitry, above the ambassadorial level, is that it can generate broad
areas of agreement or break diplomatic deadlocks that have lingered at lower levels of
diplomacy.

Summit diplomacy however is criticized on some grounds like; it ignores detailed policy issues
that might be crucial to be addressed, usually oversensitive to needs of their fellow heads of
government, it might also develop personal likes and dislikes attached to enjoyment of
generosity and protocol or lack of it and also leaders who frequently involve in summit
diplomacy give insufficient time to domestic affairs. It is often referred as the nemesis of career
or professional diplomacy because it is conducted at the expense of local ambassadors. Local
ambassadors play very limited role when heads of states massively involve in diplomatic
activities.

The great danger of summitry is that it can raise high expectations for success on the part of the
public and make failure more noticeable. Summit diplomacy has a better chance to succeed when
lower diplomatic levels arrange an agenda for the meeting and produce some broad areas of
agreement before the summit begins.

g. Shuttle diplomacy

Shuttle diplomacy is another major characteristic of crisis diplomacy. This kind of diplomacy is
conducted by traveling between capitals of the parties in conflict. Such move is made possible by

67 | P a g e
state of the art, transportation and communication, involving flying air plane and telephone talks.
This form of diplomacy involves negotiation that takes place through the travels of a high-
ranking official serving as a mediator between the capitols of disputing states.

The advancement and expansion of communication technology have improved the capacity to
move and communicate in a fast but confidential manner. Shuttle diplomacy is the most effective
diplomacy in some aspects and especially when communication between parties at issue is much
more difficult. But there is limitation to the scope of its usefulness. For instance it cannot take
the place of traditional diplomacy conducted by a more traditional space in terms of great issues
such as; resource and technology transfer, trade, environmental issues, the problem of nuclear
arms limitations etc…

Perhaps shuttle diplomacy has the advantage of using high-level officials who can lend their
prestige and that of their states to the mediation effort, but there is a downside to shuttle
diplomacy. Shuttle diplomacy concentrates authority near the top of government and undermines
the role of ambassadors. The few well-known cases of shuttle diplomacy do not recommend this
form of diplomacy. Perhaps ambassadors and their staffs, who have the time and skill to devote
to a problem, should handle stubborn issues that persist for a long time.

h. Side Diplomacy

The use of diplomacy, that is the holding of short discussions and meetings on matters other than
the main formal business, at the margins of multilateral, regional and other events, is an
established part of modern diplomatic practice. The annual meeting of the United Nations for
example provides opportunities for a variety of contacts and exchanges. In general side
diplomacy has the following advantages;

 It avoids public visits

 It is conducted in a relative privacy
 It enables key leaders to focus on their issues
 It provides opportunity for initial contact after break or hostility
 It provides opportunity for personal diplomacy
 It facilitates meetings or contact with several leaders in one location

68 | P a g e
 i. Open Vs secret diplomacy

With the advent of the era of ‘Open Diplomacy’ a new type of diplomacy seems to have made
great progress. This type has been designated as “Democratic diplomacy’. In any democracy
sovereign authority is vested in the elected representatives of the people. The final control of
foreign policy lies with them. But up to the time of the First World War the diplomatic
negotiations were mostly conducted secretly. Some vital clauses in agreements were often kept
secret not only from the general public but also from the elected representatives as well. Only
some influential members of the Government know the full detail of what these agreements. This
raised strong claim that diplomacy shall proceed frankly and openly and in full public view.

The implication was that the business of diplomacy was too vital to be left to the discretion of
diplomats alone. The principles of democratic form of government demanded that in matters
affecting the vital interests of the nations the public should be kept informed about every stage of
the negotiation. The problem with open diplomacy is that diplomats cannot be effective in a
fishbowl environment. Public negotiating will lead to posturing for public effect, with diplomats
either making empty gestures or taking rigid positions. Public negotiations are difficult. Early
disclosure of your bargaining strategy will compromise your ability to win concessions. Public
negotiations are also more likely to lead diplomats to posture for public consumption.
Concessions may be difficult to make amid popular criticism. In sum, it is difficult to negotiate
while many more people are squabbling from behind.

The more democratic a country, the more pressure the diplomat will feel to practice open
diplomacy. Diplomacy calls for concessions and compromise, and these are difficult to achieve
with media and anxious publics watching. Modern diplomacy faces a serious dilemma: To be
effective, diplomacy must be secretive, but to meet the requirements of democracy, it must be
open. A way to choose between the horns of the dilemma exists, and democratic countries
usually take this outlet. States can conduct negotiations secretly, or at least temporarily behind
closed doors. When completed, the public can learn the terms of the agreement.

At the first stage, diplomats maintain secrecy so as success can occur. At the second stage,
publication of the agreement meets the requirements of democracy. Such an arrangement may be
the surest way to deal with the conflicting needs of diplomacy and democracy.

69 | P a g e
But a diplomat should maintain constant touch with the department of foreign affairs of his
country. The foreign department in turn should keep the members of the assembly well informed
about its progress. Naturally the debates in the assembly will be focused through different news
media to the whole nation.

j. Gunboat Diplomacy

In international politics gunboat diplomacy refers to the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with
the aid of display of military power. It implies the direct threat of warfare as an aspect of
coercive diplomacy, diplomacy backed by the threat of use of force to advance policy objectives.
Gunboat diplomacy historically originated in Europe when a country negotiating with European
power demonstrated naval might or gun boats with canon fire that appeared of its coast to
symbolize an advanced military. Hence, gun boat diplomacy is the use or threat of naval force in
order to secure foreign policy advantage in international dispute or to avert loss against foreign
nations within the territory of the state. It also includes joint naval exercises and good will visits
(popularly known as “showing the flag”) to foreign ports in order to improve relations, the
meaning most acceptable to powerful nations. However, in contrast we don’t hear of any army or
air force diplomacy.

k. Coercive Diplomacy

Coercive diplomacy aims to compel changes in behavior using threats, sanctions and withdrawal
or denial of rewards. In coercive diplomacy force and pure violence does not automatically
follow. Rather the intention to convey the possibility of pain or damage. Thus an ultimatum may
set time limits for unspecified action in the event of non-compliance. Coercive action moves
diplomacy in to grey area. Diplomacy is no longer distinguished by the notion of ‘give and take’,
argument and persuasion in which the parties achieve degree of mutual benefit, but rather
compliance through force. Diplomacy shifts to become an instrument of coercive behavior,
rather than exchange and adjustment that is conducted through discussion, mediation or pacific
settlement.

70 | P a g e
 CHAPTER FIVE

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS OF DIPLOMACY

5.1 The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

The most important point to remember about the legal setting of diplomacy is the rules
governing diplomacy. First based on custom and then codified in law in the early 1960s, law of
diplomacy exist to protect diplomats with immunity and to facilitate their work through protocol.
Because of immunity and protocol, diplomats have a better chance to represent the interests of
their states and at the same time, to preserve peace.

The convention is adopted by the UN conference in April 1961 and entered in to force in April
1964. It is one of the most ratified multilateral treaties signed by 149 states in 1986.

The main principles underlying the convention include;

 Recognition of the status of diplomatic agents

 The principle of the sovereign equality of states
 Concern for the maintenance of international peace and security
 The promotion of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing
constitutional and social systems
 Privileges and immunities not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient
performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing states.
5.2 Establishment and Termination of Diplomatic Relations
5.2.1 Establishment and Conduct of Diplomatic Relations

States are sovereign independent entities and the current international system is state centered
where by the central locus of interaction are states. It is these actors themselves who determine,
based on their interest with whom they should interact and with whom not. Therefore, individual
states are definitely the one who determines to establish diplomatic relations with other states.
Establishment of diplomatic relations takes place by mutual consent of the concerned parties. In
this regard there are no rights and duties under international law to establish diplomatic relations.

71 | P a g e
The appointment of diplomatic agent is a constitutional act of a state. It can appoint any person
to a diplomatic post in a foreign country. On the other hand, appointed agents must enjoy the
confidence of the host state. The receiving state may decide on the unsuitability of a diplomatic
agent, for any reason and may refuse to accept him/her. So before diplomatic agents are
appointed, it is customary to ascertain whether the person about to be chosen is acceptable to the
receiving state. Usually the name of the person to be appointed is submitted to the receiving state
beforehand in order to avoid the unpleasantness arising from the refusal of appointed diplomats.
This is done usually confidentially as a rule through the channel of the retiring ambassador or
charge de affaires. A diplomatic representative therefore, is appointed only after his approval by
the proper authorities of the receiving state.

Article 2 - The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent

diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent.
Article 4 - I. The sending State must make certain that the agreement of the receiving State has
been given for the person it proposes to accredit as head of the mission to that State.
2. The receiving State is not obliged to give reasons to the sending State for a refusal of
agreement.
Article 5 - I. The sending State may, after it has given due notification to the receiving States
concerned, accredit a head of mission or assign any member of the diplomatic staff, as the case
may be, to more than one State, unless there is express objection by any of the receiving States.
2. If the sending State accredits a head of mission to one or more other States, it may establish a
diplomatic mission headed by a charge d'affaires ad interim in each State where the head of
mission has not his permanent seat.
3. A head of mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission may act as
representative of the sending State to any international organisation.
Article 6 - Two or more States may accredit the same person as head of mission to another State,
unless objection is offered by the receiving State.
Article 7 - Subject to the provisions of Articles 5, 8, 9, and II, the sending State may freely
appoint the members of the staff of the mission. In the case of military, naval or air attaches, the
receiving State may require their names to be submitted beforehand for its approval.
In establishing diplomatic relation there could be three general patterns that states usually follow;

72 | P a g e
  Exchange of diplomatic missions between states like; opening of embassies or consular
and assignment of ambassadors and other diplomatic crews.

 Permanent diplomatic representation to international organizations: Ethiopia might have

permanent representative to UN in New York.

 Ad hoc or special mission that may include the head of state or government or even
other individual ministries. In this case officials may go to another state on a state
mission to discuss on certain timely matters or to forge further link in many areas.

Procedures for establishing diplomatic link

1. Agreement: the sending state must make certain that the proposed person (for
ambassadorship) to be accredited has got the agreement of the receiving state. The receiving
state may refuse the request of the sending state for agreement and is not obliged to give reason
for rejection. Other members of the staff of the mission are not required to get the accreditation
of the receiving state where by the sending state can freely appoint them. But in the case of staff
members or attaches like military, naval or air attaches the receiving state may require their name
to be submitted for its approval. There could be many possible reasons on the ground of which
the receiving state refuse to accept the proposed person. It might be attributed to reasons like;

 The public pronouncements and speeches that the proposed person forwards against the
receiving state
 Criticizing the citizens of the host state which is not entitled to immunity enjoyed by
diplomatic envoys
 The act or gesture of unpleasant or offensive act or speech to the ruler of the receiving
state

Generally refusal may follow from the nominated person’s hostility to the institutions and people
of the receiving state.

2. Letter of credence or credentials: is issued to diplomats signed and sealed, asking the
receiving state that the bearer be trusted as a representative of the sending state. The appointed
person presents the letter of authorization to the head of state or government or the office of the

73 | P a g e
foreign affairs seeking for the receipt of his assignment. It is also called as letter of confidence or
authorization.

The sending state may accredit or assign a head of mission to more than one state. For instance
an Ethiopian ambassador may base himself in Kenya and at the same time facilitate link with
Uganda. But assigning an ambassador to more than one state may require due notification of the
receiving states concerned and there is no express objection from any of the receiving states..
The head of the mission is considered as having taken up his or her functions in the receiving
state when he/she has notified his/her arrival and a true copy of his credentials has been
presented to the foreign ministry. After this ceremony of presentation of the letter of credence
the envoy is believed to be formally accredited.

5.2.2 Termination of a diplomatic mission

Termination of a non-permanent diplomatic mission takes place automatically with the

expiration of the period for which it has been appointed, as for instance, to a congress or a
conference, when that comes to an end or if a diplomat has been appointed temporarily until the
return of the permanent incumbent. A formal recall in this case is unnecessary in the following
cases: When the object of the mission has been attained, as in the case of a ceremonial mission;
or by the completion or failure of the task entrusted to the mission for which it has been specially
created.

Termination of a permanent diplomatic mission may occur for any of the reasons discussed
below. As the accrediting of a diplomatic agent is a personal act from the sender to the receiver-it
terminates when one of the two parties, for any reason what so ever, ceases to represent his state.
Therefore, in the monarchical states when a change in monarchs takes place with the death of the
sovereign, one or the other party has to accredit again the ambassadors and other diplomats. On
the other hand, a mere change in the person acting as chief of a state or as foreign minister in a
republic does not require a renewal of the credentials of diplomats. But in case a change of
government takes place as a result of successful revolution coup, rebellion etc. in either state,
renewal of credential becomes necessary. A renewal of credential will mean that the change in
the government has been recognized by the other party. In case the change is not recognized the

74 | P a g e
diplomatic mission may be recalled by the sending state or asked to be recalled by the receiving
state according to the situation.

A mission may be terminated by recalling of the diplomat. Recalling may come about in a
number of ways. He may be recalled by his own government if it feels that the relationship
between the diplomat concerned has somehow offended the host state, or because the relations
between the sending and receiving states have become so strained that the recall is demanded.
This demand may be a prelude to the beginning of active hostilities.

From the interest of the hosting state: If the sending state does not respond to a request for the
recall of a diplomat, persisting that the charges hurled against the diplomat concerned are
baseless, then obviously some strains are bound to appear. In such circumstances the receiving
state may decide to ignore him completely which ends his usefulness to his own state-or dismiss
him altogether. But if even after that his own government refuses to honor the request for his
recall, the foreign government may take measures to send the diplomat back to his country.

Ambassadors and other diplomatic agents are usually declared persona non grata when this
usefulness has been impaired by indiscreet political statements, interference in internal affairs of
the host country or, by indulging in espionage activities under the cover of their status. Persona
non grata refers to declaring a member(s) of diplomatic staff not acceptable any more to the
receiving state. The receiving state may take such a decision at any time and without any duty to
explain it and notify the sending state thereof. Under such circumstances the sending state shall
either recall the person concerned or terminate his/her function with the mission which is called
as waiver of immunities. If the sending state fails to take action within a reasonable period, the
receiving state may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission
followed by withdrawal or denial of immunities and deport him/her.

When a diplomat is recalled by his government on its own volition, the diplomat gives his letter
of recall, letter de rappel to the appropriate authority. In return, normally he is given a letter de
recurrence, which contains an acceptance of the letter of recall as well as some sort of tribute to
the effective role played by the departing diplomat in cementing and improving the relations
between the two governments. When, however, a diplomat is recalled because of strained

75 | P a g e
relations between the two states, or between the receiving state and the diplomatic agent in
question, these formalities are not observed.

Many a time the dismissal of a diplomatic agent represents merely a retaliatory measure, to
express dissatisfaction against similar dismissal (usually for purely political reasons) of an agent
by the sending state. Generally, on these occasions charges of subversive activities are leveled
against these diplomatic agents.

Termination of a diplomatic mission may also be caused by the resignation of a diplomat. He

may resign due to some personal reasons or because of disagreement with the policy of his own
government.

Rupture of diplomatic relations between the sending and the receiving states or the outbreak of
war between these states may also terminate their diplomatic missions. In these cases limited
diplomatic contacts are maintained through the agents of a third state which is neutral and
maintains relations with both of them.

Finally, disappearance of the sending or receiving state or a radical change in its form of
government may cause termination of diplomatic missions. Sometimes, however, even after
extinction of a state or its existing form of government other states may not accept this fact. They
continue to behave as if the state or the form of government in question is still in existence. In
such cases the diplomatic missions may be continued for a time until the reality of situation is
established and the missions are terminated.

5.2.3 Severance of diplomatic relations

The “severance of diplomatic relations” presupposes the prior existence of normal diplomatic
relations which is synonymous with the term “breaking off of diplomatic relations”. “Severance
of diplomatic relations” means their termination, which effectively ends all direct official
communications between the two governments. This can be done by mutual consent, but will
mostly be effected by a unilateral act of one of the governments, either as an expression of
political protest, as a political sanction (eg against abuse of diplomatic privilege) or as a means to
implement a decision or recommendation of an international organization (eg a UNSC resolution
pursuant to Art 41 UN Charter).

76 | P a g e
Normally, diplomatic relations are terminated by express notification. There are, however, also
implied forms such as the actual closure of one’s own mission together with the demand that the
other government also closes its mission – actions which clearly manifest the intention of one
government to break off diplomatic relations with the other.

From the formal severance of diplomatic relations, less severe forms of diplomatic frictions have
to be distinguished, such as the temporary recall of an ambassador for consultations, his
permanent recall without a request for the agreement for a successor or the notification that the
ambassador of another State is persona non grata. In all these cases, the diplomatic relations as
such remain unimpaired and the diplomatic mission continues to function under the direction of a
charge d’affaires.

5.3 Members of the diplomatic mission

5.3.1 Class or ranks of heads of mission

The class of diplomatic mission is determined by the level of diplomatic relations between the
concerned states and this is agreed between states. The ranks include;

1. Ambassador (nuncios) accredited to heads of state: ambassadors represent the

person and dignity of the head of the state, have special honor and are entitled to public
audience of the head of state.

2. Envoy, minister and inter nuncios accredited to heads of state: this class does not
represent the dignity of the head of state and have only private audience with the head
of state.

3. Charge d’affaires (minister resident) accredited to ministers for foreign affairs:

Inferior to minister, do not have the right to even private audience with head of state
and do not enjoy the title “Excellency” even by courtesy. The charge d’affaires acts
provisionally as head of the mission when the post of the head of the mission is vacant
and the head of the mission is unable to perform his /her function. In such a case, the
sending state (the head of the Ministry of foreign affairs) notifies the receiving state the
name of the charge d’affaires

77 | P a g e
 5.3.2 Members of the diplomatic personnel

In a diplomatic mission many individuals besides the ambassador participate actively Very
generally, distinctions can be made between the official and non official members of a mission.
In this regard, all officials employed by the sending state or by the chief of mission to whom they
are subordinate, are regarded as official personnel. The family members of the chief of mission
also fall within this category. On the other hand, servants of the chief of mission and the embassy
such as chauffeurs, gardeners etc… are regarded as non official personnel. The legal position of
these unofficial personnel is subject of much dispute.

The diplomatic personnel is broadly classified in to three categories as;

1. The diplomatic staff: the staff of the mission having diplomatic rank

2. The administrative and technical staff: members of the staff of the mission employed in the
administrative and technical service of the mission.

3. The service staff: members of the staff of the mission in the domestic service of the mission
composed of private servants.

Attaches

Attaches send much of the information that routinely flows back to the home state. An attaché
works in an embassy under the control of an ambassador but represents a government department
other than the foreign ministry. Military, cultural, agricultural, immigration and tourism attaches
are typical of the specialized information seekers that countries send out to their embassies. The
types of attaches depend on the interests of the sending state. A military attaché for example
might make recommendations concerning weapons acquisitions while agricultural attaché may
make crop reports about the host country that will guide food aid or agricultural sales on the part
of the sending country.

Consular

In theory, ambassadors and their embassies are responsible for their nationals, but ambassadors
usually concentrate on intergovernmental problems. In practice, a consular network is more

78 | P a g e
likely to take care of the specific concerns of nationals. This network is based on consular posts
or consulates headed by a consul in important cities that serve as seaports and trade and tourist
centers. A sending country may have several consuls in the same country. The consular staff can
exist in a separate hierarchy from the diplomatic staff.

A consul’s work deals mostly with trade interests, helping stranded or incarcerated national and
handling passports. A consul serves as a “family lawyer” of fellow citizens. Concentration of a
particular nationality in a foreign city on a long term basis can easily keep a consul serving as a
witness and notary, handling weddings, births, and deaths. Rapid, modern travel also puts
millions of foreign nationals in other countries for short-term visits. The transnational sojourns of
tourists, students, athletes, journalists, and others guarantee busy lives for consuls and their
staffs.

Nationality of the diplomatic staff: members of the diplomatic staff should be members of the
sending state and may not be members of the receiving state. Appointment of the nationals of the
receiving state for the post of technical staff in the diplomatic mission may require the consent of
the receiving state and such consent may be withdrawn at any time.

5.4 Diplomatic Privileges and immunities

Diplomatic immunity is a fundamental rule of international law that allows a diplomat to engage
in international diplomacy without fear or interference. Governments would be reluctant to send
ambassadors to other states if someone might harm them or take them hostage.

Immunity is protection of diplomats from normal law enforcement and civil suits of the hosting
state. After centuries of customary and legal development, widely accepted diplomatic practices
were set down in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.

Diplomatic staffs also enjoy the same immunity the ambassador does, and this immunity extends
to the attaches and the spouses and families of the diplomats. Diplomatic immunity is an early
and clear example of states preferring to find ways to cooperate rather than accepting greater
conflict.

79 | P a g e
If war breaks out, diplomatic immunity continues until diplomats have departed from the host
country. If the host government wants to get rid of an individual with diplomatic immunity, it
must declare that person persona non grata and ask for his or her recall by the sending
government. An unacceptable diplomat has to return to the sending state, and the host state does
not have to give an explanation. The principal reasons a host state might declare a diplomat
persona non grata are personal misconduct, espionage, and retaliation by a state that has had one
of its diplomats found unacceptable.

Sovereign immunity is recognized with regard to sovereign or public acts (jure imperii) of a
state, but not with respect to private acts (jure jestinois). From this has developed functional
immunity.

There are three main theories regarding the exercise of immunity for diplomatic missions;

A. Extra territoriality: the premises of the mission represented a sort of extension of the
territory of the sending state.

B. Representative character: immunities of the head of a mission were based on the idea that
the diplomatic mission personified the sending state.

C. Functional necessity: justifies immunities as being necessary to enable the mission to

perform its functions. Therefore, the raison d’etre of diplomatic immunities is not to benefit
an individual but for performing diplomatic functions effectively and without interference.

The diplomatic immunities include;

1. Inviolability of mission premises

The premises of the mission and residence of the ambassador is immune from search, requisition,
attachment or execution except with permission and expressed consent of the head of the
mission. Moreover, the archives and documents of the premises are inviolable. In this regard the
receiving state has the duty to protect the premises against intrusion or damage and prevent any
disturbance of the peace or impairment/harm of its dignity.

The premises of the mission include;

80 | P a g e
  The buildings or parts of buildings
 The land auxiliary there to, irrespective of ownership used for the purpose of the
mission
 The residence of the head of the mission
Most countries house their diplomatic missions in a building commonly called an embassy. The
grounds around an embassy can be elaborate, containing a swimming pool, parking garage, and
other structures that add up to the premises. Frequently embassies of many countries cluster
together in the capital of the host country and often stretch along one street, referred to as
“embassy row”
Historically, the embassy of the sending state might have enjoyed the privilege of
extraterritoriality. This status meant that embassy personnel could follow their own country’s
laws inside the embassy, though those laws might be incompatible with the laws of the host state.
This historical view is not accurate today, if it ever was. An embassy is inviolable only in the
sense that the diplomats and their diplomatic business are not to suffer interference and that local
authorities will not enter the embassy without permission.

Consuls and consulates do not have quite the same immunities and inviolability diplomats and
embassies do, even though the international law Commission of the United Nations has
recommended the same protection. Instead of granting the same protection, states chose to create
the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 in addition to the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations of 1961.

In general, the consuls have less protection from civil and criminal prosecution than diplomats,
and host authorities can enter consulates in matters of public safety such as fire. However, the
protection of consulate records, the freedom of communication, and the freedom of movement
for consuls is about the same as for diplomats. In recent years, the privileges and immunities for
consuls and diplomats have drawn closer together through custom and bilateral treaties. Many
countries, including the United States, have integrated their diplomatic and consular staff in one.

2. Exemption from duties and taxes

The mission is exempted from all national, regional or municipal duties and taxes in respect of
its premises. The head of a mission is generally exempt from certain fiscal obligations. He does

81 | P a g e
not have to meet any direct national, regional, or municipal dues and taxes relating to the
premises of the Mission. All diplomatic agents receive exemption from paying all dues and
taxes, personal or real, in the host state, except for the following categories; indirect taxes
normally included in the cost of goods or services; taxes on real estate owned privately by the
diplomat; estate, succession, or inheritance duties on personal property; taxes on private income
and on investments made in commercial enterprises in the receiving state etc.

3. Freedom of movement and communication

The receiving state shall ensure all members of the mission;

 Freedom of movement and travel in its territory, subject to its laws and regulations
prohibiting entry for reasons of national security
 Freedom of communication for all official purpose. For this the mission may employ all
appropriate means, including diplomatic couriers and message in codes or cipher/secret.
However, to install and use a wireless transmitter, the consent of the receiving state shall
be obtained.
4. Inviolability of correspondence
All official correspondence relating to the mission and its function are inviolable. The main
elements that are included under this provision include;

a) The diplomatic bag or pouch shall not be opened or detained

b) The packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks for their
character and may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use.
c) The diplomatic courier (messenger): not only do embassies obtain information for the home
capitals, but information flows from the home capitals to the embassies as well. An important
element of a country’s diplomatic corps is the diplomatic courier. Couriers travel thousands of
miles each year carrying sensitive documents and transporting cargo to embassies and consulates
around the world, all done without fear of interference with the courier or what the courier
carries.
The courier in the performance of his /her functions shall enjoy personal inviolability (shall not
be liable for any form of arrest and detention) since the number of packages constituting the
diplomatic bag shall be protected by the receiving state. The diplomatic courier can be ad hoc or

82 | P a g e
permanent (as designated by the sending state). The immunities of the ad hoc courier cease to
apply up on the delivery of the diplomatic bag in his or her charge as consignee.
The captain of a commercial craft scheduled to land at an authorized port of entry may be
entrusted with a diplomatic bag and be provided with an official document indicating the number
of packages constituting the bag. But the captain is not to be considered as a diplomatic courier.
The diplomatic bag is delivered form the captain to one of the members of the mission directly
and freely.

5. Enjoy immunity from criminal jurisdiction

The person of a diplomat is virtually exempt from the jurisdiction of the receiving state.
Ordinarily no civil or criminal action can be taken against him by the receiving state. A diplomat
cannot be required to appear as a witness in a court proceeding. A diplomatic agent also cannot
be required to attend in court to give evidence of facts within his knowledge, nor can a member
of his family or suite be so compelled. The evidence of a diplomat, however, can be taken down
in writing by a secretary of the mission, or by any other official whom the diplomat may have
consented for the purpose. The evidence thus taken may be communicated to the court.

A diplomat is also entitled to enjoy such minor immunities like exemption from all personal
services and from such military obligations as those connected with requisitioning, military
contributions and billeting. Diplomats also generally get the privilege of receiving duty free
goods intended for their own private use. All incoming articles for the personal use of a
diplomatic mission are also generally exempted from paying customs duties.

A diplomat is legally entitled to these privileges and immunities only in the receiving state and
not in any third state. However, as a matter of courtesy and as it suits the interest and
convenience of all states having diplomatic relationship with other states, diplomats during
transit while traveling through third state are usually granted the same privileges as would be
their due in the receiving state to which they are accredited.

It should be noticed however that diplomatic officials not only exercise immunities and
privileges but they also have some duties to conform with. While the diplomats enjoy many
privileges in the receiving state yet there are some restraints put on their activities there. The

83 | P a g e
primary restraint laid on all diplomatic agents is complete abstention from interference-by word
or deed in the internal affairs of the host state. Any violation of these restraints would cause
displeasure and may lead to protest or even a request for the recall of the diplomatic agent.
Generally a diplomat should also fulfill the following obligations;
a) All persons enjoying privileges and immunities have to respect the laws and regulations
of the receiving state.
b) Have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the state
c) All official business shall be conducted with or through the Ministry for foreign affairs of
the receiving state
d) The premises of the mission should not be used in any manner incompatible with the
functions of the mission
e) A diplomatic agent shall not practice for personal profit any professional or commercial
activity.
Protocols

Another special guideline for diplomatic conduct exists. Protocol is the proper conduct and
procedures involved in diplomacy. Protocol has grown out of need and is a matter of custom
more than formal international law. Over the centuries, diplomats have arranged elaborate rules
of conduct to avoid problems before they occur rather than to set an impressive social style. In
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, diplomats wasted much time and occasionally dulled
over matters of prestige and status. Each diplomat wanted a seat at the head of a table, or one
closest to a host, or to be put first in line in a procession. The diplomats’ positions symbolically
reflected their countries’ power and importance.

Matters of prestige, status, and honor remain important to states and their diplomats, but thanks
to well established protocol, incidents of this kind are unlikely to occur today.

Much of the havoc in diplomacy ended with the Congress of Vienna of 1815 after it adopted a
principle of seniority based on the dates of accreditation of the ambassadors of a given capital.
From that time on, seniority would control position on formal occasions. Matters of dispute
among ambassadors in the same capital fall to a “dean of the diplomatic corps” who arbitrates
for the others. The dean of diplomats is the most senior of the diplomatic corps in the host state.

84 | P a g e
Host governments usually appoint a chief of protocol to ensure that proper procedures including
deference to seniority, always receive respect. The general public may find diplomatic protocol
too ceremonial and ostentatious. However, proper protocol diffuses conflict over symbols so
issues of substance can receive due attention.

85 | P a g e
 CHAPTER SIX

COMMUNICATION AND NEGOTIATION IN DIPLOMACY

6.1 Communication in Diplomacy

Communication can be defined as an activity by which information is conveyed. It involves

mutual exchange of messages by writing, speech and signals or behavior.

Communication is to diplomacy as blood is to the human body. Whenever communication

ceases, the body of international politics, the process of diplomacy, is dead, and the result is
violent conflict or atrophy. Indeed communication is the lifeline of diplomatic missions.
Communication is at the center of diplomacy.

In seeking to objectives, realized values, or defined interests, governments must communicate

with those whose actions and behaviors they wish to deter, alter, or reinforce. Today, there are
many occasions and media of communications, which are used by government officials to
transmit their wishes and hopes to foreign governments and peoples. Nevertheless, most official
attempts to wield influence aboard are carried out through formal diplomatic channels or by
direct communication between foreign ministers and heads of states.

The subjects of inter-state communication include definitions of a government’s objectives,

rationalizations for them, threats, promises, and the holding out of possibilities for concluding
agreements on contentious issues.

6.2 Types of Diplomatic Communication

Below we examine the application of written, verbal as well as non- verbal communication.

Written Communication

There are special names accorded to the different documents used in interstate communication
and these have specific formats in which they should be written. These include; Treaties,
Protocols, Memorandum of Understanding, Note Verbale, Aide Memoires, Joint communiqué,
Press Communiqué and Resolutions among others. It is now also common practice for Envoys to

86 | P a g e
use normal letters in communication with government departments and NSAs. Emails are also
used for informal communication between government officials but mainly with NSAs.
Interdepartmental communication documents include; Briefs, letters, Talking Points, Record of a
Meeting; Cabinet Memos and Loose Minutes or Memos.

Verbal Communication

This form of communication usually compliments and enriches written communication, but is far
more elaborate than written communication mainly because not everything that is spoken can be
written.

The preferred channel of sending information is always one’s own Envoy. One reason is that he
can be relied upon to convey the exact points and the nuances to the decision-makers on the
other side. Such a messenger should have tact as well as good negotiation skills, to ensure a
positive outcome of his mission.

Verbal communication may also take the form of a group briefing. This is organized for foreign
envoys based in a country’s capital to explain policy actions, avoid distortion of information as
well promote interstate relations.

Technology has eased verbal communication by aiding direct communication between principals
in different locations reducing diplomatic red tape in crisis situation. It is now common practice
for Presidents and Foreign Ministers to call up each other and consult on phone or by video
conference on urgent matters that require immediate attention.

Signals

Signals in diplomacy involve behavior conveyed with intention to another party. Signals are
hardly understood if used alone and therefore are usually used to compliment written or verbal
communication. Moreover the understanding of signals also requires that both the sender and the
recipient have a common cultural understanding. Short of this, signals will lead to distortion of
the intended message and ineffective communication.

Forms of signals include the mannerism or reception of an Envoy by the host Country. A
handshake, the venue of meetings, the level of representation and exchange of gifts are
87 | P a g e
commonly used and understood in diplomacy. Courteous behavior portrays friendly relations
while the opposite behavior is a display of displeasure.

But these forms of communication are influenced and caused a departure from the traditional
means of communication. These are; the advances in Information and Communication
Technology (ICTs), increased participation of Non-State Actors in international relations, and
the increased mandate of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs.

6.3 Negotiation in Diplomacy

6.3.1 Negotiation defined

Negotiation and settlement of dispute by means other than war is the main function of
diplomacy. Negotiation is the art of reaching compromise among states and it is one of the most
significant tasks of any diplomat.

Negotiation can be defined as an attempt to explore and reconcile conflicting position in order to
reach an acceptable outcome. Whatever the nature of the outcome, which may actually favor one
party more than another, the purpose of negotiation is the identification of areas of common
interest and conflict. In this sense depending on the intentions of the parties, the areas of
common interest may be clarified, refined and given negotiated form and substance. Areas of
difference can and do frequently remain, and perhaps be the subject of future negotiation or
indeed irreconcilable. In those instances where the parties have highly antagonistic or polarized
relations, the process is likely to be dominated by the exposition of areas of conflict. In such
circumstances, negotiation serves functions other than reconciling conflicting interests. These
will include delay, publicity, diverting attention or seeking intelligence about the other party and
its antagonistic position.

The process of negotiation itself is sometimes conceived of in an across the table sense. While
the proceeding might take this form at some stage the whole process might involve other more
informal methods such as; lobbying, floating a proposal through a draft resolution and exchange
of proposals and other consultations. It can also be carried out at a distant through formal or
informal diplomatic correspondence, telephone, e-mails, fax.

88 | P a g e
Negotiation is an attempt to explore and reconcile conflicting positions to reactions acceptable
outcome. The main purpose of negotiation is the identification of areas of common interest
(convergence) and conflict (divergence) the purpose of which is to reconcile conflicting interests
capitalizing on the common interests or grounds.

6.3.2 Phases or steps in negotiation

Negotiation is not an abrupt process initiated and conducted in a very short period of time. It is a
task that needs preparedness from the parties to participate and many steps should be gone
through before the actual task of negotiating starts. As a result it goes through phases ranging
from facilitating conditions for the actual negotiation to signing and committing oneself for the
agreements.

Scholars of negotiations divide them into three distinct stages as pre-negotiations, formula, and
details. However, two cautions must at once be registered. First, the concept of sequential stages
of negotiation is an analytical construct: in reality, not only do the stages usually overlap but,
sometimes, the difficulties of a particular stage are so acute that return to an earlier stage is
unavoidable (‘back-tracking’).

Second, the notion of three-stage negotiations has developed principally out of analysis of talks
on issues where the stakes are high, typically between recently or still warring parties; in
negotiations between friendly states on matters of relatively low importance the prenegotiations
stage will often present few problems and might barely be noticeable at all.

i. Prenegotiation Stage

Prenegotiations, despite their misleading name, are the first stage of negotiations. Also
commonly referred to as ‘preliminaries’ or ‘talks about talks’, their job is to establish that
substantive, around-the-table negotiations are worthwhile, and then to agree the agenda and the
necessary procedures for tackling it.

Whether formal or informal, public or well hidden, prenegotiations are often far more important
and far more difficult than is usually supposed. This is especially true in tense relationships,
where prenegotiations are always fragile.

89 | P a g e
Main tasks confronting the negotiators in this stage are;

Agreeing the need to negotiate

States sometimes engage in prenegotiations, and even substantive negotiations, merely in order
to buy time or obtain a good press for being thought accommodating.

This is why a party fearing it might fall victim to such procrastination, and also nervous about its
hard-liners, often insists on ‘preconditions’ – key concessions from the other side as a condition
for sitting down to substantive talks.

The true beginning of ‘prenegotiations’ requires acceptance existence of a stalemate by the

parties; next have to acknowledge the possibility that a negotiated settlement could be better for
all concerned than continuing with things as they are.

Agreeing on the agenda

Agreeing on agenda means agreeing on what will be discussed, and also the order in which the
agreed items will be taken. However, in an adversary relationship, difficulties often arise because
a proposed agenda might be ‘prejudicial’ rather than ‘neutral’.

There are three main reasons why agenda content can be prejudicial:

a. It might indicate that one party has already conceded a vital point of substance.

b. Agenda content could also hand a propaganda victory to one side.

c. Finally, agenda content might be prejudicial if left too vague. This can permit formal
discussion of an issue despite the initial wish of one party to refuse it.

The order of the agenda can also create difficulties.

Agreeing procedure

With the agenda settled, the final task in prenegotiations is agreement on procedure.

90 | P a g e
There are at least five procedural questions to resolve in prenegotiations, not necessarily in the
following order: secrecy, format, venue, delegations, and timing.

 Secrecy: In current usage, ‘secret diplomacy’ is a vague term and it is, therefore, as
well that prenegotiations should clarify what is intended in this regard. It can mean
keeping secret all or any of the following: the contents of a negotiation, knowledge that
negotiations are going on, the content of any agreement issuing from negotiations, or
the fact that any agreement at all has been reached.
 Format: Will the negotiations be direct or indirect? It is axiomatic that direct, or ‘face-
to-face’, talks will be employed when the parties have normal relations, and in routine
matters. Is involvement of intermediary necessary? If yes, will it have to be a genuine
mediator, or will provision of good offices by a third party be sufficient? If more than
two parties are to be involved in the talks, will they be conducted by a series of parallel
bilateral discussions, a multilateral conference, or some combination of both?
 Venue: In a friendly bilateral relationship, especially when issues of relatively low
importance are coming up for negotiation and the lead is left to an embassy or a special
mission supported by an embassy, the selection of venue should present few
difficulties. In more difficult relationships, however, particularly when the stakes are
high, attitudes to venue tend to be different. In such circumstances, choice of the format
of negotiations sometimes goes a long way towards dictating where they will take
place. In fact, there are three common strategies for getting over this problem: neutral
ground, meeting ‘halfway’, and alternating home venues.
 Delegations: Further points requiring agreement in prenegotiations usually concern the
level, composition, and size of delegations.
 Timing: The final procedural question is timing. The issue of whether or not there
should be a deadline for concluding the talks – and, if so, what sort it should be – is so
important to the question of diplomatic momentum.
ii. Formula Stage

If pre-negotiations are successfully concluded, the next task for the negotiators is to move into
around-the-table mode. This stage is generally more formal, and there is usually more public
awareness of what, in broad terms, is going on. After wrapping up any outstanding procedural

91 | P a g e
points, first comes the task of trying to agree on the basic principles of a settlement: the formula
stage.

For the broad principles of a settlement there are many deliberately anodyne synonyms, among
the more common of which are ‘guidelines’, ‘framework for agreement’, and ‘set of ideas’. The
chief characteristics of a good formula are simplicity, comprehensiveness, balance, and
flexibility. Simplicity is important because this makes the formula a straightforward guide for the
negotiators to follow. It also lends itself to publicity. The best formula will also be
comprehensive; that is, it will promise solutions to all major points of dispute between the
parties. As for the balance and flexibility of a good formula, this means that it must promise
roughly equal gains to all parties when the all-important details are fixed.

iii. Details Stage

If a formula is agreed by the parties to a negotiation, the final stage involves fleshing it out –
agreeing the details. This is by no means as simple as it sounds.

Indeed, in so far as it is possible to generalize in this matter, the details stage is a strong
candidate for the dubious honour of being called the most difficult stage of all. The cause of
difficulties; The first reason for difficulty in the details stage is that it is, by definition,
complicated. Second, it is in the details stage that careful thought has to be given to establishing
a common language. This is necessary to avoid misunderstanding, but can be extremely
problematical because some definitions serve the interests of some parties better than others.
Third, because the details stage of negotiation is complicated and time-consuming, and usually
requires the participation of specialists, the negotiating teams are normally composed of
individuals of lower authority than those involved – or, at any rate, leading – in the negotiations
during the formula stage. This often causes further delay because of the greater likelihood that
they will need periodically to refer home for guidance, and stall until replies are formulated.

A fourth reason why the details stage is often particularly difficult is that it presents an
opportunity to shift the balance of advantage in the agreed formula; and, because of the
complexity of this stage, this might not be easy to detect.

92 | P a g e
Finally, the details stage is the last stage: the moment of truth. What is agreed here has to be
acted on; so, if the negotiators get it wrong, they will suffer. When the details stage is concluded,
it could mean soldiers surrendering positions in defence of which they have lost brothers, settlers
giving up land in which they have sunk roots, exporters abandoning prized markets, or workers
losing their livelihoods. As a result, there should be no vagueness and no inconsistencies, and the
deal should be defensible at home. Magnanimity is generally at a discount in the details stage of
negotiations.

6.3.3 The Rules of Effective Diplomatic Negotiation

There is no set formula that will ensure victory. There are, however, several considerations that
affect the chances of diplomatic success. We can examine some of these considerations by
looking briefly at the rules of effective diplomacy. Some basic rules of effective diplomacy are.

1. Be realistic: It is important to have goals that match your ability to achieve them

2. Be careful about what you say: The experienced diplomat plans out and weighs words
carefully.

3. Seek common ground: Disputes begin but negotiations find common ground to end them
successfully. Almost any negotiation will involve some concessions, so it is important to
maintain a degree of flexibility. Most diplomats counsel that it is important to distinguish
your central from your peripheral values. Intransigence over a minor point, when a
concession can bring a counter concession on an issue important to you, is folly. There is
some research indicating that concessions, even unilateral ones, are likely to engender
positive responses. Other research concludes that finding common cause cannot end rivalry
but can create cooperation.

4. Understand the other side: There are several aspects to understanding the other side. One is
to appreciate an opponent’s perspective even if you do not agree with it.

5. Be patient: It is also important to bide your time. Being overly anxious can lead to
concessions that are unwise and may convey weakness to an opponent. As a corollary, it is

93 | P a g e
 poor practice to set deadlines, for yourself or others, unless you are in a very strong position
or you do not really want an agreement.

6. Leave avenues of retreat open: It is axiomatic that even a rat will fight if trapped in a
corner. The same is often true for countries. Call it honor, saving face, or prestige; it is
important to leave yourself and your opponent an ‘out’.

94 | P a g e