How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
EDITORIAL NOTE *
This article assesses the conduct of several states and reaches critical conclusions about them. The assessment reflects the author’s own perspective; this journal’s editorial position is neutral as between the states concerned. The article was written in autumn 2024 and its account of ongoing conflicts should be read with that date in mind.
ABSTRACT *
This article examines diplomacy as both an instrument of peace and a vehicle for national interest, and asks whether the two can be distinguished in practice. After considering the ambiguity of the term itself, the author traces the expansion of diplomacy from relations between states to a field involving international organisations, non-governmental bodies and private individuals, and the corresponding fusion of domestic and foreign policy. Sections on negotiation and mediation in crisis address the particular difficulties of hostage situations, the effect of communications technology, and the conditions under which mediation succeeds. A section on financial diplomacy traces the Bretton Woods institutions from their founding purpose of post-war reconstruction to a present in which the borrowers are developing states and the lenders are developed ones. The article then examines the United States Foreign Service, drawing on published accounts by serving diplomats, and reads the stated purpose of promoting national interests against the claim to work for peace. A final section returns to the Security Council and the veto.
KEYWORDS *
Diplomacy, negotiation, mediation, crisis, hostage negotiation, Bretton Woods, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Foreign Service, national interest, Security Council, veto
INTRODUCTION
The term diplomacy is a common word in most working environments, in daily life, and in many conversations. She is a diplomatic person might mean that this person can handle difficult situations well. It could also be understood in a negative light, as describing someone who is not entirely truthful. It can signify someone engaging others for peace at the expense of truth. The truth is not always a peaceful thing. What a person believes to be their truth might not be the truth of the other. In a world of chaos and constant warfare, diplomatic is a word used daily in local and international news. Its meaning is true to one and untrue to another. It is a hope to some and another step of unfairness to others.
To be diplomatic is the ability to relate cordially and engage in good relationships with others. It is the peaceful alignment of the interests of the parties. Diplomacy is the influencing of international situations, directly or indirectly. It can function in times of peace and of war; it knows no limit. However, there are questions to be asked when the originators of diplomacy are themselves anti-diplomatic. R. P. Barston, in Modern Diplomacy, examines the history and development of diplomacy and its relation to international trade, finance, negotiation, and mediation. Mark Simonoff’s address at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics gave an overview of the role of the United Nations in current world politics. The third edition of Inside a U.S. Embassy describes the people who work within United States embassies, their biographies, their work, the mission, and their daily life while posted abroad. In this paper I write on the following: the evolution of diplomacy, diplomacy in times of crisis, diplomacy and the economy, the United States and diplomacy, and the irony of diplomacy.
MAIN CORPUS
Evolution of diplomacy
Diplomacy is the “management of relations between states and between states and other actors” (Barston 2006: 1). In diplomacy, the promotion of interests, defence, and security is central. Diplomatic personnel acquire the information necessary to avoid threats and conflicts between their host and their home countries (Barston 2006: 3). They are skilled in observing, finding, and relaying information. In the diplomatic process, the fusion of countries’ international and domestic policies has continued to shape the international community. International decisions are made by countries with regard to their domestic situation (Barston 2006: 11). A country’s domestic circumstances therefore determine what it makes of its foreign policy. For example, the foreign policy of a country ruled by a military government will differ from that of a democratic one (Barston 2006: 17).
The establishment of the United Nations by the United States, European states, and their allies after the Second World War was intended to enhance international diplomacy (Simonoff 2012). The end of the Cold War also saw considerable expansion in this respect. The existence of de facto states, together with economic, transport, and social cooperation among states, has widened the international arena (Barston 2006: 6). The formation of regional organisations such as ECOWAS, of global organisations such as the United Nations, and of its specialised agencies, has expanded international diplomacy (Barston 2006: 9). The creation of these organisations has therefore broadened the scope of diplomacy.
Diplomatic relationships have moved from relations between states alone to the work of foreign and diplomatic offices with a wide range of counterparts. Diplomacy has ceased to be the exclusive business of appointed diplomatic officers. It now includes actors such as non-governmental organisations, international organisations, and private individuals (Barston 2006: 1). Foreign policy has become so complex that the involvement of other actors has become necessary (Barston 2006: 14). Maintaining and creating relationships between states is therefore not only in the hands of ministries of foreign affairs but also involves an extensive range of actors. For example, in the current war between Israel and its neighbours, the United Nations and its agencies, together with regional Arab organisations, have been vital in moving towards humanitarian arrangements and ceasefire negotiations.
Diplomacy in times of crisis
A crisis is an inevitable feature of situations where people coexist, whether as a local or an international community. Diplomacy’s attempt to create cordial relationships between states does not prevent crisis. The existence of conflict, however, does not necessarily mean a failure of diplomacy. One of the purposes of diplomacy is the settlement of disputes between states and between states and other actors. The tools of diplomacy are employed when conflict arises. The possibility of resolving a crisis is therefore at the core of diplomacy.
Negotiation during crisis. Negotiation is one of the primary functions of diplomacy (Barston 2006: 2). It is an attempt to explore and reconcile conflicting positions in order to reach an acceptable outcome. Whatever the nature of that outcome, which may in fact favour one party more than another, the purpose of negotiation is the identification of areas of common interest and of conflict (Barston 2006: 48). The negotiation process is a progression towards a substantive agreement. It typically involves multiple phases, beginning with preparation and ending with the final agreement.
Negotiation can be complicated, especially where conflict has escalated into violence. At that point the issues in dispute have been reduced to a minimum, and negotiators must deal first with the most urgent. For example, in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, the most urgent task of the negotiators was the situation of those held hostage. People held by both sides remain one of the outstanding issues as the war extends. Negotiation methods may vary depending on the specific context of a hostage crisis.
In many conflicts there is a possibility of hostage-taking on both sides to obtain leverage. Negotiations of this kind present unique challenges, with elements such as video communication, public appeals, and conflicting objectives. However, hostage negotiations are not beyond the capacity of diplomacy; rather, they fall well within the domain of diplomacy, which traditionally is concerned with developing and using a variety of contacts and with operating in dangerous situations (Barston 2006: 62).
Hostage situations have developed alongside technology. The use of video and telephone to communicate violence (Barston 2006: 62) complicates the situation. Video recordings and telephone communications concerning those held have featured in the current conflict. The use of modern technology has had an effect on crisis, sometimes negative and at other times positive.
Negotiations are affected by factors such as the negotiating environment, the assets available, and contingent variables. However, negotiating in crisis and reaching a settlement is possible where these factors are used constructively. Negotiators are aware of the factors that influence the parties and take them into account. Negotiation may also take longer and fail to reach a conclusion because of the influence of parties with personal objectives or interests.
Mediation during crisis. The settlement of disputes involves various methods such as inquiry, negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, mediation, and judicial settlement. Mediation is distinguished from other forms of conflict resolution in that it not only identifies the issues in dispute but also works towards a solution.
Mediation focuses on facilitating communication and the understanding of opposing viewpoints. The mediator, as third party, seeks to influence the process and the content of potential solutions, often helping the parties adjust their perspectives, goals, and behaviour. Mediators, who may be external to the dispute, are crucial in facilitating peaceful resolution (Barston 2006: 234). A mediator must also earn the trust of both parties for the acceptance and effectiveness of the process, so as to “soften the edge of controversy and provide a mechanism for adjustment on issues of prestige” (Barston 2006: 234).
In times of escalated conflict, though faced with the difficulty of bringing the parties together, mediation is still accepted. Conflicting parties rarely reject mediation; it is usually entered into voluntarily (Barston 2006: 241). A successful outcome is usually characterised by the maintenance of confidentiality in the process, the use of informal mediators, and the wording of the agreement covering bilateral cooperation between the parties.
In complex, multiparty conflicts, several levels of mediation may occur concurrently, especially where one party lacks diplomatic resources or faces isolation. In these cases various forms of formal and informal mediation may be used to navigate the conflict. In the current wars between Israel and Hamas and between Russia and Ukraine, mediation continues in the attempt to resolve the issues in dispute and to find an agreement that better serves the parties.
Diplomacy and the economy
International conflict and war have contributed to poverty throughout the world. Banks and other financial institutions do not function during wars and violent conflict. Markets, shops, and supermarkets also cease to function in times of violence. Civilians therefore rely on supplies from their government and from local and international organisations.
In times of war and violent attack, stronger parties use their power to prevent the weaker from receiving financial and humanitarian assistance. They block supplies from reaching the weaker party in order to gain advantage. One of the tactics of winning a war is therefore ensuring that the other party lacks food and medical supplies. Nigeria prevailed in its war against secessionist Biafra in 1970 in part by ensuring that salt and other supplies did not reach Biafra.
In the current war, access for humanitarian supplies into Gaza has been repeatedly restricted, and the United States has publicly pressed for that access to be improved. During a full-scale war, participating countries, whether prevailing or not, suffer severe financial strain. Hence the need for funds in the aftermath of war.
For this purpose international financial institutions were created at the end of the Second World War. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were established following the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944, with 44 countries participating. The Bretton Woods agreements focused on preventing another collapse of the international monetary system such as that of the 1930s, emphasising reconstruction and the transition to peacetime economies (Barston 2006: 104).
The purpose of the conference was to prevent a recurrence of the financial collapse of the 1930s and to regulate the world economy. The main tasks of the Fund include providing international liquidity and assisting members with balance of payments difficulties. It aimed at establishing stable exchange rates and discouraging the use of direct controls (Barston 2006: 105).
The World Bank was established to facilitate capital investment for development, particularly in post-war recovery. It operates as a joint-stock entity with voting rights based on shareholding, and plays a role in loan recommendation and management (Barston 2006: 106). The Bank and the Fund therefore aimed to restore the economies of war-torn countries by lending to them. The Bank aims to facilitate capital investment for productive purposes, with an emphasis on less developed countries, providing financing through guarantees and direct lending (Barston 2006: 107).
Despite the intentions of these two institutions, they had limited impact during the late 1940s and early 1950s, since post-war reconstruction was primarily financed through the Marshall Plan. The United States played a vital role as a source of international liquidity through the dollar. However, developments in the late 1950s and early 1960s changed the focus of the institutions and reduced American influence. Serious balance of payments deficits in the late 1950s raised concerns about the role of the United States in the Bretton Woods system. Western European powers and Japan emerged as major decision-making groups in international financial matters.
The Fund saw an increase in membership, especially from Africa, which brought a wider range of interests and demands on resources. Both institutions have been reformed over the years, including through the establishment of the Development Committee. However, despite this restructuring, the major borrowers have been developing countries while the lenders are developed ones (Barston 2006: 112 to 118). Borrowing countries have continued to borrow at a greater rate, since debt negotiations are sensitive to domestic and international events (Barston 2006: 125).
Despite the restructuring of the Bank and the Fund and the conditions set for borrowing countries, the developed European countries, the United States, and Japan remain the principal beneficiaries. This form of financial diplomacy has kept developing countries returning for further loans. These countries are in continuing debt, with significant consequences. Financial diplomacy is, on this reading, arranged so that the rich become richer and the poor poorer.
The United States and diplomacy
“The Foreign Service is a career like no other. It is much more than a job; it is a uniquely demanding and rewarding way of life. As representatives of the United States to foreign governments, Foreign Service members have a direct impact on people’s lives and participate in the making of history” (Dorman 2011: 20).
United States embassies are present in most countries of the world. The diplomatic career is a fulfilling one for those who serve. Diplomats travel to places they might never otherwise have visited. They learn about other cultures, encounter different foods, and experience different religions. They also encounter the other side of the work, which can be difficult and unforgettable. Examples include the burning of the United States embassy in Belgrade and the subsequent evacuation of staff (Dorman 2011: 283 to 285), and the diplomatic responses to the war in Iraq, even though many diplomats did not agree with the invasion (Dorman 2011: 121).
The United States embassy network is vast in its operations and present in almost every country (Dorman 2011: 21 to 24). Compared with other countries, the United States has embraced both native-born and naturalised citizens in its embassies and foreign offices (Dorman 2011: 33).
The United States, as the most influential state within the United Nations, presents itself as a democratic centre of the world and a symbol of international unity (Simonoff 2012). It is the first negotiator of conflicts in many parts of the world. However, is this so, or is it a facade? United States diplomacy gives the impression of an intent towards world peace. Can we conclude otherwise after reading between the lines of the words of its own diplomats?
“Every day, consular officers help stranded Americans get home. Every day, economic and commercial officers assist U.S. businesses to compete overseas. During times of upheaval, political officers are the ones on the front lines around the world, keeping Washington informed about the real situation. U.S. diplomats negotiate the international agreements that end the wars, keep the peace, and protect and promote U.S. interests” (Dorman 2011: 17).
The phrase promote U.S. interests carries considerable meaning. The quotation above is an exposition of what diplomacy amounts to in this account. As a former President of the United States stated repeatedly, America first. The diplomatic hands that are extended are extended for American businesses abroad and for American citizens. Can it be concluded that American interests are the reason it involves itself in other countries’ affairs, and why it appears to negotiate and to seek peace around the world?
The United States maintains several missions worldwide, especially in places of strategic interest. Two of these are the Agency for International Development and the Foreign Agricultural Service. The former has implemented humanitarian and development programmes in war-torn countries, including Iraq, where the war was an action of the United States (Dorman 2011: 273). An agricultural officer states that these organisations play a role in “improving foreign markets for U.S. products and building new markets” (Dorman 2011: 48).
The Agency for International Development reports to the Secretary of State and is therefore closely connected to national policy. These organisations have provided humanitarian support to a large number of developing countries and are represented by a substantial number of foreign service officers (Dorman 2011: 68). The Agency is not only a humanitarian organisation providing assistance to states in need but also an instrument of national policy. American ambassadors therefore maintain regular contact with its directors (Dorman 2011: 248).
The irony of the Security Council
The Security Council consists of fifteen members, each with one vote, and is responsible for maintaining international peace and security. Among the fifteen are the five permanent members: China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Simonoff 2012).
The Council can impose sanctions on states. Its decisions are legally binding on member states. Sanctions have been imposed on countries such as North Korea and Iran. These are examples of the exercise of the powers of the permanent members, whose principal task is to keep world peace.
Simonoff sets out the purposes contained in Article 1 of the Charter: to maintain international peace, to develop friendly relations among nations, and to achieve international cooperation.
The Charter states that member states shall settle their disputes peacefully and refrain from the use of force. Members shall also respect the sovereignty of all member states. On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded the sovereign state of Ukraine. China has consistently pressured Taiwan, describing its government and elections as illegitimate, and has not ruled out the use of non-peaceful means. The United States invaded Iraq on 19 March 2003 on the basis of an allegation concerning weapons of mass destruction that was later shown to be unfounded.
The Council must reach agreement in order to adopt a resolution. On 25 February 2022 it was unable to adopt a resolution on the Ukraine crisis, as the Russian Federation exercised a veto. The Permanent Representative of Ukraine told the Council that its words had less value than a hole in a New York pretzel. The draft submitted by Albania and the United States gained the support of eleven members but was vetoed, with China, India, and the United Arab Emirates abstaining.
SUMMARY *
The article’s argument is that diplomacy cannot be assessed by its stated purposes because its stated purposes are always double. The same passage in which American diplomats describe ending wars and keeping the peace also describes protecting and promoting national interests, and the author’s contention is that these are not two activities but one, described in the terms appropriate to each audience. The same structure appears in the financial section, where institutions established to rebuild ruined economies now transfer resources in the opposite direction, and in the treatment of the Security Council, where the body charged with restraining aggression is composed so that its most powerful members cannot be restrained. The unifying observation is that instruments created for one purpose are retained because they serve another, and that this is visible in the documents of the institutions themselves rather than requiring any external accusation.
CONCLUSION
The Charter aims at a peaceful world. The United Nations has averted wars and has mediated and negotiated peace in situations of crisis. Diplomatic instruments are being used while wars continue. The ultimate goal remains the prevention of wider war and the pursuit of peace. The United Nations, states, regional organisations, and independent actors all have a part in averting conflict and resolving what is under way.
Building relationships among nations while keeping the peace is central to diplomacy. We have more in common than we know; we are all human, and the same colour of blood flows through our veins whatever our physical identity. Diplomacy is a means to an end. Its tools can and should be used to end a crisis.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The article’s central charge, that diplomacy pursues national interest while speaking of peace, is accurate and it is not quite an indictment, and stating the distinction precisely is what makes the analysis useful.
Diplomacy is the pursuit of national interest by means other than force. That is its definition rather than its corruption, and the alternative to a state pursuing its interests through embassies, negotiation and aid is not a state without interests but a state pursuing them by other means. What deserves scrutiny is narrower and more answerable: whether a particular instrument is presented as something it is not. Development assistance described as humanitarian while allocated by strategic priority, mediation offered by a party with a stake in the outcome, or an institution presented as multilateral while governed by a handful of shareholders each invite the objection the author raises. The remedy in each case is disclosure rather than abstention, and this journal returns to the point repeatedly: a mediator with interests can still be effective, and a mediator with concealed interests cannot.
The financial section identifies a real pattern and the mechanism is worth naming, since it has been extensively documented. Voting shares at both institutions were fixed according to the economic weight of 1944 and have been adjusted only marginally since, the leadership of each has by convention gone to an American and a European respectively, and structural adjustment lending imposed conditions that were rarely met and whose effects on health and education spending were sufficiently well established that the institutions themselves changed the approach. The response the author’s argument implies is already under way in the form of alternatives, including the development banks established by regional groupings and by the BRICS states, and their significance lies less in their lending capacity than in the leverage a borrower gains from having somewhere else to go.
Two additions belong here. The account of hostage negotiation is accurate as far as it goes and omits the distinction the field regards as fundamental: negotiations to secure release, conducted by specialists whose sole objective is that the person comes out alive, are separate from political negotiations about the terms of a conflict, and the two are placed in different hands precisely so that the first is not traded against the second. Where they are merged, as they have been in the current case, releases become contingent on political progress and people die waiting. And the treatment of humanitarian access as a tactic of war deserves its legal frame: the Geneva Conventions require parties to allow the passage of relief consignments for civilians, and the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited by treaty and constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute. That obligation binds every party regardless of the conduct of the other.
Finally, the article’s title identifies an irony and its conclusion offers a hope, and the distance between them is where practitioners work. Institutions built by the powerful will serve the powerful, and they will also do things the powerful would not otherwise do, because a rule invoked selectively is still a rule that can be invoked. The Charter’s prohibition on the use of force is violated and it is also the reason such violations require justification, and justification is a constraint on what can be done next. That is a modest defence of a compromised system and it is the one the record supports.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
Barston, R. P. (2006) Modern Diplomacy. 3rd edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Dorman, Shawn (ed.) (2011) Inside a U.S. Embassy: Diplomacy at Work. 3rd edition. Washington D.C.: American Foreign Service Association.
Simonoff, Mark (2012) Diplomacy at the United Nations. New Hampshire Institute of Politics, Saint Anselm College, 3 December 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXKjJL-Asu8
United Nations (2022) Security Council Meeting Coverage, 8979th Meeting, 25 February 2022, SC/14808. https://press.un.org/en/2022
Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team
Charter of the United Nations, 1945, Articles 1, 2, 25, 27 and 33.
Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, Articles 23 and 59, and Protocol Additional I, 1977, Articles 54 and 70.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) on starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.
Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund and of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Bretton Woods, 1944.
Berridge, G. R. (2015). Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (5th edition). Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. W. W. Norton, New York.
Woods, N. (2006). The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and Their Borrowers. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiation, professional standards and field manuals, Geneva.
Faure, G. O., & Zartman, I. W. (Eds.) (2010). Negotiating with Terrorists: Strategy, Tactics, and Politics. Routledge, London.
