Diplomacy

Diplomacy is not an unequivocal concept and can be simply defined as the conduct of international relations by negotiation. Alternately, diplomacy is characterized as the communication system of the international society, the peaceful conduct of relations among political entities, or, in more existential terms, mediation between estranged individuals, groups, or entities. Whereas the very word diplomacy might be imprecise, one might distinguish two different perspectives on diplomacy in the scholarly literature, both of which relate to power—yet in contradictory ways.

One perspective, closely associated with classic realism, is to regard diplomacy as an asset of states. Diplomacy then becomes a component, or reflection, of state power. Another perspective [Page 189]views diplomacy as an international institution, that is, a relatively stable collection of norms and rules that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations. Diplomacy is then located at the level of international society rather than of individual states, and is seen to temper, rather than reflect, state power.

Hans Morgenthau is emblematic of the first perspective. In his Politics Among Nations, he includes “the quality of diplomacy” among elements of national power. Considering all the other factors that determine national power as the raw material of power, Morgenthau argues that the quality of a nation's diplomacy combines these different factors into an integrated whole, turning potentialities into actual power. To Morgenthau, the conduct of a nation's foreign affairs by its diplomats is for national power in peace what military strategy and tactics by its military leaders are for national power in war.

Diplomacy, in this view, is included among, and depends on, other, more material capabilities; hence, it reflects state power. However, the quality of diplomacy may modify the value of other elements of state power. Thus, skillful diplomacy can increase the power of a nation beyond what one would expect it to be in view of other, material factors. Conversely, poor diplomacy may prevent otherwise powerful states from making full use of their power potentials. As an example of an outclassed state in material terms wielding power chiefly by virtue of its brilliant diplomacy, Morgenthau cites France from 1890 to 1914. Furthermore, he argues that British power covaried with the quality of British diplomacy, and that the first decades of skillful U.S. diplomacy were followed by a long period of mediocrity, or even ineptitude.

Raymond Aron, another classic realist, expresses a similar dual understanding of diplomacy as an element of state power. On the one hand, diplomacy implies the use of economic, psycho-political, and violent means and the choice of appropriate means among them; on the other hand, “pure” diplomacy relies on persuasion alone, without economic and political pressure or violence. Yet, Aron doubts that pure diplomacy exists. To be sure, states may make every effort to convince both adversaries and onlookers that they want to persuade or convince, not to constrain, and adversaries may have the illusion of freedom, even when they are in fact yielding to force. Yet, persuasion that is not backed up by power has little chance of success, according to Aron.

...