Gayblack Canadian Man

Foreign Policy Analysis
Diplomacy | Wikipedia audio article

Diplomacy | Wikipedia audio article


Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting
negotiations between representatives of states. It usually refers to the conduct of international
relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to a full range of topical
issues. Diplomacy entails influencing the decisions and conduct of foreign governments and officials through
dialogue, negotiation, and other nonviolent means.Diplomacy is the main instrument of
foreign policy, which consists of the broader goals and strategies that guide a state’s
interactions with the rest of the world. International treaties, agreements, alliances, and other
manifestations of foreign policy are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement
by national politicians. Diplomats may also help shape a state’s foreign policy in an
advisory capacity. Since the early 20th century, diplomacy has
become increasingly professionalized, being carried out by accredited career diplomats
supported by staff and diplomatic infrastructure, such as consulates and embassies. Subsequently,
the term “diplomats” has also been applied to diplomatic services, consular services
and foreign ministry officials more generally.==History=====West Asia===
Some of the earliest known diplomatic records are the Amarna letters written between the
pharaohs of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt and the Amurru
rulers of Canaan during the 14th century BC. Peace treaties were concluded between the
Mesopotamian city-states of Lagash and Umma around approximately 2100 BCE. Following the
Battle of Kadesh in 1274 BC during the Nineteenth dynasty, the pharaoh of Egypt and the ruler
of the Hittite Empire created one of the first known international peace treaties, which
survives in stone tablet fragments, now generally called the Egyptian–Hittite peace treaty.The
ancient Greek city-states on some occasions sent envoys to each other in order to negotiate
specific issues, such as war and peace or commercial relations, but did not have diplomatic
representatives regularly posted in each other’s territory. However, some of the functions
given to modern diplomatic representatives were in Classical Greece filled by a proxenos,
who was a citizen of the host city having a particular relations of friendship with
another city, often hereditary in a particular family. In times of peace diplomacy was even
conducted with rivals such as the Achaemenid Empire of Persia, though the latter eventually
succumbed to the invasions of the Macedonian king Alexander the Great. The latter was also
adept at diplomacy, realizing that in order to conquer certain territories it was important
for his Macedonian and subject Greek troops to mingle and intermarry with native populations.
For instance, Alexander even took a Sogdian woman of Bactria as his wife, Roxana, after
the siege of the Sogdian Rock, in order to quell the region (which had been troubled
by local rebels such as Spitamenes). Diplomacy was a necessary tool of statecraft for the
great Hellenistic kingdoms that were established, such as the Ptolemaic Kingdom and Seleucid
Empire, who fought several wars in the Near East and often negotiated a peace treaty through
alliances through marriage.=====Ottoman Empire=====Relations with the government of the Ottoman
Empire (known to Italian states as the Sublime Porte) were particularly important to Italian
states. The maritime republics of Genoa and Venice depended less and less upon their nautical
capabilities, and more and more upon the perpetuation of good relations with the Ottomans. Interactions
between various merchants, diplomats and clergy men hailing from the Italian and Ottoman empires
helped inaugurate and create new forms of diplomacy and statecraft. Eventually the primary
purpose of a diplomat, which was originally a negotiator, evolved into a persona that
represented an autonomous state in all aspects of political affairs. It became evident that
all other sovereigns felt the need to accommodate themselves diplomatically, due to the emergence
of the powerful political environment of the Ottoman Empire. One could come to the conclusion
that the atmosphere of diplomacy within the early modern period revolved around a foundation
of conformity to Ottoman culture.=====East Asia=====One of the earliest realists in international
relations theory was the 6th century BC military strategist Sun Tzu (d. 496 BC), author of
The Art of War. He lived during a time in which rival states were starting to pay less
attention to traditional respects of tutelage to the Zhou Dynasty (c. 1050–256 BC) figurehead
monarchs while each vied for power and total conquest. However, a great deal of diplomacy
in establishing allies, bartering land, and signing peace treaties was necessary for each
warring state, and the idealized role of the “persuader/diplomat” developed.From the Battle
of Baideng (200 BC) to the Battle of Mayi (133 BC), the Han Dynasty was forced to uphold
a marriage alliance and pay an exorbitant amount of tribute (in silk, cloth, grain,
and other foodstuffs) to the powerful northern nomadic Xiongnu that had been consolidated
by Modu Shanyu. After the Xiongnu sent word to Emperor Wen of Han (r. 180–157) that
they controlled areas stretching from Manchuria to the Tarim Basin oasis city-states, a treaty
was drafted in 162 BC proclaiming that everything north of the Great Wall belong to nomads’
lands, while everything south of it would be reserved for Han Chinese. The treaty was
renewed no less than nine times, but did not restrain some Xiongnu tuqi from raiding Han
borders. That was until the far-flung campaigns of Emperor Wu of Han (r. 141–87 BC) which
shattered the unity of the Xiongnu and allowed Han to conquer the Western Regions; under
Wu, in 104 BC the Han armies ventured as far Fergana in Central Asia to battle the Yuezhi
who had conquered Hellenistic Greek areas. The Koreans and Japanese during the Chinese
Tang Dynasty (618–907 AD) looked to the Chinese capital of Chang’an as the hub of
civilization and emulated its central bureaucracy as the model of governance. The Japanese sent
frequent embassies to China in this period, although they halted these trips in 894 when
the Tang seemed on the brink of collapse. After the devastating An Shi Rebellion from
755 to 763, the Tang Dynasty was in no position to reconquer Central Asia and the Tarim Basin.
After several conflicts with the Tibetan Empire spanning several different decades, the Tang
finally made a truce and signed a peace treaty with them in 841.
In the 11th century during the Song Dynasty (960–1279), there were cunning ambassadors
such as Shen Kuo and Su Song who achieved diplomatic success with the Liao Dynasty,
the often hostile Khitan neighbor to the north. Both diplomats secured the rightful borders
of the Song Dynasty through knowledge of cartography and dredging up old court archives. There
was also a triad of warfare and diplomacy between these two states and the Tangut Western
Xia Dynasty to the northwest of Song China (centered in modern-day Shaanxi). After warring
with the Lý Dynasty of Vietnam from 1075 to 1077, Song and Lý made a peace agreement
in 1082 to exchange the respective lands they had captured from each other during the war.
Long before the Tang and Song dynasties, the Chinese had sent envoys into Central Asia,
India, and Persia, starting with Zhang Qian in the 2nd century BC. Another notable event
in Chinese diplomacy was the Chinese embassy mission of Zhou Daguan to the Khmer Empire
of Cambodia in the 13th century. Chinese diplomacy was a necessity in the distinctive period
of Chinese exploration. Since the Tang Dynasty (618–907 AD), the Chinese also became heavily
invested in sending diplomatic envoys abroad on maritime missions into the Indian Ocean,
to India, Persia, Arabia, East Africa, and Egypt. Chinese maritime activity was increased
dramatically during the commercialized period of the Song Dynasty, with new nautical technologies,
many more private ship owners, and an increasing amount of economic investors in overseas ventures.
During the Mongol Empire (1206–1294) the Mongols created something similar to today’s
diplomatic passport called paiza. The paiza were in three different types (golden, silver,
and copper) depending on the envoy’s level of importance. With the paiza, there came
authority that the envoy can ask for food, transport, place to stay from any city, village,
or clan within the empire with no difficulties. From the 17th century the Qing Dynasty concluded
a series of treaties with Czarist Russia, beginning with the Treaty of Nerchinsk in
the year 1689. This was followed up by the Aigun Treaty and the Convention of Peking
in the mid-19th century. As European power spread around the world
in the 18th and 19th centuries so too did its diplomatic model, and Asian countries
adopted syncretic or European diplomatic systems. For example, as part of diplomatic negotiations
with the West over control of land and trade in China in the 19th century after the First
Opium War, the Chinese diplomat Qiying gifted intimate portraits of himself to representatives
from Italy, England, the United States, and France.=====Ancient India=====
Ancient India, with its kingdoms and dynasties, had a long tradition of diplomacy. The oldest
treatise on statecraft and diplomacy, Arthashastra, is attributed to Kautilya (also known as Chanakya),
who was the principal adviser to Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya dynasty
who ruled in the 3rd century BC. It incorporates a theory of diplomacy, of how in a situation
of mutually contesting kingdoms, the wise king builds alliances and tries to checkmate
his adversaries. The envoys sent at the time to the courts of other kingdoms tended to
reside for extended periods of time, and Arthashastra contains advice on the deportment of the envoy,
including the trenchant suggestion that ‘he should sleep alone’. The highest morality
for the king is that his kingdom should prosper.===Europe=======Byzantine Empire====The key challenge to the Byzantine Empire
was to maintain a set of relations between itself and its sundry neighbors, including
the Georgians, Iberians, the Germanic peoples, the Bulgars, the Slavs, the Armenians, the
Huns, the Avars, the Franks, the Lombards, and the Arabs, that embodied and so maintained
its imperial status. All these neighbors lacked a key resource that Byzantium had taken over
from Rome, namely a formalized legal structure. When they set about forging formal political
institutions, they were dependent on the empire. Whereas classical writers are fond of making
a sharp distinction between peace and war, for the Byzantines diplomacy was a form of
war by other means. With a regular army of 120,000-140,000 men after the losses of the
seventh century, the empire’s security depended on activist diplomacy.
Byzantium’s “Bureau of Barbarians” was the first foreign intelligence agency, gathering
information on the empire’s rivals from every imaginable source. While on the surface a
protocol office—its main duty was to ensure foreign envoys were properly cared for and
received sufficient state funds for their maintenance, and it kept all the official
translators—it clearly had a security function as well. On Strategy, from the 6th century,
offers advice about foreign embassies: “[Envoys] who are sent to us should be received honourably
and generously, for everyone holds envoys in high esteem. Their attendants, however,
should be kept under surveillance to keep them from obtaining any information by asking
questions of our people.”====Medieval and Early Modern Europe====In Europe, early modern diplomacy’s origins
are often traced to the states of Northern Italy in the early Renaissance, with the first
embassies being established in the 13th century. Milan played a leading role, especially under
Francesco Sforza who established permanent embassies to the other city states of Northern
Italy. Tuscany and Venice were also flourishing centres of diplomacy from the 14th century
onwards. It was in the Italian Peninsula that many of the traditions of modern diplomacy
began, such as the presentation of an ambassador’s credentials to the head of state.===Rules of modern diplomacy===From Italy the practice was spread across
Europe. Milan was the first to send a representative to the court of France in 1455. However, Milan
refused to host French representatives fearing espionage and that the French representatives
would intervene in its internal affairs. As foreign powers such as France and Spain became
increasingly involved in Italian politics the need to accept emissaries was recognized.
Soon the major European powers were exchanging representatives. Spain was the first to send
a permanent representative; it appointed an ambassador to the Court of St. James’s (i.e.
England) in 1487. By the late 16th century, permanent missions became customary. The Holy
Roman Emperor, however, did not regularly send permanent legates, as they could not
represent the interests of all the German princes (who were in theory all subordinate
to the Emperor, but in practice each independent). In 1500-1700 rules of modern diplomacy were
further developed. French replaced Latin from about 1715. The top rank of representatives
was an ambassador. At that time an ambassador was a nobleman, the rank of the noble assigned varying with the prestige
of the country he was delegated to. Strict standards developed for ambassadors, requiring
they have large residences, host lavish parties, and play an important role in the court life
of their host nation. In Rome, the most prized posting for a Catholic ambassador, the French
and Spanish representatives would have a retinue of up to a hundred. Even in smaller posts,
ambassadors were very expensive. Smaller states would send and receive envoys, who were a
rung below ambassador. Somewhere between the two was the position of minister plenipotentiary. Diplomacy was a complex affair, even more
so than now. The ambassadors from each state were ranked by complex levels of precedence
that were much disputed. States were normally ranked by the title of the sovereign; for
Catholic nations the emissary from the Vatican was paramount, then those from the kingdoms,
then those from duchies and principalities. Representatives from republics were ranked
the lowest (which often angered the leaders of the numerous German, Scandinavian and Italian
republics). Determining precedence between two kingdoms depended on a number of factors
that often fluctuated, leading to near-constant squabbling.
Ambassadors were often nobles with little foreign experience and no expectation of a
career in diplomacy. They were supported by their embassy staff. These professionals would
be sent on longer assignments and would be far more knowledgeable than the higher-ranking
officials about the host country. Embassy staff would include a wide range of employees,
including some dedicated to espionage. The need for skilled individuals to staff embassies
was met by the graduates of universities, and this led to a great increase in the study
of international law, French, and history at universities throughout Europe. At the same time, permanent foreign ministries
began to be established in almost all European states to coordinate embassies and their staffs.
These ministries were still far from their modern form, and many of them had extraneous
internal responsibilities. Britain had two departments with frequently overlapping powers
until 1782. They were also far smaller than they are currently. France, which boasted
the largest foreign affairs department, had only some 70 full-time employees in the 1780s.
The elements of modern diplomacy slowly spread to Eastern Europe and Russia, arriving by
the early 18th century. The entire edifice would be greatly disrupted by the French Revolution
and the subsequent years of warfare. The revolution would see commoners take over the diplomacy
of the French state, and of those conquered by revolutionary armies. Ranks of precedence
were abolished. Napoleon also refused to acknowledge diplomatic immunity, imprisoning several British
diplomats accused of scheming against France. After the fall of Napoleon, the Congress of
Vienna of 1815 established an international system of diplomatic rank. Disputes on precedence
among nations (and therefore the appropriate diplomatic ranks used) were first addressed
at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818, but persisted for over a century until after
World War II, when the rank of ambassador became the norm. In between that time, figures
such as the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck were renowned for international diplomacy.
Diplomats themselves and historians often refer to the foreign ministry by its address:
the Ballhausplatz (Vienna), the Quai d’Orsay (Paris), the Wilhelmstraße (Berlin); and
Foggy Bottom (Washington). For imperial Russia to 1917 it was the Choristers’ Bridge (St
Petersburg). The “Consulta” referred to the Italian ministry of Foreign Affairs, based in the Palazzo della
Consulta from 1874 to 1922.==Diplomatic immunity==The sanctity of diplomats has long been observed.
This sanctity has come to be known as diplomatic immunity. While there have been a number of
cases where diplomats have been killed, this is normally viewed as a great breach of honour.
Genghis Khan and the Mongols were well known for strongly insisting on the rights of diplomats,
and they would often wreak horrific vengeance against any state that violated these rights.
Diplomatic rights were established in the mid-17th century in Europe and have spread
throughout the world. These rights were formalized by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, which protects diplomats from being persecuted or prosecuted while on a diplomatic
mission. If a diplomat does commit a serious crime while in a host country he or she may
be declared as persona non grata (unwanted person). Such diplomats are then often tried
for the crime in their homeland. Diplomatic communications are also viewed
as sacrosanct, and diplomats have long been allowed to carry documents across borders
without being searched. The mechanism for this is the so-called “diplomatic bag” (or,
in some countries, the “diplomatic pouch”). While radio and digital communication have
become more standard for embassies, diplomatic pouches are still quite common and some countries,
including the United States, declare entire shipping containers as diplomatic pouches
to bring sensitive material (often building supplies) into a country.In times of hostility,
diplomats are often withdrawn for reasons of personal safety, as well as in some cases
when the host country is friendly but there is a perceived threat from internal dissidents.
Ambassadors and other diplomats are sometimes recalled temporarily by their home countries
as a way to express displeasure with the host country. In both cases, lower-level employees
still remain to actually do the business of diplomacy.==Espionage==
Diplomacy is closely linked to espionage or gathering of intelligence. Embassies are bases
for both diplomats and spies, and some diplomats are essentially openly acknowledged spies.
For instance, the job of military attachés includes learning as much as possible about
the military of the nation to which they are assigned. They do not try to hide this role
and, as such, are only invited to events allowed by their hosts, such as military parades or
air shows. There are also deep-cover spies operating in many embassies. These individuals
are given fake positions at the embassy, but their main task is to illegally gather intelligence,
usually by coordinating spy rings of locals or other spies. For the most part, spies operating
out of embassies gather little intelligence themselves and their identities tend to be
known by the opposition. If discovered, these diplomats can be expelled from an embassy,
but for the most part counter-intelligence agencies prefer to keep these agents in situ
and under close monitoring. The information gathered by spies plays an
increasingly important role in diplomacy. Arms-control treaties would be impossible
without the power of reconnaissance satellites and agents to monitor compliance. Information
gleaned from espionage is useful in almost all forms of diplomacy, everything from trade
agreements to border disputes.==Diplomatic resolution of problems==
Various processes and procedures have evolved over time for handling diplomatic issues and
disputes.===Arbitration and mediation===Nations sometimes resort to international
arbitration when faced with a specific question or point of contention in need of resolution.
For most of history, there were no official or formal procedures for such proceedings.
They were generally accepted to abide by general principles and protocols related to international
law and justice. Sometimes these took the form of formal arbitrations
and mediations. In such cases a commission of diplomats might be convened to hear all
sides of an issue, and to come some sort of ruling based on international law.In the modern
era, much of this work is often carried out by the International Court of Justice at The
Hague, or other formal commissions, agencies and tribunals, working under the United Nations.
Below are some examples. Hay-Herbert Treaty Enacted after the United
States and Britain submitted a dispute to international mediation about the Canada–US
border.===Conferences===Other times, resolutions were sought through
the convening of international conferences. In such cases, there are fewer ground rules,
and fewer formal applications of international law. However, participants are expected to
guide themselves through principles of international fairness, logic, and protocol.Some examples
of these formal conferences are: Congress of Vienna (1815) – After Napoleon
was defeated, there were many diplomatic questions waiting to be resolved. This included the
shape of the map of Europe, the disposition of political and nationalist claims of various
ethnic groups and nationalities wishing to have some political autonomy, and the resolution
of various claims by various European powers. The Congress of Berlin (June 13 – July 13,
1878) was a meeting of the European Great Powers’ and the Ottoman Empire’s leading statesmen
in Berlin in 1878. In the wake of the Russo-Turkish War, 1877–78, the meeting’s aim was to reorganize
conditions in the Balkans.===Negotiations===Sometimes nations convene official negotiation
processes to settle a specific dispute or specific issue between several nations which
are parties to a dispute. These are similar to the conferences mentioned above, as there
are technically no established rules or procedures. However, there are general principles and
precedents which help define a course for such proceedings.Some examples are Camp David Accords – Convened in 1978 by
President Jimmy Carter of the United States, at Camp David to reach an agreement between
Prime Minister Mechaem Begin of Israel and President Anwar Sadat of Egypt. After weeks
of negotiation, agreement was reached and the accords were signed, later leading directly
to the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty of 1979. Treaty of Portsmouth – Enacted after President
Theodore Roosevelt brought together the delegates from Russia and Japan, to settle the Russo-Japanese
War. Roosevelt’s personal intervention settled the conflict, and caused him to win the Nobel
Peace Prize.==Diplomatic recognition==Diplomatic recognition is an important factor
in determining whether a nation is an independent state. Receiving recognition is often difficult,
even for countries which are fully sovereign. For many decades after its becoming independent,
even many of the closest allies of the Dutch Republic refused to grant it full recognition.
Today there are a number of independent entities without widespread diplomatic recognition,
most notably the Republic of China (ROC)/Taiwan on Taiwan Island. Since the 1970s, most nations
have stopped officially recognizing the ROC’s existence on Taiwan, at the insistence of
the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Currently, the United States and other nations maintain
informal relations through de facto embassies, with names such as the American Institute
in Taiwan. Similarly, Taiwan’s de facto embassies abroad are known by names such as the Taipei
Economic and Cultural Representative Office. This was not always the case, with the US
maintaining official diplomatic ties with the ROC, recognizing it as the sole and legitimate
government of “all of China” until 1979, when these relations were broken off as a condition
for establishing official relations with PR China.
The Palestinian National Authority has its own diplomatic service. However, Palestinian
representatives in countries that do not recognize the State of Palestine as a sovereign state
are not accorded diplomatic immunity, and their missions are referred to as “Delegations
General”. Similarly, Israeli diplomats in countries that do not recognize the State
of Israel as a sovereign state are not accorded full diplomatic status.
Other unrecognized regions which claim independence include Abkhazia, Liberland, Transnistria,
Somaliland, South Ossetia, Nagorno Karabakh, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Lacking the economic and political importance of Taiwan, these territories tend to be much
more diplomatically isolated. Though used as a factor in judging sovereignty,
Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention states, “The political existence of the state is independent
of recognition by other states.”==Informal diplomacy==
Informal diplomacy (sometimes called Track II diplomacy) has been used for centuries
to communicate between powers. Most diplomats work to recruit figures in other nations who
might be able to give informal access to a country’s leadership. In some situations,
such as between the United States and the People’s Republic of China a large amount
of diplomacy is done through semi-formal channels using interlocutors such as academic members
of thinktanks. This occurs in situations where governments wish to express intentions or
to suggest methods of resolving a diplomatic situation, but do not wish to express a formal
position. Track II diplomacy is a specific kind of informal
diplomacy, in which non-officials (academic scholars, retired civil and military officials,
public figures, social activists) engage in dialogue, with the aim of conflict resolution,
or confidence-building. Sometimes governments may fund such Track II exchanges. Sometimes
the exchanges may have no connection at all with governments, or may even act in defiance
of governments; such exchanges are called Track III.
On some occasion a former holder of an official position continues to carry out an informal
diplomatic activity after retirement. In some cases, governments welcome such activity,
for example as a means of establishing an initial contact with a hostile state of group
without being formally committed. In other cases, however, such informal diplomats seek
to promote a political agenda different from that of the government currently in power.
Such informal diplomacy is practiced by former US Presidents Jimmy Carter and (to a lesser
extent) Bill Clinton and by the former Israeli diplomat and minister Yossi Beilin (see Geneva
Initiative).==Small state diplomacy==Small state diplomacy is receiving increasing
attention in diplomatic studies and international relations. Small states are particularly affected
by developments which are determined beyond their borders such as climate change, water
security and shifts in the global economy. Diplomacy is the main vehicle by which small
states are able to ensure that their goals are addressed in the global arena. These factors
mean that small states have strong incentives to support international cooperation. But
with limited resources at their disposal, conducting effective diplomacy poses unique
challenges for small states.==Types==
There are a variety of diplomatic categories and diplomatic strategies employed by organizations
and governments to achieve their aims, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.===Preventive diplomacy===Preventive diplomacy through quiet means (as
opposed to “gun-boat diplomacy” backed by threat of force or “public diplomacy”
which makes use of publicity). It is also understood that circumstances may exist in
which the consensual use of force (notably preventive deployment) might be welcomed by
parties to a conflict with a view to achieving the stabilization necessary for diplomacy
and related political processes to proceed. This is to be distinguished from the use of
“persuasion”, “suasion”, “influence”, and other non-coercive approaches explored
below. “Preventive diplomacy”, in the view of
one expert, is “the range of peaceful dispute resolution approaches mentioned in Article
33 of the UN Charter [on the pacific settlement of disputes] when applied before a dispute
crosses the threshold to armed conflict.” It may take many forms, with different means
employed. One form of diplomacy which may be brought to bear to prevent violent conflict
(or to prevent its recurrence) is “quiet diplomacy”. When one speaks of the practice
of quiet diplomacy, definitional clarity is largely absent. In part this is due to a lack
of any comprehensive assessment of exactly what types of engagement qualify, and how
such engagements are pursued. On the one hand, a survey of the literature reveals no precise
understanding or terminology on the subject. On the other hand, concepts are neither clear
nor discrete in practice. Multiple definitions are often invoked simultaneously by theorists,
and the activities themselves often mix and overlap in practice.===Public diplomacy===Public diplomacy is exercising influence through
communication with the general public in another nation, rather than attempting to influence
the nation’s government directly. This communication may take the form of propaganda, or more benign
forms such as citizen diplomacy, individual interactions between average citizens of two
or more nations. Technological advances and the advent of digital diplomacy now allow
instant communication with foreign public, and methods such as Facebook diplomacy and
Twitter diplomacy are increasingly used by world leaders and diplomats.===Soft power===Soft power, sometimes called hearts and minds
diplomacy, as defined by Joseph Nye, is the cultivation of relationships, respect, or
even admiration from others in order to gain influence, as opposed to more coercive approaches.
Often and incorrectly confused with the practice of official diplomacy, soft power refers to
non-state, culturally attractive factors that may predispose people to sympathize with a
foreign culture based on affinity for its products, such as the American entertainment
industry, schools and music. A country’s soft power can come from three resources: its culture
(in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to
them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate
and having moral authority).===Peer to Peer Diplomacy (Attias Shay)===
‘Peer-to-Peer’ Diplomacy which was first Coined in 2012 by an Israeli Diplomat who was deeply
influenced by Nye (Shay Attias) https://brill.com/view/journals/hjd/7/4/article-p473_7.xml?lang=en Attias coined the notion of ‘peer-to-peer’
(P2P) which describes the latest development in diplomatic practice, wherein civilians
— by virtue of social media — are not only consumers of government information,
but also information producers, with the potential to bypass existing official government bodies.Jan
1, 2012===Economic diplomacy===Economic diplomacy is the use of foreign aid
or other types of economic policy as a means to achieve a diplomatic agenda.===Counterinsurgency diplomacy===
Counterinsurgency diplomacy or Expeditionary Diplomacy, developed by diplomats deployed
to civil-military stabilization efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, employs diplomats at
tactical and operational levels, outside traditional embassy environments and often alongside military
or peacekeeping forces. Counterinsurgency diplomacy may provide political environment
advice to local commanders, interact with local leaders, and facilitate the governance
efforts, functions and reach of a host government.===Gunboat diplomacy===Gunboat diplomacy is the use of conspicuous
displays of military strength as a means of intimidation in order to influence others.
It must also be stated that since gunboat diplomacy lies near the edge between peace
and war, victory or defeat in an incident may foster a shift into political and psychological
dimensions: a standoff between a weaker and a stronger state may be perceived as a defeat
for the stronger one. This was the case in the Pueblo Incident in which the Americans
lost face with regard to North Korea.===Migration diplomacy===Migration diplomacy refers to the use of human
migration in a state’s foreign policy. American political scientist Myron Weiner argued that
international migration is intricately linked to states’ international relations. More recently,
Kelly Greenhill has identified how states may employ ‘weapons of mass migration’ against
target states in their foreign relations. Migration diplomacy may involve the use of
refugees, labor migrants, or diasporas in states’ pursuit of international diplomacy
goals.===Appeasement===Appeasement is a policy of making concessions
to an aggressor in order to avoid confrontation; because of its failure to prevent World War
2, appeasement is not considered a legitimate tool of modern diplomacy.===Nuclear diplomacy===Nuclear diplomacy is the area of diplomacy
related to preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear war. One of the most well-known
(and most controversial) philosophies of nuclear diplomacy is mutually assured destruction
(MAD).==Diplomatic training institutions==Most countries provide professional training
for their diplomats and some run establishments specifically for that purpose. Private institutions
also exist as do establishments associated with organisations like the European Union
and the United Nations.==See also====Notes and references====Bibliography==
Black, Jeremy. A History of Diplomacy (U. of Chicago Press, 2010) ISBN 978-1-86189-696-4
Berridge, G. R. Diplomacy: Theory & Practice, 3rd edition, Palgrave, Basingstoke, 2005,
ISBN 1-4039-9311-4 Callieres, Francois De. The Practice of Diplomacy
(1919) Cunningham, George. Journey to Become a Diplomat:
With a Guide to Careers in World Affairs FPA Global Vision Books 2005, ISBN 0-87124-212-5
Dennis, George T. (1985). Three Byzantine Military Treatises (Volume 9). Washington,
District of Columbia: Dumbarton Oaks, Research Library and Collection. ISBN 9780884021407.
Dorman, Shawn, ed. Inside a U.S. Embassy: How the Foreign Service Works for America
by American Foreign Service Association, Second edition February 2003, ISBN 0-9649488-2-6
Hayne, M. B. The French Foreign Office and the Origins of the First World War, 1898–1914
(1993); Hill, Henry Bertram. The Political Testament
of Cardinal Richeleiu: The Significant Chapters and Supporting Selections (1964)
Jackson, Peter “Tradition and adaptation: the social universe of the French Foreign
Ministry in the era of the First World War”, French History, 24 (2010), 164–96;
Kissinger, Henry. A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh, and the Problem of Peace: 1812-1822
(1999) Henry Kissinger. Diplomacy (1999)
Kurbalija J. and Slavik H. eds. Language and Diplomacy DiploProjects, Mediterranean Academy
of Diplomatic Studies, Malta, 2001, ISBN 99909-55-15-8; papers by experts.
Macalister-Smith Peter, Schwietzke, Joachim, ed., Diplomatic Conferences and Congresses.
A Bibliographical Compendium of State Practice 1642 to 1919 W. Neugebauer, Graz, Feldkirch
2017 ISBN 978-3-85376-325-4 MacMillan, Margaret. Paris 1919: Six Months
That Changed the World (2003). Garrett Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy Dover
Publications, ISBN 978-0-486-25570-5 Maulucci Jr., Thomas W. Adenauer’s Foreign
Office: West German Diplomacy in the Shadow of the Third Reich (2012).
Nicolson, Sir Harold George. Diplomacy (1988) Nicolson, Sir Harold George. The Congress
of Vienna: A Study in Allied Unity: 1812-1822 (2001)
Nicolson, Sir Harold George. The Evolution of Diplomatic Method (1977)
Otte, Thomas G. The Foreign Office Mind: The Making of British Foreign Policy, 1865–1914
(2011). Rana, Kishan S. and Jovan Kurbalija, eds.
Foreign Ministries: Managing Diplomatic Networks and Optimizing Value DiploFoundation, 2007,
ISBN 978-99932-53-16-7 Rana, Kishan S. The 21st Century Ambassador:
Plenipotentiary to Chief Executive DiploFoundation,2004, ISBN 99909-55-18-2
Roeder, Larry W. “Diplomacy, Funding and Animal Welfare”, Springer, Hamburg, 2011
Ernest Satow. A Guide to Diplomatic Practice by Longmans, Green & Co. London & New York,
1917. A standard reference work used in many embassies across the world (though not British
ones). Now in its fifth edition (1998) ISBN 0-582-50109-1
Seldon, Anthony. Foreign Office (2000), history of the British ministry and its headquarters
building. Steiner, Zara S. The Foreign Office and Foreign
Policy, 1898–1914 (1969) on Britain. Stevenson, David. “The Diplomats” in Jay Winter,
ed. The Cambridge History of the First World War: Volume II: The State (2014) vol 2 ch
3, pp 66–90. Fredrik Wesslau, The Political Adviser’s Handbook
(2013), ISBN 978-91-979688-7-4 Wicquefort, Abraham de. The Embassador and
His Functions (2010) Jovan Kurbalija and Valentin Katrandjiev,
Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities. ISBN 978-99932-53-16-7
Rivère de Carles, Nathalie, and Duclos, Nathalie, Forms of Diplomacy (16th-21st c.), Toulouse,
Presses Universitaires du Midi, 2015. ISBN 978-2-8107-0424-8. A study of alternative
forms of diplomacy and essays on cultural diplomacy by Lucien Bély et al.==Further reading==
Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian (2018). “Intelligence and Diplomacy in the Security Dilemma: Gauging
Capabilities and Intentions”. International Politics. 55 (5): 519–536. doi:10.1057/s41311-017-0119-8.==External links==
Foreign Affairs Manual and associated Handbooks – the Foreign Affairs Manual (and related
handbooks) of the United States Department of State
Frontline Diplomacy: The Foreign Affairs Oral History Collection of the Association for
Diplomatic Studies and Training – American diplomats describe their careers on the American
Memory website at the Library of Congress

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *