HIS 122 Elements of Diplomacy & Strategic Studies PDF

DEPT. OF HISTORY & INT’L STUDIES HIS 122: ELEMENTS OF DIPLOMACY & STRATEGIC STUDIES By ABOYEJI, Adeniyi Justus, Ph.D. Department of History & International Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria Universit...

DEPT. OF HISTORY & INT’L STUDIES HIS 122: ELEMENTS OF DIPLOMACY & STRATEGIC STUDIES By ABOYEJI, Adeniyi Justus, Ph.D. Department of History & International Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria University of Ilorin, Ilorin © 21st January, 2021  In our last class, we considered DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS & MEANINGS/ DEFINITIONS OF DIPLOMACY  We considered 6 Connotations of Diplomacy a. Representation b. Negotiation c. Synonym for Foreign Policy d. The Embodiment of the Foreign Service itself e. The Totality of the Functions of a Diplomat f. Duplicity (Deceit, Lies…)  We also considered about 12 Definitions For the purpose of this course, the word diplomacy would be defined as the means and methods through which a nation-state conducts its business with the other actors within the international system in the pursuit of its national interests.  In Today’s Class, we will be considering THE EVOLUTION/ ORIGIN & GROWTH OF DIPLOMACY  PREAMBLE The origin of diplomacy is hard to trace. This is not unconnected with the fact that diplomacy is like a two-sided coin: Theory and Practice of Diplomacy. As such, the practice of diplomacy, rather than its origins, has often become the major subject of concern in the field of diplomacy (Adegbulu, 2011:17). Although State system is rarely dated preceding the 17th century, diplomacy as connoting representation and negotiation is as old as the human society itself.  There are probabilities from the pre-historic and proto-historic epochs. Drawing inferences from prehistoric probabilities, Nicholson (1969:6) opines that there must have been moments when a group of savages wished to negotiate with another even if just for the purpose of indicating that they had had enough of the day's battle and would like to have a break in order to attend to their wounded folks and bury their dead. To him, the mere fact that these savages didn't spend all their days fighting in itself, is diplomacy, as some form of negotiation must have been involved. In that regard, Nicolson aptly captured it thus:  Even in prehistory there must have come moments when one group of savages wished to negotiate with another group of savages if only for the purpose of indicating that they had had enough of the day's battle and would like to pause in which to collect their dead and bury their dead. From the very first… it must have become apparent that such negotiations would be severely hampered if the emissary from one side were killed and eaten by the other side before he had had time to deliver his message. The practice must therefore have become established even in the remotest times that it would be better to grant such negotiators certain privileges and immunities which were denied warriors.  Of course, the art of fighting itself, is an act of violence whereby a superior nation compels its weaker opponent to fulfil its political whims and/or economic caprices (Clausewitz, 1997:5 quoted in Adegbulu, 2011:171). Evidences are replete that sending of emissaries to open up negotiation was a common place among quite primitive peoples and that in many instances, their reception and treatment were regulated, even if only in a rudimentary way, by custom or taboo (Satow, 1973:3). As such, all strangers/foreigners were considered both dangerous and impure and had to be subjected to purification rites for the purpose of exorcising every harmful malevolent influence.  A. GREEK DIPLOMACY Ancient Greek and Roman histories and literature are also replete with records and references to diplomatic activities. The practice of diplomacy was indeed necessitated but was very different from how we know it today.  The geographical nature, proliferation and proximity of the numerous Greek city states, numbering over 150 to one another, indeed encouraged the growth and development of inter-city-state relations. Greek city-states were continually at war owing to their geographical barriers. The geography of Greece is of a mountainous and hence of a discontinuous nature which paved the way for small city-states and Greece a conglomeration of small city-states. 1. GREEK CONTRIBUTIONS TO DIPLOMACY i. The word Diplomacy itself, has a Greek origin, from the word Diploma, a Greek word which refers to a document emanating from Princes i.e. a document by which privileges are conferred. ii. Ancient Greek and Roman histories and literature are replete with various references and records of diplomatic activities.  iii. These relations were both commercial and political in nature. iv. It gave rise to the appointment of men of oratory as intermediaries (called 'Pourpaleurs') or ambassadors who could plead the cause of the states they represented in the popular assemblies of the other city-states. v. These men were made to enjoy certain diplomatic privileges and immunities such as the inviolability of their persons.  vi. The idea of permanent secretariats, 'recourse to arbitration‘ (Third Party involvement in conflict resolution) and the establishment of League Councils— the amphictyonic or 'regional' conferences, were also first associated with the Greeks. ANOMALIES OF GREEK DIPLOMACY… However, Greek diplomacy had a number of anomalies, which makes it different from modern diplomatic practice, in a number of respects. There were certain individuals who held the post of an emissary but the function of an emissary was of a very limited nature. An emissary was only a messenger.  a. The credibility of a diplomat largely depended on his oratory skills which he was expected to deliver in public. Hence, private diplomacy was not the prevalent form of diplomacy. Since the diplomats received no formal training, he had to rely on his own oratory skills, which would include language and tact, to convey the message from his king. b. Exchange of gifts was not an acceptable practice. This was taken as a form of bribery. c. Diplomats did not enjoy guaranteed immunity. Hence, they were often subject to arbitrary treatment by the recipient ruler, especially during wartime. E.g. both Athens and Sparta executed the envoys that were sent by Darius I of Persia.  During a war, communication between the two kings was primarily through the emissaries. The function of the emissaries included intimating the other ruler that they were allowed to collect the bodies of the soldiers that lost their lives in the battle or also that his king would be observing the traditional funeral rites to pay their respects for the loss of an important figure in the battle.  B. ROMAN DIPLOMACY  The Roman Republic (and later Empire) was a contemporary of the Greek civilization. However, their system was nothing like that of the Greeks. They did not follow the pattern/system of the Greek Democracy. They were rather a republic or res publica. Initially, Rome was a republic till the era of Julius Caesar when it began to be called an empire. Every monarch hence has been referred to as Caesar after the first monarch Julius Caesar who transformed Rome from a Republic to an Empire.  Roman diplomacy was mostly for legal and commercial purposes, rather than administrative purposes. Instead, they invested heavily in their military capabilities and were renowned for their military expertise. Trade relations within provinces were maintained through diplomatic means.  While Rome was a Republic, the Senate was the decision- making body but when it became an empire, the Senate was reduced to an advisory body. However, this does not indicate that the Romans did not make use of diplomacy at all in administration. The Roman contribution to the development of diplomacy in the realm of international law was more in theory than in practice. They came in these dimensions:  i. Their determination to impose their 'pax romana' on the world meant the ascendancy of force over diplomacy. ii. In spite of this, however, the idea of appointing people with very high status as ambassadors began with them. iii. Although their ambassadors were appointed on an ad hoc basis, they were of senatorial status. iv. They introduced the practice of taking hostages in order to guarantee the implementation of treaties. v. Furthermore, the practice of ultimatum was an innovation introduces by the Romans into diplomacy. C. CONTRIBUTIONS OF RENAISSANCE ITALY TO DIPLOMACY  The Roman civilization managed to outlive the Greeks and enjoyed a hegemonic status for one of the longest stretches of history. However, the Romans relied heavily on their military strength rather than diplomatic expertise. The Later Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire, on the other hand did not bear this resemblance. On the contrary, they contributed significantly to diplomacy.  A number of giant strides and landmark contributions were made in the growth and development of diplomacy by Renaissance Italy, namely: i. The increase and permanent nature of international trade in this period directly accelerated this process. ii. The functions of the ambassadors also increased. iii. They were no longer political emissaries alone but also commercial agents, who needed to gather general information relating to the political, social and economic activities of the States to which they were accredited. iv. Appointment of Concise and permanent delegations: The first recorded permanent mission being established in 1455 at Genoa by Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan. This was soon followed by the Duke of Savoy and other European Kings and Dukes. Venice also started keeping diplomatic records, including letters of credence in a systematic manner in its own archives. Renaissance diplomacy however suffered some major inadequacies, viz: a. There was no agreed order of precedence, either in presenting credentials or in signing treaties. Each of these activities often led to unseemly wrangles, sometimes resulting into physical combat. b. It was noted for its immorality. Since Ambassadors were not paid and had to cater for their staff, they often resorted to bribery, pinching and diverting funds into their own pockets.  It was therefore not surprising that the Congress of Vienna in 1815 essentially addressed the various shortcomings of renaissance diplomacy. The regalement of 19th March 1815 and the subsequent regulation of the Congress of Aix-la-Chappelle finally settled the issue of precedence and the hierarchy of diplomatic representation. From hence, precedence was no longer based on the prestige and status of an Ambassador's sovereign but on the priority of the Ambassadors appointment.  Article 4 of regalement states thus: ‘Diplomatic Employees will take precedence over each other in each class, according to the date of the official notification of their arrival’. The longest serving Ambassador in a post becomes the Doyen of the diplomatic corps in that particular country. Signing of treaties was now to be done in diplomatic order (in French).  D. MODERN DIPLOMACY Modern diplomacy had its origins during the Italian Renaissance. Early in the 15th century, a group of city-states developed in Italy, but none could dominate the rest, and all feared conquest by the others. The rulers of most of the city-states gained their positions through force and cunning.  Although Renaissance diplomacy was considered especially cruel and amoral, the Italian city-states developed a number of institutions and practices that still exist: (1) They introduced a system of permanent ambassadors who represented the interests of their states by observing, reporting, and negotiating. (2) Each state created a foreign office that evaluated the written reports of the ambassadors, sent instructions, helped to formulate policies, and kept vast records.  (3) Together they developed an elaborate system of protocol, privileges, and immunities for diplomats. Ambassadors and their staffs were granted freedom of access, transit, and exit at all times. Local laws could not be used to impede an ambassador in carrying out duties, but ambassadors could be held accountable if they actually committed crimes, such as theft or murder. (4) The concept of extraterritoriality was established. Under this principle, an embassy in any state stood on the soil of its own homeland, and anyone or anything within the embassy compound was subject only to the laws of its own country.  After the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was established in 1945. However, due to the Cold War raging between the USA and the USSR, the UN was often very limited in its working. Veto power was exercised extensively against each other. With the demise of the USSR in 1991, things began to be run more smoothly than before. This can be roughly taken as the period that saw the advent of modern diplomacy that has been followed since.  D. FEATURES OF THE NEW DIPLOMACY i. Expanded Roles: The roles and functions of ambassadors have become not only wider but more complex. Ambassadors now have to include commercial and economic relations within their purview as well. Evidently, there has been a shift in focus from the political to the economic. Economic relations between nation-states have proved effective in deescalating tensions. Therefore, the economic aspect of a nation also plays a major role in state-based diplomacy.  ii. Public Diplomacy: The assignment of a particular ambassador also matters. When Nation A assigns an ambassador to Nation B, it is necessary to note if that ambassador exercises any power over the leader of Nation A. In simpler terms, the choice of ambassador assigned by a state for a state shows the importance attached to that state. The projection of a nation’s foreign policy is no more limited to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Recently, the heads of governments as well as the heads of states have also actively started participating in it. This is a kind of public diplomacy. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to several countries is a perfect example of the involvement of heads of governments in furthering public diplomacy.  Its requirement for a new openness is borne out of: a. Faster communications. b. The increasing powers of the press: In the past few decades, an increased involvement of the news media has been noticed. It has also brought matters to the forefront, to the public. It played a huge role in bringing about transparency between the government and its people. c. A shift in the Balance of forces in the democracies from the ruling elite to the governed, e.g. the inability of Wilson to secure his congress 2/3 vote to join the League of Nations.  iii. Involvement of Non-state Actors: The role of non-state actors like Non-Governmental Organizations has also influenced the governments to a certain extent, especially regarding matters of human rights. A yearning for an international organisation to settle disputes and deter those who want to impose their will by force. iv. The Dynamic nature of the new diplomacy: Diplomacy will continue to change forms but will also continue to attempt to deescalate tensions. v. Evolution of E-diplomacy has come into effect.  COMPARISONS OF THE OLD AND NEW DIPLOMACY a) The new diplomacy is global while the old was basically European. b) New diplomacy is mostly multi-lateral whereas the old was mostly bi-lateral. c) New diplomacy is less formal than the old. d) New diplomacy is mostly done in the open as against the old which was mostly secret. e) New diplomacy is democratic compared with the aristocratic (Princely) nature of the old diplomacy. f) New diplomacy depends more on propaganda than old diplomacy. g) Under the new diplomacy, the role of an ambassador or diplomat has suffered a large decline compared to that of the old.  NEXT CLASS… Let it be noted that the history of the origins of diplomacy tends to be sketchy and rather subjective since they were often the products of Eurocentric authors who never see anything good about Africa and of people who served governments at the helms of imperial power. Africa is taken to be the Cradle of Mankind, yet the above historical origin/evolution of Diplomacy does not reflect any contributions from Africa. As such, in our next class, we would be looking at Evidences of Diplomatic Activities in Pre-colonial West Africa THE END  Dr. Aboyeji, A. Justus Department of History & International Studies, University of Ilorin (21st January, 2021)