Diplomacy & Foreign Policy in a Globalized World PDF

UNIT 4 DIPLOMACY & FOREIGN POLICY IN A GLOBALISED WORLD  DIPLOMACY “Diplomacy” comes from the Latin word, diplon, meaning “to fold twice”. This referred to a state envoy’s “folded diploma” – papers that allowed the envoy to travel to another territory and relay a me...

UNIT 4 DIPLOMACY & FOREIGN POLICY IN A GLOBALISED WORLD  DIPLOMACY “Diplomacy” comes from the Latin word, diplon, meaning “to fold twice”. This referred to a state envoy’s “folded diploma” – papers that allowed the envoy to travel to another territory and relay a message on behalf of the ruler (Neumann, 2019:107). For Neumann (2019:109), diplomacy can be described as the institutionalized interaction between polities, conducted by formal or informal representatives of those polities. It is about: 1. representing a polity in and to other polities; 2. gathering information and reporting on what happens in other polities; and 3. negotiating with other polities on behalf of the polity one represents” (Neumann, 2019:114).  A SHORT HISTORY OF ANCIENT DIPLOMACY The earliest documented formal diplomatic system is found in Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) and the Eastern Mediterranean, c. 1500 BCE. – Stone tablets discovered in Tell-el Amarna (Egypt) reveal correspondence between Pharoah Akhenaten and other rulers on the topics of trade and peace agreements (Neumann, 2019:109). The Roman empire also maintained official relations with other kingdoms: – Rome, for example, sought to influence Barbarian states by “planting” a king that had been “trained” in the Roman ways where barbarian land had no king. These kings would be favorable to the Roman empire, and would adopt the Roman legal system in their own territories (thus, Rome managed to influence the domestic politics of neighboring polities) – Constantinople would host visiting foreign dignitaries with overwhelming splendor to impress them and curry favor through splendor and opulence. East Asian territories used a similarly “Bizantyne” strategy of pomp but added gift exchanges to charm guests and force favorable terms (a practice that persists even in modern diplomacy).  MODERN DIPLOMACY By 1455, the duke of Milan (then an independent city-state), sent a representative to set up a permanent diplomatic mission in Genoa (another independent city-state). More permanent missions soon followed. – Whereas earlier diplomatic representation involved sending an official representative (embassy) to a foreign territory for a finite period of time, polities were now sending envoys to stay permanently. – Now, “embassies” became the buildings in which permanent representatives lived and worked. This system of permanent diplomatic representation spread from Italy to France, then to the rest of Europe during the 17th century. By the 18th century, states began setting up ministries charged with managing foreign affairs, and by the 20th century, foreign ministries, diplomatic missions and consulates were merged into a single state department (first in Sweden, and then across the world).  TYPES OF DIPLOMACY Based on how diplomacy is conducted: – Bilateral diplomacy – Multilateral diplomacy – Conference diplomacy – Public diplomacy – Shuttle diplomacy Based on the topics diplomatic engagement is meant to address: – Cultural diplomacy – Climate diplomacy – Sport diplomacy – Digital diplomacy  AFRICAN DIPLOMACY Read: Spies, Y.K. 2018. “African Diplomacy”, in G. Martel (ed). The Encyclopedia of Diplomacy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, pp. 1-14. It is sometimes thought that because Africa only gained political independence from colonial rule during the 20th century, African diplomacy is younger than European diplomacy, and that it is characterized by a distinct style. This, however, is incorrect. African diplomacy predates colonialism: – As far back as c. 1100 BCE, when the first ever codified peace treaty was signed between Pharoah Rameses II of Egypt, and the King of the Hitties (Spies, 2018:2); the Aksumite Empire maintained diplomatic and trade relations with the kingdoms of the Arabian peninsula, the Roman Empire, India and Asia. – As elsewhere in the world, ancient African diplomacy involved symbolic gestures such as strategic marriages, and high-profile visits that involved the exchange of extravagant gifts (cf., e.g., diplomatic exchanges between Israel’s King Solomon and Aksum’s Queen of Sheba). – Early African diplomacy was characterized by the same diplomatic norms and practices that characterize diplomacy elsewhere in the world, including the use of intermediaries, the observance of ceremonial protocol, the presentation of credentials, and a respect for customary legal norms like the sanctity of treaties.  AFRICAN DIPLOMACY CONTINUED… African diplomacy has been influenced by its wide-ranging contact with kingdoms, empires and states across the world – including its trade and diplomatic relations with China, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the Arab world. The continent’s experience of colonialism, however, has been one of the most significant influences on modern-day African diplomacy: – The imposition of arbitrary borders at the Berlin Conference, for example, disrupted customary international norms and all but erased intra-African diplomacy, which was replaced by European diplomatic norms and practices. – The practice of slavery, which saw thousands of Africans shipped to the Americas, inadvertently created an African diaspora that has maintained privileged relations with the African continent in modern times, influencing US diplomacy toward the continent (especially under President Obama, whose heritage is Kenyan). – Many African diplomats continue to be educated at European universities and/or trained at European diplomatic academies, which skews individual African diplomats’ preferences and policy orientations in favor of European interests. PAN-AFRICANISM AND MULTILATERAL DIPLOMACY The vulnerability of African states has been a motivating factor behind Africa’s preference for multilateral diplomacy and the expression of a “collective interest”. – Collective African diplomatic efforts have been more successful than the diplomatic efforts of individual African states. According to Spies (2018:1), African diplomacy is characterized by the values of: – Countering marginalization at the international level; – Upholding traditional values, including respect for cultural traditions and authority; – Collectivist or communitarian goals and objectives; and – The prioritization of the collective and its interests over the individual. These policy orientations find expression in the Swahili Harambee (pulling together), the Ndebele Ubuntu (being human), and the Swazi Incwala (negotiation with the ancestors to ensure the welfare of the nation).  PAN-AFRICANISM CONTINUED… While Africa’s involvement in multilateral diplomacy and global governance was limited prior to decolonization, African intellectuals were working toward institutionalizing African multilateral diplomacy in an effort to achieve liberation from colonial administration. – Building on early pan-African ideas, leaders of newly liberated African states insisted on the radical integration of the African continent after decolonization, under the banner of a “Union of African states” (or, the United States of Africa). – This eventually led to the establishment of the African Union, an organization that seeks to counter Africa’s marginalization in world politics through the provision of a platform for intra- African diplomatic engagement and the establishment of a collective “African voice”. The African bloc has had a big influence on the global transformation agenda, campaigning for the “right to develop” and for the equal treatment of non-Western states in international political fora. – Africa’s diplomatic engagement at the United Nations, for example, was instrumental in the formulation and adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and its successor program, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). – As a result of African lobbying in international financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank, these institutions agreed to cancel the crippling debt of the world’s 77 Least Developed Countries, allowing them to break free from a debt trap that hindered domestic economic development.  CONFLICT, PACIFISM, AND AFRICAN SOLUTIONS Since decolonization, the African continent has been home to some of the world’s largest and most protracted violent conflicts. Yet, the African response to conflict, has demonstrated a preference for the pacific resolution of conflict and a commitment to human security. – Former UNSG Boutros Boutros-Ghali was instrumental in pushing the UN “Agenda for Peace”, emphasizing the need for lasting peace-building, rather than one-off peacemaking. – Sudanese diplomat Francis Deng pioneered the normative regime that is now know as the “Responsibility to Protect (R2P)”. R2P holds that governments have a responsibility to protect the citizenry from death and violence, and that they cannot hide behind the principle of sovereignty to shun this responsibility. – African diplomats have also continued to campaign for the reform of the UN Security Council, arguing that Africa should have a permanent seat and veto power within the Council, considering the size of its population. African efforts to effect the transformation of the UNSC are coordinated under the umbrella of the AU’s “Ezulwini Consensus”.  THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS (Read: Kussainova, 2013; Spies, 2006; Neumann, 2005) Diplomacy has become an increasingly professionalized career path. Diplomats are trained specifically for the profession at specialized national or international diplomatic academies, and many dedicate their entire lives to the service of the state. – Spies (2006:288): “Professional diplomats are the individuals employed by Ministries of Foreign Affairs who (are expected to) pursue diplomatic objectives […] independent of personal or partisan interests and on the basis of specialized knowledge and skills”. Kussainova (2013): Diplomats are increasingly expected to demonstrate a wide range of skills, including: 1. negotiation skills and everyday diplomacy; 2. representation skills; 3. skills of observation, analysis and reporting; 4. management skills (day to day management of diplomatic missions); 5. communication skills and skills of public diplomacy; 6. Intercultural communication skills and knowledge of the cultures of the world. Diplomats are tasked with the day-to-day implementation of foreign policy…  FOREIGN POLICY Foreign policy is a “set of ideas or actions designed to solve a problem or promote some change in the policies, attitudes, or actions of other states, in non-state actors … in the international economy or the physical environment of the world” (Holsti, 1995:83, cited in Bischoff, 2020:1). Foreign policy, as it is used in IR, is “a policy drawn up by states for how to coordinate state policy so as to interact with other state and nonstate agents in order to reach certain goals” (Neumann, 2019:49). “Foreign policy refers, broadly, to attempts by governments to influence or manage events outside the state’s borders, usually, but not exclusively, through their relations with foreign governments” (Heywood, 2014:134)  VIGNETTE: THE NATIONAL INTEREST Heywood (2014:135): “In broad terms, the national interest refers to foreign policy goals, objectives or policy preferences that benefit a society as a whole”. – Concept most widely used by Realists, for whom it is defined by the structural implications of international anarchy and so is closely linked to national security, survival and the pursuit of power. –For Realists, the national interest is ”exogenously given”, in that the anarchic structure of international politics determines what the national interest is i.e., physical security and survival. –Liberals, constructivists and critical scholars argue that interests are context-dependent and evolve over time, in response to the changing international environment. It is, therefore, not possible to truly determine a set “national interest” beyond some overarching ideological orientations.  FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS (FPA) Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) is a sub-field of IR, that aims to develop actor specific theories about the ways in which foreign policy decision-makers shape, and are shaped by, the external world (Hudson, 2005:1-2). Foreign policies are the product of individual or collective decision-making based on interpretations of interactions between nations. Often, FPA studies a foreign policy decision as an event situated within the broader context of a “constellation and/or a sequence of decisions taken with reference to a particular situation” (Hudson, 2005:2). – FPA, in other words, studies how foreign policies are made, and the wider historical, social, and psychological factors that have contributed to a specific policy being adopted. – Importantly, FPA scholars are interested in the factors that influence FP decision- making, usually (but not always) by individual bureaucrats. – FPA is interested in the decision-making process, rather than the outcomes of the policy.  EXPLAINING FOREIGN POLICY Read: Carlsnaes, W. 2013. “Foreign Policy”, in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse & B.A. Simmons (ed). Sage Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage. Pp. 298- 318. FPA scholars can take two approaches to studying foreign policy: 1. Descriptive analyses – Some scholars engage in descriptive analysis, answering the questions “what is the policy, who is involved, and how will it be implemented?” – Descriptive analyses typically describe the contents of a foreign policy, its goals, the actors who were involved in drawing up the policy, and the policy implementation tools. – These approaches are not usually concerned with explaining why a specific policy was chosen. 2 Explanatory analyses – Explanatory foreign policy analyses are not as concerned with describing the contents, goals and implementation tools of the policy. Instead, these analyses seek to explain why a specific policy was adopted, and how decision-makers arrived at this decision. – Often, this requires a broader examination of the policy-making context.  UNDERSTANDING FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING Many foreign policy analysts are interested in finding out how policy-makers arrive at a decision about what a policy should contain, how it should be implemented, and what it is expected to achieve. Most often (but not always), these analyses reject the IR idea that states can be agents; instead, they argue, only humans can exert agency, which is in turn conditioned by the social and material worlds (factors), prior learning, psychological factors (personality predispositions), and the bureaucratic context (historical policy influences and organisational identity). Explanatory foreign policy analyses, according to Hudson (2005 & 2007, cited in Carlsnaes, 2013:204), examine “not a single decision, but a constellation of decisions taken with reference to a particular situation [that may] be modified over time”. Here, the interest is in: – Problem recognition, framing and perception; as well as – Advanced stages of goal prioritisation, contingency planning, and option assessment.  LEVELS OF ANALYSIS IN FPA FPA can be located at a number of levels, including: 1. The systemic level (looking at how international systems, regimes, institutions, and material factors constrain policy making); 2. The domestic level (looking at the domestic pressures that contribute to, and constrain, policy choices); 3. The individual level (looking at the individual decision-making processes, personality types and predispositions, social history etc. of individual bureaucrats to determine how these shape policy choices). To these, we could add: 1. The social context; and 2. The bureaucratic-organizational context.  APPROACHES TO FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS  FOREIGN POLICY ACTORS While there is debate within FPA itself about whether states can have agency and pursue foreign policy goals, foreign policy analysts today consider a variety of actors that can make and/or influence policies: 1. States 2. Individual bureaucrats (presidents, foreign ministers, diplomats) 3. Civil society and CSOs 4. Non-state actors (including INGOs, multinational corporations, international organisations, etc.)  1. STRUCTURAL PERSPECTIVES Classical & Neoclassical Realism Realists and neorealists share the view that a country’s foreign policy is primarily formed by its place in the international system, and in particular by its material power capabilities. – Classical Realists see foreign policy as “the record of rational states reacting properly to clear systemic incentives, coming into conflict only in those circumstances when the security dilemma is heightened to fever pitch”. – Unlike Classical Realists, who argue that foreign policy is determined almost exclusively by systemic factors, Neoclassical Realists concede that systemic factors are mediated by domestic influences on foreign policy, too, so that the international system together with certain domestic pressures jointly determine foreign policy choices, strategies, objectives and implementation tools. Examples of these types of FPA include case studies of how great powers like the USA, Soviet Union, and China have reacted in FP terms to the material rise or decline of their relative power in the international states system.  STRUCTURAL PERSPECTIVES CONTINUED… Neoliberal institutionalism Whereas neoliberal institutionalists concede that the anarchic international system constrains foreign policy choices, they argue that international regimes, institutions, and norms can equally affect foreign policy choices and state behaviours. Holsti (2004, cited in Carlsnaes, 2013:309): How states “defend and pursue their purposes, is tempered by international institutions that encompass ideas, norms, rules, and etiquette … (which) have a moderating influence on the plans and actions of sovereigns”. – In other words, international regimes, norms and institutions have a constraining effect on foreign policy choices, strategies and implementation tools, which helps mediate the insecurity that states feel operating in an anarchic states system. – For Oye (1985, cited in Carlsnaes, 2013:309), the prescripts of international institutions make cooperation possible even in a world where states pursue their selfish national interests in a context of limited resources. – International regimes, and specifically the social expectations that these regimes elicit in states, may even force cooperative (rather than offensive) foreign policy choices.  2. AGENCY-BASED PERSPECTIVES Foreign policy decision making (FPDM) This actor-specific approach argues that only “real” decision makers count, and that the behavior of these real actors is affected by explanatory factors at various levels of analysis (individual, state, and international). – In addition to individual belief systems, cognitions and psychology, domestic pressures and the realities of the international states system, FPDM scholars also consider the influence of group decision-making, and national culture and identity on the foreign policy decisions of individual bureaucrats. Analyses of this type proceed one-level-at-a-time, to first consider the dynamics of individual vs. group-level decision-making, before moving on to consider how state, cultural and international structures further act in on a foreign policy.  AGENCY-BASED CONTINUED… Cognitive & psychological approaches Although largely rejected by IR scholars, cognitive and psychological approaches to FPA have generated a vast body of literature and represent some of the most popular and important approaches to foreign policy. In contrast to rationalist approaches (realism & neoliberalism), which hold that decision- makers are largely open-minded and adaptable to structural change, cognitive and psychological approaches to FPA consider human actors “largely impervious” (Carlsnaes, 2013:310) to the effects of these on their own decision making. For these scholars, decisions are primarily influenced by: – ”Sticky” personal beliefs; – The way that individual decision-makers process information; and – Personality and cognitive traits, including leadership and interpersonal communication styles.  CONTINUED… Early scholarly work within this approach, focused on the attitudes of bureaucrats, and the ways in which attitude changes influence foreign policy making. Newer work has looked at decision-makers as problem solvers, and the effects of “groupthink” on individual decision-making processes. – The interest here, is to retrace to the individual reasoning process that has led to a specific decision being taken. – Scholarship of this type employs systematic empirical analyses of the actual deliberations of decision makers during the foreign policy making process. Within this stream of scholarship, Kal Holsti’s Role Theory has also looked at how individual decision makers interpret the role of their country in the international states system, and how their foreign policy decisions contribute to upholding these role conceptions based on their own understandings of the national interest.  CONTINUED… Bureaucratic politics approaches This approach has its roots in approaches focused on foreign policy as a form of public policy, which falls within the domain of public administration, where foreign policy is thought to be but one policy area within a broader set of national policies that are affected by domestic political pressures and organizational dynamics. Here, scholarship considers the influence of organizational and institutional cultures and processes on the agency of foreign policy decision makers. – Bureaucrats working within the foreign policy environment have competing interests and preferences, and thus engage in a certain bargaining process when making decisions relating to a state’s foreign policy. – Similarly, institutional processes and path dependency constrict the range of choices that can be made, and the range of policy actions that are available to decision-makers. – Foreign policy can further be influenced by role-specific loyalties and may evolve in response to leadership changes.  3. SOCIAL-INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVES Social constructivism Constructivist approaches to FPA share an understanding of the social world as “intersubjectively and collectively meaningful structures and processes” (Carlsnaes, 2013:312). – For constructivists, our knowledge of the world is mediated by subjective interpretations and language and so our analyses of foreign policy should take these factors into account. Normative-ideational constructivists conceive of norms as part of the social structure that emerges from the purposive behavior of actors in specific communities, which in turn shape collective identities, actions and behaviors. – Self-understandings and social expectations are like a blueprint for actors, determining what they interpret as “good”, “bad”, “acceptable”, or ”immoral”. These unconscious “blueprints” determine the types of choices that actors make, and the types of policies that they consider appropriate.  CONTINUED… Hoffmann (2010, cited in Carlsnaes, 2013:313): Normative-ideational constructivists challenge the rationalist assumptions that foreign policy is the product of power calculations and material forces, demonstrating that “shared ideas about appropriate state behaviour [have] a profound impact on the nature and functioning of world politics”. – For these constructivists, the goal of FPA is to demonstrate how international norms influence a state’s understanding of the external, material world, and how the state adapts its foreign policy based on these subjective interpretations of what is strategically important. A second strand of constructivist FPA scholarship, focuses on explaining how state identity provides “a frame of reference from which political leaders can initiate, maintain, and structure their relationships with other states” (Cronin, cited in Carlsnaes, 2013:313). – Constructivists contest the Westphalian assertion that states are “fixed” entities, instead arguing that states are constantly evolving social institutions that emerge from and act in on shifting collective identities and social conventions.  CONTINUED… In an important departure from rationalist FPA scholarship, constructivists contest the idea that “fixed” state interests are “exogenously given” by the material structure. Instead, constructivists argue that foreign policy preferences are dependent on “endogenously generated conceptions of identity”, and that these interests can shift over time based on evolving understandings about self, other and the world “out there”. Research by Tannenwald, for example, sets out to demonstrate that states refrain from using nuclear weapons not because of their fear of Mutually Assured Destruction, but because of their normative understanding about “nuclear taboos” and what it means to be a “civilized state” (i.e., civilized states, or good international citizens, don’t drop nuclear bombs on neighbours, because it is considered bad behavior)  CONTINUED… Discursive approaches Discursive foreign policy analyses focus on the role of language and discourse in social inquiry. These approaches critique cognitive-psychological explanations of foreign policy decision making, arguing that we cannot disentangle the personal beliefs of individual decision- makers from the constitutive social discourse in which they are embedded. – Language is a social structure that delimits what people can think, which in turn determines the scope and extent of their personal beliefs, actions, and preferences. – Thus, social discourse unconsciously determines foreign policy, because FP decision-making is enabled and constrained unconsciously by the discursive social order. – For discursive constructivists, importantly, language is not an unproblematic, transparent medium that we can accept at face value without further interrogation or interpretation. When analyzing state decisions, for example, we need to ask what the hidden motivations and meanings behind a decision or rationalization are.  GLOBALIZATION AND THE EROSION OF THE STATE The globalization of world politics and the growing economic, social and political interdependence of states across the world, are rapidly contributing to the transformation (if not erosion) of state sovereignty and/or foreign policy agency. – International regimes, including international laws, diplomatic conventions, and supranational authority, all limit a state’s room for maneuver in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy. – Similarly, the logics of international markets, multinational corporations, and other non-state actors nowadays contribute to significant constraints on a state’s foreign policy agency – especially the foreign policy agency of smaller states whose economies are far smaller than the market value of large corporations. Nevertheless, Sorensen (2004, discussed in Heywood, 2014:123) argues that the role of the state has not been completely nullified; instead, the role of the state has been transformed by the changing global order. – States retain a unique capacity to maintain domestic order, and to protect its citizens from external violence. – Similarly, states continue to play an important role in creating the legal and social conditions that are favorable to international business. This includes ensuring property rights. – States also continue to play an essential role in ensuring social welfare and development for citizens.  AFRICAN FOREIGN POLICY AGENCY IN A GLOBALISED WORLD (Spies, 2018) Entrenched European interests reinforce relations of patronage between European and African states: – The training of African diplomats at European diplomatic academies due to a dearth of African diplomatic training centres, perpetuates colonial tutelage. Whereas diplomats are expected to represent the interests of their sending states, European training may prime African diplomats to identify with the objectives of donor states instead (this is also true for emerging powers who now offer diplomatic training programmes to Africans). – Similarly, political rifts along former colonial linguistic lines complicate multilateral African diplomacy – notably creating tension between Francophone and Anglophone African states who may retain a certain kind of loyalty to former colonial administrations that continue to proffer much-needed development aid and military assistance. Foreign influences may render African states vulnerable to regime interference, often turning the continent into an ideological battlefield that is detrimental to the consolidation of a united African voice. – Whereas these influences have historically been most prominently European, China and Russia have increasingly competed for influence over the resource-rich states of Africa.  CONTINUED… Another obstacle to African foreign policy agency, is the legacy of authoritarianism on the continent. As Spies (2018:6) observes: “militarized government bode[s] ill for the conduct of international diplomacy, which requires subtlety, tact, and compromise – attributes not generally associated with the military.” In addition, diplomatic positions (when created), are often reflect nepotism and cronyism rather than professional, apolitical service to the state. This precludes the development of a professional diplomatic culture and infrastructure. – In the absence of reliable “institutional memory”, new regimes and their functionaries have to start “from scratch” whenever a regime changes. Elsewhere, challenges of underdevelopment and poverty often make the channeling of state funds toward the professionalization of the civil service, impossible. THANK YOU :)