Unit 3:Historical Evolution of Diplomacy:Transition to Permanent Diplomacy

Introduction

Today’s contemporary diplomacy has gone through a long evolution process to take its current shape. The evolution of diplomacy is examined under five main terms;

1. ‘Old World’, encompassing the eras from ancient times to Renaissance.
2. The Renaissance term and Italian city states’ diplomatic interactions are analyzed.
3. Westphalia Peace, emergence of centralized national states and their implications on the diplomatic practices are elaborated under the name of ‘Old Diplomacy’.
4. Diplomacy; as a profession which gained a more institutionalized structure mainly in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
5. Contemporary diplomacy as ‘New Diplomacy, a term which refers to the diplomatic practices that have been shaped within chaotic political environment of interwar period, bipolar structure of post-Second World War and globalized postCold War terms.

Interwar period : In diplomatic history, the term “Interwar Period” refers to the specific period between 1918 and 1939. The early years of interwar period was relatively peaceful and optimistic, yet especially the term after 1929 was characterized by insecurity. The Great Depression, Italian invasion of Abyssinia, Japanese invasion of Manchuria, German invasion of Czechoslovakia and inefficient structure of the League of Nations to react these crises were the major themes in the diplomatic agenda of this term.

Types Of International System

• Unipolar system: This is a type of international system in which one hegemon significantly dominates the other actors within the system. A typical example of such an international system is the period of early 1990s. The United States remained as the only superpower after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and dominated the international system.
• Bipolar system: In bipolar international system, there are two major powers that are significantly superior to other actors in terms of distribution of power. A perfect example of such an international system is the Cold War term in which the United States and Soviet Union appeared as the two superpowers.
• Multipolar system: Multipolarity refers to an international system with at least three great powers of which are similarly distributed. The period before the Great War (First World War) can be considered a multipolar international system. It can be argued that the military capacities were almost equally distributed among at least four actors, namely Britain, France, Germany and the United States before the Great War.

Diplomacy in the “Old World” From Ancient Times to Renaissance

Two main characteristics of the diplomacy in ancient times can be noted.

• First, ancient diplomatic practices were not operated through permanent institutions.
• Second, the diplomatic interactions were not constant and institutionalized; rather they were characterized by intermittency (Hamilton and Langhorne, 2011: 7).

The term “Old World” here refers to a period of time starting from ancient world to emergence of Renaissance especially in Italian peninsula. The political authorities of the “Old World” were far from being as organized as modern state structures. The main difference between ancient states and modern state structures was lying in the capacity of centralization. The ancient states in the “Old World” were mainly constituted of some local authorities which control a piece of land militarily and economically.

“Ancient diplomacy” today took place both within and among these states of the “Old World”. The diplomatic practices within an ancient state took place among the local authorities such as feudal lords, chieftains and tribal leaders. These practices vary from mutual visits to trade and security related agreements between them. For instance, one of the main principles of modern diplomacy, pacta sunt servanda, did not exist as an ordering principle of the interaction among these local authorities.

Pacta sunt servanda : Pacta sunt servanda is a legal term in Latin, which refers to the continuity of agreements between parties and bindingness of the clauses for both parties regardless of a change of a government or ruler. It is one of the ordering principles of modern international law and diplomacy. For more information, see Wehberg, (1959).

Within the political context of the “Old World”, the diplomatic interactions related with ascendancy were shaped mainly on the basis of material capacities. Materially stronger party claimed the ascendancy over smaller city state and state-like authorities. Broader state structures, then, were being established as result of such diplomatic interactions in which stronger party imposed its clauses to the smaller authorities. The diplomacy, in this sense, was used as a tool of expanding borders by the stronger parties.

Transition to permanent diplomatic institutions, mergence of professional diplomats and institutionalization of the current diplomatic practices mainly originate from the European interstate customs and precedents. The diplomatic records found carved on clay tablets in the Near East and Mesopotamia reveal that the alliance systems were in fact established among pre-modern Mesopotamian civilizations through the concept of “brotherhood”. (Black, 2010: 19). The reference to a counterpart ruler as brother manifested an alliance resembling to modern military and political alliances between modern state structures, which is considered as one of the main signals of the emergence of modern diplomacy.

Italian City States and Renaissance Diplomacy

Began in Florence in the 14th century, the period called Renaissance contributed to the developments not only in art, philosophy and science, but also in the conduct of diplomacy. in the late 15th century and the 16th century (Black 2010). Italian peninsula has come to forward, in this sense, as a region where diplomatic interactions among political units intensified and were conducted in accordance with certain agreed patterns.

There are three important factors of Italy’s doing the early institutions of modern democracy;

Firstly, in the late 15th century and the 16th century (Black 2010). Italian peninsula has come to forward, in this sense, as a region where diplomatic interactions among political units intensified and were conducted in accordance with certain agreed patterns. Italian city states were in fact feudal units controlled by certain dynasties. In other words, each city state was actually the piece of land that was held by a certain noble aristocrat family. Most noteworthy aspect of Peace of Lodi was that it institutionalized the functional equality among Italian city states. In other words, regardless of their size, power and location, Italian city states came to a consensus in which they are all treated and assumed equivalent to each other. At this point, it should be noted that the principle of functional equality can be considered as the main constituting element of modern diplomacy.

Secondly, the common language that is shared by all these small city states served as another facilitator for diplomatic progress in the region. Despite the lack of a political unity among the city states, there was a linguistic unity among them. Italian, being the lingua franca in the Peninsula, was accepted as the common language for any form of correspondence among the city states.

Thirdly, the small scale political organization due to overfragmented political structure in the Peninsula rendered some other coercive political tools such as war much more costly and ineffective. Therefore, a common willingness and consensus emerged among Italian city states to solve their disputes through diplomatic interactions instead of military methods. All these things combined paved the way for institutionalization of diplomacy in a much deeper and organized manner in Italian Peninsula compared to elsewhere in Europe.

In accordance with the aim of keeping constant correspondence, we see that Italian city states were first to invent the very notion of a resident ambassador. The exchange of resident ambassadors first started among the Italian-speaking political entities (Adams and Cox, 2011:7). A resident ambassador was considered as someone in charge who has the capacity and power to speak on behalf of its state in the hosting country. Therefore, these resident ambassadors were trained for some years in politics, philosophy and other fields (such as mathematics and certain fields of science) before they were sent as envoys to other countries. Alliances that were established through fait-based diplomacy did last much longer compared to alliances provided by a positive relationship between two rulers.

Ancient Greek civilization can be considered as the first political context that left certain reliable and copious evidence for a diplomatic system that emerged among equal counterparts and inherited by the later European political units as the custom of diplomacy. Roman Empire should be noted as a major element that constituted the historical background of the permanent diplomacy. The extent and longevity of the Roman Empire contributed significantly especially to the legal setting of the modern diplomacy. The main contribution of the Roman Empire was its legal efforts to determine what is internal and what is external.

It’s considered that modern diplomacy’s major achievement is to create a form of interstates society in which a sense of collective identity is built, the medieval Europe can be noted as a political context in which such a collective identity burgeoned.

Within the context of Respublica Christiana, which is the actual unity of Christendom in Europe, diplomatic contacts between the political entities were quite structured, organized and also were built upon a common custom that were adopted from the past experiences mentioned above. Most significant and novel concept of medieval Europe is the term nuncius. A nuncius is the person in charge who is appointed by the ruler as the voice of the principal in another political entity. In other words, a nuncius is an early example of resident ambassadors in modern diplomacy.

Old Diplomacy

The emergence of modern centralized states has been the most significant factor that triggered a need for transition to more continuous, organized and constant conduct of diplomacy for European states. The custom that emerged in the Italian Peninsula during the Renaissance were spread and later institutionalized in the rest of the Europe mainly after the Peace of Westphalia. Considering that Peace of Lodi enabled the Italian city states to act on and functionally equal basis the Peace of Westphalia signed in 1648 served the same purpose on a larger scale in a manner to include primary actors of Europe.

Peace of Westphalia : The Peace of Westphalia is signed in 1648 after 30 Years’ Wars between protestant and catholic German principalities. There is a consensus that the Peace of Westphalia introduced the modern notion of sovereignty to interstate relations, therefore, is accepted as the beginning of the modern state system. It established the functional equality among German principalities regardless of their religious/sectarian orientation, size and power.

With the Peace of Westphalia, German principalities institutionalized the notion of resident ambassador just like Italian city states did in the 16th century. The British also copied and internalized these diplomatic customs. Although several British diplomatic missions were sent to other countries earlier, resident ambassadors in European countries became a British diplomatic custom mainly after 1648.

France can be noted as one exception to this. it did not follow the general European fashion to build resident and constant diplomatic missions in European capitals. The French developed their own diplomatic system, it was admired by other European states as it was first fullydeveloped system of diplomacy (Berridge, 2010: 103). Two important diplomatic practices also turned into a general diplomatic practice in this term. Firstly, diplomatic immunity was recognized by all parties in Europe as a general principle of diplomacy. Secondly, arrival of a new diplomatic mission to a capital started to be welcomed ceremonially by the host country. Today’s ‘agrément’ ceremonies originate from these ceremonies which became a fashion of early 18th century in Europe.

Diplomatic Immunity : Diplomatic immunity is a universal principle of modern diplomacy which refers to legal immunity of diplomats and diplomatic missions. According to diplomatic immunity principle, diplomats are not susceptible to lawsuits and diplomatic missions such that embassies are immune from the intervention of the host country. Diplomatic immunity has been an important custom in the transition to permanent diplomacy.

Transition to Permanent Diplomacy

The period after the Peace of Westphalia was a term that opened the door for a transition to permanent diplomacy. Yet, the consolidation of the permanent practices and customs was mainly achieved after Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815 (Kissinger, 2014: 60). On that sense, the Napoleonic Wars played quite a significant role for European political elites to think deeper about the diplomatic practices.

Political implications of the Congress of Vienna are plenty and important, but here we focus mainly on the effects of the Congress on the diplomatic institutions. Firstly, the Congress set the idea of “balance of power” as a steady diplomatic priority for European monarchs (Kissinger, 1994: 325). Secondly, the Congress of Vienna enclaved diplomacy into a conservative sphere. In fact, the Concert of Europe that came out of the Congress was quite a conservative order in the sense that it relied on the absolute preservation of monarchies all around Europe. monarchies. After the Congress of Vienna, permanent diplomacy was a model followed by all European powers including Ottoman Empire. Three main important developments can be noted for the full transition to permanent diplomacy: professionalization and recruitment, administrative structuration and emergence of ministries.

Professionalization and Recruitment

Professionalization of the diplomatic career should be considered as one of the main cornerstones in the transition to permanent diplomacy. professionalization of the diplomatic civil servants appeared as a necessity for the continuity and reliability of the diplomatic contact. To this aim, European states followed a threefold strategy.

Firstly, they allocated generous budgets for the accommodation and expenses of the diplomatic missions sent to other countries. One exception to this was the Ottoman Empire, as it continued to pay some sort of allowance for foreign diplomatic missions in Istanbul (Yurdusev, 2004: 5-35).

Secondly, the recruitment process was also professionalized in the post-Congress of Vienna term in many European states. the personal relationship between the ambassador and the ruler was seen as the necessary credit for being appointed in charge of conducting diplomacy with another state. With the wave of professionalization, diplomacy started to be acknowledged as a distinct expertise.

Thirdly, as different from the 18th century resident ambassadors, the ambassadors of permanent diplomacy in the 19th century were not only seen as the envoys of their ruler. They were also authorized to develop instant policies as a reaction to sudden developments and crisis situations. This should be noted as one of the major novelties of modern diplomacy as it represents a decisive departure from previous nuncius-like ambassadors and diplomats.

Administrative Structuration and Hierarchy

Another important cornerstone in the transition to a fully modern and organized diplomacy was to define the posts, hierarchy and structure within an embassy. Another difficulty arising from the lack of clearly defined posts and hierarchies was the issue of espionage. The paper work and archival documents of the embassy were exposed to the access of any staff member in the embassy, which caused espionage in some cases. There was no clear distinction between those who are responsible for diplomatic correspondence and those who are responsible for the daily routines of the embassy. It was also not clear who reports to whom, under what authority and scope. Another important clarification was about the assigned duties of the embassy staff. According to this distinction, administrative staff were not allowed to read the diplomatic correspondence, encrypted messages and policy documents of the embassy. Career diplomats including the ambassador, the envoy, the second secretary and the consul and specifically assigned less senior career diplomats were determined as only authorized personnel to conduct diplomacy and access the necessary documents. This distinction between administrative and career diplomats is still followed in almost all departments of foreign affairs in all around the world.

Emergence of Ministries of Foreign Affairs

Modern foreign ministries originated mainly from European states, and it has not been even 250 years that the first foreign ministry was founded under government structure (Berridge, 2010: 5). France was again the first country which initiated a specific department responsible from the foreign policy. In Ancien Régime, Henry III initiated a department and gave the sole responsibility in foreign policy to a specific department under the government as early as 1589 (Berridge, 2010: 6).

Ancien Régime : This is a French term that refers to the corrupted traditional monarchy in France before the French Revolution.

Other European states followed France and started ministiries and toward the end of 19th century they developed into more sophisticated organizations and recognized by other states as an agent of foreign policy. In the beginning, most of these organs were organized into specific administrative units and regional focuses. As time wore on, these organs also acquired policy making functions. Different titles for this organ were used in different countries.

Although this had varied from case to case, within the political context of early 20th century, the tasks of foreign ministries started to become alike in many examples of the world.

• Policy making mission was given to ministries.
• These ministries were also given the task of staffing and supporting the missions abroad.
• They started to coordinated foreign relations especially after the Great War (WWI).
• Dealing with foreign diplomats hosted in the home country was also assigned to these ministries.
• After the Second World War, foreign ministries were also assigned the duty of building and getting the support of domestic and international public.

These ministries may use different titles in different countries.

New Diplomacy

The end of the Cold War did not only change the structure of world politics, it also opened the so-called Pandora’s Box of new actors, new strategies and reconsidered conceptions of diplomacy. The Cold War context had created a political environment in which security concerns dominated every other aspects of the social and political agenda. Thusly, diplomacy was understood as a practice in which states correspond with one another. In fact, even diplomats and leaders were considered as “selfless” (Jervis, 1998: 989), because they were the agents of states and act upon states’ specific agenda. Yet, the end of the Cold war gradually eased the hard security concerns of states and opened a space for new actors to get involved in diplomatic practice.

Neack (2008) calls this new form of foreign policy as “new foreign policy” and argues that new foreign policy has the characteristics mentioned below:

• “Foreign policy is made and conducted in complex domestic and international environments.
• Foreign policy results from the work of coalitions of interested domestic and international actors and groups.
• Foreign policy issues are often linked and delinked, reflecting the strength of various parties and their particular concerns.
• The “stuff” of foreign policy derives from issues of domestic politics as well as foreign relations.
• Foreign policy analysis needs to be multilevel and multifaceted in order to confront the complicated sources and nature of foreign policy.” (Neack, 2008: 6).

In accordance with this developments, new diplomacy also included the practices of certain interest groups, nongovernmental organizations, transnational solidarity movements and even ordinary individuals. Especially with the introduction of the Internet, diplomacy is no longer considered as a practice that diplomats conduct, but all these abovementioned actors started to pursue their own agendas and take part in the game of diplomacy. Track II diplomacy, meaning the diplomatic conduct run by nonstate actors and influential non-diplomatic individuals, became a new diplomatic tool recognized by states as well.

Track II diplomacy : Track II diplomacy is a term that refers to non-conventional diplomacy conducted by not only diplomatic crews, but also by influential individuals (such as artists, authors or celebrities). Track II diplomatic practices usually take place during mediation efforts, formation of peace missions and campaign for more universal causes instead of a political agenda of a specific state. In other words, Track II diplomacy is a non-official effort to facilitate the official diplomatic context towards a cooperative solution. For more information, see Agha et. Al. 2003; Chataway 1998. Homans 2011).