WE OFTEN hear about “secret diplomacy” as opposed to “open diplomacy”. Both schools of thought have their followers, but a dilemma arises when one has to choose between the two to best promote the state’s interests. These interests are promoted through setting foreign policy goals which are themselves determined by permanent data – geography, history, civilisation, national temperament, etc – and changing elements of an internal and external nature. In order to chart the big avenues of foreign policy, which the diplomatic service is called on to implement, all these elements have to be taken into account.
As already mentioned, the handling of foreign affairs implies a choice which introduces the element of art, since it has to do with action and behaviour. It is within this framework that definitions, like “aggressive diplomacy” and “quiet diplomacy” are better understood, thus fully justifying Bismarck’s aphorism that “politics is a psychological art”.
Foreign policy and diplomacy are not static, but subject to continuous developments, which allow for creation, fantasy, vision, innovation, etc in the search for diplomatic initiatives. At the same time, one has the opportunity for soul searching and adjustment to new data, where necessary. Their successful conclusion has been characterised as “the art of possible” and constitutes the fundamental goal of any negotiation. The question arises as to how democratically and openly we reach decisions, which will promote the interests of the state, and what kind of role dialogue plays in the formulation of foreign policy.
As in so many other areas, the guiding light comes from ancient Greece. In Pericles’ Athens, the parliament (Voule) of 500 openly discussed matters of internal and external policy before the citizens (Ecclesia tou Demou). At these meetings foreign ambassadors were also invited to attend and explain the position and policies of their respective countries.
It was the historian Thucydides who pointed out convincingly the weaknesses of public discussion concerning matters of foreign policy. He argued that major policy choices could be influenced by demagogues, and that the city’s commitments could easily be subject to the reaction of a badly informed public. His strongest argument was that public discussion also afforded the enemies of the city with the opportunity to know its decisions. However, when the economic and strategic interests of the city were at stake, those in power, despite the control of the Ecclesia tou Demou, would take military action without any hesitation, ignoring alliances and procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Open diplomacy and democracy were then set aside, creating a system which lasted until relatively recently. The rapid growth of international organisations and international relations in the last century brought about changes leading to greater democratisation and the creation of an environment which has obliged diplomacy to adjust its methods and goals.
Let us mention some examples. The secret agreements and alliances of the past are no longer acceptable by modern societies. This trend started at the time of the League of Nations when President Woodrow Wilson favoured “open covenants, openly arrived at” and found its concrete expression in the UN Charter. Article 102 states that treaties and international agreements entered by the members of the UN should be registered with the UN Secretariat and published by it.
With the development of international organisations, multilateral diplomacy acquired more importance than the bilateral, which favours the stronger states. The concomitant effect was the expansion of a diplomacy exercised by international organisations. The difference between them is that multilateral diplomacy is exercised by states within the framework of international conferences, whereas the second is exercised by international civil servants with a view to furthering with transparency the interests of the international community. From the four functions of traditional diplomacy (negotiation, representation, information and promotion of national interests) the one used more is that of negotiation. It goes without saying that in their conduct, international civil servants negotiating on behalf of international organisations should not be influenced by national considerations.
In this new environment, the role of diplomats has been restrained. Heads of state and foreign ministers travel very often and settle serious matters through their visits to foreign capitals or telephone conversations. Thus, they by-pass their ambassadors and diplomatic agents and promote what is called direct diplomacy. Moreover, within the framework of globalisation, new scientific methods and knowledge made modern diplomacy the tool of a multifaceted strategy, covering political, economic, military, religious and other matters. It is evident that this development renders modern diplomacy more open.
Finally, the relationship between diplomacy and the media has now acquired a particular significance. Press conferences to explain policies and appearances on the television for the same purpose gave a new dimension to this relationship. Facts and comments by the media can influence not only the public opinion, but decision-makers on diplomatic matters as well. The question which arises is to know who is influencing whom. The fact remains, however, that this relationship contributes to the transparency of diplomatic moves.
On the basis of the above, it is obvious that modern diplomacy is gradually moving from the shadowy paths of secret diplomacy to the democratisation of the institution, allowing for citizens to participate in the management of public affairs. It is in this way that open diplomacy makes a valuable contribution to the cause of peace, which is the ultimate goal of diplomacy.
Dr Andrestinos N Papadopoulos is a former ambassador of the Cyprus Republic
