Помощничек
Главная | Обратная связь


Археология
Архитектура
Астрономия
Аудит
Биология
Ботаника
Бухгалтерский учёт
Войное дело
Генетика
География
Геология
Дизайн
Искусство
История
Кино
Кулинария
Культура
Литература
Математика
Медицина
Металлургия
Мифология
Музыка
Психология
Религия
Спорт
Строительство
Техника
Транспорт
Туризм
Усадьба
Физика
Фотография
Химия
Экология
Электричество
Электроника
Энергетика

AND PERSONNEL OF DIPLOMACY



The emissary is among the first of the distinct political roles established in human society. Between primitive tribes, whether friendly or antagonistic, com­munication was necessary; and special personnel, with certain religious, bargain­ing, or language skills, were appointed to conduct discussions on a variety of issues. Emissaries bargained over the allocation of hunting territory, settling of family or clan disputes, or planning of an intertribal marriage. Today, diplo­mats seek to extend national interests in foreign territories, protect the national society from a perceived threat, increase the volume of trade, resolve a conflict over contested territory, or regulate traffic in drugs.

It was not until the fifteenth century that the concept of a permanent mission, or legation, was instituted in Europe. Italian city-states during the late Renaissance period first developed a systematic diplomatic service and recog­nized the need for establishing a corps of professional diplomats. The functions of these early diplomats included obtaining information, safeguarding political and military interests, and expanding commerce. Indeed, organized diplomacy may have owed as much for its origins to the development of extensive trade networks in Europe and the Middle East as to political and military matters. The Venetian diplomatic service, for example, was originally a commercial orga­nization. The new dynastic regimes emerging in Europe later emulated the diplo-

163 The Instruments of Policy: Diplomatic Bargaining

matic institutions established on the Italian peninsula; and by the eighteenth century, diplomacy was recognized as an important and honorable profession, even if its methods were not always so reputable.

Classical diplomacy operated among few political units: In 1648, for example, there were only twelve well-defined sovereign states in Europe, and the affairs of one did not frequently impinge on the interests of the other. In the present international system, not only are there more than 150 sovereign states, but their economic, political, and military interdependence means that almost any major domestic or foreign-policy decision in one will have repercus­sions on the interests of many others. In this setting, the problem of achieving mutually acceptable solutions to all issues is difficult and usually cannot be resolved through the relatively slow and cumbersome procedures of bilateral negotiations. Thus, a correlation between economic, scientific, and technological development and the growth of multilateral diplomacy can be observed. It is no accident that the most rapid growth of permanent multilateral diplomatic institutions occurred simultaneously with the fastest period of industrial and technological development in Europe. The bilateral patterns of diplomatic com­munication of the eighteenth century gave way first to ad hoc multilateral confer­ences and, more recently, to permanent multilateral diplomatic and technical organizations.

Until the latter part of the nineteenth century, most multilateral confer­ences dealt with the terms of peace following major European wars; but after the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871, governments began to send delegates to conferences dealing with the codification of international law (The Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907) and the more technical economic problems that European governments commonly faced.1 In 1875, a group of governments established the Universal Postal Union, the first permanent international machin­ery involving the membership of most of the states in the world. The idea of a permanent conference machinery was also put into practice in the League of Nations; and during the 1920s, other important ad hoc conferences were held in Genoa, Brussels, Geneva, and London to deal with economic reconstruc­tion, German reparations, and disarmament. The machinery for Allied economic cooperation during World War I (The Inter-Allied Maritime Transport Council) was copied and expanded considerably during the war against Nazi Germany and Japan. There were also momentous meetings between the heads of state of the major powers at Ottawa, Cairo, Teheran, and Yalta; and the Allies created a series of interlocking conference systems to coordinate all aspects of the war effort and to plan for the postwar organization of the world.

Today, the concept of multilateral conference diplomacy is institutional­ized in the United Nations and its specialized agencies. These organizations are widely known, but multilateral diplomacy also occurs constantly in thousands

1 These conferences considered such disparate subjects as agriculture, regulation and pro­duction of sugar, international standards of sanitation, tariffs, international telegraphy, navigation on the Danube, the prime meridian, liquor traffic, statistics, maritime signalling, and weights and measures.

164 The Instruments of Policy: Diplomatic Bargaining

of ad hoc conferences and less formal meetings between diplomats or govern­ment officials. During the nineteenth century, for example, the American govern­ment sent diplomatic representatives to 100 conferences, or an average of one per year; in the period 1956-1958, American diplomats, specialists, and politi­cians attended 1,027 international conferences, an average of one per day.2

Not only has a large portion of diplomatic communication become chan­neled through multilateral institutions and organizations, but, even in bilateral relations, the institutional framework of communication has become increasingly complex as the range of issues common to any pair of states has expanded. During the eighteenth century, when foreign relations were concerned primarily with military, political, and dynastic problems, a country could be represented adequately in each major capital by an ambassador or minister and several secre­taries. Envoys could perform their duties satisfactorily by keeping up on political developments in the country to which they were accredited and by applying tact, common sense, and intelligence to their contacts with foreign officials. Today, if diplomats at the ambassadorial rank are to achieve success in their efforts to influence the government to which they are accredited, they must command knowledge of a wide variety of affairs and subjects, including econom­ics, propaganda techniques, labor relations, and all facets of political analysis. They frequently administer an embassy with a staff of several hundred specialists and secretaries. Office routine, expertise, and discipline within a bureaucratic organization have replaced the glamour and leisure of eighteenth-century salons and courts.

The last development of significance in diplomatic procedures has been the rapid increase in direct communication between heads of state. As modes of transportation have made travel a simple affair, high-ranking officials and policy makers can bypass the traditional diplomatic intermediary and maintain direct communication among themselves. These face-to-face confrontations may raise problems, since many presidents and prime ministers are not trained in diplomatic skills; but they have the compensating advantage of allowing constitu­tionally responsible officials to make decisions on the basis of their broad author­ity and to bypass the bureaucratic resistances or impediments to easy communica­tion between governments. These officials often enjoy foreign travel because it raises their personal prestige at home and abroad and enables them to clarify their views personally to other heads of state. It is little wonder, then, that European leaders visit Washington or Moscow as often as twice each year, that most American presidents make at least several major trips abroad, and that leaders of nonaligned states are in almost constant personal communication with each other and with the major leaders of Western and Communist nations.

Whether conducted through trained diplomats or by heads of state, communication between governments representing widely diverse social, eco­nomic, and political systems is naturally liable to all sorts of distortion owing

2 Elmer Plischke, The Conduct of American Diplomacy, 2nd ed. (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1961), p. 474.

165The Instruments of Policy: Diplomatic Bargaining

to cultural differences, ideological cleavages, and plain misunderstandings. Since permanent diplomatic institutions were established in Italy during the fifteenth century, governments have commonly recognized that it is to their mutual advan­tage to observe certain rules of procedure that help make communication easier to conduct and less liable to distortion. Diplomatic bargaining processes become impaired if no one agrees as to who is entitled to represent a state or if diplomatic envoys are subject to harassment or intimidation by those to whom they are accredited. Three sets of rules concerning protocol, immunities, and noninterfer­ence have therefore been developed in Western international law and custom to facilitate communication between states.

Protocol

Diplomatic protocol is of considerable importance in assisting diplomats to pur­sue their tasks in an effective manner. Although the rituals of protocol may seem merely ceremonial leftovers of a previous era, they have a definite function even today. Rank, for example, constantly added irritants to international rela­tions in the eighteenth century, and solution of the problem at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 has helped in many ways to reduce little frictions that may lead to poor relations and communication between governments. In the early years of modern diplomacy, the Pope claimed the right to decide the ceremonial order of the various dynasts' representatives; but, as the influence of the church in secular affairs declined, diplomats and their governments were left to their own devices—sometimes with disastrous results. Rank, protocol, and precedence had great symbolic significance; ambassadors and envoys frequently received orders not to permit other courts' envoys to precede them in ceremonial proces­sions, for such acts could reflect adversely on the prestige and honor of their own dynast. In formal processions, for example, diplomats would plan strategies enabling them to gain favorable positions in the line. Several incidents have been recorded wherein coachmen were killed attempting to gain advantages over their rivals. It was not uncommon, moreover, for ambassadors to engage in duels to vindicate their honor and prestige when it was questioned by another envoy. In such circumstances, the candor and friendly personal relations neces­sary to successful diplomacy were not always easy to display.3

In 1815, four diplomatic ranks were established and universally adopted by European courts and foreign offices. The highest rank was assigned to ambas­sadors and papal nuncios, followed by envoys extraordinary and ministers pleni­potentiary, ministers resident, and charges d'affaires. These titles are still in use today and determine the ranking of diplomatic officials at ceremonial and political functions. The question of precedence was not, however, completely solved by agreement on the question of rank. Therefore, the delegates to the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818 agreed that among members of the same rank, prece­dence should be established no longer on the prestige or power of the diplomat's

3 See Hans Morgenthau,Politics Among Nations, 4th ed. (New York: Knopf, 1968).

166The Instruments of Policy: Diplomatic Bargaining

government, but solely on the length of time the diplomat had served as ambassa­dor in one country. Thus, if the ambassador of Luxembourg to the United States has served in Washington, D.C., longer than the Soviet ambassador, he or she always precedes the Soviet ambassador. Diplomats who have served the longest period in a foreign capital are normally referred to as the doyens, or deans, of the diplomatic corps and on ceremonial occasions always precede other ambassadors.

Another aspect of protocol that influences the efficiency of diplomatic processes is language, for precision in communication is one of the major re­quirements of effective diplomacy. To many outside government service, the style of written diplomatic communication seems at best specious and at worst hypocritical. Diplomatic correspondence today is largely devoid of the circuitous and formal phrases in use generations ago; it is still not unusual, however, to see notes stating, "I have the honor to acknowledge your excellency's note. . . ." or, "I feel constrained to advise you that my government cannot but acquiesce in the view that . . ." The use of such rhetoric is declining, and there is an increasing tendency in diplomatic communication to be frank and avoid any impression of being dilatory.

Formerly, by adhering to strict rules of etiquette, diplomats could phrase statements that gave precise meaning without creating the impression of impo­liteness or belligerence. Gordon Craig cites the example of a meeting in 1859 between Napoleon III and the Austrian ambassador to France, when the Emperor in the politest terms expressed his regret that Franco-Austrian relations were not more cordial. If the Austrian ambassador was alert, he realized that Napoleon had really meant that unless the Austrians changed their foreign policy, a Franco-Austrian war was likely to ensue.4 Although diplomats were aware of the meaning between the lines, the diplomatic environment at least seemed to be one of amity, courtesy, and common understanding. As will be seen below, much of the formal­ity of diplomatic communication has been replaced by frankness and, in some cases, vulgarity, polemics, and intemperate namecalling.

Immunities

If governments are to seek to influence each others' policies and actions through effective communication, they must assume that their diplomatic agents abroad will not be abused or placed under conditions that would prevent them from engaging freely in bargaining and persuasion. Even among primitive people, envoys or messengers were usually regarded as sacrosanct and enjoyed special privileges and immunities when travelling abroad. Communication would have been impossible if emissaries had been treated as "heathen," burned, tortured, or eaten before delivering their messages. In ancient China, Greece, and India, as well as in the Muslim Empire, diplomatic immunities were regularly accorded

4 Gordon A. Craig, "On the Diplomatic Revolution of Our Times" (The Haynes Foundation Lectures, University of California, Riverside, April 1961), p. 9.

 

167 The Instruments of Policy: Diplomatic Bargaining

to envoys and messengers from "barbarian" communities. On occasion, ambas­sadors were imprisoned or slain because they were suspected of trickery; but in most cases (as indicated in the ancient Indian Mahabhamta, "The King who slays an envoy sinks into hell with all his ministers"), there were strong ethical sanctions and reasons of self-interest against violating diplomatic immunities.5

It is still the general rule of international law that diplomats and their embassies are to be treated as if they were on their native soil. They are immune from prosecution under the laws, customs, rules, or regulations of the govern­ment to which they are accredited. Those who enjoy diplomatic status (usually all the full-time foreign staff of the embassy) may not be molested by national police officials, nor may the premises of an embassy be visited by local law enforcement agents without the invitation of the embassy staff. If a French official enjoying diplomatic status parks his or her auto in a restricted zone in Stockholm, for instance, the official is not liable to fine, trial, or imprisonment by Swedish officials. However, if diplomatic officials commit serious crimes abroad, the host government may either demand that they be recalled or request that their immu­nities be lifted so that they can be indicted and tried in the receiving country's courts of law. A Central American diplomat was arrested upon his arrival in New York when police apprehended him attempting to smuggle a large amount of heroin into the United States. The State Department requested the foreign government to strip the man of his diplomatic status, which it consented to do; and he was eventually tried, convicted, and imprisoned according to Ameri­can legal procedures.

If in this case the Central American government had refused to recall the ambassador or lift his diplomatic status, the United States could have declared him persona поп grata, thus forcing the Central American government to recall him. In most cases, governments do recall their diplomats when requested to do so, and designating a diplomat persona поп grata usually results from a diplo­mat's political actions, not from breaking a local law. Ambassadors and other diplomatic officials are usually declared persona поп grata only when their efficiency has been impaired by indiscreet political statements, interference in internal affairs of the host country, or taking advantage of their status to indulge in espionage activities. During the cold war, there was rather rapid turnover of diplomatic personnel in the Western embassies in Moscow and the Soviet embas­sies in Western capitals, as numerous diplomats (many were intelligence agents posing as diplomats) were apprehended while conducting illegal intelligence activities. Retaliation also became an accepted practice; for example, if a British dipolmat was expelled from the Soviet Union, the British government normally

5 See Frank M. Russell, Theories of International Relations (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1936), p. 42. In several recent instances, the Soviet government has promised immunity and safety to emissaries and delegations, only to imprison or execute them upon arrival. The cases in question involved a group representing the Polish underground in 1945 and the military and political leaders of the Hungarian revolution in 1956. The universal condemnation of the Iranian authorities' imprisoning fifty American diplomats for use as hostages in 1979-1981 derived from the recognition that a fundamental norm protecting interstate communication had been violated. If many governments acted similarly, international anarchy would result.

168The Instruments of Policy: Diplomatic Bargaining

requested the immediate recall of a Soviet diplomat in London. Although the activities of diplomats during the cold war taxed the laws and customs of immu­nity, they were still recognized as essential to effective diplomacy, and there was surprisingly little discussion over the merits of either abandoning or proscrib­ing them.6

Noninterference

If diplomatic officials ordinarily enjoy immunities from the laws of the country to which they are accredited, other customs have developed that limit the types of actions they can undertake in attempting to influence the policies of foreign governments. Chief among these is the stricture that they cannot in any way interfere in the internal political processes of another country. Normally, they are expected to confine official discussions to government personnel. Certainly they may defend their own government's policies to the foreign public by ad­dressing private groups; but they must not make appeals to these people asking them to put pressures on their own government; nor can they provide funds to political parties, or provide leadership or other services to insurgents, political factions, or economic organizations.

These rules of noninterference are well established in law and customary practice, but as the domestic affairs of countries have increasingly important foreign-policy implications, the rules are in many cases circumvented. In 1919, President Wilson toured Italy exhorting the Italian people to press their govern­ment to make concessions at the Paris Peace Conference; foreign aid and techni­cal personnel frequently "suggest" how foreign governments should reform their economy, organize a military force, or put down civil rebellion.7 As will be discussed in Chapter 10, Nazi, Western, and Communist diplomats have amassed an impressive record of intervention in other countries' internal affairs by fomenting civil disorders, subsidizing subversive political factions, and dis­seminating covert propaganda.

 




Поиск по сайту:

©2015-2020 studopedya.ru Все права принадлежат авторам размещенных материалов.