Diplomacy for Professionals and Everyone (Diplomatic Studies, 20) 9004517340, 9789004517349

Citation preview

Diplomacy for Professionals and Everyone

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Studies Series Editor Jan Melissen (Leiden University and University of Antwerp)

volume 20

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/​dist

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomacy for Professionals and Everyone By

Alisher Faizullaev

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Cover illustration: Diplomat, by Inna Sandler, December 2021. Technique: drawing. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Faĭzullaev, A. A. (Alisher Amanullaevich) author. Title: Diplomacy for professionals and everyone / By Alisher Faizullaev. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill | Nijhoff, [2022] | Series: Diplomatic studies 1872-8863 ; Volume 20 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “If you want to better understand not only international but also social diplomacy, then this book is for you. If you are a practitioner in traditional diplomacy or a person who want to apply diplomatic ideas and methods in social life, you can find many useful insights in this original work. A scholar and experienced diplomat, the author argues that international and social diplomacy can learn from each other. He explores genuine diplomacy as a goodwill mission, constructive engagement, and dialogical interaction that can help states, non-state organizations, companies, groups, individuals, and their aggregations to create public goods and make positive social changes”– Provided by publisher. Identifiers: lccn 2022024686 (print) | lccn 2022024687 (ebook) | isbn 9789004517349 (hardback) | isbn 9789004517356 (ebook) Subjects: lcsh: Diplomacy–Social aspects. | International relations–Social aspects. | Social interaction. | Communication in politics. Classification: lcc JZ1305 .F35 2022 (print) | lcc JZ1305 (ebook) | ddc 327.2–dc23/eng/20220801 lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022024686 lc ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022024687 Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/​brill-​typeface. issn 1872-​8 863 isbn 978-​9 0-​0 4-​5 1734-​9 (hardback) isbn 978-​9 0-​0 4-​5 1735-​6 (e-​book) Copyright 2022 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau and V&R unipress. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-​use and/​or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill nv via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-​free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

To my parents, with love

∵

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Contents  Preface xi  List of Figures and Tables xv  Introduction 1 1  The Sense of Diplomacy 9 1  What Is Diplomacy? 9 2  Diplomacy of Multifaceted Entities and Multidimensional Diplomacies 23 3  The Social and the Political in Diplomacy 27 4  New Diplomacies 32 2  The Essentials of Diplomacy 38 1  Preconditions for Diplomacy 38 2  The Self-​Other Paradigm in Diplomacy 40 3  The Idea and Practice of Diplomacy 44 4  Aspirational Aspect of Diplomacy: Diplomatic Mission and Objectives 52 4.1  Diplomacy as a Goodwill Mission 53 4.2  Diplomatic Objectives: Decency 54 5  The Performative Aspect of Diplomacy: Diplomatic Means and Norms 55 5.1  Methods of Diplomatic Interactions 56 5.2  Diplomatic Code of Conduct 57 6  Constructive Engagement as the Way of Diplomacy 58 7  Diplomatic Spirit 63 3  Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy 66 1  Actors, Agencies, and Agents in Diplomacy 66 2  The Ambassador as a High-​Level Diplomatic Agent 75 2.1  Envoys 79 2.2  The Ambassador’s Credentials 80 3  The Diplomat: An Interactional Perspective 82 4  Diplomacy and a Global Interaction Complex 85 4  Unconventional Ambassadors 92 1  New Types of Ambassadors 92

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

viii Contents 2  Goodwill Ambassadors 96 2.1  Appointed and Volunteer Goodwill Ambassadors 97 2.2  Appointed and Volunteer Goodwill Ambassadors as Unconventional Diplomatic Representatives 102 3  Independent Goodwill Ambassadors 104 3.1  Self-​Representation 105 3.2  The Individual’s Self-​Constituted Representation of Other Entities or Causes 112 4  Everyday Ambassadors 115 5  Diplomatic Functions 117 1  Diplomatic Functions in Traditional Diplomacy 117 2  Representation as a Diplomatic Mega-​function 130 3  Negotiation as a Diplomatic Mega-​function 133 6  Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset 142 1  Diplomatic Methods 142 1.1  Conversation 144 1.2  Negotiation 144 1.3  Dispute 145 1.4  Rhetoric 146 2  Diplomatic Skills 148 3  Diplomatic Skillsets for Dialogical Interaction and Tactful Conduct 153 3.1  Interoperating Skills 154 3.2  Reflection Skills 155 3.3  Organizational Skills 156 3.4  Self-​Regulation Skills 156 3.5  Moral Skills 156 4  Diplomatic Dispositions and Attitudes 158 5  A Diplomat’s Personal Behavior Style 161 7  The Social and Relational in Diplomacy 165 1  The Social Side of Diplomacy 165 2  Relations and Relationships in Diplomacy 169 3  Social Framing of Relationships 174 4  International Diplomacy in a Relational Context 177 5  Relationships as a Primary and Secondary Concern in Traditional Diplomacy 182

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

ix

Contents



5.1  Coordinating and Negotiating Interests, Values, Legal Rights and Relationships in Diplomacy 185

8  Toward Social Diplomacy 188 1  Everyday, Transprofessional and Social Diplomacies 188 2  Social Diplomacy as a Way of Constructing Relationships 196 3  Social Diplomats as Constructive Conversationalists 205 4  Social Diplomacy’s Don’ts 209 9  Greetings as Micro-​diplomacy or Coordinated Social Engagement 213 1  Greetings, covid-​19 and Human Engagement 213 2  Greeting as an Act of Diplomacy 216 3  Greeting as an Interactional Instrument of Relationship Management 217 4  Greeting as a Meaningful Social Exchange 221 5  Greeting as a Strategic Interaction and Coordination Game 224 6  The Relationship Payoff Matrix in a Greeting Negotiation 230 7  Getting to Yes in Greeting, or Social Diplomacy of Greeting 236  Conclusion 239 Appendix 1  “Engagement” in International Diplomacy 247

Appendix 2  Interaction Structures in International Diplomacy 253 1  Levels of Diplomatic Interactions 257 2  Areas Affected by Diplomatic Interactions 258 3  Channels of Diplomatic Interaction 258 4  The Intensity of Diplomatic Interactions 259 5  Modality of Diplomatic Interactions 260 6  Exposure of Diplomatic Interactions 260 7  The Intentionality of Diplomatic Interactions 261

Appendix 3  Relationship-​Enhancing Practices in International Diplomacy 262 1  The Practice of Communication 265 2  The Practice of Honoring 266 3  The Practice of Affiliation 266 4  The Practice of Collaboration 267 5  The Practice of Helping 267

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

x Contents

6  The Practice of Empathizing 268 7  The Practice of Ceremony 268 8  The Practice of Normative Behavior 269 9  The Practice of Entertaining 270 10  The Practice of Apology 270 11  The Practice of Commitment 271 12  The Practice of Framing Relationships 271 13  The Practice of Giving a Gift 272 14  The Practice of Cultural Interest 273 15  The Practice of Public Engagement 274

 References 276  Index 293

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Preface When I was a young man, I never thought that I would become a diplomat, let alone an ambassador. At university, I trained to become a psychologist, receiving my PhD in the subject in 1984. After that, I took up psychological practice –​research, teaching, training and consulting. When the Soviet Union collapsed and Uzbekistan became an independent country, I, like some other academics and professionals with a command over foreign languages, was offered a job in the Foreign Ministry of the newly established Republic of Uzbekistan. That was in 1992. I politely refused the unusual offer because it was unexpected and I had other plans for my future. And, frankly, I had a little idea about what diplomats do. After some time, I declined another such invitation. However, it was a very interesting time for the newly independent state, and I started to think seriously about statecraft, international affairs and diplomacy. After much reflection about my country, the challenges before it and its future, I finally agreed to start working in the field of foreign policy, international politics and diplomacy. Eventually, I became Uzbekistan’s first ambassador to the European Union, nato, Belgium and Luxembourg, and its second ambassador to the Netherlands and later to the United Kingdom. In 2003, after ten years in international politics and diplomacy, I happily returned to academia. This was very relevant for me, because I have an academic background, and enjoy scholarship and teaching. But I am very grateful that I gained first-​hand experience in diplomacy, especially in helping the country build its diplomacy, diplomatic institutions and service from scratch. That was a profound and life-​changing experience. This work also helped me grow as a scholar: I started to reflect on my role and experience as a diplomat, to think and write about diplomacy and negotiation, and to teach in these areas. However, I was somehow not quite attracted to the traditional analysis of diplomacy as an instrument of foreign policy and international relations. I was more interested in diplomacy as a fascinating sphere of human interaction in which political, social, cultural, psychological and personal factors are organically intertwined and play a role. If we liken diplomacy to a game, it would be one of the most complex, multifaceted, strategic and subtle ones, played by states, organizations, groups and individuals. I was especially interested in individual diplomats –​their personalities, characters, behavior and roles in international diplomatic activities. After all, it is individuals who conduct international diplomacy by interacting with each other, and their mindsets, personal traits, attitudes, motivations, skills and behavior affect world politics. Of course, my education as a psychologist and

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

xii Preface my interest in personality and social psychology influenced my perception of diplomacy and my approach to diplomatic studies. At the same time, my international and diplomatic experiences also affected my thinking and worldview, and I became involved in the field of political science. So, it was quite natural for me to combine psychological, political and diplomatic perspectives in my research and teaching. In 2006, I defended a dissertation on the role of the individual in international politics and diplomacy to earn a DSc –​a higher doctorate in political science. I continued to conduct research, teach and publish on topics related to diplomacy, diplomats and negotiation as a key diplomatic practice. As a scholar of diplomacy, I was trying to understand relations between the individual diplomat and state diplomacy; a diplomat’s and a state’s Self; individual experiencing of states; the role of culture, narratives, symbols and symbolic insult in diplomacy; specifics of diplomatic negotiations; and explicit and tacit bargaining in diplomacy. Gradually I began to think about diplomacy in a wider sense –​not just in the context of interstate relations but as a specific type of interaction between any socially and politically defined entities, or sociopolitical actors. This also provided an opportunity to apply the Self-​Other paradigm to the research. I developed my interest in human-​ centric diplomacy while focusing on the role of individuals in international politics and diplomacy. Of course, I recognize and acknowledge many other major factors affecting interstate diplomacy, such as the international order and institutions, global, regional and domestic power distribution, and political, security, economic and geographical determinants. But again, the field players of any diplomacy are individuals, with their personalities, attitudes, inner worlds, interests, rights, feelings and relationships. However, the role of individuals in international politics and diplomacy remains very poorly understood. I appreciate the encouragement of Alexander Wendt, who, in 2005, was very supportive of my focus on the role of the individual in international politics and diplomacy. The more I delved into diplomatic studies, the more I realized that the concept of diplomacy has great heuristic and constructive potential, and that the traditional understanding of it within the framework of state-​based and internationally oriented diplomacy provides a rather specific, but not comprehensive idea of diplomacy. Of course, traditional diplomacy has accumulated vast experience in international conflict resolution and relationship-​building, and this experience is valuable for any other form of diplomacy. However, a broader understanding of diplomacy is conditioned by modern realities, and it is necessary to use the full potential of diplomacy to solve problems and establish good relations not only among states but also among other entities.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Preface

xiii

This book is about two diplomacies: traditional diplomacy and diplomacy for everyone. I wanted to connect and compare traditional, that is, international diplomacy with a broader understanding of diplomacy, or unconventional diplomacy, because they both have commonalities as well as differences. I hope that this book will be useful for professional diplomats, those who study diplomacy and people who want to use diplomacy in their everyday lives. As Paul Sharp noted, “Everyone gets to be a diplomat and do diplomacy some of the time.”1 Of course, not everybody who does diplomacy in their daily life wants to be a professional diplomat or consider themselves an everyday diplomat. Nevertheless, knowledge of diplomacy, and of the diplomatic spirit, methods and skills can be useful not only for those who work in the field of international relations but also for anyone at work, at home, in public places, and in dealing with interpersonal and social issues. Diplomacy can complement and be useful in any profession and social activity. Indeed, diplomacy can become a mission and a way of life for both professional diplomats and for people who want to make society a better place. This book offers some insights I have gained on professional diplomacy and diplomatic studies for those who want to develop their diplomatic virtuosity professionally or try to use diplomacy in their social encounters. I would also be happy if some readers expand their understandings of diplomacy and are inspired to further explore diplomatic ideas and practices. I believe that diplomacy as a worthy idea and powerful social practice can be an effective instrument for many positive changes in personal and social life. International diplomacy has a long history and has accumulated a vast store of collective knowledge and experience. By contrast, social diplomacy, as discussed in this book, is only starting to gain a place in diplomatic scholarship and practice. This book aims to find out what everybody can learn from traditional or internationally oriented diplomacy, as well as from a more broadly understood social diplomacy, to become more efficient in daily life, social situations, relationship management, and dealing with conflicts and other problems. I want to thank Professor Jan Melissen for supporting me in writing this book and providing substantial advice, and Professor Geoffrey Wiseman for the valuable comments and recommendations on the book. I dedicate this book to my parents –​my first teachers in the field of social diplomacy. They always wanted me to be a better diplomat in daily life and

1 Paul Sharp, Diplomacy in the 21st Century: A Brief Introduction (Abingdon: Routledge, 2019), p. 4.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

xiv Preface social activities, and I, with certain successes and failures, am continuing to work in this direction. I am also grateful to my wife, children and grandchildren, who have constantly and greatly helped me to be a better diplomatic representative of my country as well as a good diplomat in my social life.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Figures and Tables Figures 1.1  The five meanings of the word “Diplomacy.” 10 1.2  Relations between man and man, and between nation and nation. 10 1.3  Diplomacy as management of international relations by diplomats through negotiation. 11 1.4  The three important senses of the term “Diplomacy.” 12 1.5  Diplomacy as managing relations between political entities. 13 1.6  Diplomacy of managing relations and diplomacy of solving problems. 13 1.7  Broad and narrow conceptions of diplomacy. 14 1.8  Two ways of conceptualizing diplomacy. 15 1.9  Broad and narrow conceptions of diplomacy. 15 1.10  Diplomacy as a state institution and as representation and communication. 16 1.11  Diplomacy as a dialog between states. 17 1.12  Diplomacy as the institutional communication of internationally recognized entities that produce, manage and distribute public goods. 18 1.13  Diplomacy as mediation between alienated actors. 18 1.14  Representing a polity to the outside world. 19 1.15  Three aspects of diplomacy. 20 1.16  Diplomacy and representing territorial and non-​territorial units. 20 1.17  Diplomacy as representing and negotiating on behalf of a territorial unit, non-​ territorial unit or a cause. 20 1.18  The two meanings of diplomacy. 21 1.19  Predominantly political or social nature of diplomacy. 22 1.20  Essential characteristics of the traditional conception of diplomacy. 24 1.21  Political, moral, legal and social diplomacies. 25 1.22  Engagement in primarily rights-based diplomacy and in interest-​based diplomacy. 26 1.23  The intertwinedness of the social and the political. 29 1.24  The conventional, narrower conception, and the unconventional, broader view of diplomacy. 31 1.25  Three ways of indicating a type of diplomacy. 34 2.1  Self and Other as separate and interdependent entities. 40 2.2  Apparent and concealed engagement between Self and Other. 41 2.3  Interaction between Self and numerous Others. 41 2.4  Significance of actors to each other. 42

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

xvi 

Figures and Tables

2.5  The varying significances of Others for the Self. 43 2.6  Genuine and manipulative diplomacy. 49 2.7  Four key questions regarding diplomacy. 51 2.8  Aspirational and performative aspects of diplomacy. 52 2.9  Diplomatic mission and diplomatic objectives as two attributes of diplomatic aspirations. 53 2.10  Major objectives of diplomacy. 55 2.11  Aspirational aspect of diplomacy: goodwill mission and noble objectives. 56 2.12  Methods and norms of interaction as two attributes of diplomatic performance. 56 2.13  The performative aspect of diplomacy: dialogical interaction and tactful conduct. 58 2.14  Two forms of non-​engagement –​voluntary and involuntary. 60 2.15  (a) Mutual engagement, (b) Reciprocal non-​engagement, and (c) One-​sided engagement of entities. 60 2.16  War and diplomacy as the ways of destructive and constructive engagement between entities. 62 2.17  Self and Other: the ways of engagement and non-​engagement. 62 2.18  Destructive, constructive, and mixed-​motive engagements. 63 2.19  The way of diplomacy. 63 2.20  Diplomacy as a goodwill mission through constructive engagement. 64 2.21  Diplomatic spirit is the spirit of goodwill and constructiveness. 64 2.22  Idea, practice and spirit of diplomacy. 65 3.1  Actor, agency and agent. 68 3.2  A corporate actor and its organization-​agency and individual agents. 69 3.3  An individual actor acting (A) through a corporate agency, (B) through an individual agent, and (C) directly. 70 3.4  State actors, organization-​agencies and individual agents in interstate diplomacy. 71 3.5  Interaction between a state and an organization as corporate diplomatic actors. 72 3.6  Interaction between two organizations through their agencies and agents. 73 3.7  Interaction between two individual actors through their individual agents. 73 3.8  Interaction between an individual actor and a state actor. 73 3.9  Interaction between an individual actor and an organizational actor. 73 3.10  Interaction between two individual actors. 74 3.11  Interaction of various sociopolitical entities. 75 3.12  Positions equivalent to ambassadors in modern diplomacy. 78 3.13  The difference between ambassadors and envoys in traditional diplomacy. 81 3.14  A balanced relationship between A and B. 89

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Figures and Tables

xvii

3.15  Imbalanced relationship between A and B. 90 4.1  The three types of goodwill ambassadors. 97 4.2  Four basic features of appointed goodwill ambassadors. 101 4.3  A typical scheme of the work of voluntary goodwill ambassadors. 102 4.4  The main factors affecting the credibility of appointed and volunteer goodwill ambassadors. 105 4.5  A self-​constituted representation of oneself, other(s) and a cause. 106 4.6  An individual’s implicit self-​representation. 107 4.7  An individual’s quasi-​representation of something. 107 4.8  The individual’s explicit self-​representation. 108 4.9  Different sources of authorization for an individual’s explicit self-​representation. 109 4.10  Appointed, volunteer and independent goodwill ambassadors as actors or agents. 115 5.1  Diplomatic mission, functions, methods and skills. 118 5.2  The supportive relations between diplomatic skills, methods, functions and mission. 118 5.3  Individuals who can take part in state-​led diplomatic activities. 119 5.4  Diplomats working in a home country and abroad. 120 5.5  The functions of diplomatic missions listed in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. 123 5.6  The functions of a diplomatic actor. 126 5.7  Master, servient and subservient diplomatic functions. 127 5.8  Representation and negotiation as diplomats’ mega-​functions. 128 5.9  Relations between representation and negotiation functions in international diplomacy. 129 5.10  Diplomatic mega-​macro-​and micro-​functions. 129 5.11  Presentability and representability in diplomatic representation. 133 5.12  The five basic elements of negotiation: actors, issue, environment, process and outcome. 135 5.13  An expanded understanding of negotiation as a diplomatic mega-​function. 140 6.1  Conversing as the interaction between partners. 145 6.2  Negotiating as the interaction between partners and opponents. 145 6.3  Disputing as the interaction between opponents. 146 6.4  Rhetoric as cooperating or confronting interaction. 147 6.5  Four roles of diplomats as dialogical interactionalists. 147 6.6  Principal diplomatic skillsets. 155 6.7  Savoir-​faire as a core diplomatic skill. 158 6.8  Positive dispositions of the individual diplomat. 160

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

newgenprepdf

xviii 

Figures and Tables

6.9  Responsive attitudes of the individual diplomat. 161 6.10  Interdependence of positive dispositions, responsible attitudes and diplomatic aspirations. 161 6.11  Factors that can enrich an individual style of behavior. 164 7.1  Engagement, interaction, relation and the relationship between two actors. 169 7.2  Relations and relationships as functions of interests, values and rights. 170 7.3  Relations and relationship between two entities. 172 7.4  The ways of defining the status of relations or socially structuring relationships. 173 8.1  Aims of political and social diplomacies. 198 8.2  Factors that give power to human relationships. 199 8.3  Constructing intersubjective reality and shared meaning through interaction and social exchange between the parties. 201 8.4  Interdependence of positive relationship, trust and justice. 204 8.5  Basic don’ts of social diplomacy. 211 8.6  The “diplomatic ladder” of goodwill mission, constructive engagement, dialogical interaction and positive relationships. 212

Tables 4.1  Types and titles of unconventional ambassadors 94 9.1  A greeting payoff matrix with the choice of engagement or non-​engagement 231 9.2  The payoff matrix for a greeting situation with three choices: (1) initiating a greeting or making the first offer, (2) responding to a greeting or making a counteroffer, and (3) ignoring the greeting of the other side or making no offer 234 9.3  A payoff matrix for a greeting situation with five possible moves from counterparts: (1) initiating greeting properly, (2) initiating greeting improperly, (3) responding to greeting properly, (4) responding to greeting improperly and (5) non-​engagement 235

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Introduction As our world becomes more interconnected and interdependent, we can observe growing interactions not only among homogeneous entities such as states or individuals, but also among different types of actors. For example, states may interact both with state and non-​state actors, and they can communicate with citizens and groups in other countries through public diplomacy. Small terrorist groups or individual terrorists can threaten entire nations or large groups of people. Individual hackers have been able to break into the computer systems of banks, companies and even government military headquarters and security agencies. Nowadays, individuals can interact with international organizations and transnational companies through the Internet and social media. Actress Angelina Jolie acts as a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees goodwill ambassador, and teenage environmental activist Greta Thunberg has addressed the United Nations Climate Action Summit. Private foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation work with governments, international and nongovernmental organizations, companies, academic institutions, and individuals. Business groups, sports clubs and athletes set up mutually beneficial relationships. In short, in the modern world, engagement and interaction among various types of entities are developing intensively. Information and communication technologies play a large role in this process. Growing interdependence and interaction among traditional and new, or nontraditional, actors create new opportunities to change the world for the better. However, they also create many new threats and challenges. For example, we can observe that the Internet and social media can be widely used for the public good as well as for spreading hate speech and fostering enmity among people, social groups and countries. A magazine caricature published in one country can instigate unrest in many parts of the world. A more interrelated and dynamic, and therefore less predictable world requires more advanced ways of managing relationships among different types of entities. Challenges related to nuclear weapons, climate change, inequality, poverty, information security, pandemics, the development of biotechnology and artificial intelligence make us seek new forms of social and political cooperation among various actors in the modern world. In such a situation, the world needs diplomacy more than ever before –​not only diplomacy among states but also diplomacy among all kinds of purposeful entities, or social actors. Indeed, alongside states, many new actors now have a significant impact on the world in terms of global, regional and local politics as well as social life.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_002 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

2 Introduction These include religious organizations and professional groups, social activists and business corporations, social media influencers, and high-​tech innovators, and nonprofit organizations and activists. Traditionally, diplomacy has been the domain of states and their authorized representatives –​diplomats. But this book argues that both traditional and new sociopolitical actors, including states, organizations, companies, groups and individuals, can use diplomacy to manage existing relationships, build new relationships, resolve problems and protect interests. The book develops an expanded understanding of diplomacy, starting with the tradition of studying transprofessional and everyday diplomacies, and it promotes the positive value of using diplomacy in various fields, including social life and interpersonal relations. Diplomacy is commonly taken to mean international diplomacy, and it is usually associated with international politics and relations among states. Indeed, diplomatic relations are established among states, and states create ministries of foreign affairs and embassies in foreign countries and send ambassadors and other professional diplomats abroad. There are also international legal norms that regulate diplomatic relations, and the work of diplomatic missions,1 and a set of diplomatic rules, protocol norms and practices accumulated over centuries. However, this book offers a broader approach to diplomacy and advances the social, primarily interactional, study of diplomacy. This is done not in isolation from traditional –​meaning international –​diplomacy, but in comparison with it and considering trends in its development. How justified is it to discuss diplomacy in social life and social diplomats? Will this lead to a blurring of the concepts of diplomacy and the diplomat? The need to rethink the idea of diplomacy in the modern world is clearly demonstrated by scholarly works on multi-​track diplomacy,2 homo diplomacy,3 everyday ambassadors,4 everyday diplomacy,5 transprofessional diplomacy,6

1 The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, United Nations, April 18, 1961, accessed May 14, 2021, http://​legal.un.org/​ilc/​texts/​inst​rume​nts/​engl​ish/​conv​enti​ons/​9_​1_​1​961.pdf. 2 Louise Diamond and John W. McDonald, Multi-​Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace, 3rd ed. (West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1996). 3 Costas Constantinou, “On Homo-​Diplomacy,” Space and Culture 9, no. 4 (2006): 351–​364. 4 Kate Otto, Everyday Ambassador: Make a Difference by Connecting in a Disconnected World (New York: atria Paperback, 2015). 5 Richard Sennett, Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation (London: Penguin Books, 2012), pp. 211–​246; Costas Constantinou, “Everyday Diplomacy: Mission, Spectacle and the Remaking of Diplomatic Culture,” in Diplomatic Cultures and International Politics, eds. Jason Dittmer and Fiona McConnell (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 23–​40. 6 Costas Constantinou, Noé Cornago and Fiona McConnell, Transprofessional Diplomacy (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Introduction

3

multistakeholder diplomacy,7 and social diplomacy.8 The rapidly changing world, with its new actors and challenges, necessitates the diversification of diplomacy, its pluralization.9 In our increasingly complex world, diplomacy is no longer just the domain of states. Now, nongovernmental organizations, transnational companies, different social groups, the media, social media, celebrities and other influential individuals play a significant role in international affairs, diplomacy and social life. In the modern world, both the practice of and research on substate diplomacy and paradiplomacy have been developed, and they also show the possibilities for the diversification of modern diplomacy and the emergence of new forms of diplomacy, which are no longer entirely based on the classical understanding of state-​actor diplomacy. However, we can expect that in the future, the world will become even more complex with a much bigger number and variety of interdependent actors, so over time people will need to develop their ability to work and make important decisions together. Diplomacy, as a specific kind of human activity, is needed on a larger scale and in new forms so that people can live in peace in a turbulent and less predictable world. International diplomacy has been developed in relation to interstate affairs, and any new, unconventional types and forms of diplomacy can learn a lot from it. At the same time, international diplomacy can also get many new and useful insights and practices from worldly wisdom and understanding of the best ways for people to live together harmoniously in the social sphere and in everyday life. Diplomacies among states and among other purposeful entities such as groups, organizations and individuals may differ in many ways. However, all actors, be they large corporations or small companies, for-​profit or nonprofit organizations, educational and research institutions, governments and governmental agencies, international bodies or other organized groups, public figures or private personalities, are, by interacting with each other, getting involved in social and power relations –​creating relationships and building 7 Jovan Kurbalija and Valentin Katrandjiev, eds., Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities (Malta and Geneva: DiploFoundation, 2006); Brian Hocking, “Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Forms, Functions, and Frustrations,” in Kurbalija and Katrandjiev, Multistakeholder Diplomacy, pp. 13–​29. 8 Grażyna Czubek, ed. Social Diplomacy: The Case of Poland –​International Activity of Polish NGOs and Their Dialogue with Government (Warsaw: Stefan Batory Foundation, 2002); Rianne van Doeveren, Engaging the Arab World through Social Diplomacy (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, 2011). 9 Noé Cornago, Plural Diplomacies: Normative Predicaments and Functional Imperatives (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

4 Introduction influence. As this book shows, genuine diplomacy represents a positive and constructive idea and practice, and dialogical instruments of mutual influence serve a ­dignified and commonly acceptable coexistence of entities such as states, organizations and individuals. Diplomacy that doesn’t set noble goals is pseudo-​diplomacy, rather than a dialogical and constructive practice. This book approaches diplomacy as a dialogical and constructive endeavor based on goodwill, which serves to manage differences and solve problems, build peace and achieve mutually agreeable ways of dealing with each other, protect interests, and develop relationships among intentional and purposeful entities. By and large, all this is aimed at ensuring the coexistence of the actors. However, diplomacy is aimed at ensuring not just the coexistence of different entities, but mutually acceptable and civilized coexistence with a sense of dignity. Given the lofty and noble goals of diplomacy, it can be treated as a goodwill mission. Diplomatic accords may take the form of formal agreements or informal arrangements, but what matters is that they can be reached only through dialogic forms of interactions, considering mutual interests and jointly constructing desirable outcomes. Diplomacy occurs through the engagement of intentional entities and is an interactional phenomenon. Analyzing and understanding diplomatic actors’ aspirations and interactions is key in diplomatic studies. This book analyses not only diplomatic actions but also the diplomatic actors’ selfhood, distinctiveness, dispositions and attitudes within the Self-​Other paradigm, or in the context of the actors’ engagements with other entities. The first chapter, “The Sense of Diplomacy,” introduces different approaches to understanding diplomacy –​from the traditional understanding of diplomacy as an instrument of foreign policy and international politics to diplomacy as a profession or social activity. It distinguishes political and social dimensions of diplomacy, and political and social diplomacies. The chapter also explores the diplomacy of international relations in contrast to the diplomacy of human relations, the views about a narrow and expanded understanding of the phenomenon of diplomacy, and the emergence of new diplomacies.10 Chapter 2, “The Essentials of Diplomacy,” continues the introduction of the main concepts of diplomacy in the context of the Self-​Other paradigm, underlining the idea and practice of diplomacy as its two fundamental features. The

10

In this regard, I would like to highlight and recognize the contribution of Noé Cornago, especially his book Plural Diplomacies, which was instrumental in developing the arguments of this book.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Introduction

5

idea of diplomacy relates to its aspirational aspect, which consists of diplomatic missions and objectives, while the practice of diplomacy relates to its performative aspect, meaning diplomatic means and behavioral norms. The chapter also examines genuine and manipulative diplomacy, constructive engagement as the way of diplomacy, diplomacy as a goodwill mission through constructive engagement, and diplomatic spirit as the spirit of goodwill and constructiveness. In Chapter 3, “Actors and Interactions in Diplomacy,” I present an interactional perspective to those who perform diplomacy. Particularly, the chapter analyses diplomatic actors, agencies and agents, corporate and individual actors, and a person as a diplomatic actor and agent. The chapter examines the role of ambassadors in traditional diplomacy as high-​level diplomatic representatives or agents, based on the assumption that among all the categories of diplomatic individuals, ambassadors represent the very essence of the idea of what a diplomat is. Chapter 4, “Unconventional Ambassadors,” is devoted to new types of ambassadors. It analyses the rise of nontraditional ambassadors, paying special attention to goodwill ambassadors as diplomatic actors and agents. It distinguishes appointed, volunteer and independent goodwill ambassadors, and considers this phenomenon in the context of diplomatic representation. The chapter describes different types of representation in unconventional diplomacy: explicit and implicit self-​representation, quasi-​representation, externally authorized representation, and self-​constituted representation. Chapter 5, titled “Diplomatic functions,” highlights the relationships between diplomatic missions, objectives, functions, methods and skills, as well as the differences between diplomatic work at home and abroad. It explores different views on diplomatic functions and shows that traditional diplomacy has two major functions: representation and negotiation. Considering them, the chapter investigates diplomats’ presentability and representability, and negotiation and bargaining in diplomacy. Among the conclusions I reach is that diplomats in traditional diplomacy appear as occasional negotiators but permanent bargainers. Chapter 6, “Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset,” studies dialogical interaction as a meta-​method in diplomacy, and conversing, negotiating, disputing and rhetoric as general methods or forms of dialogical interaction. Accordingly, the chapter analyses diplomats as conversationalists, negotiators, disputants and rhetoricians. By considering skills, abilities and personal qualities in diplomacy, the book discusses diplomatic skillsets for dialogical interaction and tactful conduct, and highlights “savoir-​faire” as a core diplomatic

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

6 Introduction skill. The chapter underlines the need to scrutinize diplomats’ behavior styles to better understand diplomatic skills. It also explains that for a deeper knowledge of diplomacy, particularly diplomatic behavior, it is also necessary to study diplomats’ mindsets –​their dispositions and attitudes. Chapter 7, “The Social and Relational in Diplomacy,” analyses the recent advancement of the social approach to diplomacy, in which diplomacy is seen as a social practice.11 If the political predominantly relates to power distribution, governance and influence, the social refers primarily to connectedness, interaction and relations. The chapter focuses on relations and relationships as the key constituting aspects of the social understanding of diplomacy. Relationships are based on engagement and interaction, and relationship-​ building emerges as the core characteristic of socially defined, or social diplomacy. The chapter analyses the social world as a relational world, international and social diplomacy in this relational context, and social structuring and framing of relationships in diplomacy. Chapter 8, titled “Toward Social Diplomacy,” starts by approaching social diplomacy as a form of everyday and transprofessional diplomacy.12 However, because of its focus on relationship-​building, or the construction of human “socialness,” such unconventional diplomacy can be considered social diplomacy. The chapter analyses the power of human relationships and puts relationship-​building at the center of social diplomacy. Social diplomacy can use all four major forms of dialogical interaction: negotiation, rhetoric, debate and conversation, but unlike diplomats in traditional diplomacy who are predominantly negotiators, social diplomats act primarily as conversationalists. The chapter portrays social diplomats as practitioners of constructive engagement and as dialogical conversationalists.

11

12

I would like to recognize the importance of the works of Rebecca Adler-​Nissen, Jérémie Cornut, Jan Melissen, Iver Neumann, Vincent Pouliot, Paul Sharp, Geoffrey Wiseman and other scholars of diplomacy whose contribution to the social study of diplomacy played an important role in shaping the ideas of this book. This book as a whole, and this chapter in particular, was significantly influenced by the views of the authors who produced innovative works in conceptualizing the ideas of everyday and transprofessional diplomacies, notably: Constantinou, “Everyday Diplomacy;” Constantinou, Cornago and McConnell, Transprofessional Diplomacy. Constantinou’s other pioneering works, in particular on humanistic diplomacy, played a major role in shaping the concept of this book: Costas Constantinou, “Between Statecraft and Humanism,” International Studies Review 15, no. 2 (2013): 141–​162; Costas Constantinou, Human Diplomacy and Spirituality (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael,” 2006); Constantinou, “On Homo-​Diplomacy.”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Introduction

7

To demonstrate some specific interactive mechanisms for positive and constructive engagement and dialogical conversation, the chapter refers to the method developed by Carl Rogers,13 a person-​centered approach to psychotherapy and peacebuilding.14 Chapter 9, “Greeting as a Micro-​ Diplomacy or Coordinated Social Engagement,” analyzes how people bodily engage with each other from the social diplomacy point of view. It draws on Thomas Schelling’s views of the coordination game and Erving Goffman’s views of strategic interaction to outline the features of two kinds of social engagement strategies –​negotiation-​ based and conversation-​based.15 The chapter is an attempt to study greetings, a key element of social engagement, using a combination of game theory, the strategic interaction approach and the study of social diplomacy. It argues that good greeting is an important element of social diplomacy. The book has three appendices that illustrate some of its ideas. “‘Engagement’ in International Diplomacy” examines how the phenomenon of engagement is understood in traditional diplomacy. The second, “Interaction Structures in International Diplomacy,” describes the levels and scope of interactions in state-​based diplomacy. The third appendix, “Relationship-​Enhancing Practices in International Diplomacy,” outlines practices to build and maintain relationships in conventional diplomacy. The book mostly draws from diplomatic studies and other scholarship literature, but it is intended not only for scholars but also for professional

13

14 15

Carl Rogers, A Way of Being (Boston: Houghton and Mifflin, 1980); Carl Rogers, On Encounter Groups (New York: Harper and Row, 1970); Carl Rogers, “Person Centered Approach to Peace, Part 1,” YouTube video, 51:31, posted by “Quest For Peace” on December 3, 2013, https://​www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​2k_​b​VHUS​9rA, 23:41–​23:47; Carl R. Rogers, “The Rust Workshop: A Personal Overview,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 26, no. 3 (1986): 23–​45. In my opinion, Rogers developed the idea of social diplomacy to the greatest extent, although he did not use the term, by emphasizing the importance of genuineness, unconditional positive regard and emphatic understanding. Thomas Schelling, Arms and Influence (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966); Thomas Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1980). Erving Goffman, Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings (New York: The Free Press, 1963); Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-​to-​ Face Behavior (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967); Erving Goffman, “On Face-​Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction,” Psychiatry 18, no. 3 (1955): 213–​231; Erving Goffman, Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday, 1959); Erving Goffman, Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order (New York: Basic Books, 1971); Erving Goffman, Strategic Interaction (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1969).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

8 Introduction diplomats, people who are interested in diplomacy and those who would like to practice social diplomacy. This is the main reason why the book contains so many figures. I think the simplicity, geometricality and visuality of illustrations help present ideas more precisely and simply and can help readers understand concepts better.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

­c hapter 1

The Sense of Diplomacy What is diplomacy? Different meanings of the word “diplomacy.” Traditional and nontraditional, narrow and broad understanding of diplomacy. The expanded conception of diplomacy in the modern world. Diplomacy of international relations and diplomacy of human relations. Diplomacy among different entities. Political and social diplomacies. New diplomacies.

∵ 1

What Is Diplomacy?

Everyone is familiar with the word “diplomacy,” and many understand that it plays a significant role in managing interstate relations, ensuring peace and resolving conflicts in the world. Diplomatic conferences, meetings and visits, as well as individual diplomats, often get attention from the media and the profession of diplomacy is considered important and prestigious the world over. Sometimes people also use this word in their everyday lives to refer to a person’s tact and savoir-​faire. Thus, in ordinary situations, a tactful and considerate person can be called “diplomatic.” However, when we try to better understand what diplomacy is, we find that it is not very easy to define. So, what is diplomacy? There are many attempts to find the answer to this seemly simple but actually quite complicated question, and it is no surprise that we still don’t have a commonly accepted definition yet. According to scholars, “Defining diplomacy is becoming an increasingly difficult task,”1 and “it is becoming harder to do so all the time.”2 Notable diplomat-​scholar Sir Harold Nicolson called the word “diplomacy” unfortunate,3 because of its ambiguity and the confusion associated with it. He distinguished the following five meanings of diplomacy: (1) a synonym for foreign policy, (2) negotiation, 1 Thomas Jackson, “Paradiplomacy and political geography: The geopolitics of substate regional diplomacy,” Geography Compass, 12, no. 2 (2018): 1–​11, p. 1. 2 Sharp, Diplomacy in the 21st Century, p. 4. 3 Harold Nicolson, Diplomacy (London: Oxford University Press, 1939), p. 13.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_003 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

10 

Chapter 1

Negoaon

The way of conducng negoaon

Foreign policy

Diplomacy

A branch of a naon’s foreign service

Quality, gi or skill at negoang

­f igure 1.1  The five meanings of the word “Diplomacy.”

Man

Man

Naon

Naon

­f igure 1.2  Relations between man and man, and between nation and nation.

(3) the processes and machinery of negotiation, (4) a branch of a nation’s foreign service, (5) a quality, gift or skill in the conduct of international negotiation (see Figure 1.1).4 Nicolson made an interesting remark about diplomacy as a vital element of reasonable relations between two kinds of entities: “diplomacy is neither the invention nor the pastime of some particular political system, but is an essential element in any reasonable relation between man and man and between nation and nation” (see Figure 1.2).5 Nicolson didn’t clarify his understanding of diplomacy as a reasonable relation between man and man. I think he used the word “man” in the general sense of a humankind but not as an individual or person. However, his focus

4 Ibid., pp. 13–​14. 5 Ibid., p. 14.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

11

The Sense of Diplomacy

Diplomats

Negoaon

Internaonal relaons

­f igure 1.3  Diplomacy as management of international relations by diplomats through negotiation.

on the professional activities of diplomats may also point to interpersonal relationships. In defining diplomacy, Nicolson also referred to the Oxford English Dictionary: “Diplomacy is the management of international relations by negotiation; the method by which these relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys; the business or art of the diplomatist.”6 This is one of the most recognized and discussed definitions of diplomacy (see Figure 1.3). Hedley Bull, a notable representative of the English School of international relations theory, distinguished the following three important senses of the term “diplomacy” (see Figure 1.4): 1. The conduct of relations between states and other entities with standing in world politics by official agents and by peaceful means. 2. Such conduct of relations by professional diplomatists. 3. Such conduct of relations between states that is carried out in a manner which is, in the everyday sense of the term, “diplomatic,” that is, tactful or subtle.7 As Bull pointed out, the first sense is the broadest (and the one he accepted). The second sense correlates with the definition of diplomacy Nicolson used. 6 Ibid., p. 15. 7 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 4th ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), p. 156.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

12 

Chapter 1 Conduct of relaons between states and other enes in world polics by official agents and by peaceful means

Diplomacy

Conduct of relaons between states tacully

Conduct of relaons between states and other enes in world polics by diplomats

­f igure 1.4  The three important senses of the term “Diplomacy.”

However, Bull remarked: “At a time when the role of ambassadors and envoys in the conduct of international relations has greatly shrunk, this definition is unduly constricting.”8 And the third sense concurrent with “the first part of Sir Ernest Satow’s celebrated definition: ‘Diplomacy is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of relations between the governments of independent states, sometimes also extending to their relations with vassal states; or, more briefly still, the conduct of business between states by peaceful means.’”9 As we can see, diplomacy is often associated with the conduct of relations between different entities –​mostly nations, states and governments –​which are politically defined actors. Many authors underline the importance of the relational aspects of diplomacy and see it primarily as managing relations between different entities –​predominantly political ones, or polities. From this perspective, diplomacy is about conducting or managing relations between such political entities as nations, states, governments or their conglomerates (see Figure 1.5). However, Sharp points to two types of diplomacy: the diplomacy of relations and the diplomacy of problem-​solving (see Figure 1.6).10 The ideas mentioned above may raise additional questions: what are relations and problems in the diplomatic context, and what does conducting or 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid., pp. 156–​157. 10 Sharp, Diplomacy in the 21st Century.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

13

The Sense of Diplomacy

Polical enty

Polical enty

(A)

(B)

­f igure 1.5  Diplomacy as managing relations between political entities.

Diplomacy of relaons Diplomacy Diplomacy of problem-solving

­f igure 1.6  Diplomacy of managing relations and diplomacy of solving problems.

managing relations and solving problems mean in diplomacy? The answers to these questions may instigate many further ones related to the actors, interactions and means of relational management and problem-​solving in diplomacy. We will return to these questions in the following chapters. Sharp identified another important aspect to understanding diplomacy: “It is customary to distinguish between broad and narrow conceptions of diplomacy.”11 The former is more common in the United States, and “is often used as a synonym for statecraft, foreign policy, and international relations in general.”12 According to Sharp, two books –​James Baker’s The Politics of Diplomacy and Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy exemplify this broad conception. The narrow conception is presented in Nicolson’s Diplomacy, which focuses on the practices of professional diplomacy (see Figure 1.7).13

11

Paul Sharp, “For Diplomacy: Representation and the Study of International Relations,” International Studies Review 1, no. 1 (1999): 33–​57, p. 37. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

14 

Chapter 1

Broad concept of diplomacy

Diplomacy as statecra, foreign policy and internaonal relaons

Narrow concept of diplomacy

Diplomacy as pracces of professional diplomacy

­f igure 1.7  Broad and narrow conceptions of diplomacy.

Christer Jönsson offered a similar analysis of the ways in which diplomacy may be conceptualized.14 He pointed to two approaches to defining the essence of diplomacy and the ways to conceptualize it. As an example, he provided two definitions of diplomacy, one put forth by José Calvet de Magalhães and the other by Keith Hamilton and Richard Langhorne. The first describes diplomacy as “an instrument of foreign policy for the establishment and development of peaceful contacts between the governments of different states, through the use of intermediaries mutually recognized by the respective parties,”15 and the second explains it as “the peaceful conduct of relations amongst political entities, their principals and accredited agents.”16 As we can see, one approach connects diplomacy with foreign policy and interstate relations, and the other sees diplomacy in the broader context of relations among any political entities (see Figure 1.8). Jönsson pointed out that “Magalhães delimits the term diplomacy to the activities of professional diplomats,”17 but “Hamilton and Langhorne include both ‘principals and accredited agents’ and thus equate diplomacy with statecraft.”18 According to him, this “reflects a perennial tension between broad and narrow definitions of diplomacy;” in the former, “diplomacy tends to become a synonym for foreign policy,” and in the latter, it “refers to the practices of professional diplomats.”19 Clearly, this corresponds with Sharp’s view discussed above. Like Sharp, Jönsson also compared two well-​known books with the 14

Christer Jönsson “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation,” in Handbook of International Relations, eds. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons (London: Sage Publications, 2002), pp. 212–​234. 15 de Magalhães, The Pure Concept of Diplomacy, p. 59. 16 Keith Hamilton and Richard Langhorne, The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 1. 17 Jönsson, “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation,” p. 213. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Sense of Diplomacy

Diplomacy

Diplomacy

As an instrument of foreign policy

As peaceful conduct of relaons

Actors: governments and their mutually recognized intermediaries

Actors: polical enes, and their principals and agents

15

­f igure 1.8  Two ways of conceptualizing diplomacy. Broad concept of diplomacy

Diplomacy as foreign policy

Narrow concept of diplomacy

Diplomacy as the pracces of professional diplomats

­f igure 1.9  Broad and narrow conceptions of diplomacy.

same title –​Diplomacy –​by Kissinger (1994) and by Nicolson (1939). The first he found to represent a broad conception of diplomacy and the second a narrower one. Figure 1.9 shows this understanding of the broad and narrow concept of diplomacy, which is quite similar to Sharp’s approach. “In Magalhães’s understanding, diplomacy is an institution of the modern state system,” Jönsson noted, and it is “reserved for the diplomatic system that originated in fifteenth-​century Italy and was perfected by the French during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, central features of which remain at the core of today’s diplomatic practices.”20 But Hamilton and Langhorne refer to political entities, and “thus leave open the question [of] whether diplomacy may exist among other actors than states and in other historical eras.”21 As this book shows, a growing number of authors now give a positive answer to this question, holding that the practice of diplomacy is not limited to states. Jönsson also noted that some authors understand diplomacy in terms of generic concepts, such as representation and communication. The most 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

16 

Chapter 1

Diplomacy

As instuon of the modern state system

As representaon and/or communicaon

­f igure 1.10 Diplomacy as a state institution and as representation and communication.

explicit advocate of understanding diplomacy in terms of representation is Sharp.22 Jönsson also mentions Costas Constantinou and Alan James among those who consider diplomacy to be communication.23 According to Geoffrey Pigman, diplomacy can be understood through its two core functions: representation and communication.24 Figure 1.10 represents the understanding of diplomacy as the institution of a state system, and as representation and communication. When it comes to defining diplomacy “in terms of representation and communication, its origin obviously can be traced back further than fifteenth-​ century Italy,” wrote Jönsson.25 Referring to researchers Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook, Jönsson pointed out that “collections of cuneiform tablets from the Amarna period, lasting from about 1350 to 1220 bc, bear witness to a well-​developed system of representation and communication in the ancient Near East, which deserves to be labeled diplomacy.”26 Therefore, diplomacy, from this perspective, is not “limited to state agents but may exist wherever ‘there are boundaries for identity and those boundaries of identity are crossed,’”27 Jönsson explained, quoting Constantinou.28 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid., p. 214. 24 Geoffrey Allen Pigman, Contemporary Diplomacy: Representation and Communication in a Globalized World (Cambridge: Polity, 2010), p. 77; Geoffrey Allen Pigman, “Debates about Contemporary and Future Diplomacy,” in Diplomacy in a Globalized World, 2nd ed., eds. Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 72–​89. 25 Pigman, Contemporary Diplomacy, p. 214. 26 Ibid. 27 Costas Constantinou, On the Way to Diplomacy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), p. 113. 28 Jönsson, “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation,” p. 214.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

17

The Sense of Diplomacy

State A

Dialogue

State B

­f igure 1.11  Diplomacy as a dialog between states.

Another scholar who supports the predominantly communication-​ based approach to diplomacy is Adam Watson, whose well-​known book is titled Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States (see Figure 1.11).29 For Watson, diplomatic dialog mainly means communication between states, and states conduct it because of the need to communicate with one another in international society. As a dialogical communication, diplomatic communication is “a civilized process based on awareness and respect for other people’s points of view; and a civilizing one also, because of the continuous exchange of ideas, and the attempts to find mutually acceptable solutions to conflicts of interests, increase that awareness and respect.”30 This civilizing tendency does not prevent diplomacy from being perverted and misused, but “the bias towards understanding other points of view and other needs, towards a search for common ground and resolution of differences, is unmistakably there.”31 The concept of dialog is crucial to an understanding of diplomacy. Wiseman considered continued dialog a key norm of diplomacy.32 Focusing on the interactional aspects of diplomacy, this book will further explore dialogical interaction as one of the cornerstones of genuine diplomacy. Corneliu Bjola and Markus Kornprobst, also adherents of the communication approach, proposed the following definition of diplomacy: “Diplomacy is the institutionalized communication of internationally recognized representatives of internationally recognized entities through which these representatives produce, manage and distribute public good.”33 This is quite a broad understanding of diplomacy that goes beyond interstate affairs, but is still limited to the international area and the institutional communication of

29 30 31 32 33

Adam Watson, Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States (London: Eyre Methuen, 1982). Ibid., pp. 7–​8. Ibid., p. 8. Geoffrey Wiseman, “Introduction,” in Isolate or Engage: Adversarial States, US Foreign Policy and Public Diplomacy, ed. Geoffrey Wiseman (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2015), p. 2. Corneliu Bjola and Markus Kornprobst, Understanding International Diplomacy: Theory, Practice and Ethics (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013), p. 4.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

18 

Chapter 1

Public goods

Internaonally recognized enty A

Instuonalized communicaon

Internaonally recognized enty B

­f igure 1.12 Diplomacy as the institutional communication of internationally recognized entities that produce, manage and distribute public goods.

A

B

­f igure 1.13 Diplomacy as mediation between alienated actors.

internationally recognized entities (see Figure 1.12). The important point in this approach is considering diplomacy as “producing, managing and distributing public goods.”34 This book will develop this idea in relation to social diplomacy. Jönsson examines postmodern interpretations of diplomacy, which “go beyond representation and communication, and see the institution as a reflection of more existential aspects of the human condition.”35 He refers to James Der Derian,36 who “defines diplomacy as ‘mediation between estranged individuals, groups or entities.’”37 In Der Derian’s concept, the need for diplomacy arises because of estrangement or alienation between actors. The two-​way arrow in Figure 1.13 depicts diplomatic mediation between A and B, which are estranged individuals, groups, or entities. Earlier, a similar idea was expressed by Watson regarding states: “States are committed to diplomacy by the nature of the world in which they exist. In times and places where there are several separate states and their actions affect one another, they cannot function in a vacuum of isolation.”38 This point brings us closer to the notion of coexistence as diplomacy’s grand idea. As will 34 Ibid., p. 5. 35 Jönsson, “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation,” p. 214. 36 James Der Derian, “Mediating Estrangement: A Theory for Diplomacy,” Review of International Studies 13, no. 2 (1987): 91–​110; James Der Derian, On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987). 37 Jönsson, “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation,” p. 214. 38 Watson, Diplomacy, p. 1.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

19

The Sense of Diplomacy

The outside world

A polity

Represenng

­f igure 1.14 Representing a polity to the outside world.

be discussed later in this book, in the modern world, there is an increasing need for the coexistence of not only nations, but also of other entities as a diplomatic necessity. Diplomatic scholars often refer to “polity” as a concept that represents organized and governed political entities. Collins English Dictionary provides the following definition of the term: “A polity is an organized society, such as a nation, city, or church, together with its government and administration.”39 According to Ole Jacob Sending, Vincent Pouliot and Iver Neumann, “diplomacy may be defined, in the broadest possible terms, as a claim to represent a given polity to the outside world” (see Figure 1.14).40 As Sending, Pouliot and Neumann pointed out, their idea can be boiled down to three essential aspects: “first, diplomacy is a process (of claiming authority and jurisdiction); second, it is relational (it operates at the interface between one’s polity and that of others); and third, it is political (involving both representation and governing)” (see Figure 1.15).41 Constantinou offered one of the broadest understandings of diplomacy. Analyzing the essence of diplomacy, he noted that, for most scholars, “diplomacy is only reserved for the work of diplomats representing sovereign territorial units” but not “for the representatives of non-​territorial units (e.g., ngo s, humanitarian agencies, religious missions, and so on)” (see Figure 1.16).42 Therefore, “the development of modern diplomatic thought and practice is primarily linked to the development of the international relations of the modern territorial state.”43 However, Constantinou asserts, “diplomacy can be 39 40

Accessed April 14, 2021, https://​www.collin​sdic​tion​ary.com/​dic​tion​ary/​engl​ish/​pol​ity. Ole Jacob Sending, Vincent Pouliot and Iver B. Neumann, “Introduction,” in Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, eds. Ole Jacob Sending, Vincent Pouliot, and Iver B. Neumann (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 6. 41 Ibid. 42 Constantinou, “Everyday Diplomacy,” p. 23. 43 Ibid., p. 23.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

20 

Chapter 1

Relaonal

Processual

Polical

­f igure 1.15 Three aspects of diplomacy. Represenng territorial units

Diplomacy

Represenng nonterritorial units

Diplomacy

­f igure 1.16 Diplomacy and representing territorial and non-​ territorial units. A territory or a group of people or a cause

Represenng and negoang

Represenng and negoang

A territory or a group of people or a cause

­f igure 1.17 Diplomacy as representing and negotiating on behalf of a territorial unit, non-​territorial unit or a cause.

broadly understood to emerge whenever someone successfully claims to represent and negotiate for a territory or a group of people or a cause, or successfully claims to mediate between others engaging in such representations and negotiations” (see Figure 1.17).44 The approach proposed by Constantinou goes far beyond state-​based diplomacy focused on international relations. This is quite different from the widespread understanding of diplomacy as an instrument of managing

44

Ibid., p. 23.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

21

The Sense of Diplomacy

Diplomacy

Field of internaonal relaons amongst states

Field of human relaons in its most ordinary sense

­f igure 1.18 The two meanings of diplomacy.

international relations or conducting states’ foreign affairs. It is no surprise that this line of thinking is linked to the development of the concepts of everyday and transprofessional diplomacies.45 Noé Cornago, another supporter of the broader understanding of diplomacy and one of the authors who came up with the concept of transprofessional diplomacy, provided an interesting analysis of the semantics of the word “diplomacy.” He pointed out that even the most basic dictionaries offer at least two meanings of the word: “initially, one which belongs to the field of international relations amongst States; and, forthwith, one that falls within the semantics of human relations in its most ordinary sense” (see Figure 1.18).46 For instance, the Oxford Dictionary defines diplomacy as “the profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations through negotiation” adding immediately a second meaning that reads “skill and tact in dealing with people.” Similarly, the Cambridge Dictionary first introduces the word as “the management of relationships between countries,” and then as an “approving skill in dealing with people without offending or upsetting them.” Equivalent definitions of diplomacy can be found in similar generalist dictionaries in any other language, showing that this double understanding of diplomacy is surely universally shared.47 However, Cornago noted, these two meanings of diplomacy 45 Sennett, Together, pp. 211–​246; Constantinou, “Everyday Diplomacy;” Constantinou, Cornago and McConnell, Transprofessional Diplomacy. 46 Cornago, Plural Diplomacies, p. 7. 47 Ibid., p. 7.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

22 

Chapter 1 Predominantly

Predominantly

polical phenomenon

social phenomenon

Diplomacy between states

Diplomacy between people

­f igure 1.19 Predominantly political or social nature of diplomacy.

generally appear separated, as if they were completely isolated realities, without any substantial connection or continuity among them. Even worse, this plurality of meanings of diplomacy virtually disappears in the most widely diffused scholarly literature on diplomacy, since it generally ignores that second, interpersonal meaning, concentrating their definitional efforts solely on one of these semantic fields, namely that which attaches diplomacy–​in a more or less restrictive way–​to the semantic field of international relations amongst States.48 The two semantic meanings of diplomacy related to the field of international relations and human relations may also point to the predominantly political or social character of diplomacy, respectively (see Figure 1.19). However, political and social realities are interrelated and intertwined, so in searching for the broadest and most universal model of diplomacy, we can bring together social and political entities as sociopolitical entities and examine their ability to be diplomatic actors. Since all social entities enter some form of power relations or influence each other, and all political entities have their socialness, we can underline both the socialness and politicalness of entities by characterizing them as sociopolitical entities. The broadest understanding of diplomacy thus relates to the diplomacy of sociopolitical entities.

48

Ibid., pp. 7–​8.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

23

The Sense of Diplomacy

2

Diplomacy of Multifaceted Entities and Multidimensional Diplomacies

As we have seen, the word diplomacy may have a variety of meanings. In the most typical and traditional sense, it is seen as an instrument of states’ foreign policy and international politics, as the conduct of international relations by authorized representatives of states and other recognized political entities or polities in a peaceful way. This is predominantly state-​centered, institutionalized and internationally oriented diplomacy, in which states are the main actors. The state and other polities who run diplomacy inevitably appear as a part of the political system, political relations and political affairs. Therefore, it is difficult to separate state-​based international diplomacy from international politics. Actors of traditional diplomacy emerge as primarily political entities. Although state-​centric and internationally oriented diplomacy may have not only political but also moral, legal and social imperatives or driving forces,49 the essentially political nature of the state and other polities affects such diplomacy immensely. Even when the state as a diplomatic actor has concerns about its relationships, values, or legal rights and obligations, its international diplomacy cannot be fully free from the actors’ political, economic or so-​called national interests. As Sharp remarked, “the dominant metaphors of contemporary diplomatic discourse recall ideas of cooperation, managing problems, and constructing orders,” but when pressed, diplomats tend to confess that “their fundamental obligation is to advance and defend the ‘national interest.’”50 The diplomacy of internationally engaged political entities is thus a substantially political activity. We can also call it international, traditional, or conventional diplomacy. The institutionalization of traditional diplomacy linked to international politics is manifested in its legal regulations, official structures, formal representations, channels of communication and documentation (although it can use unofficial means too). Analyzing the institutionalized communication of diplomacy, Bjola and Kornprobst point to the existence of “a plethora of rules and norms that diplomats become socialised into and these rules and norms govern the communication among diplomats.”51 International and institutionalized actors also tend to legalize or legitimize their official policies, approaches and deals when this is acceptable for them and does not contradict 49 50 51

Alisher Faizullaev, Symbolic Insult in Diplomacy: A Subtle Game of Diplomatic Slap (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2018). Sharp, “For Diplomacy,” p. 52. Bjola and Kornprobst, Understanding International Diplomacy, p. 4.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

24 

Chapter 1

Instuonalized

Uses both official and unofficial means

Has officially authorized agencies and agents

Internaonally focused

State- or other politybased

Tradional diplomacy

Supported by internaonal law

­f igure 1.20 Essential characteristics of the traditional conception of diplomacy.

their interests. Thus, they may justify their actions by referring to international law, while their rivals can also do the same.52 International intergovernmental organizations are elements of the institutionalization of interstate relations and international diplomacy. The following are essential elements for an understanding of international diplomacy: states; their governments and other agencies such as foreign ministries, embassies, international organizations and other polities; foreign policy, international relations; international politics; international law; professional diplomats and other official representatives of political entities. Diplomats play an important role in official state diplomacy, but there are many other individual agents of states, such as presidents, prime ministers, parliamentarians and other officials, who also participate in international diplomatic activities. Figure 1.20 highlights some important characteristics of the traditional conception of diplomacy. Diplomatic actors may have political, moral, legal and social determinants or driving forces, and accordingly they can be considered as being predominantly political, moral, legal or social actors. Political actors’ behavior is driven by their interests, and so they may seek political and economic benefits, 52

Alisher Faizullaev and Jérémie Cornut, “Narrative Practice in International Politics and Diplomacy: The Case of the Crimean Crisis,” Journal of International Relations and Development 20, no. 3 (2017): 578–​604.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Sense of Diplomacy

25

security, and power. Moral actors’ behavior is based on their values, principles and convictions. Legal actors’ behavior is guided by the rule of law, legal rights and obligations. Social actors are those whose behavior is determined by the consideration of their connectedness, interdependence and relationships with others. For example, when a state tries to defend its territorial integrity, it functions as a political actor. When it provides humanitarian assistance to another state, it is a moral actor. When an entity defends its legal rights, it is a legal actor. When an entity attempts to strengthen relations with other entities, it becomes a social actor. Of course, the entity may have other motives behind its declared or realized imperatives. Thus, a state can provide humanitarian assistance not only for moral reasons, but also to achieve certain political goals. We can look at politically motivated actors as interest-​driven entities, morally motivated actors as value-​driven entities, legally motivated actors as rights-​driven entities and socially motivated actors as relationship-​driven entities. Accordingly, we can talk about political or interest-​driven diplomacy, moral or value-​driven diplomacy, legal or right-​driven diplomacy, and social or relationship-​driven diplomacy. Depending on their driving forces and objectives, diplomatic actors can conduct politically determined, morally determined, legally determined, or socially determined diplomacies (see Figure 1.21). An actor’s political, moral, legal and social objectives are often interrelated and intertwined. Thus, country A can try to develop its relationship with country B because of its interests, values or legal obligations; country C may interpret international law arbitrarily, based on its interests or relationships with country D; country E may take certain steps to protect or promote its values,

Polically movated diplomacy

Morally movated diplomacy

Socially movated diplomacy

Legally movated diplomacy

­f igure 1.21 Political, moral, legal and social diplomacies.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

26 

Chapter 1

although this may harm its interests and relationship with countries F and G; and country H may compromise its moral values to defend its political or economic interests in relations with country I. Moreover, an actor’s interests, relationships and rights can also emerge as values, and it can treat its values, rights and relationships as interests. In other words, political, moral, legal and social determinants of a diplomatic actor’s behavior may enter various relationships with each other, sometimes being in harmony and at others being contradictory. We can therefore speak of interests, values, rights and relationships as relatively interdependent variables that influence the behavior of diplomatic actors and their interactions with other entities.

Polical determinants

Moral determinants

A

Legal determinants

Social determinants

Polical determinants

B

The issue: a disputed territory

The issue: a disputed territory

Moral determinants

Legal determinants Social determinants

­f igure 1.22 Engagement in primarily rights-based diplomacy and in interest-​based diplomacy.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

27

The Sense of Diplomacy

A diplomatic actor can simultaneously act in all four ways, that is, be driven by political, moral, legal and social determinants. However, at times only some determinants emerge as the main driving forces. Figure 1.22 shows how two diplomatic actors approach a territorial dispute, with A operating mainly from a legal point of view, or as a primarily legal actor, and B functioning mostly from a political position, or as a predominantly political actor. This book mostly discusses two types of diplomacy –​predominantly political diplomacy and predominantly social diplomacy, or, for the sake of brevity –​political and social diplomacies. The former is mostly concerned with ­traditional, international-​oriented diplomacy carried out by political entities or polities. The latter is broader and associated with relations between all kinds of mainly socially defined entities. The issues of values or morality, legality or the rule of law are always important for the diplomatic actor, and they are inevitably present in both political and social diplomacy. After all, in human society and the international community, any political and social diplomacy can be welcomed if it is based on humanitarian values and international law. Bearing this in mind, this book focuses on issues related to the characteristics of traditional, mainly politically oriented diplomacy and the emergence of a broader, nontraditional, predominantly socially oriented diplomacy. 3

The Social and the Political in Diplomacy

“Diplomacy is an essentially political activity,” remarked G. R. Berridge.53 Apparently, he meant traditional diplomacy. While conventional diplomacy largely relates to international politics and foreign policy, nontraditional diplomacy goes further. It involves not just polities such as states, international intergovernmental organizations and other internationally recognized political entities, but all intentional entities that build relationships through interaction. In this sense, states can also be considered as social actors, as they interact with other actors and build relationships. However, states, as already noted, interact with other entities primarily as political actors, and their relations with others are most often subordinated to their interests. Where states, organizations, companies, groups and individuals seek mainly to build and manage relationships, they can be considered as primarily social actors.

53

G. R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 4th ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), p. 1.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

28 

Chapter 1

Entities can manifest themselves as political or social actors, depending on the nature of their driving forces. States, as polities, may have social relations; and family members, as social actors, can be involved in everyday politics with each other over issues of power, influence, management of family affairs, authority, hierarchy and values.54 As interrelated and interacting bodies, diplomatic actors can be regarded as social entities, but as subjects influencing each other, they operate as political entities. If one entity interacts with another with the desire to build a relationship, it manifests itself as a social actor. However, the same entity functions as a political actor when its behavior is driven primarily by political determinants. From this point of view, the difference between political and social diplomacy is conditional, as the same entity can be a political or a social actor. Nevertheless, the distinction makes sense because the motives behind a relationship can be significant, strong and durable determinants of the actors’ behavior in society. The word “social” indicates a broader realm than the word “political:” the political is always also social, but the social is not only political. The political refers to certain aspects of social reality, and we usually associate this phenomenon with governance, regulation, power and influence. A person, organization or state as a political entity is also a social entity that tries to protect and promote its fundamental interests through power, authority, influence and control, and all kinds of power structures such as institutions, regulations and organizations –​including political parties, social groups and the law –​can be instrumental in exercising politics. But a social entity, in addition to political features, may have other qualities, for example, morality, ethics and culture. Apart from this, the social world can manage and regulate itself by introducing laws; that is, a social entity may have some legal rights and obligations. Above all, a social entity is a being that functions in an interrelated and interdependent world where it needs to interact with others for survival and well-​being. The socialness or sociality of entities comes from their connections and relationships with other entities; historical and emotional ties; communication and interaction; association with others; belonging to a society, community, group, organization, alliance, and so on; common culture and values; mutual aims and concerns; joint activity; a presence in their life extraneous actors; and other social actualities. In this respect, any political entity also represents a social entity. The entity’s politicalness or politicality is related to its status, place in the social hierarchy, power, privilege, authority, control, domination, 54

Alisher Faizullaev, Power to Power: Politics of Interpersonal Relations (Moscow: Smysl, 2011). [Алишер Файзуллаев. Как держава с державой: политика межличностных отношений. Москва: Смысл, 2011].

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Sense of Diplomacy

29

The social The polical

­f igure 1.23 The intertwinedness of the social and the political.

governance, regulation, management, leadership and influence.55 From this point of view, any social entity is involved in political relations of some sort and so represents a kind of political entity. In human society, social and political behavior are inseparable, and they only point to relatively different features or attributes of the actor’s aims and conduct. The voting behavior of an individual is both social and political. However, we can consider it to be primarily political because of the content and purpose. Social and political attributes and causes are intertwined, exist together and are mutually interdependent. Like in the famed Yin-​Yang symbol, where Yin includes Yang and Yang contains Yin, the political can incorporate the social and the social can encompass the political (see Figure 1.23). As I noted earlier, the word “social” is broader than the word “political,” and all political entities are social, but not all social entities are political. Animals, for instance, have social behavior and can certainly be considered social beings. Herd animals, in particular, also have primitive political behaviors because they have power, status and hierarchical relationships. However, we don’t usually consider animals to be political beings; Aristotle’s famous “political animal” refers only to humans. The politicalness of individuals, human groups, organizations and other entities is defined by the complexities of their social lives and power structures, the sophistication of their interactional means, and their meaningfulness in the context of power-​sharing, mutual influence and regulations. Complex languages, diversity of social roles and positions, division of labor, social feelings and attitudes, the intricate structure of power and control, cooperation, and competition among people make diplomacy an important means of sociopolitical interaction. The existence of pluralism in understanding the meaning of diplomacy raises the question of whether it is possible to find the broadest and most 55 Ibid.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

30 

Chapter 1

universal meaning of diplomacy, one that is applicable in every area and for any type of diplomacy. This book believes that it is. By linking diplomacy with sociopolitical entities, we are entering the search for the most general and universal model of diplomacy. This is not just about diplomacy between states, between individuals, or among social groups or organizations; it is about diplomacy between or among any intentional, purposeful entities or sociopolitical actors. Considering all sociopolitical entities as potential diplomatic actors, we go beyond the traditional, state-​centric model of diplomacy. When we say that diplomacy can take place between or among any sociopolitical entities or intentional actors, it means that the state can use diplomacy to deal with not only other states but also various kinds of organizations, groups and individuals. Individuals, groups and organizations can in turn apply diplomacy in their relations with other individuals, groups, organizations and states. State-​based, organization-​based, group-​based and individual-​based diplomacies differ significantly in their levels of institutionalization, but what is important is that all these sociopolitical entities can use diplomacy in their relations.56 If actors in the first type –​a state-​centric, institutionalized and internationally oriented diplomacy –​are predominantly political entities, actors in the second, broader type of diplomacy are sociopolitical entities, and this significantly expands the field of who can conduct diplomacy. By widening the scope of diplomatic actors from political entities to sociopolitical ones, we are broadening the understanding of diplomacy: it can be state-​centric or non-​state-​centric; institutionalized or noninstitutionalized; internationally, intranationally or transnationally oriented; and conducted between or among organizations, groups, individuals and states, or their aggregations. Including individuals in their everyday lives, social groups with their intergroup relations,

56

Wiseman introduced the concept of “polylateralism” in diplomacy; Geoffrey Wiseman, “Polylateralism” and New Modes of Global Dialogue, Discussion Papers No. 59 (Leicester: Leicester Diplomatic Studies Programme, 1999). It means conducting diplomacy between official (state-​based) entities and at least one unofficial (nonstate-​based) entity. According to Wiseman, polylateral or state-​nonstate diplomacy represents an extension of bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, and involves purposive diplomatic interactions in which “participants are thinking and acting diplomatically: they represent, communicate, report on, negotiate with, and promote better relations between entities with standing in world politics.” Geoffrey Wiseman, “‘Polylateralism’: Diplomacy’s Third Dimension,” Public Diplomacy Magazine 4 (Summer 2010): 24–​39, p. 27. In Wiseman’s opinion, in the future, diplomats will need to operate at the bilateral, multilateral and, increasingly, polylateral levels. This view significantly expands the traditional understanding of diplomacy, although polylateral diplomacy remains a realm of world politics.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

31

The Sense of Diplomacy Convenonal, narrow concepon of diplomacy

Unconvenonal, broad concepon of diplomacy

Actors: states and other internaonally significant polies

Actors: sociopolical enes

Status: instuonalized

Status: instuonalized and noninstuonalized

Sphere of applicaon: internaonal affairs

Sphere of applicaon: inter-enty affairs

­f igure 1.24 The conventional, narrower conception, and the unconventional, broader view of diplomacy.

organizations and companies, and states and interstate bodies in the orbit of diplomacy gives the term “diplomacy” its broadest and most universal meaning (see Figure 1.24). Therefore, by sociopolitical entities, I mean any purposeful subjects with the ability of self-​determination and self-​reflection who, by interacting with other intentional actors, get involved in social and political relations. Diplomacy occurs within social and political relations and appears as a means of sociopolitical influence. At the same time, we can use the term social diplomacy when diplomacy predominantly concerns social matters such as relationships, associations, social attitudes, feelings, behavior, sense of togetherness, common work, joint problem-​solving and so on. If political diplomacy happens among largely politically defined actors or polities, social diplomacy takes place among essentially socially defined entities. Even though all of them, by and large, are sociopolitical entities, we can, from a certain point of view, talk about social and political diplomacies. Despite some indispensable differences between these diplomacies, they cannot be completely opposed to each other: political diplomacy always has social elements or aspects, and social diplomacy always has political components or dimensions. This book uses the terms of social diplomacy to refer to a form of unconventional or transprofessional diplomacy. It focuses on the social aspirations and behavior of diplomatic actors, particularly on the interactional and relational sides of diplomacy –​building and managing relationships. Many new types of diplomacies, for example, city diplomacy, sister-​city diplomacy, interreligious diplomacy, church diplomacy, mosque diplomacy, corporate diplomacy, diplomacy in the workplace, community diplomacy, and intercommunity

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

32 

Chapter 1

diplomacy, can be considered types of predominantly social diplomacy. Diplomacy between individuals, or interpersonal diplomacy, can also be considered a variety of social diplomacy. So, in traditional diplomacy, actors are primarily political entities. They may, of course, be involved in social relations, engage in legal disputes or promote certain moral values, but their main characteristic is their politicality or politicalness. This book proceeds from an understanding of the fundamental nature of the diplomatic actor’s sociality, which, while related to its politicality, is still broader. Social diplomacy can have political components, moral foundations and legal elements, but the main aspect of it is the focus on the interdependence, interaction, relationship and coexistence of actors. One of the signs of the development of this unconventional and expanded conception of diplomacy is the emergence of new types and forms of diplomacy. This trend is debatable but quite meaningful. It allows us to look at the widening of the meaning of diplomacy from a different perspective. 4

New Diplomacies

In modern times, we can observe an expansion of the varieties of diplomacies being practiced, as well as a diversification of expressions related to diplomacy. As R. P. Barston noted, there is a widening of the content of diplomacy, and “the changes in the substantive form of diplomacy are reflected in terms such as ‘oil diplomacy’, ‘resource diplomacy’, ‘knowledge diplomacy’, ‘global governance’ and ‘transition diplomacy.’”57 Constantinou also pointed to this trend: “diplomacy has … gone in many different directions with regard to scholarly ­investigations: ‘public’, ‘digital’, ‘indigenous’, ‘human’, ‘corporate’, ‘ecological’, ‘activist’, ‘military’, ‘guerilla’, ‘multistakeholder’, ‘celebrity’, ‘scientific’, ‘educational’, ‘sportive’, ‘integrative’, ‘transformational’, ‘quantum’ and so on.”58 Here is a list of varieties of diplomacy I have collected from scholarly and popular literature as well as the media and social media: international diplomacy, state diplomacy, interstate diplomacy, official diplomacy, formal diplomacy, intergovernmental diplomacy, presidential diplomacy, parliamentary diplomacy, secret diplomacy, shadow diplomacy, hidden diplomacy, coercive diplomacy, aggressive diplomacy,

57 58

R. P. Barston, Modern Diplomacy, 4th ed. (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), p. 1. Constantinou, “Everyday Diplomacy,” p. 25.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Sense of Diplomacy

33

assertive diplomacy, gunboat diplomacy, boycott diplomacy, sanctions diplomacy, carrot-​and-​stick diplomacy, summit diplomacy, bilateral diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy, conference diplomacy, direct diplomacy, indirect diplomacy, face-​ ­ to-​ face diplomacy, great-​ power diplomacy, medium-​state diplomacy, small-​state diplomacy, consular diplomacy, catalytic diplomacy, preventive diplomacy, crisis diplomacy, disaster diplomacy, human-​rights diplomacy, refugee diplomacy, economic diplomacy, investment diplomacy, dollar diplomacy, environmental diplomacy, climate diplomacy, energy diplomacy, industrial diplomacy, water diplomacy, workplace diplomacy, business diplomacy, commercial diplomacy, trade diplomacy, financial diplomacy, checkbook diplomacy, debt-​ trap diplomacy, corporate diplomacy, space diplomacy, global diplomacy, regional diplomacy, nuclear diplomacy, hostage d­ iplomacy, peer-​to-​peer diplomacy, hard-​power diplomacy, science diplomacy, education diplomacy, border diplomacy, soft-​power diplomacy,  social diplomacy, youth diplomacy, leadership diplomacy, unofficial diplomacy, ping-​ ­ pong diplomacy, panda diplomacy, shuttle diplomacy, stadium diplomacy, informal diplomacy, community ­diplomacy, intercommunity diplomacy, city diplomacy, sister-​city diplomacy, nongovernmental ­diplomacy, Internet diplomacy, media diplomacy, social-​media diplomacy, e-​diplomacy, cyber-​diplomacy, broadband diplomacy, virtual diplomacy, Zoom diplomacy, Facebook diplomacy, Twitter diplomacy, hashtag diplomacy, freelance diplomacy, family diplomacy, citizen diplomacy, civil-​society diplomacy, people’s diplomacy, people-​to-​people diplomacy, higher-​education diplomacy, democratic diplomacy, totalitarian diplomacy, personal diplomacy, family diplomacy, relatives diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, cross-​cultural diplomacy, jazz diplomacy, hip-​hop diplomacy, arts diplomacy, gastronomic diplomacy, cuisine diplomacy, culinary diplomacy, gift-​basket diplomacy, beauty diplomacy, religious diplomacy, faith diplomacy, interreligious diplomacy, aid diplomacy, assistance diplomacy, development diplomacy, sports diplomacy, cricket diplomacy, football diplomacy, children diplomacy, diaspora diplomacy, bunker diplomacy, pilgrimage diplomacy, paradiplomacy, protodiplomacy, algorithmic diplomacy, transprofessional diplomacy, plural diplomacies, everyday diplomacy, smile diplomacy, track-​ I diplomacy, track-​ i i diplomacy, multi-​ track diplomacy, back-​channel diplomacy,  humanity-​centered diplomacy, beastly diplomacy, music diplomacy, sauna diplomacy, wine diplomacy, bottle diplomacy, cocktail diplomacy, vodka diplomacy, fashion diplomacy, megaphone diplomacy, think-​tank diplomacy, commodity diplomacy,

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

34 

Chapter 1

interpersonal diplomacy, inter-​firm diplomacy, commercial diplomacy, diplomacy in the workplace, preventive diplomacy, urban diplomacy, life diplomacy, health diplomacy, medical diplomacy, coronavirus ­diplomacy, vaccine diplomacy, medieval diplomacy, modern diplomacy, manipulative diplomacy, substate diplomacy, multilayered diplomacy, gender diplomacy, environmental diplomacy, ecological diplomacy, climate diplomacy, climate change diplomacy , European Union diplomacy, American diplomacy, Chinese diplomacy, and so on. Some of these phrases are mostly used in mass media and popular literature. Nevertheless, they indicate the widening and diversification of the public perception of diplomacy and the diplomatic sphere. As we can see, these and similar expressions can point to (1) the specific area or field of application of diplomacy, or (2) certain diplomatic means or features of diplomacy, or (3) the diplomatic actor or actors, or (4) a combination of these factors. For example, “water diplomacy” indicates a particular issue or area of the use of diplomacy; “economic diplomacy” signifies both an area and diplomatic means (economy as the area, and economic instruments as means); “sister-​city diplomacy”

By poinng to a means or feature of diplomacy

Denominaon of the type of diplomacy

By poinng to an issue or area of use of diplomacy

By poinng to an actor or actors of diplomacy

­f igure 1.25 Three ways of indicating a type of diplomacy.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Sense of Diplomacy

35

denotes an area and certain actors (relations between cities and a city development as the area, and cities as the actors); “celebrity diplomacy” indicates means and actors (celebrity individuals and groups in terms of means of diplomacy and as diplomatic actors); “state diplomacy” marks a diplomatic actor (state); and “informal diplomacy” refers to a distinct means of diplomacy (informal intercourse between diplomatic actors). Figure 1.25 demonstrates these three ways of indicating the type of diplomacy. Some of the above-​mentioned terms do not explicitly indicate the diplomatic actors involved, but they are implicitly understood. For example, “bilateral diplomacy” usually means diplomacy between two actors, mainly states, and “sauna diplomacy” can be conducted only by individuals, whether or not representing states or somebody else. Most of these expressions explicitly or implicitly refer to states as diplomatic actors. For instance, “border diplomacy” or “gunboat diplomacy” assumes a state as the diplomatic actor. The same is true with “ping-​pong diplomacy,” which, while a reference to table tennis and to certain matches between players from the United States and China in the early 1970s, implies the beginning of a new type of relationship between the two countries. Some expressions, such as “human rights diplomacy” or “youth diplomacy,” suggest that the actors may be non-​state entities as well as state entities. There are also types of diplomacies that point –​explicitly or implicitly –​only to non-​ state actors: for example, “corporate diplomacy,” “family diplomacy,” “personal diplomacy” and “everyday diplomacy.” Thus, as we continue to expand the concept of diplomacy, it comes to indicate a peaceful encounter among any “distinctive and separate”59 social entities meant to deal with mutually meaningful issues and resolve differences. This means the diversification of diplomacy is primarily connected with the emergence of new, non-​state diplomatic actors. Such actors bring about new, less formalized and noninstitutionalized diplomatic methods of peaceful interaction, problem-​solving and relationship-​building. Undoubtedly, the noted list of diplomacies can grow. In the past, the concept of an independent diplomat was something incomprehensible, but now it is quite an acceptable term (and there is even a diplomatic organization with that name).60 But how relevant is the expanded interpretation of the concept 59 60

Sharp, Paul (2004). “The Idea of Diplomatic Culture and its Sources,” in Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy, ed. Hannah Slavik. Malta and Geneva: DiploFoundation, p. 361. Independent Diplomat: The Diplomatic Advisory Group. See https://​inde​pend​entd​iplo​ mat.org, accessed May 16, 2021.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

36 

Chapter 1

of diplomacy and such free use of it? Those who advocate for the traditional understanding of diplomacy say that diplomatic relations can be established only by and between states, so diplomacy is a practice of interstate relations managed by governments within certain institutional and legal frameworks. They also express concerns about the expanded interpretation of diplomacy blurring this concept. As Shaun Riordan pointed out, such terms “are frequently conceptually confused, risk these new kinds of diplomacy being seen as an end in themselves, rather than as part of broader diplomatic strategies, and, more seriously, risk emptying the concept ‘Diplomacy’ of any meaning.”61 Apart from this, “the conceptual confusion arises from the failure to distinguish between tools that can be used as part of a broader diplomatic strategy and the subject matter of diplomacy.”62 According to Riordan, diplomacy doesn’t have its own content, it is “a way of achieving broader objectives, set from outside diplomacy.”63 In other words, it is just an instrument but “not the pursuit of peace and international understanding.”64 However, it can be that, added Riordan, “if that is what their political masters instruct the diplomats to pursue.”65 But diplomacy “can be used to provoke war, or secure better conditions for fighting one (think Bismarck in 1869 or Blair in 2003).”66 Riordan put forward serious arguments against extending the concept of diplomacy and creating new types of it. He remarked: “If everything is diplomacy, then diplomacy no longer means anything useful, and we can give up using the term.”67 However, proponents of using the concept of diplomacy in a wider sense usually point to the emergence of new, non-​state actors in international relations and politics, and expansion of forms and methods of diplomatic activities, and the development of nontraditional or unconventional diplomatic fields and practices. They also add that the expansion of the types, forms, and practices of diplomacy and discussing diplomacy in new contexts is inevitable in a globalizing world. This is connected to the expansion of social ties in modern times, the growth of interconnectedness and interdependence, and the emergence of new cross-​national and transnational actors. Thus, both sides have some solid arguments. The important point in this context is that the concept of diplomacy in an increasingly complex social and 61

Shaun Riordan, “Stop Inventing ‘New Diplomacies,’” blog post, usc Center on Public Diplomacy, June 21, 2017, accessed April 14, 2021, https://​usc​publ​icdi​plom​acy.org/​blog/​ stop-​invent​ing-​new-​dipl​omac​ies. 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Sense of Diplomacy

37

political world has proven helpful and heuristic. It meets the growing need for managing and harmonizing relations between various sociopolitical entities –​ states, organizations, social and business groups, individuals, and aggregations of these –​which become more and more interconnected and interdependent, and need to find a way to coexist. In the modern world, people’s social ties and information connectedness have expanded like never before, and they experience a growing number of challenges. Environmental, health and security-​ related problems, daily news stresses, the spread of hate on mass media and social networks, rising uncertainty, and other stress factors have created the need to seek new ideas and practices to better manage and regulate relations between sociopolitical entities. In this respect, diplomacy is one of the attractive ideas to arise. Of course, diplomacy doesn’t provide a solution to every problem in society, and it cannot replace religion, spirituality, and political and social activism. But certainly, diplomacy “as a mediation between estranged individuals, groups of entities,”68 can help actors to better understand each other, coexist and jointly manage problems. Another appealing aspect of the idea of diplomacy is that it is meant to be cooperative: diplomatic actors are supposed to make joint decisions on issues of mutual interest in an increasingly interdependent world. That means diplomacy, in its essence, represents a democratic decision-​making process, and it relates to the self-​governance and self-​organization of sociopolitical actors. We don’t know the future of states, but we can be certain that diplomacy as an idea with certain inherent values and practical attributes will always be in demand in a society of sociopolitical entities. The rise of civil society, democratic institutions and different forms of self-​governance will lead to the rise of the importance of diplomacy and diplomatic decision-​making in socium. Dictatorships and totalitarian regimes don’t need diplomacy in society at the national level because it contradicts their despotic model of top-​down governance. In the domestic arena, they can practice only the semblance of diplomacy, adopting some of its elements during public events, but this is just manipulation, not genuine diplomacy. 68

Der Derian, “Mediating Estrangement,” p. 93.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

­c hapter 2

The Essentials of Diplomacy The separateness of entities and their need for coexistence as a precondition for diplomacy. The Self-​Other paradigm in diplomacy. The idea and practice of diplomacy. Genuine and manipulative diplomacy. Aspirational and performative aspects of diplomacy. Goodwill missions and noble goals, tactful conduct, and dialogical interactions in diplomacy. Diplomatic engagement and interaction. Constructive engagement as the way of diplomacy. Diplomacy as a goodwill mission through constructive engagement. Diplomatic spirit is the spirit of goodwill and constructiveness.

∵ 1

Preconditions for Diplomacy

Two fundamental factors determine the need for diplomacy: the separateness of people, on the one hand, and their interdependence and need for coexistence, on the other.1 A human being is a social creature, and human society represents a vital combination of autonomy and togetherness. Diplomacy exists within this paradoxical but quite rational realm of the entities’ autonomy and sovereignty, and their connectedness and interdependence. To be viable and stable, such a realm needs to be balanced. This simultaneous independence and interdependence of entities creates the necessity for diplomacy. We may say that diplomacy is a game of balance among interdependent entities. There exist various units or forms of human separateness, such as distinctive individuals, groups, organizations, companies, societies and states. Families, for example, represent distinct social cells consisting of separate and closely tied individuals. Different forms of human separateness can exist for relatively short or long periods and can have various degrees of stability and connection to other social units of separateness and togetherness. Some of them may form

1 Paul Sharp, Diplomatic Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Der Derian, On Diplomacy.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_004 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Essentials of Diplomacy

39

temporary entities, such as situational political coalitions or interim working groups. As units of separateness, they are distinctive in their own way. Thus, every individual state, company or musical ensemble, for example, appears as a distinct entity. Diplomacy can take place among distinct and purposeful entities that need to coexist. But for it to do so, these entities will have to engage and interact with each other.2 Distinctiveness, or being distinct, indicates a core characteristic of an intentional entity’s existence and identity, its differentness from others. Since diplomacy can occur only between or among separate and different entities, the diplomatic actor needs not just a sense of selfness but also a sense of otherness, or a sense of Self and Other. Every intentional actor with the capacity for self-​perception and reflection has its own Self. The word “self” expresses personhood: an individual entity that has a self-​concept, is aware of itself, and acts as a distinctive entity or actor. Self is an intentional and reflective entity and able to give itself an account of its aspirations, actions and interactions with the Other.3 The actor’s identity, its sense of Self is formed in interaction with others.4 It is not only human individuals but even states as purposeful actors that have personhood and a sense of Self.5 Numerous scholars used the concepts of Self and Other in their diplomatic discourses.6 Diplomacy, indeed, is a field of the Self-​Other paradigm. In diplomacy, this paradigm explains a cohesive separateness and connectedness of entities. For diplomacy, coexistence is an in-​built pattern of existence. Essentially, diplomatic efforts point to the search for a balance between selfness and otherness in an interdependent society of distinctive actors. Figure 2.1 illustrates the idea of Self and Other as separate and interdependent entities. 2 The words “engagement” and “interaction” can be used interchangeably, but they also have some subtle differences in meaning. Engagement is a broader concept that refers to the involvement of parties at both the mental and physical levels, whereas interaction indicates the action of the parties on each other, their effect on one another. 3 This doesn’t mean that the Self is impartial in assessing its own behavior and relationships. 4 George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self, and Society: The Definitive Edition, ed. Charles W. Morris, annotated by Daniel R. Huebner and Hans Joas (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015). 5 Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 194; Alexander Wendt, “The State as Person in International Theory,” Review of International Studies 30, no. 2 (2004): 289–​316. 6 Iver Neumann, “Self and Other in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations 2, no. 2 (1996): 139–​174; Iver B. Neumann, “To Be a Diplomat,” International Studies Perspectives 6, no. 1 (2005): 72–​93. Constantinou, “Between Statecraft and Humanism;” Constantinou, Human Diplomacy and Spirituality; Constantinou, “On Homo-​Diplomacy;” Alisher Faizullaev, “Diplomacy and Self,” Diplomacy and Statecraft 17, no. 3 (2006): 497–​522.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

40 

Chapter 2

Self

Other

­f igure 2.1  Self and Other as separate and interdependent entities.

In the Self-​Other paradigm, distinctiveness cannot exist without recognition. Lack of mutual recognition of entities may lead to their existence being ignored or denied. The distinctiveness of important entities such as diplomatic actors and their representatives may also require dignity, honor and respect. The absence of the acknowledgment of Other the actor’s identity and distinction can be perceived by the Self as discrimination or disrespect. Self needs Other to be itself, and selfness can appear only with acknowledgment of distinctiveness. It is no accident that it is customary in international diplomacy to address the foreign minister or ambassador of a country as “Your Excellency.” This is a linguistic form of symbolic recognition, honor and respect shown to the official representative of the state as a distinct, independent, sovereign and honorable actor. 2

The Self-​Other Paradigm in Diplomacy

The diplomatic actor exists in a Self-​Other realm: on the one hand, it needs to have its own identity, oneness, purposefulness and personness, but on the other, it can function only in relation to other entities. For the diplomatic actor, knowing Self and Other, and dealing with its own selfhood and otherhood is also a matter of efficiency. Diplomacy represents a civilized and skillful engagement and interaction between Self and Other, between distinctive, purposeful and reflective actors. The difference, division, alienation, disparity between Self and Other, and need for their coexistence and balanced relations drive the diplomatic activity of actors. Coexistence of Self and Other means Self-​Other integration. This doesn’t necessarily mean a perfect match and complementarity between Self

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

41

The Essentials of Diplomacy Apparent engagement

Self

Other

Concealed engagement

­f igure 2.2  Apparent and concealed engagement between Self and Other.

and Other, but it means that they have found a way to coexist that satisfies both sides. For conducting effective diplomacy, actors need a good sense of Self as well as a sense of Other. Selfness and otherness can be tested and sensed in open, exposed and explicit, or hidden, covered and implicit communication and interaction. Figure 2.2 shows the engagement between Self and Other at the apparent and concealed levels. When an entity interacts with numerous other actors and operates within a web of sociopolitical interactions, its selfness is influenced by various othernesses, and the actor’s Self should have a certain level of stability and consistency in order to retain its integrity. At the same time, a good actor needs to understand others, to know its counterparts’ interests, goals, aspirations and values. The engagement of Self with Other serves these purposes. A diplomatic actor turns out to be a part of complex dynamics of selfness and otherness (see Figure 2.3). This dynamic of Self and Others is even more complicated because each Other has its own Self in relation with other Others and operates in the Self-​ Other realm. Therefore, in a broader context, a balance in the relations between Self and Other can be achieved by considering the balance in the relations of Self and Other of the other actors with whom they are interconnected. Entities may have different levels of significance to each other. In Figure 2.4, arrows pointing to an actor show its significance to the actor from whom the line originates, while the absence of an arrow indicates the insignificance of Other Other

Other

Other Other

Other

Other

Other

Other Self

Other Other

Other Other Other

­f igure 2.3  Interaction between Self and numerous Others.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

42 

Chapter 2

the entity to the connected one. Thus, A and B are mutually significant actors, C has significance for B but not vice versa, and A and C have no significance to each other. Normally, with the growth of mutual significance, actors become more involved in relationships with each other and get more encounters. This usually leads to mutual dependence and the ability to influence each other. At the same time, if A becomes more important to B, then A has more opportunities to influence B. Therefore, international diplomatic actors often try to increase their prominence and the significance of their concerns to other actors through different means –​conversation, negotiation, rhetoric, presence in the media, appearance, business deals, cultural events, networking, making alliances, etc. The actor may see the importance of other entities from different angles or in a different context. For example, the Self can be significant for the Other from a political perspective, while the Other’s significance for the Self can be related to economic or cultural matters. Based on the judgment of common or diverse interests, shared or conflicting values, mutual or unilateral problems, cultural and emotional ties or their absence, and other factors, the level of importance of the Other can be defined by the Self differently. In international, predominantly political diplomacy, one of the key factors delineating

Self (A)

­f igure 2.4  Significance of actors to each other.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

43

The Essentials of Diplomacy

the significance of Others is their power or ability to exert influence. Power in diplomacy emerges as a complex phenomenon depending not only on the ability of the actor to possess hard, soft and smart powers, but also its skills and relations with other powerful actors. In Figure 2.5, the degree of significance of B, C, D and E for A is shown by the size of their circles. Differences in actors’ significance to each other may complicate diplomatic interactions among them. Thus, a single, ordinary customer may be of little significance to a large multinational company, and the same can be said about a small nongovernmental organization (ngo) to the state within which it operates. This insignificance means that the company would be unlikely to apply diplomacy to the individual customer, and the state would be unlikely to engage in diplomacy with the ngo. However, by making diplomacy the principal form of conduct in relations with any entities –​small or big, seemingly important or unimportant –​large and powerful actors can create an aura of attractiveness around them, thereby increasing their influence and capacity to drive positive social change. The same is the case with small entities –​they can reach their full potential and contribute to society when others, including larger actors, notice and listen to them. Diplomacy can thus make a society more people-​oriented and humanistic. The varying importance of actors to others can both limit and increase the capabilities of diplomatic actors. Actors with little ability to influence others may have limited opportunities in diplomacy, but they can also use diplomatic methods to increase their influence. For example, small entities can create coalitions and alliances through diplomacy, which increases their significance

Other (B) Other Other

(E)

(C)

Self (A) Other (D)

­f igure 2.5  The varying significances of Others for the Self.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

44 

Chapter 2

to others and their ability to exert influence. Thus, skillful diplomacy increases the influence of the “weak” actor. The ability to use diplomacy skillfully can provide the actor additional power. Effective diplomacy is always skillful, and the better the skills of a diplomatic actor, the more effectively it can conduct diplomacy. Diplomacy becomes especially significant for every actor in society when the importance of even small players is perceived as a social norm or of socially substantial value.7 Human diplomacy is especially in demand in a humanistic society.8 At the same time, social diplomacy can help society to become more human-​oriented and just. 3

The Idea and Practice of Diplomacy

As Neumann noted, “Diplomacy is about the handling the Other.”9 However, it is not handling the Other by any means. Diplomacy as an idea has some basic assumptions. Diplomacy happens when actors are distinctive, dissimilar and separated, but they engage and interact with each other to manage their differences and resolve issues of mutual concern. Unlike war or military engagement, diplomacy entails peaceful interaction between the involved parties. War is a combative engagement that usually employs violence, force, strikes, deception, disinformation, abruptness and unpredictability. Bull remarked: “War also exemplifies the conduct of international relations by official agents; diplomatists differ from soldiers in that they confine themselves to peaceful means.”10 Diplomacy is a nonviolent engagement characterized by dialogical forms of interaction that are supported by social graces. War and diplomacy approach interaction among entities differently: war manages differences through aggression and destruction, while diplomacy does so through constructive dialog, relationship-​building and problem-​solving. Many authors regard diplomacy “as the opposite to war or any use of force,” but several other scholars remain “reluctant to draw such a clear-​cut line.”11 7

One of the manifestations of nontraditional and value-​driven diplomacy is faith-​based diplomacy, which, according to David Wellman, “distinguishes itself from traditional diplomacy through its emphasis on the ethical claim of its praxis.” David Wellman, “Religion and Diplomacy,” in The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr and Paul Sharp, eds. (Los Angeles: sage Publications, 2016), p. 586. 8 Constantinou, Human Diplomacy and Spirituality; Constantinou, “On Homo-​Diplomacy.” 9 Iver B. Neumann, Diplomatic Tenses: A Social Evolutionary Perspective on Diplomacy (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2020), p. 1. 10 Bull, The Anarchical Society, p. 157. 11 Jönsson, “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation,” pp. 213.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Essentials of Diplomacy

45

However, diplomacy also “may occur within war or armed conflict or be used in the orchestration of particular acts of violence, such as seeking overflight clearance for an air strike.”12 Indeed, as we know from the history of international relations, diplomacy was used by international actors not only for achieving noble goals but also for supporting aggression and wars. Tarak Barkawi noted that diplomacy cannot be defined in opposition to war, and “diplomacy is central to the administration and conduct of war, and to the constitution and use of force more generally.”13 International relations show that states’ diplomacy can be coercive and have little civility. Aggressive diplomacy has often played a role in foreign policy and international politics. Diplomacy is embedded in the existing systems of political, social, economic, legal and human relations, and it inevitably incorporates essential features inherent in the state and society. Nevertheless, diplomacy, as a concept with some basic assumptions, is primarily associated with certain positive and universally accepted values, not with destruction or causing harm to others. According to Bernard de Rosier (1400–​ 1475), the business of an ambassador is peace, and “An ambassador labors for the public good.”14 In its essence, the idea of diplomacy is humanistic. Military potential is used to influence other countries, their government or their people, by the harm it could do to them. It may be used skillfully or clumsily, and it can be used for evil or in self-​protection, even in the pursuit of peace; but used as bargaining power it is part of diplomacy –​ the uglier, more negative, less civilized part of diplomacy –​nevertheless, diplomacy.15 Schelling called this the diplomacy of violence, wherein “capacity for violence is bargaining power.”16 According to Schelling, “The power to hurt is bargaining power. To exploit it is diplomacy –​vicious diplomacy, but diplomacy.”17 de Magalhães opposed the idea that war, violence and the threat of using force could be used as tools of diplomacy.18 In this regard, he also criticized Schelling’s idea of the diplomacy of violence. While admitting that diplomacy

12 Barston, Modern Diplomacy, p. 1. 13 Tarak Barkawi, “Diplomacy, War, and World Politics,” in Sending, Pouliot and Neumann, Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, p. 56. 14 Garrett Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1955), p. 42. 15 Schelling, Arms and Influence, p. xxii. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid., p. 65. 18 de Magalhães, The Pure Concept of Diplomacy.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

46 

Chapter 2

can be considered bargaining, as Schelling suggested, de Magalhães did not agree with Schelling’s thesis that the ability to inflict harm can be used as leverage in bargaining in (vicious) diplomacy. de Magalhães opposed Schelling’s mixing diplomacy as a political tool that uses negotiation, which is a peaceful method, with the political tool of the threat of force, which cannot be considered a peaceful method of conducting relations between people.19 Here I would like to say a few words about coercive diplomacy. As Peter Vigo Jacobsen noted, coercive diplomacy “is as old as the institution of diplomacy.”20 According to Schelling, “coercive diplomacy is based on the power to hurt.”21 Schelling explained the difference between brute force and coercive diplomacy in terms of purpose and effect: “To hurt down Comanches and to exterminate them was brute force; to raid their villages to make them behave was coercive diplomacy, based on the power to hurt.”22 Alexander George pointed out that coercive diplomacy “is a strategy that is sometimes employed by policymakers in the hope of securing a peaceful resolution of a serious dispute” and “coercive persuasion [can be used] as a possible way of achieving diplomatic objectives without having to resort to war.”23 Thus, coercive diplomacy “offers an alternative to reliance on military action. It seeks to persuade an opponent to cease aggression rather than bludgeon him into stopping.”24 As we can see, the researchers sought to draw a line between the actual use of force and the threat of using it for achieving worthy diplomatic goals. In other words, unlike brute or military force, coercive diplomacy is understood as something that is not aimed at destroying the enemy, but at persuading the opponent to change its behavior for good. World politics has many examples of this kind of politically motivated diplomacy. But nevertheless, such diplomacy does not correspond to the spirit of diplomacy because it involves threats. The power of genuine diplomacy lies in its ability to communicate, negotiate and persuade, not threaten. Diplomacy with a threat of force is a part of international politics that goes beyond the concept of genuine diplomacy. 19 20

Ibid., p. 3. Peter Vigo Jacobsen, “Coercive Diplomacy,” in The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr and Paul Sharp, eds. (Los Angeles: sage Publications, 2016), p. 476. 21 Schelling, Arms and Influence, p. 3. 22 Ibid., p. 5. 23 Alexander L. George, Forceful Persuasion: Coercive Diplomacy as an Alternative to War (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 1991), p. xi. 24 Alexander George, “Coercive Diplomacy: Definition and Characteristics,” in The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy, 2nd ed., eds. Alexander L. George and William E. Simons (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994), p. 10.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Essentials of Diplomacy

47

There is something strange when diplomacy is combined with a threat. Even when diplomacy is used together with a threat of force for a good cause, such as to achieve peace, it is not quite pure diplomacy, indeed not quite diplomacy, because the spirit of diplomacy is opposed to coercion and threats. Moreover, an actor who once successfully uses coercive diplomacy for a good cause is not immune from the temptation to later use the same forceful methods to get a unilateral advantage in pursuing political objectives. Additionally, it is difficult to maintain good relations between actors when one attempts to coerce the other. Genuine diplomacy is not easy either. It requires patience, listening, understanding, conversation, negotiation and persuasion. It might be easier to use coercive means, especially when a country is powerful. But diplomacy based on conviction and dialogical interactions has more right to be called authentic diplomacy than diplomacy based on the ability to hurt. Diplomacy is related to peacebuilding more than to peace enforcement. When it comes to the relationship between diplomacy and violence, much depends on understanding these two phenomena. If we assume from the very beginning that political diplomacy can use deception, manipulation and the threat of violence, then deception, manipulation and the possibility of violence can easily become a part of a diplomatic plan. But if we accept that diplomacy, by its very nature, cannot or should not allow deception, manipulation and the probability of violence, then they turn out to be alien to diplomatic affairs. This book considers diplomacy a peaceful endeavor and holds that diplomacy that uses the threat of force as a tool is not genuine diplomacy. Another issue of importance in the context of the relationship between diplomacy and violence is symbolic violence. If we consider symbolic insult as a form of symbolic violence, it should be recognized that various forms of such violence are quite widely used in international diplomacy. In particular, symbolic insult in international diplomacy can be carried out through misrecognition (“diplomatic bypassing”), direct confrontation (“diplomatic punch”), and concealed verbal or nonverbal actions (“diplomatic slap”).25 But this does not mean that diplomacy cannot do without symbolic forms of violence and insult. On the contrary, violence and insult are alien to genuine diplomacy. Remarking that “Both diplomacy and war are ways of communicating with the Other,” Neumann stresses that the difference between the two:

25 Faizullaev, Symbolic Insult in Diplomacy.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

48 

Chapter 2

is not only to do with verbal and material processes, but also with the implied goal of interaction … Is the goal to elicit a response from the Other of some unspecified kind? That would be diplomacy. Or is it to break the other’s will and call forth the Other’s surrender? That would be war.26 Neumann pointed out that diplomacy and war have “two approaches to communication, where diplomacy leans towards a dialogical stance, and war towards a monological stance.”27 Indeed, the dialogical stance is a key characteristic of the diplomatic approach. And I fully agree with Neumann’s reference to the goals of interaction in diplomacy: to understand the nature and essence of diplomacy, we need to analyze not only diplomatic performances but also diplomatic aspirations. In other words, it is important to understand both diplomatic actions and intentions, or both the outer and inner sides of diplomacy. I also agree that communication between actors has an important role in both diplomacy and war. However, bearing in mind that the word “communication” mostly indicates the exchange of information or emotional content, while the word “interaction” signifies the actional characteristic in relations between actors, this book focuses on the interactional aspect of diplomacy. We can say that in diplomacy, communication is a part of the interaction between Self and Other. Communication helps diplomacy, but diplomacy occurs in interaction. In the history of diplomacy, quite a few ambassadors and other diplomats have been involved in intrigue, bribery and espionage. But this does not mean that these negative practices are organically woven into the fabric of diplomacy. They are used in some forms of politically oriented diplomacy, but are not part of the idea of diplomacy. When thinking about diplomacy, it is quite natural to think about its civilizing mission and its moral grounds, ethical codes and humanizing endeavor. Diplomacy aimed at destruction or harm is pseudo-​diplomacy or manipulative diplomacy. Diplomacy directed at achieving noble goals and creating public good is genuine diplomacy. Why is it that diplomacy as an idea, while being noble, does not always turn out to be so in practice? There are several reasons. The first is the close link between international diplomacy and international politics: when diplomacy serves the political objectives of the state, it may become an instrument of political manipulation and advancing the political agenda of the actor. Second, when diplomatic scholars and international practitioners pay most attention

26 Neumann, Diplomatic Tenses, p. 2. 27 Ibid.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

49

The Essentials of Diplomacy

to actional or performative sides of diplomacy while ignoring or paying little attention to diplomacy’s aspirational aspects, it may result in surprises or unpleasant discoveries regarding dissonance between the intention and execution of diplomacy. Third, we need to admit that diplomacy in its best-​known form, traditional international diplomacy, can be genuine or manipulative. Genuine diplomacy has a consonance between its aspirational and performative, or inner and outer sides, while manipulative diplomacy can declare one goal but actually pursue a different objective. I would rather identify diplomacy with genuine diplomacy and consider manipulative diplomacy to be quasi-​diplomacy. The very idea of diplomacy is linked with genuine diplomacy, not manipulation. Manipulative diplomacy can serve war or use the threat of violence, but genuine diplomacy cannot because its core assumption is against war and violence. Figure 2.6 compares genuine and manipulative diplomacy. As long as international diplomacy remains tied to international politics, it may remain –​to a greater or lesser extent –​manipulative. This does not mean that predominantly political diplomacy is always deceptive or harmful to others. When state-​based and internationally oriented diplomacy serves commonly accepted positive goals and values, it can bring public benefits. Actors can rely less on manipulation and move toward greater openness and genuine diplomacy by building trust. Trust, trust-​building, justice and the search for justice play a key role in transforming manipulative diplomacy into genuine diplomacy. From a political point of view, the Prince of Talleyrand was an excellent diplomat for France, and his Machiavellianism, cunning and resourcefulness greatly helped him pull off political maneuvers and achieve major diplomatic victories for his country. That was possible not only because of Talleyrand’s political and diplomatic skills but also because of the other actors’ need for political deals. But it is unlikely that Machiavellianism can make an individual

Genuine diplomacy

Manipulave diplomacy

Matching goals

Mismatched

and acons

goals and acons

­f igure 2.6  Genuine and manipulative diplomacy.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

50 

Chapter 2

a good social diplomat or bring success in interpersonal diplomacy, as social actors usually distrust Machiavellian personalities. Manipulation and trust don’t go well together. Realpolitik can be a part of political diplomacy, but not of social diplomacy. Despite the existence of various definitions and differences in the understanding of diplomacy, there is also a common sense of the essence and meaning of diplomacy or the idea of diplomacy. Even the most contradictory approaches to diplomacy do not link its essence to combat or the desire for destruction. Even the most controversial considerations of diplomacy are unlikely to find their meaning in the hunt for wild animals or scuba diving, in a music competition or fruit growing, although these things could be somehow connected to diplomatic activities. Diplomacy, as an idea, is primarily related to pursuing peace, conflict resolution, problem-​solving, building friendly relations and protecting interests by nonviolent means. Peacebuilding, resolving differences and relationship management as means of coexistence are at the heart of the idea of diplomacy and determine its content and genuine practices. Diplomacy, as an idea, is noble and is built on moral and ethical foundations. It represents a certain conscious and purposeful effort or endeavor, which can be called a goodwill mission. Diplomacy, of course, is not just an idea but also a practice. Without appropriate practice, the idea of diplomacy, the pursuit of coexistence, peace and good relations, cannot be achieved. Sadly, the idea of diplomacy is not always implemented in practice, and there may be many objective and subjective reasons for this. The possibility of a mismatch between the idea and practice of diplomacy can lead to a decrease in the credibility of diplomacy and, in some cases, to even discredit it altogether. However, just as the lack of feelings of love, the sense of happiness or a belief in justice in some people does not mean that there is no love, happiness and justice, the failure of diplomacy should not be held against the idea of diplomacy. Diplomacy is in demand when separate and distinctive entities need to coexist. At the same time, diplomacy is closely associated with positive change –​resolving conflict and building peace, solving problems, and crafting positive relationships. We can say that if coexistence is the minimum that diplomacy seeks, then the quality coexistence, that is, good relationships and a willingness to solve problems together, is what ambitious diplomacy seeks. Another important issue linked to the idea of diplomacy is the protection of interests. However, diplomatic protection of interests means defending and advancing the actor’s interests peacefully and through dialog, taking into consideration the interests of all stakeholders. But to advance this general sense of diplomacy and to more clearly answer the question of what diplomacy is,

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

51

The Essentials of Diplomacy

How is diplomacy pracced? *** This is about diplomac performance

What is diplomacy? *** This is about the essense of diplomacy

Why does diplomacy exist? *** This is about diplomac aspiraons

Who performs diplomacy? *** This is about diplomac actors

­f igure 2.7  Four key questions regarding diplomacy.

we may try to approach the issue by reflecting on why diplomacy exists, how it is applied in practice and who performs it. The “why” question is about diplomatic aspirations, the “how” question is about diplomatic performance and the “who” question concerns diplomatic actors. By discussing the idea of diplomacy, we have taken a step toward answering the question of what diplomacy is. But the answer will be more complete if we can better understand why entities need diplomacy, how it is practiced and who practices it (see Figure 2.7). Considering diplomacy as an idea and as a practice provides a very general picture for research and opens two broad dimensions for diplomatic analysis.28 In this regard, it makes sense to use the categories of diplomatic aspirations and performances to advance this wide-​ranging approach. The point is that the idea of diplomacy relates to certain aspirations, while diplomatic practice relates to definite or competent performances,29 and by distinguishing the 28 29

Vincent Pouliot and Jérémie Cornut provided an overview of using practice theory in diplomatic studies: Vincent Pouliot and Jérémie Cornut, “Practice Theory and the Study of Diplomacy: A Research Agenda,” Cooperation and Conflict 50, no. 3 (2015): 297–​315. Emmanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot defined practice as competent performance or socially meaningful patterns of action. See Emanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot, “International Practices,” International Theory 3, no. 1 (2011): 1–​36, p. 4.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

52 

Chapter 2

The idea of diplomacy

Aspiraonal aspect of diplomacy

Diplomacy The pracce of diplomacy

Performave aspect of diplomacy

­f igure 2.8  Aspirational and performative aspects of diplomacy.

aspirational and practical aspects of diplomacy, we can better understand specific manifestations of diplomatic ideas and practices (see Figure 2.8). 4

Aspirational Aspect of Diplomacy: Diplomatic Mission and Objectives

While the need for coexistence appears as a general condition for diplomacy, diplomatic aspirations express the specific desires of the actors that contribute to achieving this coexistence –​the willingness to build peace and accord, resolve conflicts and other mutually significant problems, and establish or maintain good relations. We can look at aspirations in diplomacy from two points of view: (1) why do actors employ diplomacy, and (2) what specifically do they want to achieve through diplomacy? The first perspective is about reasons and purposes for taking on diplomacy, and the second one is about the specific targets, aims, and goals of such a commitment. The first standpoint leads us to the phenomenon of diplomatic mission, or diplomacy as a mission, and the second indicates diplomatic objectives or specific purposes of diplomatic activities. Aspirations represent some willingness to make the world better and build peace, the mission is a conscious acceptance of this task and objectives characterize certain directions in which to take action for this purpose. Diplomatic aspirations are related to the willingness of an actor to take on a specific mission aimed at achieving certain objectives. So, the aspirational aspect of diplomacy is specified in the existence of a diplomatic mission and diplomatic objectives (see Figure 2.9).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

53

The Essentials of Diplomacy

Aspiraonal aspect of diplomacy

Diplomac mission

Diplomac objecves

­f igure 2.9  Diplomatic mission and diplomatic objectives as two attributes of diplomatic aspirations.

4.1 Diplomacy as a Goodwill Mission The Oxford dictionary defines “mission” as “An important assignment given to a person or group of people, typically involving travel abroad.”30 Mission, of course, could be related to religious, military, diplomatic or other types of tasks. “Diplomacy” and “mission” are closely connected terms: the word “mission” points to an important characteristic of diplomacy –​pursuing noble goals. From ancient times, rulers and polities sent to other rulers and polities diplomatic missions with ambassadors, envoys and other representatives. From the 15th century, Italian city-​states began to establish resident or permanent diplomatic missions in each other’s territories. Nowadays, international diplomacy widely employs different kinds of resident and non-​resident missions, including embassies, high commissions, consulate generals, consulates, permanent representations in international organizations and others. Both in the past and in modern times, diplomatic assignments are broadly viewed as missions dedicated to achieving some valuable common good, such as peace, reconciliation or friendly relations. The idea of diplomacy comprises the search for a common good, and goodwill is an essential characteristic of the diplomatic mission. Genuine diplomacy aimed at ensuring the coexistence of separate entities cannot be carried by diplomatic actors without a certain goodwill mission. Diplomacy that lacks goodwill is not true diplomacy. A mission can be given to entities by someone else or taken up of their own will. In both cases, the entity needs to accept the mission and related responsibilities. To be on a mission means “undertaking a task that one considers to be a very important duty.”31 A mission cannot be performed by a person or group of people mechanically or as a routine job. To undertake a mission, a person, group, or any other actor or their representatives need to understand its significance and meaning, and approach it consciously. Diplomacy as a 30 31

Accessed April 15, 2021, https://​www.lex​ico.com/​def​init​ion/​miss​ion. Accessed April 15, 2021, https://​www.merr​iam-​webs​ter.com/​dic​tion​ary/​on%20a%20 miss​ion.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

54 

Chapter 2

goodwill mission requires a conscious attitude, mindfulness, a certain level of maturity and sound judgment in those who assume it. When a person undertakes a diplomatic task without such an attitude and disposition, it weakens diplomacy itself. Diplomacy ceases to be a goodwill mission when diplomats treat diplomatic activity primarily as an occupation that requires only professional qualifications and performative skills, or when their work becomes just a routine activity without a sense of mission. Some professional diplomats, especially those who work in a foreign ministry in their home country, are often devoid of a sense of mission because they turn into ordinary officials and bureaucrats dealing with a variety of paperwork. As Neumann noted, the bureaucratic mode of production appears to be the main modus operandi of diplomats when they work in their home country.32 Of course, bureaucrats can also have a sense of mission, but a bureaucratic job primarily entails routine work, particularly paperwork. 4.2 Diplomatic Objectives: Decency As a goodwill mission, diplomacy can be applied to a great number of issues or areas. But all of them are related to the cohabitation of sociopolitical actors or, to use Der Derian’s terminology, alienated entities. The goals of diplomacy corresponding to its goodwill mission can be specifically related to peacemaking, problem-​solving, relationship-​building, protecting interests and promoting values. Major diplomatic objectives are usually associated with one or several of the following areas: (1) resolving differences, conflict resolution or peacemaking, (2) solving problems of common concern, (3) building or managing relationships, (4) protecting interests and citizens, and (5) promoting certain values (see Figure 2.10). Resolving differences or conflict resolution can also be considered a kind of problem-​solving, but because of the specificity of making peace, these two areas can be considered separately. But all these areas of diplomatic intention point, one way or another, to the willingness of the diplomatic actor or actors to find an agreeable and mutually beneficial way to coexist. However, diplomacy, as we know, may have explicit and openly declared aims, or implicit and hidden objectives. International diplomacy as an instrument of foreign policy and international politics has been used for achieving nefarious goals, which, of course, were hidden from outsiders and covered up with noble declarations. This kind of diplomacy is manipulative. Diplomacy

32

Iver B. Neumann, At Home with the Diplomats: Inside a European Foreign Ministry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), p. 94.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

55

The Essentials of Diplomacy

Solving problems

Resolving differences

Managing relaonships Diplomacy’s major objecves

Promong values

Protecng interests

­f igure 2.10 Major objectives of diplomacy.

can be genuine or manipulative depending on its real purposes and objectives. According to the very idea of diplomacy, genuine diplomacy’s objectives are honorable and in line with its goodwill mission. In other words, diplomacy as a goodwill mission pursues noble goals. Diplomacy is manipulative and deceptive when its real objectives don’t correspond with the mission of goodwill but are covered up by stated but dishonest goals. In this case, diplomacy goes hand-​in-​hand with propaganda. So, goodwill mission and noble objectives are two elements or aspects of diplomatic actors’ aspirations inherent in genuine diplomacy (see Figure 2.11). 5

The Performative Aspect of Diplomacy: Diplomatic Means and Norms

Diplomatic practice, and hence the fulfillment of the mission and achievement of the goals of diplomacy, is related to actors’ interactions with counterparts. Diplomacy is implemented in practice when the actor and/​or its agents interact with other actors in a certain way. Interaction is the bone and muscle of the

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

56 

Chapter 2

Goodwill mission Aspiraonal aspect of diplomacy Noble objecves

­f igure 2.11 Aspirational aspect of diplomacy: goodwill mission and noble objectives.

Methods of interacon

Norms of interacon

Diplomac performance

­f igure 2.12 Methods and norms of interaction as two attributes of diplomatic performance.

practice of diplomacy. Diplomacy can use different kinds of nonviolent tools –​direct and outspoken communication as well as refined and subtle means or methods of acting on each other –​but according to diplomatic norms, this should be done with civility and social graces (see Figure 2.12). However, when an actor hides its real intentions and diplomacy becomes manipulative, various interactions can occur behind the scenes, or in a concealed form, including diplomatic insults.33 Diplomatic interactions may also have a strategic aspect, and this creates the opportunity to apply game theory to the study of diplomatic interactions. 5.1 Methods of Diplomatic Interactions Method is a basis for competent practice. Methods of diplomacy appear as the organized and established practices of diplomatic actors supported by the 33 Faizullaev, Symbolic Insult in Diplomacy.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Essentials of Diplomacy

57

mission, objectives, and social norms of diplomacy. The practice of diplomacy is based on performances of dialogical interaction, which is, a priori, nonviolent. Dialogic interaction in diplomacy involves a process of mutual influencing through listening and considering the concerns and opinions of all parties. Chapter 5 of this book examines dialogical interaction as a meta-​method of diplomacy and also discusses its general and specific or operational methods. Meetings, conversations, negotiations, mediation, discussions, consultations, conferences, persuasion, advocacy, and participation in meaningful social events and ceremonies are among the interactive methods of diplomacy. Even observation and analysis in diplomacy are built into the structure of diplomatic intercourse and serve the better dialogical interaction and influencing counterparts. Interactional methods of diplomacy are closely connected with diplomatic functions and skills, and Chapters 5 and 6 discuss these connections. Dialogical interaction helps to construct a positive outcome or a common good, so one of the most important tasks of a diplomatic actor is keeping interactions with counterparts within the realm of dialog. Dialogical interaction can be destroyed by casting blame, engaging in verbal attacks and nonverbal abuse, insults and embarrassment, bullying and resentment, annoyance and frustration, hatred and hostility, intimidation, lecturing and mocking, offending and rebuking, angering and irritating, feeling remorse and guilt, a sense of superiority or insignificance, rage and oppression, a sense of omnipotence and powerlessness, and similar conditions. 5.2 Diplomatic Code of Conduct The diplomatic code of conduct is a set of socio-​behavioral norms accepted in diplomacy and related to diplomatic conduct. It has been developed throughout the long history of diplomacy and is an essential part of diplomatic performance. Norms and customs of diplomacy are linked to people’s shared norms, rules and socially accepted behavior associated with civility, social graces, and respectfulness, and we may refer to these as tactful conduct. The code of conduct in diplomacy resembles diplomatic aspirations and helps to create a more sociable and respectful atmosphere for diplomatic intercourse, which in turn helps achieve the intended and mutually desirable objectives. Social norms of civility help create and support a culture of diplomacy, which is essential to keeping diplomacy on track, especially in difficult situations. Diplomatic protocol and etiquette are also parts of diplomatic norms, and they are instrumental in regulating the issues of precedent and fairness in international diplomacy. The important thing is that diplomatic norms and protocol are not unchangeable; they are constantly evolving and being constructed around the basic sense of civility, social graces and common

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

58 

Chapter 2

Dialogical interacon

Performave aspect of diplomacy Tacul conduct

­f igure 2.13 The performative aspect of diplomacy: dialogical interaction and tactful conduct.

sense. Figure 2.13 shows the core characteristics of diplomatic methods and norms as essential elements of diplomatic performances. 6

Constructive Engagement as the Way of Diplomacy

Diplomacy takes place when entities, or Self and Other, deal with one another, and the words “engagement,” “interaction,” “intercourse” and “encounter” can point to such dealings. These terms are close to each other, and all of them play important roles in diplomatic studies and practice. So, it is not surprising that expressions such as “diplomatic engagement,” “diplomatic interaction,” “diplomatic intercourse” and “diplomatic encounter” are widely used in the diplomatic discourse. However, while the terms “interaction,” “intercourse” and “encounter” are very actional in their meaning, “engagement” can express not only entities’ dealings with each other in action but also their interest in one another, attention, consideration and so on. Engagement can be both mental and bodily, and often mental engagement precedes actors’ real interaction. So, full engagement of actors is both mental and bodily engagement. The words “interaction,” “intercourse” and “encounter” indicate actors acting on each other. Interact means “to act upon one another,”34 and interaction signifies for Self and Other the opportunity to affect each other. Interaction creates influence. Influence –​“the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways”35 –​is the bread and butter of diplomacy. The 34 35

Accessed April 15, 2021, https://​www.merr​iam-​webs​ter.com/​dic​tion​ary/​inter​act. Accessed April 15, 2021, https://​www.merr​iam-​webs​ter.com/​dic​tion​ary/​influe​nce.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Essentials of Diplomacy

59

essential aspect of the idea of diplomacy is that diplomacy is supposed to be a means of exerting influence peacefully and in a civilized manner, not through war and brutality. Sally Marks and Chas W. Freeman define diplomacy as “the established method of influencing the decisions and behaviour of foreign governments and peoples through dialogue, negotiation, and other measures short of war or violence.”36 This definition relates to traditional –​state-​based and internationally oriented diplomacy. The word “engagement” generally expresses the involvement of the actors with each other and the emergence of relations between them in one or another way, while the term “interaction” points to acting on each other, influencing or persuading one another. Engagement is a broader concept than interaction, intercourse and encounter, and it refers to both aspirational and performative aspects of diplomacy. In other words, diplomatic engagement starts from diplomatic aspirations and continues through diplomatic interactions, which point to bodily engagement. The Self constructively engages with the Other when it takes up a goodwill mission and pursues noble goals, observes the norms of civility and conducts dialogical interaction. That is the way of diplomacy. Appendix 1 describes in more detail the understanding of “engagement” in international diplomacy and the use of the term in contemporary diplomatic studies. In relation to the Other, the Self can choose either non-​engagement or engagement. Non-​engagement is the path of indifference and separateness, and entities can be estranged from one another for objective or subjective reasons. They may not have many opportunities to communicate or may lack the resources to conduct meaningful interaction. This would be involuntary non-​ engagement. Entities can also be alienated because of a lack of interest in each other or unwillingness to have relationships based on negative attitudes. That is voluntary non-​engagement (see Figure 2.14). There may also be a situation where one entity wants to engage with the other or is interested in building a relationship, but the other actor does not have any such desire or opportunity to do so. Figure 2.15 illustrates the mutual engagement of entities, their reciprocal non-​ engagement and one-​ sided engagement (or one-​sided non-​engagement). There can be more complicated forms of non-​engagement between entities. For instance, states may ignore one another officially by denying diplomatic recognition, but at the same time engage with each other unofficially. Thus,

36

Sally Marks and Chas W. Freeman, “Diplomacy,” in Encyclopedia Britannica, December 14, 2020, accessed April 15, 2021, https://​www.bri​tann​ica.com/​topic/​diplom​acy.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

60 

Chapter 2

Voluntary nonengagement Engagement

Nonengagement Involuntary nonengagement

­f igure 2.14 Two forms of non-​engagement –​voluntary and involuntary. (a)

(b)

(c)

­f igure 2.15 (a) Mutual engagement, (b) Reciprocal non-​engagement, and (c) One-​sided engagement of entities.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Essentials of Diplomacy

61

secret diplomacy or diplomacy through a third party can take place. For example, the United States and Iran have no official diplomatic relations, but the Embassy of Switzerland in Tehran represents the United States in Iran. In any case, when there is a difference between official and unofficial engagement or disparity of engagement at the open and hidden levels, this indicates some substantial detachment between the entities. We can discuss different forms of engagement between entities, for example, positive and negative engagements. Love, friendship, mutual assistance and collaboration based on recognition and respect indicate some very positive forms of engagement, while murder, violence, hostility, hatred, insult and humiliation exemplify particularly negative forms of engagement. We can also talk about engagement from the cooperation and competition points of view, highlighting cooperative and competitive engagements. Most engagements among social actors are of a mixed nature or are mixed-​motive engagements in that they both include positive and negative, cooperative and competitive elements. Analyzing diplomacy, especially in the context of the discourse contrasting diplomacy and war, we can also discuss constructive and destructive engagement. Constructive engagement is the path of diplomacy, or the creation of some public good such as conflict resolution or reaching an agreement, while destructive engagement is the way of war or harming the other party. Constructive engagement, even if including elements of both collaboration and competition, is a positive encounter because it is aimed at the creation of commonly accepted results or public goods (see ­figure 2.16). Destructiveness and constructiveness in engagement epitomize the paths of war and diplomacy. Figure 2.17 summarizes the patterns of engagement and/​or non-​engagement between entities, or Self and Other. Actors can also engage with each other through a combination of destructiveness and constructiveness –​that is mixed-​motive engagement. This means that entities deal with one another partly by trying to resolve their differences based on finding common interests and creating public good, and partly by pursuing only self-​interest, preventing the fulfillment of the goals of the other party and damaging the interests of another side (see Figure 2.18). Diplomatic aspirations and performances serve constructive engagement. Diplomatic aspirations involve a goodwill mission and noble goals, and diplomatic performance includes dialogical interaction and tactful conduct. So, in diplomacy, constructiveness runs intersectionally through all stages of the actor’s engagement with counterparts (see Figure 2.19).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

62 

Chapter 2

Construcve engagement − the way of diplomacy

Nonengagement

Engagement

Destructve engagement − the way of war

­f igure 2.16 War and diplomacy as the ways of destructive and constructive engagement between entities.

Construcve engagement Engagement Destrucve engagement Self and Other Voluntary nonengagement Nonengagement Non-voluntary non-engagement

­f igure 2.17 Self and Other: the ways of engagement and non-​engagement.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

63

The Essentials of Diplomacy Destrucve engagement

Self and Other

Mixed-move engagement

Construcve engagement

­f igure 2.18 Destructive, constructive, and mixed-​motive engagements.

Goodwill mission The idea of diplomacy

Aspira onal aspect of diplomacy

Noble goals

The way of diplomacy *** Construc ve engagement

The prac ce of diplomacy

Dialogical interac ons Performa ve aspect of diplomacy Tacul conduct

­f igure 2.19 The way of diplomacy.

7

Diplomatic Spirit

If a goodwill mission is the very idea of diplomacy, constructive engagement is the way of implementing this idea. Thus, we can say that diplomacy represents a goodwill mission through constructive engagement (see Figure 2.20). The idea and practice of diplomacy, its aspirations and its performance have something in common –​they can only take place within the framework of the goodwill mission and constructive engagement of the Self with the Other, which indicates the spirit of diplomacy. Such a spirit emanates from the very idea of diplomacy, its aspirations, mission and objectives, and corresponds to

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

64 

Chapter 2

Goodwill mission through construcve engagement

­f igure 2.20 Diplomacy as a goodwill mission through constructive engagement.

its practice, performative aspects, methods and norms. It is something that characterizes diplomacy in general and all its major aspects and elements in particular. Diplomacy is not a destructive but a constructive activity, and the spirit of diplomacy is the spirit of goodwill and constructiveness (see Figure 2.21). Diplomacy can use elements of both cooperative and competitive encounters, but creating peace and accord, resolving conflicts and other problems, and building up or maintaining positive relationships have to be constructive endeavors based on goodwill. Goodwill and constructiveness are the engines of diplomacy, and they manifest themselves in diplomatic aspirations and performances, concern and recognition, open-​mindedness, and tolerance. This spirit of benevolence feeds the actor’s diplomatic vigor. Skillful interaction is important for diplomacy, but it is not by itself sufficient to successfully carry out a diplomatic mission. The lack of diplomatic

The spirit of goodwill and construc veness

Diplomacy as a goodwill mission and construc ve engagement

­f igure 2.21 Diplomatic spirit is the spirit of goodwill and constructiveness.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Essentials of Diplomacy

65

spirit in aspirations and performances may lead to manipulative activity. At its best, diplomacy means affecting the involved parties for achieving some common good, such as making peace, building trust and friendly relations, or finding a solution to a humanitarian crisis. The spirit of diplomacy emanates from diplomatic aspirations and performance, and permeates the idea and practice of diplomacy (see Figure 2.22). Based on the arguments presented thus far, we can define diplomacy as an endeavor to reach an accord between the parties concerned in a spirit of goodwill and constructiveness, using dialogical means and tactful conduct. This may include building peace, managing relationships and protecting interests, resolving differences and solving problems, helping individuals and other entities, and making society better. By and large, diplomacy serves to ensure the coexistence of the involved parties, so it has an integrating, civilizing and noble purpose. Given its lofty and positive goals, diplomacy can be seen as a goodwill mission. Accord can be in the form of a formal agreement, informal arrangements, or mutual understanding and relationship-​building without any settlement, but the important thing is that it can be reached only through dialogic forms of interaction that take into consideration mutual concerns –​in short, a balanced settlement. In the expanded and socially defined model of diplomacy discussed in this book, the diplomatic actor and its engagement and interaction with other entities acquire a central role. No diplomacy can take place without those who carry it out, that is, diplomatic actors. All essentials of diplomacy, such as diplomatic aspirations and performance, take place only when there is a diplomatic actor who interacts with counterparts in a spirit of diplomacy. In the next chapter, we will take a closer look at the phenomenon of the diplomatic actor and the interaction among actors in diplomacy.

Idea of diplomacy

Pracce of diplomacy

­f igure 2.22 Idea, practice and spirit of diplomacy.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

­c hapter 3

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy Diplomatic actors, agencies and agents. Corporate and individual actors in diplomacy. A person as a diplomatic actor and agent. The ambassador in traditional diplomacy. Diplomatic interaction and relationship management. Diplomacy and a global interaction complex. Diplomatic interactions and the idea of balance.

∵ 1

Actors, Agencies, and Agents in Diplomacy

No diplomacy can take place without a diplomatic actor, and, apparently, many models of diplomacy are focused on the actor. For traditional and internationally oriented diplomacy, the main diplomatic actor is the state, which acts through its official representatives. Bull clearly outlined the concept of the actor in such diplomacy. According to him, private individuals can also seek to play a role in the relationships between states, but that is not diplomacy. “The core of traditional diplomacy has resided in the official relationships between sovereign states,” Bull asserts.1 Diplomacy is the conduct of international relations by persons who are official agents; hence the importance in diplomacy of letters of credence or other tokens of representative or symbolic status … We must apply the term diplomacy to the official relations not only of states but also of other political entities with standing in world politics. The agents of the United Nations, of other general international organisations such as the International Labour Organisation [sic], and of regional international organisations, may be said to engage in diplomacy. Political groups which are not widely recognised as states –​for example, at the time of writing, groups dedicated to national liberation –​but which enjoy standing in

1 Bull, The Anarchical Society, p. 157.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_005 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy

67

world politics, sometimes appoint agents which enter into negotiation with states and with other such groups.2 From this point of view, diplomatic actors are sovereign states and other political entities with standing in world politics who conduct international or ­official relations through their official agents. This is, therefore, about the institutionalized diplomacy of political entities. Sharp, discussing diplomatic actors, widens this perspective: Getting into the debates about who are the actors may be difficult for many students of diplomacy, but it will be made easier if they realize that the fate of diplomacy does not ride upon the fate of the modern state system, and especially the effectiveness of the latter’s capacity to go on saying who is and is not a player.3 This trend –​the broadening of the conception of diplomacy beyond the state system, the pluralization of diplomacy and the emergence of new diplomatic players has inevitably resulted in a change in the very concept of a diplomatic actor. As Adler-​Nissen pointed out: Among the rapidly expanding types of actors, we find sub-​national and regional authorities such as Catalonia, multinational corporations such as Nestle, celebrities such as George Clooney, who is a UN Messenger for Peace, as well as nongovernmental organizations including Independent Diplomat and Transparency International and regional and intergovernmental organizations such as International Monetary Fund (imf) and asean.4 According to the extended understanding of diplomacy supported by this book, any sociopolitical entity can be a diplomatic actor by concurring with the idea and practice of diplomacy in relations with other entities. From this point of view, the diplomatic actor is a broad concept that can be related to a variety of entities such as states, organizations, groups, individuals and their aggregations. Thus, a company, bank, charity organization, amateur or professional dance group, salesperson or school teacher can perform as a diplomatic actor 2 Ibid. 3 Sharp, “For Diplomacy,” p. 51. 4 Rebecca Adler-​Nissen, “Diplomatic Agency,” in Constantinou, Kerr and Sharp, The sage Handbook of Diplomacy, p. 93.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

68 

Chapter 3

if they undertake a goodwill mission and constructively engage with other entities in the pursuit of friendly relations, problem-​solving or making peace. The concept of the diplomatic actor presented in this book is close to Constantinou’s description of the diplomat as someone who can successfully represent or mediate between others, or negotiate for a territory, a group of people or a cause. But in our case, as was discussed above, the actor is a sociopolitical entity capable of carrying out a diplomatic mission through constructive engagement and dialogical interaction with others. By “actor,” I mean the ultimate decision-​maker. The actor is a purposeful entity that determines its activity –​sets goals and decides how to achieve them. In other words, the actor has autonomy in defining its actions and r­ elations with other entities. The terms “agency” and “agent” have a similar meaning with “actor,” and in some cases, these three words can be used interchangeably. However, in this book, by the agency, I mean an organizational structure that represents and assists a diplomatic actor in achieving its objectives, and by agent, I mean an individual who represents and acts on behalf of the actor with or without the support of an organization or agency. An agent can also represent the actor through another agent or agents. So, the agent can relate to the actor directly or indirectly through an agency or another agent(s). For example, intermediaries can represent someone as a part of an organization or independently, that is, outside of any organizational framework. Actors, agencies and agents are all acting bodies, but agencies and agents, unlike actors, are not sovereign decision-​makers (see Figure 3.1). The idea of the diplomatic actor comes from the idea of diplomacy itself as an interactional phenomenon. Actors, actions and interactions in diplomacy are inseparable, and the study of them is interrelated. An actor in diplomacy is the entity that dialogically interacts with other entities by taking on a goodwill mission. To do so, the actor needs to constructively engage with a counterpart. Diplomatic actors can be corporate actors or individual actors, but agents are always individuals (individual-​agents), and agencies are organizations (organization-​agencies). States as corporate actors appear as the main actors in international diplomacy. Among other corporate actors, we can mention

Agent Agency Actor

Agent Agent

­f igure 3.1  Actor, agency and agent.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy

69

Individual agent Organizaonagency Individual agent Corporate actor

Individual agent

Individual agent

Individual agent

­f igure 3.2  A corporate actor and its organization-​agency and individual agents.

international governmental and nongovernmental organizations, transnational companies, religious and youth groups, professional associations, and political parties. Corporate actors cannot act and interact with other entities directly; they can do so only via their organization-​agencies and/​or individual agents who represent them (see Figure 3.2). Thus, Canada or Egypt, as a corporate actor, can interact with the United Nations through its diplomatic missions and diplomats. Individual actors (i.e., human personalities) can act directly by themselves or via a corporate agency or agencies, or an individual agent or agents (see Figure 3.3). For example, a writer and their book can be presented to a publisher by a literary agency or agent, and a sports agency or agent can represent a footballer and negotiate on their behalf. However, a writer or footballer can also interact with the publisher or football club directly. But if individual actors can represent themselves and act on their own behalf, organization-​agencies, like corporate actors, can only act through individual agents. In other words, in diplomacy, the ultimate field players are always individuals –​individual actors or individual agents. Regardless of the issue on which corporate or individual actors interact with other entities, they can use diplomacy in their relations. And those who represent corporate or individual actors in some areas or issues can also use diplomacy while doing their assignments. Thus, a law firm as an organization-​ agency representing a nongovernmental organization or a private individual may use diplomacy in their actions and interactions with other stakeholders in order to conduct the legal affairs of their clients. States as corporate actors

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

70 

Chapter 3 Individual actor A

Individual actor B

Organizaonagency

Individual agent

Individual agent

Individual actor C

­f igure 3.3  An individual actor acting (A) through a corporate agency, (B) through an individual agent, and (C) directly.

can use such an organization-​agency as the foreign ministry and individual professional diplomats in their relations with other states and organizations. However, to be a diplomatic actor, corporate or individual entities and their agents do not have to be professional diplomats or to seek the services of professional diplomatic agencies and agents. They can take advantage of transprofessional or everyday diplomacy, which will be discussed in Chapter 8. Anybody can combine professional activity with transprofessional diplomacy. In adopting such a broad understanding of diplomacy, this book refers more to social diplomacy, as it can express not only the possibility of applying diplomacy in everyday affairs but also the transprofessional aspects of diplomacy. A corporate actor can act through its voluntary or contractual agents, or through those who may be forced to perform a certain act due to pressure or threats or who do not suspect that they are acting on someone else’s will. In the latter case, I’m talking about manipulation. A person as an individual actor can act not only via others but by itself. Traditional, state-​based diplomacy uses the services of both professional diplomats and other public servants as well as those who do not officially work for the state but provide –​consciously or unwittingly –​certain services to it. When an official representative of a state votes in the United Nations, it indicates that the action is that of the state, not of the individual who voted. In other words, the actor, in this case, is the state, not the individual. When two football clubs negotiate the transfer of a player from one to another, it is usually

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

71

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy

State actor

State actor

Organizaonagency

Organizaonagency

Individual agent

Individual agent

­f igure 3.4  State actors, organization-​agencies and individual agents in interstate diplomacy.

done through individual agents, but the contract and transaction are made on behalf of the clubs –​the actors in the deal. Private individuals appear as agents or actors depending on whether they act on behalf of another individual or of their own accord. The main difference between an actor and an agent lies in who sets the objective and makes the decision. Even when an ambassador of a state makes a certain decision, it is, by and large, the decision of the state because the ambassador represents the state as its diplomatic agent. In international diplomacy, states emerge as the most important corporate actors and they usually have diplomatic agencies such as foreign ministries, embassies and consulates, and individual agents or diplomats.5 Official and state-​centered diplomacy uses an organic chain of acting bodies, such as state actor–​organization-​agency–​individual agent. In this kind of corporate-​actor diplomacy, individual diplomats and diplomatic agencies act and interact with their counterparts on behalf of their states, the diplomatic actors (see Figure 3.4). In diplomacy among corporate actors, such as organizations or groups, a three-​ level acting-​ body scheme can be boiled down to a two-​ level model: organizations or groups are the diplomatic actors, and the individuals who represent them are their agents. Let’s take the example of Greenpeace, the International Committee of the Red Cross or some other international nongovernmental organization. They are often involved in diplomacy by interacting with other organizations as well as states and individuals, and therefore they

5 Alisher Faizullaev, “Diplomatic Interactions and Negotiations,” Negotiation Journal 30, no. 3 (2014): 275–​299.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

72 

Chapter 3 State Actor

Organizaon Actor

OrganizaonAgency

Individual Agent

Individual Agent

­f igure 3.5  Interaction between a state and an organization as corporate diplomatic actors.

function as diplomatic actors. As in the case of states, organizations do not interact with other entities directly: they do so through their individual agents. Schematically, the interaction between a state actor and an organization actor is shown in Figure 3.5. An organization can identify one of its departments as the unit responsible for its external relations, but such a structure cannot be considered an agency, because it is just a part of the organization. To act as an agency, a structure needs to be an autonomous entity. The United Nations, as a large international organization, has specialized agencies such as United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (unesco), International Labour Organization (ilo), and others. These self-​governing organizations are actors in themselves and not agencies that represent an actor (the UN). However, on some specific issues, they may speak on behalf of the UN and act as its agencies. When an organization or group functioning as a diplomatic corporate actor gets some other organization or organizations to act as its agency, we again see a three-​level acting-​body model (see Figure 3.6). In both cases –​the three-​level or two-​level interaction models –​the individual acts as an agent representing an actor. Individuals can represent other individuals too, but in this case, they still function as agents, not actors. Figure 3.7 shows the interaction between two individual actors represented by their individual agents. Individuals can be diplomatic actors only when they represent themselves and take full responsibility for their behavior. A person as a diplomatic actor can interact with other intentional entities –​individual or corporate actors –​ persons, organizations, groups, states and their aggregations. Figures 3.8–​3.10 show three models of interaction between an individual actor and other entities.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

73

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy Organizaon actor

Organizaon actor

Organizaonagency

Organizaonagency

Individual agent

Individual agent

­f igure 3.6  Interaction between two organizations through their agencies and agents.

Individual actor

Individual agent

Individual agent

Individual actor

­f igure 3.7  Interaction between two individual actors through their individual agents.

Individual actor

Individual agent

Organizaonagency

State actor

­f igure 3.8  Interaction between an individual actor and a state actor.

Individual actor

Individual agent

Organizaon actor

­f igure 3.9  Interaction between an individual actor and an organizational actor.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

74 

Chapter 3

Individual actor

Individual actor

­f igure 3.10 Interaction between two individual actors.

In collectivistic and individualistic cultures, there may be some differences in understanding the individual entity’s sense of actorness. In collectivistic cultures, individuals are more likely to identify themselves with the groups to which they belong. Hence, the sense of individual Self can be significantly affected by the sense of collective Self. In other words, an individual as a subject of diplomatic activity may feel not only the sense of actorship but also the sense of being an agent of a certain community. In individualistic cultures, individuals tend to feel more like independent actors in their relations with others. However, their belonging to certain groups or communities, presented in a less explicit form, may also play a role in their diplomatic behavior. In some situations, we can see open and hidden interactions of a large number of entities. Of course, not all interactions between sociopolitical entities can be considered diplomatic. But even legal, business, bureaucratic and other issues allow the use of diplomatic methods as a means of interaction. In other words, organizations, companies, groups and individuals can emerge as diplomatic actors in their daily interactions with other sociopolitical entities when they use the spirit, norms and methods of diplomacy in a goodwill mission of managing conflicts, problems and relationships. When it comes to discussing important issues for society with the participation of all interested parties, diplomacy can win out as a method of civilized interaction and joint decision-​making.6 6 Sasson Sofer provided a valuable account of diplomacy’s civilizational standing and diplomats’ role as the courtiers of civilization; Sasson Sofer, The Courtiers of Civilization: A Study of Diplomacy (New York: suny Press, 2013). He portrayed good diplomats as moral agents of international society, guardians of international virtues and crusaders for truth who have an ethically redeeming mission –​a mission of being messengers of trust and accommodation. “Observing objectively and reporting accurately are among the fundamental virtues of diplomacy. Thus, virtuous diplomatists embody an inherent connection between their ethics and their professional competence;” ibid., p. xii. Diplomacy, noted Sofer, is based on the humanistic tradition, common sense and reciprocity. It offers the most reasonable and civilized

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

75

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy

A government

A court

A media group

A religious organizaon A lobbyist group

A service company

A university An internaonal organizaon

An individual A family A charity organizaon An art gallery

­f igure 3.11 Interaction of various sociopolitical entities.

Figure 3.11 illustrates the hypothetical interactional model of different sociopolitical entities that can use diplomacy. Unassigned figures mean hidden actors that influence the designated actors in ways that are invisible to others. 2

The Ambassador as a High-​Level Diplomatic Agent

Among all the varieties of diplomatic individuals, the ambassador embodies the very essence of the idea of a diplomat. Ambassadorship communicates a

way of conducting relations between separate political entities and “constitutes intellectual property, granted for the sake of the public good;” ibid., p. 67. However, Sofer also pointed to the difficult relations between diplomats and their political superiors. “Being close to power has proved to be a double-​edged sword. The relationship between diplomatic envoys and sovereigns poses a challenge to moral philosophy that needs to be addressed;” ibid., p. xii. According to Sofer, the diplomat’s vocation as a moral agent was lost not only because of the anarchic nature of international relations, but also because of “political betrayal and public misunderstanding;” ibid., p. viii. Diplomats’ political weakness and obedience, as well as “the fundamental misunderstanding of the essence of diplomacy, impede and hamper their ability to be [an] efficient moral agent of international society;” ibid., p. ix. In my opinion, the moral problem of international diplomacy lies in the inherent possibility of a discrepancy between the political and moral imperatives of diplomacy as it is part of foreign policy and international politics (this will be discussed later in the book).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

76 

Chapter 3

high level of representation and potential influence. Historically, the ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary had the power to sign agreements and make other important political decisions on behalf of the state or head of state. The high social status of an ambassador is expressed, in particular, in the traditional address of “Your Excellency.” The most relevant synonyms for “ambassador” are diplomat, envoy, chargé d’affaires,7 emissary, consul, minister, plenipotentiary, attaché, nuncio, commissioner, high commissioner, commissary, peacemaker, messenger, herald, legate, representative, delegate, agent, medium and intermediary. A common factor in all these terms is that they all express the idea of representation. In other words, each of these terms indicates an individual who represents an entity or a cause and intermediates between certain parties. Messengers or heralds of a powerful entity, even when assigned just to deliver a message, have an opportunity to influence a high-​level counterpart because they represent an influential entity. In the context of diplomacy, the person who represents someone or something is a diplomatic agent. An agent has a Self of its own, but represents the actor’s Self in relation to the Other. In modern diplomacy, different kinds of representation are practiced: individual, organizational, state and international. The ambassador embodies individual representation, and the embassy, mission, consulate, delegation, ­commission, deputation and ministry exemplify organizational representation. In the absence of diplomatic relations between two countries, a third country, through its diplomatic mission, may represent one of them in the capital of the other. For example, the United States and Iran have no diplomatic relations, and the Embassy of Switzerland in Tehran represents the United States’ interests in Iran by acting as the Protecting Power of the US in Iran. This is also called the Foreign Interest Section of the Embassy. Part of the Embassy of Pakistan in Washington, dc serves as the Interests Section of Iran in the United States. As an international representation, we can take the examples of the United Nations, the European Union (EU) or other international bodies that represent their member states within a given mandate and authority. This is in a sense related to organizational representation, but by organizational representation in the context of this book, I mean the representation of a state or international body in the form of an organization-​agency. Usually, the organizational representation is headed by an individual representative, the head of this organization. For example, the ambassador acts as the head of an embassy and the 7 Chargé d’affaires is the person in charge of the embassy while the ambassador is absent.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy

77

permanent representative serves as the head of the diplomatic mission to the United Nations. There are also the so-​called de facto embassies –​organizations that do not have the status of embassies, but to a certain extent, unofficially perform the functions of an embassy in the absence of official diplomatic relations. Sometimes their activities cause disagreement between countries. “Washington opens de facto embassy in Taiwan, angering China,” a cnn article announced, reporting on the establishment of the American Institute in Taiwan in 2018.8 In the past, an embassy abroad might have been seen as an isolated part of a foreign country in alien territory, but in the modern world, it needs to be one of many effective structural and functional elements that enable a variety of interactions among multiple entities, including state and non-​state actors, organizations, companies, and individuals. The ability of diplomats and diplomatic missions abroad to interact effectively with various individuals, organizations and groups in a host country influences the overall efficiency of ­diplomatic players, particularly their capacity to facilitate different projects as well as gather information, conduct analyses and create political forecasts.9 Of the various individuals who perform diplomatic activities, the ambassador represents the idea of a diplomat most fully. Some professional diplomats who work at the foreign ministry or an embassy can be involved in narrowly focused work, such as analysis, protocol, public relations or legal issues. The ambassador, however, is involved in all aspects of diplomacy –​representative, analytical, political, economic, legal, public, cultural, etc. All other diplomats working in a mission support the ambassador, who officially represents their country, government and head of state. Traditional diplomacy operates with the use of official and explicit representation that has a very high level of symbolism. Ambassadors represent their states in strict accordance with established rules and procedures. Parliamentarians also explicitly represent their constituents, but they are not so symbolically tied to those they represent as ambassadors are to their states. In such a tight representational connection in diplomacy, ambassadors’ personal Self needs to cope with the Self of the state they officially represent and symbolize. Even private words or deeds of ambassadors can be associated with the intentions or affairs of the state they embody. In conventional 8 Steven Jiang, “Washington Opens De Facto Embassy in Taiwan, Angering China,” cnn, June 12, 2018, accessed May 1, 2021, https://​edit​ion.cnn.com/​2018/​06/​12/​asia/​us-​tai​wan-​de-​facto -​emba​ssy-​china-​intl/​index.html. 9 Jérémie Cornut, “To Be a Diplomat Abroad: Diplomatic Practice at Embassies,” Cooperation and Conflict 50, no. 3 (2015): 385–​401.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

78 

Chapter 3

Resident coordinator

Ambassadorat-large

Head of mission

Ambassador

Permanent representave

High commissioner

Apostolic nuncios

Ambassadorial posion

Special representave or envoy

­f igure 3.12 Positions equivalent to ambassadors in modern diplomacy.

diplomacy, individuals who become ambassadors push their Self to the background, representing and submitting to the Self of their state. Sometimes, the Self of the ambassador and the Self of the state can coexist, co-​function and complement each other perfectly, but in diplomacy, consonance is not always achieved between the individual and state selves as diplomatic agents may have their own views on the issues, which may differ from the state’s position.10 Representation provides diplomatic agents opportunities to exert influence, to make an impact, both on behalf of the entity being represented and themselves. Different types of individual representatives may have different levels of representational and influential power. The ambassador and individuals of equivalent positions (apostolic nuncios, high commissioners, permanent representatives of the country in international organization, heads of diplomatic missions of the state to an international body, resident coordinators of the United Nations in a country, ambassador-​at-​large and some special representatives) are the highest-​ranked and officially authorized persons in traditional diplomacy (see Figure 3.12).

10

Faizullaev, “Diplomacy and Self.”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy

79

2.1 Envoys Of all the terms similar to “ambassador,” “envoy” is the closest. An envoy can represent someone, convey a message and negotiate on their behalf. The envoy may have the same function as the ambassador but, in general, is a less institutionalized phenomenon. In traditional diplomacy, we usually don’t use the term “unofficial ambassador” because an ambassador has official status. But we do use “official envoy” and “unofficial envoy” as the envoys are widely used in both ways. The ambassador is always an envoy (a high-​level envoy), but the envoy is not always an ambassador. Traditionally the ambassador is appointed by the head of the sending state and accredited to the head of the receiving state, but envoys can be sent to someone or somewhere by various polities and territorial units. Often former heads of state, retired foreign ministers and ambassadors, as well as other prominent political and public figures serve as official or unofficial envoys of acting heads of state, governments and international organizations. Envoys can be appointed to handle a specific problem, task or area. Thus, the United Nations Secretary-​General has various special and personal envoys and representatives, such as the Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region of Africa, the Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, the Special Envoy for Syria, the Special Envoy for Yemen, the Personal Envoy for Mozambique, as well as the Special Envoys for hiv/​a ids and the Envoy on Youth.11 United Nations agencies also have their own special envoys and goodwill ambassadors. Many heads of state also appoint special envoys. Former US Secretary of State John Kerry was appointed by President-​elect Joe Biden as the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate.12 Some presidential envoys may report not to the president but to a cabinet member. For example, a Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs reports to the US Secretary of State.13 The actual status of the envoy often depends not only on the official status of the position 11

12 13

United Nations Secretary-​General, Global Leadership Team, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.un.org/​sg/​en/​glo​bal-​lea​ders​hip/​home; UN Special Envoys for hiv/​a ids, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.una​ids.org/​en/​V2-​C-​StandardList​s_​UN​Spec​ialE​nvoy​ sfor​HIVA​IDS; United Nations, Office of the Secretary-​General’s Envoy on Youth, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.un.org/​you​then​voy. Lisa Friedman, “With John Kerry Pick, Biden Selects a ‘Climate Envoy’ With Stature,” The New York Times, November 23, 2020, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.nyti​mes.com/​ 2020/​11/​23/​clim​ate/​john-​kerry-​clim​ate-​cha​nge.html. US Department of State, Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.state.gov/​bure​aus-​offi​ces/​secret​ary-​of-​state/​spec​ial -​presi​dent​ial-​envoy-​for-​host​age-​affa​irs.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

80 

Chapter 3

but also on the problem with which the position is associated, as well as the personality, reputation, connections and informal status of the envoy. In some countries, senior diplomats may have the rank of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, but this is lower than ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary. Traditional diplomacy can use individual r­ epresentatives and representative offices of various types and levels. The official titles of non-​residential diplomatic envoys are also very diverse: ambassador-​at-​large, special ambassador, roving ambassador, honorary ambassador, special envoy, special presidential envoy, special representative, senior representative, representative, special negotiator and so on. There are many reasons for this variety of designations for high-​level diplomatic representatives, including the specifics of tasks assigned to them, the varying traditions of both diplomacy and diplomatic practices of different countries, terminological nuances related to appointment procedures, and bureaucratic subordination. Ambassadors-​at-​ large and other special ambassadors and envoys are usually officials assigned to perform a specific task or coordinate efforts related to particular areas. For example, beginning from Sweden in the 1980s, nine European countries (Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) now have human rights ambassadors.14 This is an official diplomatic position at the level of ambassador-​at-​large.15 Figure 3.13 shows the main differences between envoys and ambassadors in the traditional sense. 2.2 The Ambassador’s Credentials In traditional diplomacy, the ambassador’s representation function starts from presenting credentials. However, this public action is preceded by careful work to request and receive an agrément appointing the ambassador, and discussions of the details of the credential ceremony –​a formal and symbolic act of assuming the post of ambassador. The ambassador is considered officially accredited after presenting their credentials. 14

15

“Introducing the European Human Rights Ambassadors: A Joint Blog,” blog post, Government of the Netherlands, November 13, 2020, accessed May 4, 2021, https://​www .gov​ernm​ent.nl/​lat​est/​news/​2020/​11/​13/​intr​oduc​ing-​the-​europ​ean-​human-​rig​hts-​amba​ ssad​ors. For a list of such ambassadors from the Netherlands, see https://​www.gov​ernm​ent.nl/​ min​istr​ies/​minis​try-​of-​fore​ign-​affa​irs/​org​anis​atio​nal-​struct​ure/​spec​ial-​appoi​ntme​nts (accessed April 17, 2021). For US ambassadors-​at-​large, see https://​hist​ory.state.gov/​depart​ ment​hist​ory/​peo​ple/​princi​palo​ffic​ers/​amb​assa​dor-​at-​large (accessed April 17, 2021). For other similar US diplomatic assignments, see https://​fas.org/​sgp/​crs/​row/​R44​946.pdf (accessed April 17, 2021).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy Ambassador

Envoy

Official representave of an official enty

Official or unofficial representave of an official or unofficial enty

81

­f igure 3.13 The difference between ambassadors and envoys in traditional diplomacy.

Usually, some time passes between an ambassador’s arrival in a host country and the presentation of their credentials. During this time, in some countries, the newly appointed ambassador is not considered a fully accredited diplomatic agent, so for the time being, they are given the title of ambassador-​ designee. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, the ambassador is considered an accredited official representative of their country after presenting a copy of their credentials to the Queen’s Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps. In any case, the ceremony of presenting credentials plays an important role in the full institutionalization of the ambassador in a host country. In traditional diplomacy, formal diplomatic representation starts from the presentation of credentials, and formal credentials are one of the most important sources of an ambassador’s credibility and influence. Symbolism and ceremony play a significant role in traditional diplomacy,16 and they accompany the ambassador’s activities from the very beginning of their activities in the host country. In the presentation of credentials, especially in monarchic states with traditional and rich diplomatic ceremonies, every detail has symbolic significance. The length of the ceremony, the tone of the conversation, any important signals regarding bilateral relations between the two countries –​these and similar points are meaningful in a diplomatic context and interpreted by diplomats. From the perspective of symbolism, there is one particularly significant element of the presentation of credentials: the initial moments of the appearance of the ambassador. Garrett Mattingly provided a fascinating analysis of the solemn entry of the ambassador as a very important element of diplomatic representation in Renaissance diplomacy.17 In the past, the theatrical effects in the arrival and departure of the ambassador signified the power of the sending state and the significance of the receiving 16

Alisher Faizullaev, “Diplomacy and Symbolism,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 8, no. 2 (2013): 91–​114. 17 Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, pp. 32–​34.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

82 

Chapter 3

state. Although this is not the case anymore, the psychology of the first and last appearance still plays some role in modern diplomacy.18 Diplomatic representation, as well as ceremonial presentation of credentials, shows the power of symbolism in diplomacy, and symbolic actions and interactions help diplomatic actors and agents to carry out their meaningful and nuanced missions. Ambassadors themselves are symbolic figures. Anything that an ambassador does and says can be linked to their country and can be interpreted in a diplomatic context. Thus, an ambassador’s car, residence, dress, social habits, manners, language and nonverbal behavior are all often interpreted symbolically by observers. “The public face and image are among the tools the ambassador uses to reach his objectives.”19 It is hard to imagine a German ambassador with a non-​German official car. The same applies to a French ambassador or any other ambassador whose country produces premium cars. But ambassadors from countries that do not produce cars also face the dilemma of symbolism in choosing an official car because the car, like any other ambassadorial attribute, is part of the representational symbolism and signaling, as well as a sign of the representatives’ social status. However, effective symbolism should be meaningful and adequate, and any noticeable manipulations of symbolism can harm the reputation of an ambassador and their country. For example, if the ambassador from a poor country uses a very expensive car or lives in a large and luxurious residence, it may have a negative impact on their diplomatic credibility. 3

The Diplomat: An Interactional Perspective

“To paraphrase Wendt, we suggest that diplomacy is what diplomats make of it,” remarked Dan Hart and Asaf Siniver.20 Indeed, I agree with this statement, but only where diplomats function as actors, not as agents. Where diplomats are merely agents of their states, diplomacy is what states make of it. This book holds that an individual can be a diplomatic actor, that is, the subject

18

19 20

Compared to monarchies, republics have fewer theatrical ceremonies in the presentation of credentials. But usually, the simplest ceremonies take place in international organizations, when the newly appointed representative of a country presents credentials to the head of the international organization. Rana, Kishan S. The 21st Century Ambassador: Plenipotentiary to Chief Executive (Malta and Geneva: DiploFoundation, 2004), p. 39. Dan Hart and Asaf Siniver, “The Meaning of Diplomacy,” International Negotiation 26, no. 2 (2021): 159–​183, p. 7.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy

83

of diplomatic behavior, as well as a diplomatic agent, that is, the representative of a corporate or individual diplomatic actor. By being involved in social and political relations, an individual with their intentionality, decision-​making capacity, and ability to communicate and interact emerges as a sociopolitical entity. As such, a person can have diplomatic interactions with other sociopolitical entities –​individuals, groups, organizations, companies, states and their conglomerates. Obviously, an individual doesn’t set up formal diplomatic relations with a state, organization or group, and a private person cannot have official diplomatic status in their and social life. Nevertheless, a human being can use diplomacy in relations with other entities and thus function as a diplomatic actor. That would be the individual-​actor diplomacy, which is informal and noninstitutionalized. A person can emerge as a diplomatic actor only when they interact with others as an independent entity representing themself. In other cases –​when a person acts on behalf of a corporate or individual actor(s) –​they function as an agent but not a diplomatic actor. The actor is an independent decision-​maker, and the agent works for the actor and may help it in making a decision and in the implementation of the decision. An individual agent can have a superior, or principal, or even multiple principals.21 An individual who acts as a diplomatic actor or agent can be called a diplomatic person or diplomat. As with the word “diplomacy,” many dictionaries provide two meanings for the word “diplomat.” The first is an official representative of a state, and the second is a person who is skillful and tactful in dealing with others. Although people talk in everyday life of a person with good communication skills and tact as “a diplomat,” they more often describe such an individual as “diplomatic.” Usually, in daily life, being a diplomatic person means using tact, politeness, social graces and sensitivity in dealing with others. However, in my opinion, being diplomatic in social life may not be quite the same as being a diplomat, or a transprofessional, everyday or social diplomat. When people refer to someone as a diplomatic individual, they mostly mean to indicate the person’s tactfulness, which primarily refers to the normative side of diplomacy –​its customs and code of conduct. However, tactful behavior alone is not diplomacy: an individual can manipulate a counterpart with external civility but without having noble aspirations. When a person is tactful but has

21

Eileen Babbitt, “Challenges for International Diplomatic Agents,” in Negotiating on Behalf Others: Advice to Lawyers, Business Executives, Sports Agents, Diplomats, Politicians, and Everybody Else, eds. Robert H. Mnookin, Lawrence E. Susskind and Pacey C. Foster (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999), pp. 135–​150.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

84 

Chapter 3

no goodwill, it could indicate that they are using manipulation, not genuine diplomacy. Being diplomatic means being tactful, showing respect to interlocutors, and the skillful use of verbal and nonverbal communication in social settings. Being a diplomat or using diplomacy means undertaking a diplomatic mission for some good cause or in the search for a noble goal. So, being diplomatic may not be enough to make one a diplomat. In this book, the terms “diplomatic person,” “diplomatic individual” and “diplomat” are used as synonyms, although it is necessary to understand that sometimes the word “diplomatic” can carry a somewhat distinctive meaning. Genuine diplomacy can take place only with goodwill and constructive engagement. For being a diplomat and practicing diplomacy in social life, an individual must undertake a goodwill mission and engage with counterparts constructively. Diplomacy is not just politeness, although diplomatic behavior is characterized by social graces. Diplomacy is also not merely good communication, although diplomats must be good communicators. When a person uses diplomacy in their relations with other sociopolitical entities, they need to be involved in full-​fledged diplomacy: to set goals and define directions, manage engagement and interaction with others, and assess the results of their achievements. That may happen, for example, in relations between spouses, a writer and their publishing house, or a citizen and a state. A person as a diplomat, whether representing themselves or someone else, appears as a diplomatic field player or performer. Even in state-​to-​state diplomacy, with its statehood ideas and multifaceted interests, legal norms and obligations, governments and populations, large institutional structures, and bureaucratic rules, the quality and skills of individual diplomats play one of the most important roles in conducting diplomacy. In international diplomacy, state actors, organization-​agencies and individual agents can strengthen or weaken one another.22 Individuals play an equally important role in diplomacy between social groups and organizations. Diplomats are interactionalists, and the main characteristic of diplomatic interaction is its dialogical nature. Feelings of enmity, hatred, violence, aggression, abuse, hostility, negativity, toxicity, rudeness, nastiness and brutality are among the characteristics of actors who take the path of destructive interaction. This path is based on a monological stance that causes the actor to be inclined to judgmentalism, partisanship and bias. Such an entity may feel superior or inferior and engage in offensive or defensive actions, such as by 22

Faizullaev, “Diplomatic Interactions and Negotiations.”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy

85

lecturing or moralizing, or being lectured or moralized to. A sense of respect, dignity, equality and partnership helps dialogical interaction and the exertion of influence, and that, in its turn, helps actors be creative, innovative and just. In diplomacy, dialogicality supports and is supported by goodwill and constructiveness. Dialogicality in diplomacy is also organically combined with the need to behave with dignity, be polite and show respect to the counterpart. Dialogicality and diplomatic norms of behavior or the diplomatic code of conduct permeate each other and mutually support one another. Dialogical interaction indicates bilateralism, multilateralism or pluralism, and monological interaction points to one-​sidedness, unilateralism or egocentrism. Constructive engagement and dialogical interaction aim at creating, establishing or arranging positive outcomes or a common good, while destructive engagement pursues terminating, damaging or hurting a person or a good cause. Being respectful, equal and trustful helps dialogical interaction, and being creative, innovative and just helps constructive engagement. But the actor’s capacity for constructive engagement and dialogical interaction suffers when it makes the other party feel remorse and guilt. This capacity is also diminished when the actor itself feels shame and guilt; experiences superiority or insignificance; looks down on or up to a counterpart; demonstrates top-​down or bottom-​up behavior; believes it is omnipotent, the only one that is right, exclusive, or infallible; or considers itself worthless, helpless, weak and insufficient; acts offensively or defensively; or provokes others or reacts to provocations. The lack of goodwill, constructiveness, and dialog is manifested, in particular, when an actor attacks, assaults, outrages, offends, snubs, disrespects, humiliates, shames, embarrasses, blames, insults, bullies, frustrates, irritates, rebukes, mocks, rages at, oppresses, hurts, angers, annoys, resents or dislikes others. 4

Diplomacy and a Global Interaction Complex

The globalizing world has increasingly blurred the boundaries between international and national polities and politics, foreign and domestic policies, and external and internal affairs. The world’s interconnectedness increases the scope and complexity of international and intranational, regional, and local interactions, and growing interactions among different state and non-​state entities in global political, economic and other frames lead to the further growth of interconnections in the world. Local, regional, international and global actors and interaction structures are becoming more interdependent.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

86 

Chapter 3

Appendix 2 discusses in more detail international integration structures and strategies in traditional diplomacy. Interaction structures are constructions comprising elements that allow entities like state or non-​state actors to connect and act upon each other. They can include physical, social, cultural, political, economic, historical, ideological, informational, digital, narrative and other factors or components, including diplomatic arrangements such as visits, conferences, consultations, discussions, negotiations and agreements. Thus, physical and informational infrastructures of international connections, including roads, railroads, air traffic, telephones, the Internet, postal services, hotels and so on, as well as universal values, legal agreements and regulations, allow organizations and individuals to interact with remote entities. Diplomatic relations and practices like establishing missions abroad or forming a coalition are also possible in a certain interactional environment with its political, legal, organizational and other structural elements. Diplomacy can not only exploit existing structures like international law and established institutions, but also create new structural elements and ties that enable international actors to interact and form relationships. Global interaction setting includes interactions between or among nations and other sociopolitical entities acting in the international and domestic arena. Domestic interactions between different entities could have a limited or large international impact, depending on the international political, economic or cultural “weight” of the country. Thus, presidential campaigns in the United States, interactions in the US Congress or election of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party are important to the whole world because of their global impact. In general, the trend is that international, transnational and domestic interactions become more intertwined. As a result, the system of global interactions, or global interaction complex, is becoming increasingly complicated, interconnected and interdependent. The increasing complexity of the world leads to complicated diplomacy that is characterized by hyperconnectivity, adaptivity and diversity.23 Diplomacy takes place in interaction, and interactions affect relationships. By interacting with others, diplomatic actors contribute to the formation, management, regulation and development of interactional and relational structures. Both “interaction” and “relation” are social categories, although they might have physical, legal, moral and other aspects. The word “interaction”

23

Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman, “Introduction,” in Kerr and Wiseman, Diplomacy in a Globalized World, p. 1.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy

87

indicates a process of social exchange between the involved parties, while the term “relation” refers to the connectedness of the entities. People may describe interaction as weak or strong, superficial or intensive, limited or extensive, single or multiple, soft or hard, and so on, while they usually attract more emotionally distinctive social metaphors for labeling relational patterns: friendly or hostile, cooperative or competitive, sincere or insincere, and so on. Symbolic interaction plays an important role in diplomacy,24 and symbolic power struggles may be at the center of the whole system of diplomatic interactions between states, particularly in a multilateral setting.25 Status and power are among the fundamental social determinants and objectives of international diplomatic intercourse, and power not only affects actors’ capability to act and interact but “also emerges from the interaction per se.”26 Noting that the United States, even with its excessive military and economic power, “faces real political and strategic limitations in world politics,” Daniel Nexon remarks that “America’s position stems not only from raw military and economic might, but an extensive infrastructure of alliances, partnerships, and institutional prerogatives.”27 Any infrastructure of alliances, partnerships and institutions presents a relational structure that can be created and maintained through deliberate interactions of the parties united around certain values, objectives and ideas. However, the real challenge for diplomatic actors is not interaction with friendly parties (although that also requires strategy and effort) but engagement with adversaries. Interaction among nations, including engagement between developed and developing countries, and a variety of social groups and individuals, is an important source of development and progress. Diplomacy has an essential role to play in organizing, maintaining, enhancing or restricting, and civilizing the whole system of international and intranational interactions. International diplomacy, including public diplomacy, can serve as one of the instruments to support the existing structures of the global interaction complex, create new ones, or destroy the old ones. However, political diplomacy, 24 25

Faizullaev, “Diplomacy and Symbolism.” Vincent Pouliot, International Security in Practice: The Politics of nato-​Russia Diplomacy (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 26 Rebecca Adler-​ Nissen and Vincent Pouliot, “Power in Practice: Negotiating the International Intervention in Libya,” European Journal of International Relations 20, no. 4 (2014): 889–​911. 27 Daniel Nexon, “The ‘Failure’ of the ‘Reset:’ Obama’s Great Mistake? Or Putin’s?” The Washington Post, March 5, 2014, accessed April 15, 2021, http://​www.was​hing​tonp​ost.com/​ blogs/​mon​key-​cage/​wp/​2014/​03/​04/​the-​fail​ure- ​of-​the-​reset-​oba​mas-​great-​mist​ake-​or -​puti​nss.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

88 

Chapter 3

with its orientation to the actor’s self-​interests, can also become a tool of cheating rather than goodwill and cooperation. In such cases, it can exercise, for instance, fake or manipulative actions like making dishonest statements or misleading symbolic gestures, and that could contribute to creating fake interactional structures. Diplomacy is not always able to create new relational arrangements for solving problems or affect the old ones. However, in most cases, the weakness of traditional diplomacy is not related to its abilities but to the diplomatic actors’ failure or unwillingness to use its potential, including its power of interaction, through the constructive engagement strategy. The idea of diplomacy has a close connection with a sense of balance. If actors are not satisfied with the state of their relations or have different opinions on problems of mutual concern, they are unlikely to have a sense of balance in their relationships. Unresolved problems, different approaches to important issues and dissimilar attitudes to each other create unbalanced relations between actors. Diplomats use the term “normalization of relations,” which essentially means generating a sense of balance. One of the major objectives of diplomacy is balancing the Self with the Other in their relations. That can be expressed in the balance of interest of the parties, the achievement of an accord between them, the settlement of a common problem, or a congruence of their actions and interactions. The balance is difficult to measure, but an actor’s sense of Self and of Other helps to develop a sense of balance in relations. A sense of balance in diplomacy does not mean a balance of power –​a beloved subject of the field of geopolitics. Entities can achieve a balance in their relations even with a power imbalance. Thus, The United States may have excellent and mutually satisfactory relations with tiny Luxembourg without a balance of power between them. A parent and small child, or a manager and subordinate can have a good and balanced relationship regardless of the power distribution between them. Diplomacy of balance means reaching a steadiness or sustainability in the relationship that satisfies all the involved parties. All the indicated aims of diplomacy in one or another way are directed at ensuring such a balance in connection with parties’ interests, rights, relations and values. Figure 3.14 demonstrates a balanced relationship between two entities who have their own interests, values, rights and relationships with others. Balance, of course, is not a static condition, and even actors who have a sense of balance in their relations may need to use diplomacy to maintain it. The most stable balance is a dynamic balance. Actors can see conditions for balanced relationships between them differently by putting forward different issues as priorities. From the US perspective, the balance of trade, or rather its absence, has become a stumbling block in its relations with China. China’s

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy

A

B

(Self)

(Other)

Relaonsips

Relaonships

Rights

Rights

Values

Values

Interests

Interests

89

­f igure 3.14 A balanced relationship between A and B.

emphasis when it comes to maintaining normal relations with the United States is different. An important condition for balance for China is mutual respect and non-​interference in each other’s internal affairs. Sometimes the actors in a relationship, or one of them, may prefer an imbalance in relations, and that indicates an undiplomatic approach. The parties may have issues that can play a critical role in achieving balance or sustainability in their affairs. For example, the Kuril Islands dispute has played a central role in the normalization of the relationship between Japan and Russia ever since World War ii. Without resolving it, the two countries are unlikely to be able to normalize their relationship or have a balanced relationship. Often, several such issues can play a crucial role in constructing balanced relationships between actors. In Figure 3.15, issues 2 and 3 throw the relationship between A and B off balance. Of all the aims of diplomacy, the most controversial is the protection of interests. Diplomatic actors widely recognize protecting their interests as one of the most important objectives of their activities. However, states or other diplomatic actors can understand and interpret their and others’ interests differently, which can instigate difficulties in conducting diplomacy. As already noted, diplomatic actors’ behavior can be driven by their interests, values, legal rights and relationships –​in other words, diplomatic interaction can be grounded in interest-​based, value-​based, rights-​based or relationship-​based imperatives, or a combination of them. However, in a wider sense, an actor can see its values, relationships and legal rights as parts of its interest. In this

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

90 

Chapter 3

­f igure 3.15 Imbalanced relationship between A and B.

respect, the Self, in its diplomatic intercourse with the Other, can aim to protect not only its interests in a narrow sense but also its vital values, legal rights and relations as an aim of its diplomatic intercourse with Other. The possibility of a broad interpretation of one’s own and others’ interests can lead to a conflict between entities. During the Napoleonic wars (1803–​ 1815), France and Great Britain had very different, clashing views of their own national interests. The so-​called need for living space (Lebensraum) became an official ideological postulate in outlining a national interest for Adolf Hitler’s Germany and was used to carry out military aggression and territorial conquests. Nazi Germany’s diplomacy supported and served this aggressive foreign policy in every possible way. Protecting interests –​although understood and interpreted differently by different parties –​can, in fact, cause conflict and wars. However, diplomacy’s goodwill, social graces, dialogical interaction and constructive engagement create opportunities for peaceful interaction and problem-​solving. Diplomacy is not just communication, but an interactive phenomenon. It is used to exert a certain influence on others. But such influence has specifics: it is a civilized influence built on dialogical interaction, which, in turn, is based on goodwill and constructive engagement with the counterpart. Relationships between entities also arise as a result of their interaction. Interaction in diplomacy can occur at different levels, and the study of various corporate and individual actors and their organization-​agencies and individual agents provides an opportunity to take a fresh look at the phenomenon of representation in diplomacy. A person –​a field player in diplomacy –​can prove to be a

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Actors, Engagement and Interactions in Diplomacy

91

diplomatic agent or actor. Whereas in traditional, state-​based diplomacy, the ambassador and other diplomats act as diplomatic representatives, in nontraditional, more socially oriented diplomacy, individuals can function not only as agents but also as diplomatic actors, that is, decision-​making entities. Obviously, in state-​based diplomacy, diplomatic organization-​agencies and individual agents follow the policy line of their governments in promoting some and deterring other international ties. However, the more proactive diplomatic actors are, the greater is their capacity to participate in world affairs, solve their own problems, advance their interests and contribute to the well-​ being of the international community. The first and most important condition for such proactivity is goodwill engagement and dialogical interaction with other entities. Modern diplomacy increasingly requires diplomats to be engagement practitioners and agents of change.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

­c hapter 4

Unconventional Ambassadors The rise of new –​nontraditional ambassadors. Types of unconventional ambassadors. Goodwill ambassadors. Appointed, volunteer and independent goodwill ambassadors. Goodwill ambassadors and the phenomenon of representation. Representing other entities, causes, and self-​representation in unconventional diplomacy. Implicit self-​representation. Quasi-​representation. Explicit-​self-​ representation. Self-​constituted representing of oneself, others and a cause. The role of reputation and reputation-​building in unconventional diplomacy. Appointed, volunteer and independent goodwill ambassadors as actors or agents. Everyday ambassadors.

∵ 1

New Types of Ambassadors

The word “ambassador” has almost the same popularity and wide range of applications as the term “diplomacy.” There are even hotels, shops, cinemas, restaurants and a variety of goods that carry the name ambassador. This mostly relates to using attractive ideas and words in popular culture and exploiting them commercially. The title of ambassador has begun to be used not only for high-​ranking official diplomatic representatives of states and international organizations, but also some other individuals, both celebrities and laypeople, so a fairly broad category of nontraditional and unofficial ambassadors has emerged. This process is taking place along with the expansion of the understanding of diplomacy in general and ambassadorship in particular. These new kinds of ambassadors may not have privileges, immunities, formal status, or the organizational and other resources that governmental ambassadors in traditional diplomacy do, but the unique status of ambassador, whether self-​ claimed or given to them by others, helps them to take on certain missions, behave like ambassadors, and make a social and political impact. We can call these new kinds of ambassadors as unconventional ambassadors. In the public discourse, we can find many specific names for these new types of ambassadors. In both conventional and unconventional ambassadorship,

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_006 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Unconventional Ambassadors

93

any ambassador is always an ambassador of something –​this could be a state, organization, group, idea, cause, etc. In other words, all traditional and nontraditional ambassadors intend to represent someone or something. Based on the references to different unconventional ambassadors on Internet, media, social media, and popular and scholarly literature, I distinguish the following ten categories: ambassadors of (1) humanness, human spirit and social services, (2) civilization, arts and performances, (3) conviction, (4) rights and principles, (5) human abilities, (6) social groups, (7) sustainability and wellness, (8) social institutions and social spaces, (9) human activity, industry and commerce, and (10) places and areas. Table 4.1 shows the category of unconventional ambassadors and the titles of the respective ambassadors as found on the Internet, in media, on social media, and in popular and scholarly literature. Some of these ambassadors are purely informal, while some have official status and are accredited by corporate entities. Some can be appointed, and some might be hired or serve as volunteers. The important question is why such unconventional ambassadors have become so widespread in different spheres. Even ordinary people who travel abroad may have the “ambassadorial feeling” –​“the sojourner’s perception of himself as a representative of his home country”1 –​and the same applies to a person who undertakes a meaningful mission in social life. So, representing some important entities or a cause even at an informal level is akin to feeling like an ambassador or performing the ambassadorial function. The idea of ambassadorship also provides some civilized framework for the interaction of Self with Other(s) and ennobles the refined influence on counterparts. Health, school, justice, brand or any other kind of unconventional ambassador is expected to behave with dignity, social graces, respectfully, skillfully and effectively in performing some important function. Communication and engagement with the target audience, relationship-​building, and representing, negotiating and advocating for a noble cause are among the many tasks of unconventional ambassadors. Of course, people can seek, promote, advocate or protect a cause in a variety of ways, for example, as fighters, revolutionaries, activists, opinion-​makers, social media influencers, professionals, people of faith, citizens, representatives of religious groups, members of ngo s and so on. However, assuming the role of an unconventional ambassador means acting in line with the traditions and spirit of diplomacy. Such diplomacy doesn’t completely coincide with traditional diplomacy, but the important point is that it incorporates a goodwill

1 Ingemar Torbiorn, Living Abroad: Personal Adjustment and Personal Policy in the Overseas Settings (Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1982), p. 114.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

94 

Chapter 4

table 4.1 Types and titles of unconventional ambassadors

No. Types of unconventional ambassadors

Titles of such unconventional ambassadors

1.

Ambassadors of humanness, human spirit and social services

2.

Ambassadors of civilization, arts and performances

3.

Ambassadors of conviction Ambassadors of rights and principles

Goodwill ambassador, goodwill ambassador for the poor, global goodwill ambassador, youth goodwill ambassador, senior goodwill ambassador, census goodwill ambassador, humanity ambassador, everyday ambassador, charity ambassador, philanthropy ambassador, love ambassador, friendship ambassador, kindness ambassador, promise ambassador, compassion ambassador, passion ambassador, happiness ambassador, peace ambassador, harmony ambassador, knowledge ambassador, language ambassador, hope ambassador Culture ambassador, art ambassador, music ambassador, literature ambassador, book ambassador, read ambassador, illustrator ambassador, cuisine ambassador, ballet ambassador, dance ambassador, singing ambassador Faith ambassador, interfaith ambassador, belief ambassador, spiritual ambassador Freedom ambassador, liberty ambassador, human rights ambassador, justice ambassador, equality ambassador, gender equality ambassador, social inclusion ambassador Innovation ambassador, creativity ambassador, creative ambassador, active mind ambassador, mindfulness ambassador, awareness ambassador, learning ambassador Community ambassador, child ambassador, girl ambassador, student ambassador, family ambassador, youth ambassador

4.

5.

Ambassadors of human abilities

6.

Ambassadors of social groups

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

95

Unconventional Ambassadors table 4.1 Types and titles of unconventional ambassadors (cont.)

No. Types of unconventional ambassadors

Titles of such unconventional ambassadors

7.

Ambassadors of sustainability and wellness

8.

Ambassadors of social institutions and social spaces Ambassadors of human activity, industry and commerce

Health ambassador, mental health ambassador, caring ambassador, medical ambassador, patient ambassador, autism ambassador, water ambassador, food ambassador, nature ambassador, environment ambassador, climate ambassador, good life ambassador, lifestyle ambassador, smile ambassador, well-​being ambassador School ambassador, university ambassador, library ambassador, park ambassador, hospital ambassador Brand ambassador, hospitality ambassador, entertainment ambassador, tourism ambassador, business ambassador, investment ambassador, social media ambassador, technology ambassador, digital ambassador, chamber ambassador, chamber of commerce ambassador, client ambassador, education ambassador, research ambassador, sports ambassador Atlantic ambassador, city ambassador, village ambassador, earth ambassador, space ambassador, ocean ambassador, urban ambassador

9.

10. Ambassadors of places and areas

mission and constructive engagement, which are the factors that define the spirit of diplomacy. In their activity, traditional ambassadors can use the power of their country, official ambassadorial position and status, instruments and mechanisms of governmental communication and influence, as well as personal skills. The main instruments of nontraditional ambassadors are personal engagement, conviction, authority, communication, conversation and inspiration. This is all about using soft power and positive social influence to raise public awareness on important issues. While traditional ambassadors are largely tied to

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

96 

Chapter 4

international-​ oriented political diplomacy, nonconventional ambassadors primarily operate in a social context. We can say that most of the mentioned unconventional ambassadors are involved in social diplomacy and can be considered goodwill ambassadors. 2

Goodwill Ambassadors

In the context of this book, among all unconventional ambassadors, goodwill ambassadors occupy a special place because they embody the very idea of diplomacy and ambassadorship. Apart from the brand, business and commerce-​related ambassadors, most of the unconventional ambassadors listed above have missions based on the willingness to support and advocate for noble causes. Sometimes a mission or person may not be officially called a goodwill mission or a goodwill ambassador, but they can be understood to be such. US First Ladies, for example, don’t have the official title of goodwill ambassadors, but they are “increasingly taking on the role of goodwill ambassadors as they travel to other countries on various missions representing the U.S.A.”2 It is no coincidence that goodwill ambassadors have become quite popular among different kinds of organizations that want to have visible and influential envoys. The concept of a “goodwill ambassador” or some similar entity is quite attractive for such a purpose. Goodwill reflects kindness, compassion, generosity, cordiality, warmth, geniality, concern, consideration, tolerance, benevolence and friendliness. However, simply having noble intentions and being nice is not enough to make one an effective goodwill ambassador or create a positive impact. A person also needs to have the reputation, respect, perseverance, diligence and social skills to communicate and exert influence. We can distinguish three types of goodwill ambassadors. The first one is when a corporate actor, such as an organization, foundation or charity, establishes a position or program of goodwill ambassador and appoints a worthy individual to fulfill this mission. The second type is when an organization or group establishes a program or project for goodwill ambassadors and those who wish to participate in them can join as volunteers. There may be certain requirements for such volunteer goodwill ambassadors, but personal prominence is not a necessity in this case. The third type is when an individual, based on their values or beliefs, takes on the mission of a goodwill ambassador. Such 2 Wendy W. Tan, “American First Ladies as Goodwill Ambassadors,” City University of New York Academic Works, 2010, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​academ​icwo​rks.cuny.edu/​cgi/​view​ cont​ent.cgi?arti​cle=​1011&cont​ext=​hc_​p​ubs, p. 13.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

97

Unconventional Ambassadors Goodwill ambassador

Appointed

Volunteer

Independent

­f igure 4.1  The three types of goodwill ambassadors.

a mission does not require anyone’s approval or consent, and it comes as a personal decision. So, goodwill ambassadors selected and appointed by certain organizations among prominent individuals represent the first type, and they can be called appointed goodwill ambassadors. Individuals who volunteer in the framework of organizations that have goodwill ambassador programs represent the second type, and they can be called volunteer goodwill ambassadors. Individuals who act as goodwill ambassadors by their own decision represent the third type, and they can be called independent goodwill ambassadors. In all three or similar cases, it is a matter of fulfilling a goodwill mission (Figure 4.1). 2.1 Appointed and Volunteer Goodwill Ambassadors The existing practice shows that goodwill ambassadors can be appointed by state actors, international, interstate organizations or non-​state entities like nongovernmental organizations. The appointment of goodwill ambassadors is particularly widespread within the United Nations system. Since 1954, 16 UN system organizations have at some point had a goodwill ambassadors program.3 The UN also has messengers of peace.4 Goodwill ambassadors are designated by UN organizations and agencies and subsequently endorsed by the UN Secretary-​General, while messengers of peace are appointed directly by the UN Secretary-​General.5 In 2006, there were over 400 goodwill ambassadors and messengers of peace in the UN system, including international, regional and national goodwill ambassadors.6 3 Papa Louis Fall and Guangting Tang, “Goodwill Ambassadors in the United Nations System,” United Nations, Joint Inspection Unit, 2006, accessed April 17, 2021 https://​und​ocs.org/​en/​ JIU/​NOTE/​2006/​1. 4 United Nations Messengers of Peace, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.un.org/​en/​mop. 5 United Nations Goodwill Ambassadors, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.un.org/​en/​isot​ ope-​artic​les/​9189. 6 Fall and Tang, “Goodwill Ambassadors,” p. 3. For example, the list of unesco Goodwill Ambassadors for Culture can be found at http://​www.une​sco.org/​new/​en/​cult​ure/​comm​ unit​ies/​netwo​rks/​une​sco-​goodw​ill-​amba​ssad​ors-​for-​cult​ure (accessed April 17, 2021).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

98 

Chapter 4

The phenomenon of the UN goodwill ambassadors and messengers of peace is often considered in the framework of global communication, political communication, public relations, public diplomacy and celebrity diplomacy. These goodwill ambassadors and messengers of peace are celebrities or “distinguished individuals, carefully selected from the fields of art, literature, science, entertainment, sports or other fields of public life, who have agreed to help focus worldwide attention on the work of the United Nations.”7 As Andrew Cooper remarked, “The Latin root of ambassador, ambactriare (meaning to go on a mission) has effectively become the mantra of diplomacy used by celebrities.”8 The geographical representation of the UN goodwill ambassadors is expanding. China is particularly active in this regard: today, the UN employs about 30 Chinese celebrities as global or regional goodwill ambassadors.9 As Saskia Postema and Jan Melissen pointed out, “the most prominent feature of celebrity activity in the past decade is that it has largely moved online.”10 Thus, celebrity diplomacy and digital diplomacy come together. As Cooper noted, unlike official diplomats, celebrities cannot easily claim that they speak on behalf of constituencies regardless of whether they are defined as a cause or a people.11 But what do such kinds of celebrity activity mean for diplomacy? Analyzing the celebritization of international politics, Mark Wheeler remarked that it “must not be simply dismissed as an erosion of the diplomatic order but should be understood as part of the transformation processes which are occurring within public diplomacy.”12 However, as Wiseman suggested, “it remains unclear whether the UN’s celebrity diplomats are effective in helping the UN achieve its objectives in promoting the world body’s goals in peace-​building, disarmament, human rights, environmental protection, and human development.”13 Nevertheless, according to Wheeler, 7

United Nations, “Who Are the United Nations Goodwill Ambassadors and Messengers of Peace and How Are They Appointed?” AskDAG, Dag Hammarskjöld Library, last modified February 4, 2021, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​ask.un.org/​faq/​14597#:~:text=​Uni​ted%20 Nati​ons%20G​oodw​ill%20Amba​ssad​ors%20and%20Mes​seng​ers%20of%20Pe​ace%20 are%20di​stin​guis​hed,work%20of%20the%20Uni​ted%20Nati​ons. 8 Andrew F. Cooper, Celebrity Diplomacy (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016), p. 3. 9 Saskia Postema and Jan Melissen, “UN Celebrity Diplomacy in China: Activism, Symbolism and National Ambition Online,” International Affairs 97, no. 3 (2021): 667–​684, p. 668. 10 Ibid., p. 673. 11 Cooper, Celebrity Diplomacy, p. 2. 12 Mark Wheeler, “Celebrity Diplomacy,” in Constantinou, Kerr and Sharp, The sage Handbook of Diplomacy, p. 538. 13 Geoffrey Wiseman, “The Public Diplomacy Role of Celebrity Diplomats,” University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy, accessed May 17, 2021, https://​usc​publ​ icdi​plom​acy.org/​resea​rch_​proj​ect/​the_​public_​diplomacy_​role​_​of_​cele​brit​y_​di​plom​ats.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Unconventional Ambassadors

99

the UN experience shows that celebrities promoted new or alternative discourses and, by occupying public space, influenced credible diplomatic interventions throughout the international community.14 Many governments also have their own goodwill ambassadors who promote the country’s culture, sports, trade, values and so on. These include the jazz ambassadors appointed by the US Department of State,15 and the Japanese Cuisine Special Goodwill Ambassadors and Japanese Cuisine Goodwill Ambassadors appointed by Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.16 The titles of these ambassadors could be different, but they are, in general, widely recognized as goodwill ambassadors. Several well-​known and lesser-​known nongovernmental organizations also appoint their goodwill ambassadors; there are foundations and awards designed to recognize goodwill ambassadors.17 Embassies can practice the “Ambassador for a Day” program, in which young people from the host country become “ambassadors” of a foreign country and get acquainted with the activities of the embassy.18 Apparently, such programs are part of the embassy’s public diplomacy. Private and public organizations may have their own goodwill ambassadors chosen from prominent specialists in certain fields who can promote noble ideas or public goods.19 In some cases, goodwill ambassadors can be chosen 14 Mark Wheeler, “Celebrity Diplomacy: United Nations’ Goodwill Ambassadors and Messengers of Peace,” Celebrity Studies 2, no. 1 (2011): 6–​18, p. 17. 15 “Jazz Diplomacy: Then and Now,” US Department of State, accessed May 16, 2021, https:// ​ w ww.state.gov/ ​ d ipn ​ o te- ​ u - ​ s - ​ d ep ​ a rtm ​ e nt- ​ o f- ​ s tate- ​ o ffic ​ i al- ​ b log/ ​ j azz- ​ d iplom​ acy-​then-​and-​now. 16 “Japanese Cuisine Special Goodwill Ambassador and Japanese Cuisine Goodwill Ambassador,” Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan, accessed May 17, 2021, https://​www.maff.go.jp/​e/​polic​ies/​mar​ket/​amba​ssa.html. 17 Global Goodwill Ambassadors Foundation, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.global​ good​will​amba​ssad​ors.org; Friendship Ambassadors Foundation, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​faf.org; Ambassador of Conscience Award, Amnesty International, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.amne​sty.org/​en/​art-​for-​amne​sty/​amb​assa​dor-​of-​con​scie​nce; Goodwill Ambassador Award, National Association for Japan Exchange and Teaching, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​ajet.net/​jet-​commun​ity/​awa​rds/​goodw​ill-​amb​assa​ dor-​award. 18 Sigrid Frees Neergaard, “Vietnamese Student Swedish Ambassador for a Day,” ScandAsia, October 4, 2019, accessed April 18, 2021, https://​scanda​sia.com/​vie​tnam​ese-​stud​ent-​swed​ ish-​amb​assa​dor-​for-​a-​day; Zazithorn Ruengchinda, “Young, Inspiring Vietnamese Ladies Invited to be ‘Ambassador for a Day,’” ScandAsia, March 14, 2021, accessed April 18, 2021, https://​scanda​sia.com/​amb​assa​dor-​loc​hen-​invi​tes-​you​ngin​spir​ing-​vie​tnam​ese-​women -​to-​join-​amb​assa​dor-​for-​a-​day-​campa​ign. 19 Harwood Library Ambassadors, accessed April 18, 2021, https://​theh​arwo​odin​stit​ute.org/​ libr​ary-​amba​ssad​ors; Scouts Messengers of Peace, accessed April 18, 2021, https://​www .scout.org/​node/​32856/​intro​duct​ion.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

100 

Chapter 4

as an acknowledgment for their contributions in promoting certain noble ideas.20 In practice, not all organizations provide a detailed explanation of how and why an individual was selected as a goodwill ambassador. The need for goodwill ambassadors relates to the rising role of non-​state actors, including individuals, in public and international affairs. In most cases, appointed goodwill ambassadors, as agents of the organizations that appointed them, share the following features: (1) they are prominent individuals or celebrities who also have moral authority and individual credibility to advocate for a noble cause; (2) they are appointed and supported by governmental or nongovernmental bodies, and they represent them and a cause related to the mission and purposes of the corporate actor; (3) compared with conventional ambassadors, they have a great deal of flexibility in fulfilling their mission, considerable freedom to express personal attitudes and opinions,21 and their assignments are not permanent jobs but rather occasional activities; (4) their ambassadorial activities take place mostly in public while in traditional diplomacy ambassadors are often also involved in closed-​door activities, and visuality becomes essential for maintaining their celebrity image and carrying out their activities. In short, they are prominent personalities, their position is assigned, their work is flexible and their performance is public (see Figure 4.2). Goodwill ambassadors we discussed above are prominent individuals appointed by corporate actors. As in the case of the UN, there exists a special procedure for selecting and appointing such ambassadors. After the appointment, they acquire a somewhat formal status, although they do not stop practicing their professions. There are also many cases when individuals become goodwill ambassadors by joining certain voluntary programs. Among them are the community volunteer ambassadors program,22 census goodwill

20 21

22

The Inter-​American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture Goodwill Ambassadors, accessed April 18, 2021, https://​www.iica.int/​en/​iica_​g​oodw​ill_​amba​ssad​ors. For example, “Stephane Dujarric, spokesperson for the UN Secretary-​General, has said that a Goodwill Ambassador retains the right to speak about issues that are of interest or concern to them in their personal capacity;” “Goodwill Ambassadors Retain Right to Speak in Personal Capacity: UN on Priyanka Chopra’s Tweet Row,” ani, August 24, 2019, accessed December 18, 2021, https://​www.anin​ews.in/​news/​world/​us/​goodw​ill-​amba​ssad​ ors-​ret​ain-​right-​to-​speak-​in-​perso​nal-​capac​ity-​un-​on-​priya​nka-​chop​ras-​tweet-​row201​ 9082​4013​257. Community Volunteer Ambassador Program, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.cva​inte​ rnsh​ips.org; United Way Goodwill Ambassadors Connect Community, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.unit​edwa​ypc.org/​Goodw​ill-​Amba​ssad​ors.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

101

Unconventional Ambassadors

Posion: assigned

Personality: prominent

Appointed goodwill ambassadors

Work: flexible

Performance: public

­f igure 4.2  Four basic features of appointed goodwill ambassadors.

ambassador program,23 faith ambassador scheme,24 and many others. In some cases, interested individuals have to submit applications and write an essay.25 Like appointed goodwill ambassadors, volunteer goodwill ambassadors also serve as agents for the organizations and programs within the framework of which they perform their volunteer functions. Many volunteer goodwill ambassador programs aim to contribute to the development of society and people in need. By joining such programs, individuals not only do good deeds but also bring the spirit of diplomacy to society and human relations through their sense of diplomatic mission and ambassadorship. They develop social diplomacy and diplomatically enrich society. Figure 4.3 shows a scheme in which an organization establishes a voluntary

23 24 25

The Census Goodwill Ambassador Program, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​cen​sus.lac​ity .org/​outre​ach-​resour​ces/​volunt​eer. Nottingham Trent University Faith Ambassadors, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www .ntu.ac.uk/​life-​at-​ntu/​supp​ort/​ntu-​faith-​and-​cha​plai​ncy/​faith-​amba​ssad​ors. The Pittsburgh Promise Ambassadors, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​pittsb​urgh​prom​ise .org/​the-​scho​lars​hip/​about/​opport​unit​ies-​for-​rec​ipie​nts/​prom​ise-​amba​ssad​ors.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

102 

Chapter 4

Organizaon

Volunteer goodwill ambassador program

Volunteers become goodwill ambassadors

Carry out a goodwill ambassador mission

Social good

­f igure 4.3  A typical scheme of the work of voluntary goodwill ambassadors.

goodwill ambassador program and willing individuals participate in it, taking on a goodwill mission, which leads to the creation of a certain social good. Appointed and Volunteer Goodwill Ambassadors as Unconventional Diplomatic Representatives Any envoy or ambassador represents someone or something. Let’s take two cases –​when an individual represents an entity and when they represent a cause. This can be a state ambassador who represents a state or a goodwill ambassador who represents some noble cause. There should be certain conditions for these representations to take place. In the case of the conventional ambassador, a sending state must authorize the would-​be ambassador, who then has to accept it. In addition, the receiving state should recognize this person in the capacity of ambassador. In traditional diplomacy, such a scheme is carried out in the way the head of state or government appoints and gives the ambassador certain powers by issuing them ambassadorial credentials. These credentials are then presented to the head of the receiving state, and after that, the ambassador is recognized as having the right to officially represent the sending state. A goodwill ambassador can represent (1) a cause, (2) an entity such as a state, organization, group or another individual, or (3) themself. To represent 2.2

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Unconventional Ambassadors

103

themselves as independent diplomats, individuals need to consciously adopt a diplomatic undertaking, identifying themselves as persons willing to act as a diplomat with a goodwill mission. To represent someone else, a person needs to be associated with, endorsed by or appointed by the body to be represented, such as a state, organization or a group, or another individual. To represent a cause, an individual needs to be recognized as a person who can deservedly or properly represent it. Representing even the most trustworthy Other doesn’t make much sense if the Self is not worthy or prepared for the goodwill mission. In other words, the individual needs to have the moral authority to act as a goodwill ambassador. Of course, endorsement or appointment from other bodies, or self-​authorization can give a person some authority. In addition, the authority or reputation of a person can increase over time. The important thing is that the goodwill ambassador’s mission should be connected to a noble cause, regardless of whether they are representing other actors or themselves. A goodwill ambassador is supposed to represent causes such as human rights, mercy, justice, assistance to the seek and needy, peace, reconciliation, mutual understanding, social support and so on, even when they represent a particular entity. For example, the UN goodwill ambassadors represent not just the United Nations and its agency as an organization, but the values that are specific to this global organization. Appointed goodwill ambassadors receive from organizations that appoint them the authority to champion certain values or causes. In the case of voluntary goodwill ambassadors, such authority or status is received by joining certain programs or projects managed by governmental or nongovernmental organizations. However, when appointed and volunteer goodwill ambassadors are tasked with promoting certain values or causes, the organizations appointing them should themselves have the authority to take them up, and should be associated with these values and causes. To what extent does a particular entity have the right or authority to give someone the right or opportunity to act as a representative and advocate of certain values or causes? For example, to what extent do unesco Goodwill Ambassadors for Culture represent culture and have the authority to promote culture? Although unesco is indeed a respected organization in the field of education, science and culture, there may be countries, organizations, groups or individuals who question the authority of this organization in these fields and the competence of its goodwill ambassadors to represent and promote culture. The same applies to any other entities that have their own goodwill ambassadors advocating for good causes. The issue is not of legal but of moral authority. No one can question the ability of a state to have its own ambassador in another country, and this practice is even enshrined in international law, but

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

104 

Chapter 4

the issue of the functioning and recognition of goodwill ambassadors is more ambiguous. Although no international law gives the United Nations or any other entity the formal authority to appoint goodwill ambassadors and no domestic law formally allows a nongovernmental organization to have a goodwill ambassador program and accept volunteers to act as goodwill ambassadors, there are no international or domestic legal norms or moral standards prohibiting entities from officially or unofficially appointing or having goodwill ambassadors on a voluntary basis. What allows entities to have their own goodwill ambassadors is primarily the reputations of these entities, the reputation of the individuals who become goodwill ambassadors, and the social and moral value of the causes themselves. The appointed or volunteer goodwill ambassador gains credibility and authority if these three factors come together –​the appointing entity or organization with the goodwill ambassador program (­corporate actor) and the person being appointed or volunteering to be the goodwill ambassador (individual agent) have good reputations and moral authority, and the cause is socially and morally valuable. Thus, goodwill ambassadors engage in value-​driven social diplomacy. Volunteer goodwill ambassadors may not have the same level of personal fame and social credibility as appointed ones, but even having a connection to a goodwill ambassador program and bearing the unofficial title of goodwill ambassador can provide them some personal validity and authority. This is about gained, but not formal authority. Figure 4.4 shows the idea that appointed and volunteer goodwill ambassadors’ credibility depends on the reputations of the actor and agent, as well as the social value of the cause being advocated. 3

Independent Goodwill Ambassadors

In the context of unconventional diplomacy, the issue of the representational features of an independent person is more complex. The question is whether an independent individual can represent someone or something by their own decision, without authority or consent from any other party. The Self cannot explicitly represent the Other without the approval or endorsement of the latter, and the power to explicitly represent someone comes with given (as in the case of appointed goodwill ambassadors) or legitimately acquired authority (as in the case of volunteer goodwill ambassadors). A person can explicitly represent in public another individual or organization if they are authorized to do so. Such representation can be comprehensive or multi-​vectored, as in the case of state ambassadors, or related to a specific area or type of activity,

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

105

Unconventional Ambassadors

The agent’s reputaon The social and moral value of a cause

The actor’s reputaon

The credibility of a goodwill ambassador

­f igure 4.4  The main factors affecting the credibility of appointed and volunteer goodwill ambassadors.

as in the case of a press secretary of a foreign ministry who, as a representative of the ministry, presents the agency’s positions for a specific audience –​the media and public. People can also represent themselves in society, and individuals may consider that they represent other entities or causes –​all three are self-​constituted representations. Figure 4.5 shows a person representing themself and believing that they represent others or a cause without obtaining an endorsement or authority from the external entity. 3.1 Self-​Representation In any representation, there are at least two parties involved: the one that represents someone or something, and the one to whom this representation is presented. Representation of self means an individual’s self-​representation to other entities. Of course, in principle, it is possible to argue that people can represent themselves to themself, but that is the realm of psychology, not diplomacy. Self-​representation or representation of Self essentially differs from self-​ presentation or presentation of Self. In his seminal book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,26 Erving Goffman analyzed the phenomenon of self-​ presentation from the theatrical perspective where individuals’ presentation of themselves occurs in social interaction as a process of impression 26 Goffman, Presentation of Self.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

106 

Chapter 4

Self-constuted representaon of another enty

Selfconstuted representaon of oneself

Self constuted representaon of a cause

A person

­f igure 4.5  A self-​constituted representation of oneself, other(s) and a cause.

management. In a broad sense, anybody can present anything to anyone, and the effectiveness of presentation depends on the person’s presentation skills. Regarding self-​presentation, these skills include, as Goffman showed, controlling the process of formation of the image of Self in a stage performance through social interaction. However, this is not enough to explicitly represent someone or something: in representational practice, people need some formal or informal authority, legal or moral credibility. To represent oneself means to act on behalf of one’s Self. A person represents their Self or themself in private life and ordinary situations without even thinking about such self-​ representation. This is implicit self-​representation, and it doesn’t require any consent or endorsement from others. In many of their ordinary capacities or roles, individuals don’t need explicit self-​representation because their positions and functions are obvious and don’t require any proof or endorsement from other actors or authoritative sources. For example, when a person talks to a friend in an everyday situation, they implicitly represent their Self or themselves. Spouses who live together don’t need to validate their marital status every time they see each other in order to represent themselves in family life. It is not necessary for a person who resides in a neighboring house to show the residents of the neighborhood proof that they live there –​this is self-​evident and usually happens implicitly. So, implicit self-​representation takes place in

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

107

Unconventional Ambassadors

A person’s implicit selfrepresentaon

The person’s identy or role is self-evident, and they don’t need authorizaon or explicit endorsement to represent their Self or themselves.

­f igure 4.6  An individual’s implicit self-​representation.

situations in which a person doesn’t need to act authentically in a capacity that requires authorization or proof. Figure 4.6 shows the characteristics of the individual’s implicit self-​representation. In social life or in public spaces, a person can implicitly represent not only themself but also, to a certain extent, other entities or things with which they are associated –​family, friends, work, profession, community, assumptions, values, believes, convictions and so on. Without being given credibility, this is not yet explicit representation; it can instead be called quasi-​representation (see Figure 4.7). The phenomenon of quasi-​representation can be related to social stereotypes. Thus, people from one nation or social group can judge other nations or groups to a certain extent by observing the behavior of an individual from these nations or groups, although this person may not have the authority, willingness, ability or qualities to represent their nation or group. The social bonding of a person to a group, organization, country or cause can create the perception of individual representation, but this is just the phenomenon of quasi-​representation. An individual’s nonverbal behavior and body language,

Quasi-representaon of other enes (people, groups, etc.)

Quasirepresentaon of ideas, beliefs, causes

A person

­f igure 4.7  An individual’s quasi-​representation of something.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

108 

Chapter 4

A person’s explicit selfrepresentaon

The person’s identy or role is not self-evident, and they needs proof or explicit endorsement in order to act on behalf of their Self (i.e., represent themself).

­f igure 4.8  The individual’s explicit self-​representation.

including appearance, voice, posture and gestures, can also generate a projection of this kind of representation. The need for explicit self-​representation arises when a person, due to certain circumstances, needs to have some credentials or credibility to act as themself in a particular situation or extraordinary capacity. For example, a witness to a road accident needs to prove to the responding police officer that they represent themself (i.e., their Self) by presenting a personal identification card. When a couple wants to jointly get a family loan from a commercial bank, they have to prove that they are spouses. In such situations, a person needs to have documentary evidence of their identity to act on behalf of their Self, to represent themself in a specific capacity (for example, as a legal entity). The formal identification of a person can be a part of the explicit self-​ representation of the individual. But when a mathematics professor wants to impress their students with their musical skills, unofficial or social confirmation of the professor’s abilities will suffice. Such social validation can be given to the professor by other people who casually confirm that they are a good musician, or by rumor, or the students themselves can be convinced of the professor’s skills. Of course, the professor can also show a certificate of graduation from a music school, if they have one, but in casual social life, this might not be necessary. So, a person may need some formal or objective proof or social credibility to explicitly represent themself in some –​usually extraordinary –​capacities or roles that require certain qualities or legal status (see Figure 4.8). All kinds of explicit representations –​when a person explicitly represents someone or something, or when an individual explicitly represents themself –​require some sort of endorsement or validation. In case of explicit self-​representation –​when a person intends to act on behalf of their Self in a certain situation –​such authentication can rely on the following sources: (1) legal rights, (2) moral rights, (3) civic rights, (4) social norms, (5) institutional norms, (6) official documents or formal recognition, (7) the individual’s social status, or (8) personal authority (see Figure 4.9).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

109

Unconventional Ambassadors

Authorized by social norms

Authorized by ins tu onal norms Authorized by official documents

Authorized by civic rights

Authorized by the individual’s social status

Authorized by moral rights

Authorized by legal rights

Individual’s explicit selfrepresenta on

Authorized by the personal reputa on

­f igure 4.9  Different sources of authorization for an individual’s explicit self-​representation.

As we can see, some of these sources of endorsement are official or formal, while others are unofficial and informal. Let’s look at the individual’s right-​ based explicit self-​representation. A person can publicly and explicitly represent themselves in certain capacities by using their legal, moral or civic rights. For example, when a non-​lawyer represents themself in court in the process of self-​solicitation, that is self-​representation in a legal capacity. A war veteran has the moral right to publicly represent themself as a person who knows about war. An individual may explicitly represent themself in a civic capacity, for instance, in an election. Many electoral systems don’t allow individuals to transfer their voting rights to someone else: everyone must represent only themselves. The individual’s capacity to represent themself in legal, moral or civic capacities is enshrined in law and/​or recognized by society. But there are certain requirements for using the individual’s rights in such capacities. For example, a person accused in court may represent themself brilliantly in the capacity of a self-​defense attorney, but if they are recognized as mentally ill, then their skills in representing themself would not matter. A war veteran has only a limited moral right to represent themself as a person who knows war well if they spent only a couple of days at war. Or, a person can exercise their right to vote in elections only after reaching a certain age. A person’s ability to represent their Self can also rely on some social norms and be managed by social and cultural customs. For example, in some highly hierarchical societies, a person can only express their opinion publicly or act in a certain capacity after obtaining a formal or informal sanction from a

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

110 

Chapter 4

more authoritative individual. In some societies, the ability of young people to choose a profession, that is, to perform in the future in a particular capacity, is strongly regulated by family traditions and their parents’ decisions. Similar kinds of normative regulation of the individual’s ability to represent their Self occur in an organizational setting. Organizational culture and rules may or may not allow an employee to act in some capacities or to take a certain role in organizational or social life. For example, a diplomat who works in a foreign ministry or embassy has some limitations on how they behave on social media because, in public, they represent not only themself but a diplomatic agency. Companies have rules for shareholders to be represented or to represent themselves at a shareholders’ meeting. In some situations, a person may need a birth certificate, identity card, driving license, diploma of education or other formal documents to confirm their identity and the ability to explicitly represent themself in some capacity, for example, to teach at school. Formal recognition such as an award from a prestigious international arts festival or publication in an important academic journal can give a person the opportunity to represent themself in a particular capacity, for example, as an expert in a certain field. A person’s social status can depend on many objective and subjective factors, such as the position they hold, their material resources and social connections, achievements and failures, membership in certain societies and clubs, and so on. Individuals with high social status can afford to play various roles in society and express themselves in different capacities. A good example is the spouses of heads of state, who often perform roles related to charity, compassion and advocating for various noble causes. There are also comic manifestations of the reflection of social status on the ability of a person to engage in unconventional activities without compromising themself. Thus, some dictators or authoritarian leaders suddenly begin to show off their talent and expertise in unexpected areas such as arts, music and architecture, eliciting expressions of delight from their subordinates, but ridicule from the wider public. One of the most interesting phenomena involved in the individual’s explicit self-​representation is personal reputation. As in the case of a person’s social status, reputation may depend on many objective and subjective factors, such as the individuals’ occupation, job position, qualification, resources, networks, belonging to groups and societies, accomplishments, abilities, awards, rumors, etc. A good reputation, as well as a high social status, may help a person to gain trust, act in unconventional and important positions, and influence people. But if social status indicates a person’s place in society, which is a primarily

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Unconventional Ambassadors

111

hierarchical phenomenon, a personal reputation is a broader phenomenon associated with the judgmental social perception of an individual and their activities. Personal reputation is a remarkable social phenomenon, and it can play a role in the social authorization of an individual’s qualities and abilities. It is based on individual achievements, however, it also has an intersubjective character in that exists in an intersubjectively constructed reality. Although there are no objective criteria for evaluating reputation, an individual’s reputation becomes their social property. The role of reputation is very important when it comes to whether a person –​by virtue of an appointment or by their own will –​can successfully take on a social mission such as goodwill ambassadorship. Because of their personal reputation, an individual can offer their services as an informal mediator between conflicting parties, or they can be invited to lead a wedding party as a toastmaster. An individual, of course, can pretend to do some job or offer their services in some capacity because of their abilities, skills, role, social status or ambition. However, when we consider a socially significant undertaking, a person’s abilities, skills, social position and ambitions are not enough to make stakeholders or the wider public accept them as an individual capable of succeeding in their mission. Usually, an important social mission requires a person with a certain social credibility based on their accomplishments and reputation. Skills are needed in any important affair, but to be the face of a socially significant and noble cause or to advocate for it, one also needs social recognition and a good reputation. Some jobs require a person to take an oath. Some tasks involve a thorough background check, and certain professions require a person to have not only a specialized education but also a license. There are similarly different requirements and procedures for a person to be able to represent themselves in ­particular capacities. One such capacity is that of an unconventional ambassador: it requires some sort of social authorization emanating from the person’s reputation. To act as a goodwill ambassador of their own accord, a person needs not only the ability to represent their Self in this role but also the capacity to represent goodwill or a related cause. Appointed or volunteer goodwill ambassadors are externally endorsed based on their accomplishments or participation in a program. But can a person represent goodwill or some other noble cause of their own accord? Who can claim to be a goodwill ambassador without external endorsement or links to any organizations?

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

112 

Chapter 4

The Individual’s Self-​Constituted Representation of Other Entities or Causes Explicit representation of Self to Other occurs when the individual manifests themselves in some unconventional capacity that has to be accepted by the Other. A shoemaker or a teacher can easily present themselves as such, but to represent shoemaking or teaching, or shoemakers and teachers, a person has to have some recognition, reputation and authority. The same applies to ambassadors. In conventional diplomacy, this recognition takes the form of presentation of credentials and official accreditation as an ambassadorial. But in the case of an independent goodwill ambassador, it comes as informal social recognition of the person’s credibility as an unconventional diplomatic actor. A person can also explicitly represent themselves in the capacity of a social diplomat or goodwill ambassador, for example, in helping others resolve conflict or come to an agreement. But the important thing is that others or at least the involved parties must recognize the person in such a social representational capacity. That can take place, for example, when a person acts as an independent and informal mediator. If the individual’s explicit self-​representation in legal or civic capacities is based on established legal norms, their ability to represent themselves in the capacity of a goodwill ambassador in social situations can rely on the social recognition of their capacity to take on such a mission. Social recognition or authority based on personal reputation provides the independent individual credibility to act in some social capacities, for example, as a goodwill ambassador, which is somewhat informal but socially approved representational authorization. So, a person needs recognition, albeit informal, for acting in some capacity, including that of goodwill ambassador. A person can identify themselves with someone, for example, with a person or group, or with some values or phenomena such as goodwill, kindness or justice, and claim to represent, advocate for or express them. In doing so, the person can refer to some authoritative sources, including religious and spiritual books, to find proof of their intentions, abilities and actions. Even in this situation, the person’s mission would only be welcomed and accepted if others believe that they truly represent the values they intend to represent. So, any representation, including self-​representation, is a two-​way street. Goodwill ambassadorship can be seen from the perspectives of political communication or public diplomacy, but it also represents a morally grounded social phenomenon. When a person intends to represent or claims to represent a noble cause, for instance, to be a goodwill ambassador for eliminating poverty or improving social inclusion, the main question is not even of the extent to which their intentions are justified, but of the extent to which they are socially recognized as an individual who represents that cause. There are 3.2

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Unconventional Ambassadors

113

not always objective criteria that can confirm an individual’s social standing. For example, a man may consider himself a good husband, but his spouse or neighbors may have different opinions. Here the question of reputation comes to the fore. A person who has a criminal record or a bad reputation is unlikely to be recognized as a goodwill ambassador, even if they believe that their intention will produce some public good. An individual’s proven reputation is an essential factor for their ability to represent not just themselves but also good causes. Of course, a person can try to act as a goodwill ambassador even without social recognition or a proven reputation. But this would limit their capacity as an unconventional diplomatic actor. Therefore, people who want to act as social diplomats and goodwill ambassadors need to build up their credibility and trustful relations with others. In goodwill ambassadorship, reputation-​ building and trust-​building are parts of capacity building. The title of goodwill ambassador can provide some social weight to the individuals who bear it, but just a name without action is not enough to be recognized in such capacities. The authority can be given –​as in the case of traditional ambassadors –​or can be earned –​as in the case of independent goodwill ambassadors. Even in interstate diplomacy, there are more powerful and less powerful ambassadors, and their relative strength is determined mainly by two factors: the strength of the state they represent and the strength of the individuals themselves, which depends on the qualities that they possess (education, skills, experience, personal connections, character, perseverance, strategic thinking, etc.). The same applies to unconventional diplomacy: it can have both strong and weak actors and agents, including appointed, volunteered, and independent goodwill ambassadors. However, over time, strong actors and agents may get weaker, and weak actors may become stronger. So, a person, starting as a humble goodwill ambassador, but building up their achievements and, consequently, reputation, eventually can achieve much more and reach new, higher levels of diplomatic functioning and influencing. Can ordinary individuals also be goodwill ambassadors in their daily life or social affairs, especially when they represent only themselves and/​or some noble causes without organizational backing or being officially authorized? Yes, every willing individual can freely take the responsibility to represent and advocate for noble causes and try to make positive social change. This can happen in daily life, in simple communication with other people, or in the course of carrying out job responsibilities. And the more moral and social authority a person gains through their deeds, the more opportunities they acquire to act as a goodwill ambassador. Many schools or university goodwill ambassadors among students try to contribute to society even without widely recognized

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

114 

Chapter 4

authority. Young European Ambassadors,27 Youth Ambassadors in Sweden,28 or Pan-​EU Youth Ambassadors working in the media and digital area,29 for example, could call themselves simply volunteers or social volunteers, but the word “ambassador” gives their activities a special, ambassadorial meaning which relates to connecting people, making a social impact, and creating peace and understanding. Ambassadorial work, including the activities of independent goodwill ambassadors, involves a specific, meaningful mission. The persons themselves must feel the need and willingness to take up such a task, and must treat it as a social mission. For further success, it is important to build up a social reputation and moral authority. When a person advocates for justice, equality, human rights and other noble values and causes, can they be called a goodwill ambassador or an ambassador for justice, equality or human rights? There are no legal, social and moral restrictions against this. But to have real representational power, the person needs to build up reputational capital. Here again, we enter the invisible realm of human social recognition, the subtle realm of reputation assessment. Building a social reputation is already a part of the activity of a goodwill ambassador: a person’s goodwill, confirmed in their constructive engagement with others, helps them assert themself as a goodwill ambassador. Political parties, groups or movements may advocate for certain political or social ideas such as justice, equality, progress and so on. Political figures or their followers may believe that they also represent or express certain social ideas or promote certain noble causes. Can politicians in this case be regarded as ambassadors of these ideas? This is unlikely, because political agendas often go beyond a goodwill mission and constructive engagement. By representing themself or a certain cause, an independent goodwill ambassador emerges as an unconventional diplomatic actor, while appointed and volunteer goodwill ambassadors are unconventional diplomatic agents. Even by representing a cause, an independent goodwill ambassador functions as an actor but not as an agent, because they are the decision-​maker. Figure 4.10 shows appointed, volunteer and independent goodwill ambassadors as actors or agents.

27 28 29

Young European Ambassadors, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.eunei​ghbo​urs.eu/​en/​ east/​eu-​in-​act​ion/​youth/​yeas. France 24, “Coronavirus Spotlights Swedish Segregation,” April 18, 2020, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.franc​e24.com/​en/​20200​418-​coro​navi​rus-​spo​tlig​hts-​swed​ish-​segr​ egat​ion. Pan-​EU Youth Ambassadors, accessed April 18, 2021, http://​pan​euyo​uth.eu/​youth-​pan​els/​ meet-​our-​youth-​amba​ssad​ors.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

115

Unconventional Ambassadors

• Appointed goodwill ambassadors as unconven onal diploma c agents Social • Volunteer goodwill ambassadors as diplomacy unconven onal diploma c agents • Independent goodwill ambassadors as unconven onal diploma c actors

­f igure 4.10 Appointed, volunteer and independent goodwill ambassadors as actors or agents.

4

Everyday Ambassadors

A particularly interesting understanding of nontraditional ambassadors was presented by Kate Otto in her book Everyday Ambassadors and a website of the same name.30 According to Otto, everyday ambassadors confront people’s disconnectedness with a strong emphasis on creating respectful and responsible human relationships no matter where they operate –​locally or globally. An everyday ambassador, she noted, is not a title but a way of life associated with the desire to make the world a better place. To be an everyday ambassador, Otto believes, a person needs to change themself, because this is the first step to changing the world. In other words, everyday ambassadorship begins from within the person. Otto identifies four qualities that help people be socially conscious and effective everyday ambassadors: focus, empathy, humility and patience. As Otto pointed out, everyday ambassadors are not the saviors of the world, but act as excellent relationship managers, whether online or offline. Everyday ambassadors, Otto asserted, can contribute to the fight against hiv/​a ids or engage in other socially useful activities. Some start as everyday ambassadors by participating in study abroad programs and internships, joining the Peace Corps, or engaging in volunteer organizations abroad or at home. The everyday ambassador is also distinguished by friendly communication and a respectful attitude to people, regardless of their mood. In the age of digital connections and social media, it would seem easy to establish new relationships; however,

30 Otto, Everyday Ambassador; Everyday Ambassador, accessed April 24, 2021, https://​eve​ ryda​yamb​assa​dor.org.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

116 

Chapter 4

Otto warned, this is not the case: we live in an era in which it is more difficult than ever before to build relationships. Everyday ambassadors try to reach a personal level of relationship with people, and this can help those who may be ostracized, stigmatized or excluded. At the same time, everyday ambassadors can use even thoughtful posts, supportive and constructive comments, or videos on social networks. The key is that they do so with focus, empathy, humility and patience, and that they approach social issues with an open mind and active listening, noted Otto. As Otto remarked, everyday ambassadors are particularly in demand in the globalized modern world with its digital technologies, changing demographics and immigration problems. The growing diversity in the world increases the likelihood of different points of view clashing and creates a greater need for everyday ambassadors who see shared value beneath superficial differences, Otto stated. From the social diplomacy perspective, Otto’s view about everyday ambassadors’ emphasis on creating respectful and responsible human relationships and relationship management deserves special attention. This outlook corresponds with what the Goodwill Ambassador Program of Miami-​Dade County, Florida, characterized its volunteers as “good followers, excellent listeners, and excel far beyond the limitations placed on us by the prejudices associated with labeling, because of one’s race, ethnicity, culture, or social standing,” and believes that they serve “their communities armed with a pleasant personality, a passion for making a difference, and endowed with social skills and insights which allow them to make eye contact, and strong relationships, with people from every walk of life.”31 Chapter 8 will continue the discussion about relationship-​building in socially oriented diplomacy and the qualities of social diplomats. 31

Miami-​Dade County Goodwill Ambassador Program, accessed May 17, 2021, https://​www .miamid​ade.gov/​glo​bal/​gov​ernm​ent/​com​miss​ion/​commun​ity-​advoc​acy/​goodw​ill-​amb​ assa​dor-​prog​ram.page.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

­c hapter 5

Diplomatic Functions Diplomatic functions in traditional diplomacy. The relationships between diplomatic mission, objectives, functions, methods and skills. Differences in diplomatic work at home and abroad. Different views of diplomatic functions. Representing and negotiating as diplomats’ mega-​functions. A diplomat’s presentability and representability. Negotiation and bargaining in diplomacy. Diplomats as occasional negotiators and permanent bargainers.

∵ 1

Diplomatic Functions in Traditional Diplomacy

Functions, methods and skills are interrelated phenomena. The function is an “activity that is natural to or the purpose of a person or thing,”1 a method is a “particular way of doing something,”2 and skill is the “ability to do something well.”3 Diplomatic functions are delineated by the diplomatic mission and objectives, and they in turn determine the diplomatic methods required to perform these functions. Diplomatic methods define the nature of the skills that are used to apply them. So, in diplomacy, skills are built on methods, methods are founded on functions, functions are based on objectives and objectives are grounded in a mission (see Figure 5.1). At the same time, skills help to employ methods; methods are instrumental in performing functions; functions serve to achieve objectives; and objectives support the mission (see Figure 5.2). In Chapter 2, we discussed diplomatic mission as a goodwill mission that in practice manifests as a constructive engagement of Self with Other, particularly through dialogical interaction. This chapter discusses diplomatic functions in traditional diplomacy, which is state-​based and internationally focused,

1 Accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.lex​ico.com/​def​init​ion/​funct​ion. 2 Accessed April 17, 2021, https://​dic​tion​ary.cambri​dge.org/​dic​tion​ary/​engl​ish/​met​hod. 3 Accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.lex​ico.com/​def​init​ion/​skill.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_007 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

118 

Chapter 5 Skills Methods Funcons Objecves Mission

­f igure 5.1  Diplomatic mission, functions, methods and skills.

Mission Objecves Funcons Methods

Skills

­f igure 5.2  The supportive relations between diplomatic skills, methods, functions and mission.

institutionalized, and official, although it can use some unofficial means such as informal negotiations and consultations, communication, and mediation through unofficial channels and individuals. Such diplomacy has established and well-​recognized institutional bases, such as governments and governmental agencies, including foreign ministries, embassies, consulates, and officially appointed individuals such as foreign ministers, ambassadors, consuls and

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

119

Diplomatic Functions Individuals who can parcipate in tradional diplomacy

Officials

Diplomac officials

Non-diplomac officials

Quasi-independent individuals

Independents individuals

­f igure 5.3  Individuals who can take part in state-​led diplomatic activities.

others. States can create international institutions or organizations and play a key role in their activities. In traditional diplomacy, there are various types of diplomats: those who work at the foreign ministry or other government agencies, embassy or consulates, international governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and so on. These are the so-​called career diplomats or political appointees. It is not only professional diplomats who work at foreign ministries and diplomatic missions who take part in diplomatic activities of the state; many other government officials, politicians, and representatives of business, sports, arts and other areas can also do so. As Berridge noted, diplomacy is carried out not only by professional diplomats but also by other officials and private persons under the direction of officials.4 State-​based diplomacy can use nongovernmental organizations and their representatives in its diplomatic efforts. Heads of state or government are not professional diplomatic agents, but act as the foremost diplomats of their countries. Sometimes a foreign minister is called the chief diplomat of the country, but this is also quite controversial because many ministers of foreign affairs often act politically, while their permanent undersecretaries or deputies oversee the more diplomatic functions. So, even in traditional diplomacy, it is not always easy to clearly distinguish which role is “purely” diplomatic, and analyzing state-​based diplomacy only through the activities of professional diplomats provides an inadequate picture of international diplomacy. Figure 5.3 displays the categories of individuals who can participate in traditional state-​based diplomacy. 4 Berridge, Diplomacy, p. 1.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

120 

Chapter 5

Diplomats working within a country

Place of work: government and government agencies, including foreign ministry, internaonal organizaons

Diplomats working abroad

Place of work: embassies, consulates, trade missions, cultural centers, internaonal organizaons

­f igure 5.4  Diplomats working in a home country and abroad.

Considering, on the one hand, those who participate in state diplomacy by working through domestically situated institutions such as government agencies, presidents’ offices, parliaments and, particularly, foreign ministries, and, on the other hand, those who work abroad such as diplomats in embassies, consulates, trade missions, cultural centers, and so on, we can say that those in the second category are more involved in actual diplomacy, while those who belong to the first category are more closely related to the machinery of government bureaucracy. In other words, working on foreign soil resonates more with the essence of a diplomatic job than working domestically in a diplomatic field, even when engaging with foreign counterparts (see Figure 5.4). This chapter focuses on the functions of diplomats working abroad. The function is an important, systematic, recognized and focused activity or task. Functions of diplomatic agencies and agents are derived from the actor’s goodwill mission and objectives. Building good relations between countries, protecting national interests and advancing essential values stand out among the major purposes of international diplomacy. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961),5 the basic document underpinning modern diplomacy, considers the development of friendly relations between nations to be one of the main objectives of international diplomacy. Many foreign ministries publish their mission statements or the main objectives of their work, which often point to national interests and other important aims of their diplomatic efforts. Among them are the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office,6 The Malaysian Ministry of Foreign

5 6

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. It states: “We pursue our national interests and project the UK as a force for good in the world. We promote the interests of British citizens, safeguard the UK’s security, defend our values, reduce poverty and tackle global challenges with our international partners;”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Functions

121

Affairs,7 the Republic of Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,8 and the United States Department of State.9 A day after he was sworn in, US Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken tweeted: “We will revitalize American diplomacy to advance our interests and values in the world as it is –​not as it was.”10

In his first foreign policy speech, US President Joe Biden outlined some basic ideals of American diplomacy: “That must be this –​we must start with diplomacy rooted in America’s most cherished democratic values: defending

7

8

9

10

accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.gov.uk/​gov​ernm​ent/​organi​sati​ons/​fore​ign-​commo​ nwea​lth-​deve​lopm​ent-​off​ice. It defines its mission as follows: “To provide leadership in the formulation and conduct of foreign policy and to advance and safeguard Malaysia’s national interests through dynamic and proactive diplomacy;” “Vision and Mission,” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.kln.gov.my/​web/​guest/​viss​ion-​miss​ ion#:~:text= ​To%20prov​ i de%20lea​ d ers​ hip%20in%20the,thro​ugh%20dyna​mic%20 and%20pr​oact​ive%20di​plom​acy. Its mission is “to serve the Irish people, promote their values and advance their prosperity and interests abroad, and to provide the Government with the capabilities, analysis, and influence to ensure that Ireland derives the maximum benefit from all areas of its external engagement,” “Our Strategy and Guiding Principles,” Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Republic of Ireland, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.dfa.ie/​about-​us/​what -​we-​do/​our-​strat​egy-​and-​guid​ing-​pri​ncip​les. Its mission is defined as follows: “The U.S. Department of State leads America’s foreign policy through diplomacy, advocacy, and assistance by advancing the interests of the American people, their safety and economic prosperity,” “Our Mission,” US Department of State, accessed April 18, 2021, https://​www.state.gov/​about. Secretary Antony Blinken’s Twitter feed, accessed April 18, 2021, https://​twit​ter.com/​Sec​ Blin​ken/​sta​tus/​1354​2177​5086​5047​556.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

122 

Chapter 5

freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity.”11 The website of Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also defines its vision,12 mission,13 and values.14 On its official website, the Chinese foreign ministry describes its main functions and responsibilities;15 this is a fairly long list, consisting of 19 sections.16

11

Joe Biden, “Remarks by President Biden on America’s Place in the World,” The White House, February 4, 2021, accessed April 16, 2021, https://​www.whi​teho​use.gov/​brief​ ing-​room/​speec​hes-​rema​rks/​2021/​02/​04/​rema​rks-​by-​presid​ent-​biden-​on-​ameri​cas -​place-​in-​the-​world. 12 “To be an excellent Foreign Service that safeguards and advances Singapore’s interests;” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore, “Vision, Mission, and Values,” accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www.mfa.gov.sg/​About-​MFA/​Vis​ion-​Miss​ion-​and-​Val​ues. 13 “mfa is committed to the effective and timely formulation, implementation, and communication of policies that: Uphold Singapore’s sovereignty; Promote a peaceful regional environment Sustain Singapore’s relevance internationally; Expand Singapore’s political and economic space Share our developmental experience as a responsible global citizen; Connect with Singaporeans travelling and living overseas, assist them in times of need;” ibid. 14 “Integrity: incorruptible in our work and courage to do what is right; Resilience: undeterred by challenges and creative and responsive to change; Teamwork: respect and value every individual and their contribution and work as a team, both within mfa and with external parties to achieve common goals;” ibid. 15 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China: “Main Responsibilities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China,” People’s Republic of China, accessed April 18, 2021, https://​www.fmprc.gov.cn/​mfa_​eng/​wjb​_​663​304/​zyzz​_​663​ 306/​Accessed April 18, 2021. 16 Among them are safeguarding national sovereignty, security and interests on behalf of the state; advising the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee and the State Council on adopting diplomatic strategies, principles and policies; coordinating with relevant government departments according to the overall diplomatic plan; drafting laws, regulations and policy plans concerning diplomatic work; handling global and regional security, political, economic, human rights, social, refugee, and other diplomatic affairs in the United Nations and other multilateral for a; dealing with matters in international arms control, disarmament and non-​proliferation; concluding bilateral and multilateral treaties and handling international judicial cooperation; releasing information about important diplomatic activities; overseeing the state’s foreign-​related protocol and ceremonial affairs; coordinating efforts to handle urgent incidents abroad concerning Chinese interests and safeguarding the lawful rights and interests of Chinese citizens and institutions abroad; guiding and coordinating foreign affairs work of local government and State Council departments; handling and coordinating foreign affairs concerning national security; providing interpretation for important diplomatic activities of the state and translation of diplomatic documents and correspondence; and overseeing the work of the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries as well as the

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

123

Diplomatic Functions

Negoang

Protecng

Represenng

Reporng

Funcons

Promong

­f igure 5.5  The functions of diplomatic missions listed in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.

The functions of diplomatic missions and diplomats may be different and numerous, but it is important to identify the basic ones. Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relation of 1961 defines the following five functions of a diplomatic mission: (1) “Representing the sending State in the receiving State,” (2) “Protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law,” (3) “Negotiating with the Government of the receiving State,” (4) “Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving State, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State,” and (5) “Promoting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations.”17 Accordingly, diplomats who work in a diplomatic mission abroad, primarily heads of missions or ambassadors, are involved in carrying out these tasks (see Figure 5.5). These are important functions of diplomatic missions abroad and diplomats, defined and legally acknowledged by the international community. There are some other viewpoints about diplomatic functions, among them

17

foreign affairs work of the Red Cross Society of China and the China Soong Ching Ling Foundation. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

124 

Chapter 5

those of Freeman,18 Pigman,19 Sofer,20 Barston,21 and Rana.22 These are not just ordinary tasks of diplomats but activities natural to the purposes of diplomatic missions abroad (i.e., their functions). We can outline even more diplomatic functions specifically in relation to individual diplomats and their positions. Thus, an ambassador, apart from representing, embodying and symbolizing their state in a foreign country, also functions as the head of the mission, performing the tasks of a leader and top manager of a governmental organization. The embassy and consulates, and the diplomats working there, are involved in receiving and forwarding documents and appeals from citizens and members of the diaspora living in this country, that is, performing a bureaucratic function. Consular functions include issuing visas and other legal papers. Diplomatic missions are also involved in organizing visits and providing protocol support for them. Junior diplomats often perform note-​taking assignments. All these mean that there are diplomatic functions of different levels, complexity and significance. 18

19 20 21

22

Freeman distinguished the following ten inseparably connected and unchanging principal functions or tasks of the profession of diplomacy: “(1) linkage of their government’s decision-​makers to foreign counterparts; (2) advocacy of their government’s policies and views; (3) negotiation on their government’s behalf; (4) commendation to their government of ways to advance or defend its interests; (5) promotion of trade and investment; (6) protection of compatriots; (7) management of programs of cooperation between governments; (8) reporting and analysis of relevant foreign developments and realities; (9) establishment of facilitative relationships with the officials and members of the elites who influence them; and (10) cultivation of an image for their nation which is favorable to its interests;” Chas. W. Freeman Jr., Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), p. 107. Pigman pointed to two core interlocking functions of diplomacy: representation and communication; Pigman, Contemporary Diplomacy, pp. 5, 11; Pigman, “Debates about Contemporary and Future Diplomacy,” pp. 77. Sofer highlighted two prime interconnected functions of the diplomat: representation and presentation; Sofer, The Courtiers of Civilization, p. 42. Barston identified the following functions or tasks of diplomacy, the significance of each of which may vary from state to state: ceremonial (protocol, representation, visits); management (day-​to-​day problems; promotion of political, economic, scientific, military and tourism interests; explanation and defense of policy; strengthening bilateral relations; bilateral coordination; multilateral cooperation); information and communication (assessment and reporting, monitoring); international negotiation; duty of protection; and contribution to international order (normative, rulemaking, mediation and peaceful settlement); Barston, Modern Diplomacy, p. 20. According to Rana, the embassy has the following functions: representation, negotiation, relationship-​building, promotion, image protection, reportage, aid management and services. Kishan S. Rana, “Embassies, Permanent Missions and Special Missions,” in Constantinou, Kerr and Sharp, The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, pp. 157–​158.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Functions

125

Using the above-​mentioned ideas, as well as some additional considerations, we can frame the following ten basic functions of diplomatic missions abroad in traditional diplomacy: 1. Representing the sending state.23 2. Protecting the interests and citizens of their own state.24 3. Building and managing relationships.25 4. Supporting and advancing meaningful values.26 5. Negotiating and bargaining.27 6. Advocating and persuading.28 7. Communicating.29 8. Image-​making.30 9. Crisis management.31 10. Reporting to and advising their own government.32 All these functions are interactional; they can be performed in the interaction between two or more parties. They are derived from the major objectives of diplomacy that were mentioned in Chapter 2, namely: protecting interests, promoting values, resolving differences, solving problems and managing relations. Not all of these functions are of primary importance to all diplomatic actors and their missions abroad. Their significance may change over time, depending on the tasks facing the diplomats. For example, representation as a function is of great importance to all diplomatic actors, but in terms of its symbolic significance, it is especially important for newly independent states that are still asserting their statehood in the international arena, as to be diplomatically represented abroad is a major symbol of statehood. Some powerful diplomatic actors, for example, the United States, attach great importance to advancing values such as democracy and freedom globally, but to some other 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

This is about official and institutionalized representation. This includes political, security, economic and other important interests. Usually, public diplomacy, diplomatic efforts and exchange in the areas of culture, sports and science, and other networking activities are parts of the development of bilateral or multilateral relations. Often this relates to such values as democracy, human rights, religious freedom, etc. This can be related to all matters of mutual concern, including regional and global issues. For example, encouraging or lobbying for joint projects, trade, foreign investment and other projects. Including different forms of signaling, delivering and development of certain ideas, discourses and narratives. This means promoting a positive image of the nation and managing its public perception. This includes peacekeeping, humanitarian efforts, handling emergencies and providing aid. This includes observation and analytical work.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

126 

Chapter 5

actors, value promotion may not be as important or relevant. Over time, the significance of some diplomatic functions may increase or decrease for an actor. And diplomatic missions of the same state in different countries may have different priorities for each function and task (for example, the US embassies in Iraq and the United Kingdom have some similar but also some very different functions). Diplomatic functions can be classified according to various criteria. One is by their significance to the diplomatic actor. In this regard, we can talk about strategic and situational, urgent and trivial, and priority (more important) and non-​priority (less unimportant) functions. This kind of division is relative and subject to change over time. For instance, at one time, economic issues may have been the main concern for diplomats, but at other times, issues such as providing urgent assistance to citizens to fly home, such as during the covid-​ 19 pandemic, may come to the fore. Figure 5.6 shows the various functions of a diplomatic actor, with larger circles reflecting higher priority for the actor. We can also distinguish functions by their relations to each other. Some functions serve other functions. For example, political analysis can be regarded as one of the functions of many diplomats posted abroad. However, this serves some other, more general functions such as reporting and negotiating. Thus, we can distinguish master functions, servient functions and subservient functions. Master functions are finite or target functions –​all the efforts of diplomats are primarily aimed at performing these functions and other functions related to them as servient or subservient functions. Three fundamental diplomatic functions typically emerge as master functions: protecting interests and citizens, developing relationships, and advancing values. Other diplomatic functions such as reporting and advising the diplomatic mission’s own government, communicating and discoursing, advocating and persuading, negotiating and

F2

F3

F1 F4

F5

­f igure 5.6  The functions of a diplomatic actor.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Functions

127

Master funcon

Servient funcon

Subservient funcon

­f igure 5.7  Master, servient and subservient diplomatic functions.

bargaining, image-​making and managing public perceptions, and crisis management can serve these master functions as servient or subservient functions. Master functions may or may not turn into strategic functions. Sometimes representing can appear as a master function –​for some diplomatic missions, or in some situations, it may be crucial to the activities of diplomats and all their other missions may serve it. However, in general, diplomatic representation does not exist for its own sake, but for helping countries protect their interests, develop relationships with others and, in some cases, support important values. Thus, representation as one of the basic diplomatic functions is used to enable other diplomatic functions. Figure 5.7 shows the three mutually subordinate functions of a diplomatic actor. Finally, we can classify diplomatic functions in terms of their presence in various spheres of diplomatic activity. From this point of view, I distinguish mega-​functions, macro-​functions and micro-​functions. Mega-​functions are part of all diplomatic work, and they penetrate and affect every sphere of diplomats’ professional activity; macro-​functions are linked to many diplomatic undertakings and influence them; and micro-​functions accompany and influence only a few specific areas of diplomatic work. In international diplomacy, representing and negotiating or bargaining can be considered mega-​functions.33 The reason is that no matter what a diplomatic mission or diplomat does, they are always involved in the business of representation and negotiations or bargaining. When diplomats work to 33

“Negotiation” and “bargaining” can sometimes be used synonymously but may also have some differences in meaning. For the sake of brevity, I will use negotiation to refer to both phenomena. However, I will also clarify when I use these concepts in their more specific senses.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

128 

Chapter 5 Diplomats’ megafunc ons

Representa on

Nego a on

­f igure 5.8  Representation and negotiation as diplomats’ mega-​functions.

protect the interests and citizens of their state, build a relationship with the host country, support and advance certain values, communicate and talk to counterparts, advocate for projects and persuade people, improve their country’s public image, participate in relief operations and aid, and even report to the capital and advise their governments, they are involved in representational and negotiation activity (see Figure 5.8). There is no strict distinction between representation and negotiation as diplomatic mega-​functions. In a wider sense, representation is a form of communication and interaction. Representation can be a part of the negotiation process or serve negotiations, and negotiation can appear as an element or means of representation. The participation of the ambassador in a ceremony or diplomatic reception can be both an act of representation and an element of a wider negotiation. Making statements to journalists can be both an element of negotiation strategy and a part of representing the country to the host nation’s public. In other words, representation and negotiation are the two intertwined and mutually supportive mega-​functions of traditional diplomacy (see Figure 5.9). In diplomacy, both representation and negotiation are means of interaction and exerting influence. Efficient representation assists negotiation, and effective negotiation helps representation. Diplomatic methods and skills of traditional diplomacy are largely related to the ability of a diplomat to effectively represent and negotiate. In international diplomacy, mega-​functions permeate other functions and play a role in their execution. As far as diplomatic macro-​and micro-​functions, they interpenetrate other diplomatic activities to a lesser degree (see Figure 5.10). For example, receiving and sending off various delegations occupies a certain place in the life of diplomatic missions and diplomats working abroad. But this is one of their micro-​functions that can be conducted as a part of protocol work, advising

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

129

Diplomatic Functions

Representang

Negoang

­f igure 5.9  Relations between representation and negotiation functions in international diplomacy.

Micro Micro

Mega

Macro Macro

Macro

Macro Macro

­f igure 5.10 Diplomatic mega-​macro-​and micro-​functions.

activities, transportation support, and so on. Similarly, analytical work or networking may not be listed among major diplomatic functions, but they can be regarded as macro-​functions in terms of their presence in performing some other functions of diplomats. Therefore, in doing a range of diplomatic activities, diplomats are also performing analytical work and networking. Managing perceptions and image-​making, building relations, advocating projects, and many other functions are closely intertwined with the abilities of diplomats to analyze and develop networks. Mega-​functions are primarily the responsibility of the ambassador, while other diplomats may have more narrow functions. Each diplomat can have their own functional responsibilities or job descriptions, but any specific diplomatic functions are derived from the main functions of the diplomatic mission and its head. The ambassador’s mega-​functions influence all their activities and tasks, and all aspects of the ambassador’s life serve their mega-​functions. For example, participation in ceremonies, cultural events and social gatherings,

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

130 

Chapter 5

the official car, the architecture, design and location of the embassy and the ambassador’s residence, the ambassador’s dress and manner, receptions and the ambassadorial dinner, and other aspects of the ambassador’s life have a direct relation to their effectiveness as an official representative. The ambassador’s conversations, public speeches, debates, media appearances, analytical activities, verbal and nonverbal communication, and behavior style can be seen as different elements of their negotiations strategies. 2

Representation as a Diplomatic Mega-​function

The idea of representation put in a political, social and relational context can be a powerful change-​maker or game-​changer in the conceptualization of diplomacy. Sharp, who is the most distinguished advocate of the understanding of diplomacy as representation, noted that when diplomacy is seen in terms of representation rather than as an instrument of more substantive foreign policies, then it becomes possible to see how it expresses a human condition that precedes and transcends the experience of living in the sovereign, territorial states of the past few hundred years. Rather than seeing diplomacy as an institution of the modern state system, both the practice and context should be seen as responses to a common problem of living separately and wanting to do so, while having to conduct relations with others.34 The representational approach offers wider and more socially defined perspectives to diplomacy. At the same time, some new challenging questions arrive in this regard: Why should some entities be represented in their relations with others? What is the best way to represent, and who can represent other entities? In state-​based diplomacy, states as diplomatic actors can interact with each other only through representation. As Wendt pointed out, “no one can ‘see’ the state or international system,” and “International politics does not present itself directly to the senses.”35 In traditional diplomacy, representation is materialized in organizational and personal forms. Organizationally, diplomatic missions abroad provide representation; individually, this is done by the ambassador.

34 Sharp, “For Diplomacy,” p. 51. 35 Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, p. 5.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Functions

131

In the previous chapter, we discussed Goffman’s analysis of the presentation of Self in everyday life as a stage performance. Goffman also analyzed so-​called face-​work, “the actions taken by a person to make whatever he is doing consistent with face.”36 “Face” appears as a positive social value a person “effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact”37 and face-​work occurs as a part of face-​to-​face social intercourse. Face-​work and presentation of the Self in everyday life are closely connected phenomena: they take place in reflective social interactions. Goffman noted some similarities between face-​work and diplomacy: the capacity of face-​work “is something called tact, savoir-​faire, diplomacy, or social skill.”38 The same can be said about the capacity to present the Self to others: it is a part of the job and skills of a diplomat. The ambassador, as a representative, is always involved in some kind of presentation –​the presentation of the sending country, the Self, a cause, ideas, art, narratives and other significant issues or ­subjects. As in the case of presentation of the Self in public, diplomatic representation has some commonalities with stage performance: the ambassador needs to perform their diplomatic duties, including representation, well in the host country. Presentability, as Neumann explained, is an essential part of diplomatic representation.39 Neumann connected diplomatic presentability primarily with visuality. Visual images have always played an important role in diplomacy, but with the development of tv, the Internet, social media, and visual communication in the modern era, visuality gained even more significance. Modern diplomacy has become more “mediatized,”40 and it increasingly uses digital images.41 As Constantinou pointed out, the artful use of visuals becomes highly significant, especially in public diplomacy.42 Constantinou defined visual diplomacy as: the ways and means by which images are used by plural diplomatic actors to transmit ideas to audiences, producing and circulating means

36 Goffman, Interaction Ritual, p. 5. 37 Goffman, “On Face-​Work,” p. 5. 38 Goffman, Interaction Ritual, p. 13. 39 Neumann, Diplomatic tenses. 40 James Pamment, “The Mediatization of Diplomacy.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 9, no. 3 (2014): 253–​289. 41 Corneliu Bjola and Markus Holmes, eds., Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (New York: Routledge, 2015). 42 Costas Constantinou, “Visual Diplomacy: Reflections on Diplomatic Spectacle and Cinematic Thinking,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13, no. 4 (2018): 387–​409, p. 389.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

132 

Chapter 5

that serve particular purposes, with the aim of influencing, shaping and transforming relations between actors and across publics.43 Contemporary visual diplomacy skillfully operates with diplomatic spectacles and visual narratives.44 Visuality and signification of the actor, its representative and their presence enhance the effect of representation. Ceremonies and costumes during the presentation of credentials and other official events help impress spectators and allow actors –​both from the representing and the receiving sides –​to feel their importance. Representing a state requires both the state and the ambassador to be significant. The absence of significance of those who are represented and those who represent makes representation less meaningful. That is why diplomacy so often uses the spectacular for making representation more visible and effective. Presentability is expressed mostly through visuality as well as the ambassador’s rhetoric, manners, ability to use symbols and communication skills. However, there is another essential part of the quality of diplomatic representation: the ambassador’s representability (see Figure 5.11). Representability is about the individual’s virtues, which include the ambassador’s experience, reputation (especially trustworthiness), character, skills, connections, convictions, and other personal and professional qualities. In short, it is about the ambassador’s credibility as a representative. Although both presentability and representability are important elements for diplomatic representation, the latter has greater prominence in international diplomacy. Sending, Pouliot and Neumann argue that diplomacy, in the modern world, is much more than representation: diplomacy is also concerned with governance, understood as a system of rule and control. Theoretically, representation differs from governing in that the former is organized around the idea of advancing the interest of a group, which necessitates communication with others, whereas governing involves changing other actors’ behavior to achieve certain objectives.45 While the idea of representation is more about the social side of diplomacy, the idea of governance is more about its political aspect. Undoubtedly, in 43 Ibid., p. 387. 44 Ibid. 45 Sending, Pouliot and Neumann, “Introduction,” p. 17.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

133

Diplomatic Functions

Ambassador’s presentability

Ambassador as a representave

Ambassador’s representability

­f igure 5.11 Presentability and representability in diplomatic representation.

international diplomacy, especially in the diplomacy of the great powers, the issues of global governance can occupy an important place, and this is evidence that state-​based diplomacy is embedded in the political system, foreign policy and international politics. However, even in matters of governance, state-​based and internationally oriented diplomacy can be carried out through a system of representation. Thus, the instruments of political diplomacy are closely related to the social mechanisms of the interaction of actors, their agencies and agents. 3

Negotiation as a Diplomatic Mega-​function

Negotiation is one of the most fundamental functions of diplomatic actors, agencies and agents. Even representation often serves negotiation –​the effort to achieve something as a diplomat through joint decision-​making. In his famous 1716 book about the manner of negotiating with sovereigns, François de Callières wrote that a diplomat’s function in a foreign country may be reduced “to two principal heads: the one is, to negotiate there the affairs of his own Prince; and the other is to discover those of others.”46 Nicolson, as 46

François de Callières, The Art of Diplomacy, eds. H. M.A Keens-​Soper and Karl W. Schweizer (New York: Holmes and Meier), 1983, p. 110.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

134 

Chapter 5

already mentioned, considered diplomacy the management of international relations by negotiation.47 Berridge regarded negotiations as only one of the functions of diplomacy, albeit the most important.48 It is no coincidence that some dictionaries list negotiation as a synonym for diplomacy. Of course, not all diplomats conduct negotiations; this is more typical for senior diplomats, especially ambassadors. But by helping senior diplomats with informational and analytical materials, protocol issues or note-​taking, lower-​level diplomats are also indirectly involved in diplomatic negotiations. Negotiations can be defined as the interaction of two or more actors for making a joint decision on an issue of mutual concern. The subjects (actors), objects (issues), environment (conditions), process (methods)49 and outcome (agreement) are the five fundamental elements of negotiation (see Figure 5.12), although negotiating doesn’t guarantee the outcome in the form of an agreement. Actors of negotiations can be any sociopolitical entities –​individuals, groups, companies, organizations, states and/​or their aggregations. The actors can negotiate themselves, or through their agents, and organization-​ agencies can be involved in this process. In traditional diplomacy, states and other internationally significant polities are the actors of negotiations. But states, as discussed earlier, do not themselves negotiate –​they do this through their organization-​agencies and individual agents. They can also involve other states, international, nongovernmental, quasi-​ independent and independent organizations, companies, groups, and individuals in their negotiations. The issue of negotiations is what the parties enter the negotiation process seek. It can be a simple object or a solution to a very complex problem. The condition is the situation, with all its possibilities and limitations, in which negotiations take place. In international diplomacy, the negotiation situation may be defined by political, security, strategic, economic, legal, moral and relational factors. The most distinguishable method of negotiation is a joint decision-​making process for finding a mutually acceptable agreement. Such a process can include speaking and listening, making arguments and counter-​ arguments, putting forth conditions and making concessions, defending interests and finding common ground, and so on. The outcome, in the form of an agreement, can be formal or informal, secret or public, limited or unlimited in time, and so on. The need for negotiation arises when entities become interdependent. Of course, here I am talking about cases where actors avoid the path of destruction 47 Nicolson, Diplomacy. 48 Berridge, Diplomacy, p. 29. 49 In this context, process and method refer to how something is done.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

135

Diplomatic Functions

Issue/ problem

Actors/ negoators

Environment/ condions

Negoaon

Outcome/ agreement

Process/ method

­f igure 5.12 The five basic elements of negotiation: actors, issue, environment, process and outcome.

and choose the path of peaceful coexistence, relationship-​ building and problem-​solving. The greater the degree of interdependence, the greater the need for negotiations. If peoples and states want to survive and thrive in our extremely complicated and interdependent world, they need to interact and negotiate with one another to find an agreeable way to coexist. As international relations become more complex, so do international negotiations. Because of the media, ordinary people can now observe many international negotiations unfold. The picture of diplomatic negotiations, which can be seen even with an untrained eye, cannot fail to impress: it is determined by a complex combination of national interests, positions, legal rights and obligations, values, alliances and coalitions of states and other major international players, the interaction of political, economic, military, social, cultural, emotional and other factors, trends in public mood, the minds of politicians and public figures, the subtle calculation and emotional reactions of analysts, journalists, scholars, international officials and other key individuals. Diplomatic negotiations are influenced by the media, the climate of international relations, and many strategic, situational and personality factors. Politicians and diplomats who conduct negotiations should be well versed in all aspects of this complex picture. Negotiation as a diplomatic function indicates that diplomatic missions and individual diplomats are authorized to negotiate on behalf of their

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

136 

Chapter 5

governments. Usually, this key function of diplomacy is understood as a rational and explicit process. At the same time, states and their representatives are widely involved not only in explicit but also implicit negotiations or bargaining.50 Schelling is one of the few authors to study bargaining, including tacit bargaining, in the international area. In his classic book The Strategy of Conflict, he distinguished “explicit bargaining and the tacit kind in which adversaries watch and interpret each other’s behavior, each aware that his own actions are being interpreted and anticipated, each acting with a view to the expectations that he creates.”51 Schelling used the terms “explicit negotiation” and “explicit bargaining” as well as “tacit negotiation” and “tacit bargaining” as interchangeable concepts, although his game-​related theory is primarily a bargaining theory. According to Schelling, explicit negotiation is characterized by full communication between parties, and in tacit bargaining, communication is incomplete or impossible. In some situations, we can consider bargaining as a part of the negotiation. Tacit bargaining may lead to a “tacit agreement” or an agreement reached through partial or haphazard negotiation, or incomplete communication.52 “Focal point” –​a solution arrived in such a situation –​is a fundamental element of Schelling’s theory of bargaining. Schelling and later other scholars used the concept of focal point to analyze a wide range of bargaining situations, including diplomatic ones, where the parties have incomplete communication. In some contexts, the concepts of negotiation and bargaining can be used interchangeably, but they may have their own specific characteristics too. Usually, negotiations are understood as a more explicit, organized and structured process, while bargaining may be less explicit, organized and structured. In situations with poor communication, tacit bargainers try to interpret the intentions and actions of their counterparts, and they may be wrong. To avoid misunderstanding in tacit bargaining, “people make their expectations of reciprocity explicit.”53 However, they may not always be able to do this. For many scholars, bargaining represents a type of negotiation or negotiating exchange. Bargaining is also associated with a distributive process wherein the parties carry out a zero-​sum type of exchange through haggling and concessions. In this regard, some scholars distinguish “distributive bargaining” 50 Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict; Richard Ned Lebow, The Art of Bargaining (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996). 51 Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, p. 21. 52 Ibid., p. 75. 53 Lebow, The Art of Bargaining, p. 2.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Functions

137

and “integrative negotiation,”54 which indicate the “dividing the pie” (win-​ lose) and “expanding the pie” (win-​win) strategies, respectively. According to Richard Ned Lebow, “Bargaining is necessary when the terms of exchange are not predetermined and any attempt to establish them reveals the clashing preferences of the parties concerned. Bargaining is communication designed to promote a satisfactory exchange.”55 Unlike explicit negotiations, in implicit bargaining, the exchange parameters may not be discussed, but are implied in an unspoken form. Most existing negotiation theories tend to be quite rationalistic. For many authors, negotiation represents a rational decision-​making process in which parties plan out possible options and then choose the best one. When states negotiate with each other, they usually make preparations that include all kinds of calculations. Diplomatic negotiations may have a pre-​negotiation process, and this can be considered a negotiation on how to negotiate. Well-​prepared international negotiations presuppose defining an agenda, the rules of procedure, consultations and other important elements which help create an explicit and rational negotiation process. Nevertheless, even a well-​prepared negotiation process may have unpredicted and implicit elements, and even the most experienced diplomatic negotiators’ behavior can be influenced by emotional, social, situational and interpersonal factors that may affect the rationality and predictability of the negotiation process. In a very broad sense, we can, of course, use negotiation and bargaining as synonyms. We can also approach negotiation as a primarily explicit decision-​ making process aimed at agreeing and bargaining largely as the tacit way of finding a focal point. In this respect, both negotiation and bargaining are quite widespread in people’s daily lives, social and international relations. Mostly explicit negotiations can comprise tacit bargaining as well as be a part of a wider bargaining process with implicit elements. I approach international negotiations as organized interaction with rules, procedures and other arrangements, and bargaining as a part of implicit and tacit interaction wherein the parties try to influence each other with fewer procedural measures, more indirectly and ambiguously. Most diplomatic negotiations incorporate elements of bargaining, and the bargaining process can include some structured components, such as defined participants, place and timeframe. Some direct or indirect interactions between states or other international entities may not be seen as a negotiation over particular issues, 54

Roy Lewicki, Bruce Barry and David Saunders, Negotiation, 7th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill Education, 2014). 55 Lebow, The Art of Bargaining, p. 1.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

138 

Chapter 5

though the parties could try to influence each other to achieve something they want. Following Schelling, we may point to such strategic interactions as bargaining behavior or strategic bargaining. The United States and Iran did not negotiate for a long time, but they constantly and indirectly bargained over many issues. The same happens in relations between North Korea and the international community, or Israel and Hamas. The very concept of negotiation suggests it is explicit, while the concept of bargaining is much closer to an implicit or tacit kind of negotiation. Explicit negotiation can comprise implicit elements, and tacit bargaining can contain some explicit components; this is a kind of Yin-​Yang, with each of them including a part of the other. But in general, explicit negotiation is a more organized, structured and outspoken process, and implicit negotiation is poorly structured and is mainly tacit and indirect. As it is hard to find a term that can express both types of joint decision-​ making process –​for closing an explicit agreement and finding an implicit focal point –​in some cases, I will use the concept of negotiation to refer to both explicit negotiation and implicit bargaining. But the important point is that diplomats are involved not only in explicit joint decision-​making processes but also in the implicit search for focal points. In other words, they can act as both explicit negotiators and implicit bargainers. And in diplomacy, explicit negotiations can take place occasionally, but implicit bargaining is a never-​ ending process. Indeed, “Bargaining is ubiquitous.”56 Interrelated entities are essentially involved in constant bargaining, without necessarily engaging in explicit negotiations. As Schelling showed, “most conflict situations are essentially bargaining situations.”57 “Diplomacy is bargaining,”58 and “Diplomatic negotiation is bargaining between states,”59 however, international relations and diplomatic scholars mostly discuss explicit negotiation and pay less attention to implicit bargaining. Negotiation scholars tend to discuss bargaining and haggling mostly in relation to everyday or business situations, and social tradeoffs. For many researchers and practitioners, bargaining behavior is more appropriate in a marketplace, in buying and selling cars, houses, and other goods.60 Of course,

56

Abhinay Muthoo, “A Non-​Technical Introduction to Bargaining Theory,” World Economics 1 no. 2 (2000): 145–​166, p. 145. 57 Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, p. 5. 58 Schelling, Arms and Influence, p. 1. 59 Freeman Jr., Arts of Power, p. 87. 60 Alisher Faizullaev, “Bargaining Lessons From the Bazaar,” Negotiation Newsletter, Harvard Law School, Harvard University, 15, no. 2 (2012): 6–​7.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Functions

139

there is a rationale behind this approach. Bargaining or haggling typically occurs as a step-​by-​step tradeoff, with each side making certain concessions until they reach the best deal for all. However, based on Schelling’s theory, we can approach bargaining as a direct or indirect, open or tacit interaction of actors for finding common ground that can emerge as a focal point accepted by all explicitly or implicitly. Using game theory, Schelling studied different bargaining games in international politics and diplomacy, particularly the role of commitment, threat and promise in the bargaining process.61 This book argues that diplomats, especially ambassadors, do not only negotiate explicitly but are also involved in a constant, implicit bargaining process. If we approach negotiation as an organized and structurally defined process, then ambassadors usually only negotiate from time to time. But when we understand bargaining as a less structured and organized process of exerting influence using all available means, particularly tacit ones, then our understanding of ambassadors’ negotiation function becomes broader: ambassadors are not just occasional negotiators but constant bargainers. Even attending some diplomatic receptions, accepting or rejecting dinner invitations, or having or not having a conversation with someone can be a part of the diplomatic bargaining process. Therefore, bargaining, especially in its tacit form, can be regarded as an implicit diplomatic function. In terms of importance, this is no less important than the function of explicit negotiation, especially given that diplomats, whatever they do, are constantly involved in direct or indirect bargaining. From this perspective, we can also clarify the understanding of negotiation as a diplomatic mega-​function. Negotiation as a mega-​function in diplomacy includes both explicit and implicit negotiations and bargaining, both prepared and more structured negotiations, and less-​prepared or unprepared and unstructured bargaining along with its tacit elements. Unlike explicit and structured negotiation, implicit bargaining may not require preparation and other elements of organizing. From this point of view, anything professional diplomats do can be considered an element of the wider bargaining process between states and other international entities. Negotiation can emerge as a diplomatic mega-​function only when we look at it from such a broad perspective (see Figure 5.13). So, states as diplomatic actors and diplomats as their official representatives always bargain, often tacitly, and they do it even when they are not officially negotiating. Tacit bargaining can take place between states and non-​state 61 Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

140 

Chapter 5

Occational negotiations

Negotiation as a diplomatic megafunction

Permanent bargaining

­f igure 5.13 An expanded understanding of negotiation as a diplomatic mega-​function.

actors, and it can use a variety of interaction channels, including social media, public appearances, artistic performances and symbolically rich rituals and ceremonies. Culturally close nations can use commonly understood cultural codes and signals in their never-​ending bargaining.62 Bargaining between interdependent actors can last indefinitely, because even when the parties make a joint decision as a result of organized negotiation, they can continue the bargaining process. The issue of bargaining can be clear or not, and sometimes the parties openly bargain about one subject, but the real problem of concern can be different. For example, when the United States bargains with China or Russia over any matter, there are always political and security issues at stake. Similarly, when they discuss political issues, it is not uncommon for the conversation to touch on topics related to values. Bargainers may not openly acknowledge these sometimes veiled subjects and they are often presented at the implicit level. For instance, in recent times, trade issues became a bone of contention between the United States and China, and the countries had much explicit negotiation and implicit bargaining about bilateral trade. But when they bargain over trade, many other important issues affecting their relations are also included. In recent years, when discussing issues of bilateral trade, including tariffs and sanctions, the 62

Alisher Faizullaev, “Institutions and Culture in Regional Interactions and Negotiations: The Case of Central Asia,” Cambridge Central Asia Review 1, no. 1 (2014): 17–​26; Alisher Faizullaev, “Negotiating Security in Central Asia: Explicit and Tacit Dimensions,” in Tug of War: Negotiating Security in Eurasia, eds. Fen Osler Hampson and Mikhail Troitskiy (Waterloo, ON: cigi Press, 2017), pp. 163–​181.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Functions

141

parties have touched not only on broader issues such as trade policies and practices, protection of the domestic market and jobs, and intellectual property and cybersecurity, but have also openly or tacitly interacted over issues related to the status and security of Taiwan, technological development and leadership in high-​tech industries, human rights, domestic and global policy and politics, energy security and the environment, and relations with Russia, Japan, the EU and the Koreas. Particularly, representatives of China and the United States voiced –​directly or indirectly –​their concerns on these and other issues in the media and on social media, and such mutual influencing was a part of the bargaining process. Negotiations and bargaining can be both verbal and nonverbal. Of course, explicit negotiations may also have nonverbal aspects. But in an organized negotiation, body language and nonverbal communication serve as additions to the explicit process of decision-​making. In bargaining, they can also play the leading role in the interaction. In diplomacy, even the tone of a negotiator’s voice or address can serve as a bargaining tool. Some bargaining processes between states happen exclusively at an implicit level, where indirect signaling and other forms of interaction define the moves of the parties. In their different capacities, diplomats can act as relationship managers, communicators, peacebuilders, public speakers, presenters, storytellers, moderators, facilitators, image-​ makers, problem-​ solvers, persuaders, influencers, symbolic figures, representatives, entertainers, organizers, networkers, observers, analysts, strategists, leaders and visionaries. “Diplomats perform on a variety of stages –​palaces, dining halls, hotel lobbies, and even spas and ­cemeteries.”63 But no matter what they do, they are always involved in the bargaining process. Chapter 9 discusses the role of greetings in diplomacy and greeting as an implicit bargaining process. 63 Sofer, The Courtiers of Civilization, p. xi.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

­c hapter 6

Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset Dialogical interaction as a meta-​method in diplomacy. Conversing, negotiating, disputing and rhetoric as general methods of dialogical interaction. Diplomats as conversationalists, negotiators, disputants and rhetoricians. Negotiation and bargaining in diplomacy. Skills, abilities and personal qualities in diplomacy. Diplomatic skillsets for dialogical interaction and tactful conduct. Interoperating, reflection, organizational, self-​regulation and moral skillsets of diplomats. Constructiveness in diplomacy. Savoir-​faire as a core diplomatic skill. Diplomatic mindset: a diplomat’s dispositions and attitudes. A diplomat’s behavior style.

∵ 1

Diplomatic Methods

In Chapter 2, I briefly mentioned diplomatic methods in the context of diplomatic performance and socio-​behavioral norms. Chapter 5 connected diplomatic methods with diplomatic functions and skills. This chapter examines different diplomatic methods used by individual diplomats. Diplomats may use a variety of methods to carry out their missions and perform their functions, for example, visits, conferences, negotiations, discussions, notes verbales,1 diplomatic démarches,2 exchange programs, diplomatic receptions, interactions with journalists and social media use. But all methods of diplomacy are carried out as forms its meta-​method, namely dialogical interaction. Any diplomatic practice can take place through dialogical interaction, where interaction means mutual action that has the possibility of 1 A note verbale is “A strictly formal, third person, no-​frills communication” which is “the customary mode of written communication between an embassy and a ministry of foreign affairs;” G. R. Berridge and Alan James, A Dictionary of Diplomacy, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), p. 190. 2 Démarche is “A formal message, written or oral, to a receiving state generally involving a protest, compliant or ultimatum, delivered by one or more diplomats;” ibid., p. 67.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_008 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset

143

not only influencing but also being influenced, and dialogical means mutual exchange and consideration of the opinion and concerns of the other side. In other words, genuine diplomacy is a “two-​way street,” where the goodwill mission moves the engine of diplomacy, and constructive engagement is the rule of moving ahead for making peace, problem-​solving and coexistence. Apparently, in traditional and politically motivated diplomacy, some non-​ diplomatic or non-​dialogical and manipulative methods are used, for example, threats, sanctions, pressure and other coercive means. However, genuine diplomatic methods or diplomatic methods per se cannot be non-​interactive and non-​dialogical. Interacting entities can act in the spirit of cooperation, confrontation or a combination of elements of both. This means that they can be partners or opponents, or both partners and opponents at the same time. Pure and unconditional cooperation between sociopolitical entities is quite rare, because, despite having common interests, each of them also has their own interests that may not always coincide. It is also uncommon to find pure and total rivalry between entities, as this brings the risk of being destroyed or of mutual destruction, and competitors may find some areas or points on which to cooperate. Even super-​rival companies such as Apple and Samsung cooperate in some technological spheres,3 and leading tennis players or football clubs need to cooperate in some areas to compete in tournaments. Sociopolitical entities most often cooperate and confront each other, or mainly cooperate in some areas and largely confront in others. This points to widespread mixed-​motive behavior in political and social life. Most negotiations involve such mixed-​ motive behavior comprising elements of competition and cooperation. Dialogic interaction presupposes cooperation between the parties but, at the same time, does not exclude confrontation. Thus, hostile countries or unfriendly neighbors can choose dialog to resolve their differences. What matters in the dialogical form of interaction is the desire of the parties to not only talk and advance their interests but also listen to each other and consider the other party’s interests, even if their opinions or positions are in ­conflict. Therefore, dialogical interaction as a meta-​method can have a cooperative or mixed-​motive modus operandi or mode of exerting influence. Pure non-​cooperative or confrontational modus operandi is not dialogical, because any dialogical interaction includes at least some element of cooperation. For example, even simply listening to the arguments of the opposite side is already

3 For example, Apple acquired some chips and screens for iPhones from Samsung, and Samsung uses iTunes movies and television programs in its smart tv s.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

144 

Chapter 6

a certain form of dialogical cooperation. As cooperation between the parties increases, so does the degree of their dialogic interaction. Accordingly, we can talk about different degrees or levels of dialogic interaction between the counterparts. Conversation, negotiation, dispute and rhetoric can be considered general methods of dialogic interaction used in diplomacy, although rhetoric and its forms (oratory, writing, discoursing and narrating) can be included in the arsenal of diplomatic methods only if they are conducted in dialogical rather than monological ways. In other words, the meta-​method of dialogic interaction can be concretized in the forms of conversation, negotiation, dispute and rhetoric. We can also consider these methods forms of communication, or communicative methods of diplomacy, but to emphasize the mutual influence of the involved parties, they are presented in this book as methods of interaction, which obviously comprises the elements of communication. These general methods of dialogical interaction may include more specific or operational methods, such as sending a delegation, participating in a conference, exchanging correspondence, making a statement, holding a press conference, making a speech or posting on a social media account, if they allow influencing opportunities for all the parties involved. 1.1 Conversation When parties engage in conversation, they mostly cooperate and coordinate their behavior, and a great conversation requires the maximum cooperation. The art of conversation is an important life and diplomatic skill, and a good conversation involves equality, mutual interest and respect of the parties, desire to listen to and understand each other, as well as sincerity, spontaneity, empathy and responsiveness.4 Specific diplomatic actions and interactions can be a part of the conversation between the parties or use the conversing mode of interaction. Figure 6.1 shows conversing as a predominantly cooperative mode of interaction between the Self and Other. 1.2 Negotiation Any negotiation contains elements of cooperation and opposition, and negotiations make sense when the parties have different interests or disagreements but want to find a mutually satisfactory solution. The very fact of the negotiation means that the counterparts, despite the divergence of their interests, 4 The Economist, December “Chattering Classes,” 19, 2006, accessed April 17, 2021, https://​www .econom​ist.com/​spec​ial-​rep​ort/​2006/​12/​19/​cha​tter​ing-​clas​ses; Catherine Blyth, The Art of Conversation: A Guided Tour of a Neglected Pleasure (New York: Penguin, 2010).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

145

Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset Conversing

Self

Partners

Other

­f igure 6.1  Conversing as the interaction between partners.

Negoaon

Self

Partners and opponents

Other

­f igure 6.2  Negotiating as the interaction between partners and opponents.

have some cooperation aimed at finding common ground. In negotiation theory, there is the concept of the negotiator’s dilemma: an entity who negotiates with someone always faces the choice of going into more cooperative or more competitive behavior, or being tougher or softer in relations with the counterpart. In international diplomacy, negotiation is the most common and natural mode of interaction between diplomats. Figure 6.2 shows negotiation as a cooperative and confrontational mode of interaction between the involved parties. 1.3 Dispute Diplomacy can at times use the disputing mode of dialogical interaction, although conversing and negotiating are more typical. Disputes may differ in the degree of their confrontation with the opponent: from mild disputes, which are in the form of discussions, to harsh ones that turn into debates. Discussion implies greater tolerance and a higher degree of exchange of views, while debate involves a greater degree of challenge and contestation. Therefore, discussion is more common than debate in diplomats’ arsenals.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

146 

Chapter 6

Dispung

Self

Opponents

Other

­f igure 6.3  Disputing as the interaction between opponents.

However, even the fiercest debates in diplomacy presuppose some form of cooperation between the opponents. For example, even the most irreconcilable opponents at the United Nations Security Council generally observe the norms of protocol and accepted rules of procedures. In a debate, parties may try to win over the counterpart, but, as Schelling noted, even when conflicting parties try to win, “there are common as well as conflicting interests among the participants.”5 Figure 6.3 shows dispute as a primarily confrontational mode of interaction between parties. 1.4 Rhetoric Oratory, storytelling, discoursing, presenting and developing narratives, writing letters and articles, and other forms of rhetoric are widely used in diplomacy. However, rhetoric can be considered one of the general methods of dialogical interaction if it involves openness, the possibility of receiving feedback and the desire to listen to the other side. Rhetoric is a persuasive method of exerting influence, and in both oral and written form, it can be a part of the conversation, negotiation and dispute, and serve the actor’s conversing, negotiating and disputing modes of interaction. However, the rhetoric can also be monological, that is, one-​sided. Monological rhetoricians have no desire to listen to the other party, and their aim is mere one-​sided exertion of influence through the delivery of discourse construction. Therefore, rhetoric can be turned into an essentially cooperative or oppositional mode of activity, depending on the goals of the rhetorician. Figure 6.4 shows rhetoric as a cooperative or confrontational mode of interaction between the parties.

5 Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, p. 4.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

147

Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset

Rhetoric

Self

Other

Partners or opponents

­f igure 6.4  Rhetoric as cooperating or confronting interaction.

The more an actor’s rhetoric is built on the principle of dialogical interaction –​ containing elements of exchange and mutual influence –​the more it becomes one of the general methods of diplomacy. As diplomats can use in their interactions such general methods of dialogical interaction as conversation, negotiation, dispute and rhetoric, they can act as conversationalists, negotiators, disputants and rhetoricians (see Figure 6.5). Conversation is the most cooperative of the general methods of dialogic interaction in diplomacy, as it involves the maximum collaboration and mutual support of the parties. Next in terms of the degree of cooperation is negotiation, which always contains elements of both cooperation and competition. The most competitive form of interaction is the dispute, the extreme form of which is that debate, which involves the maximum competition, although even it contains elements of cooperation. Rhetoric occupies a special place among the methods mentioned, having the ability to become quite cooperative or highly confrontational. Much depends on the person delivering the

Conversaonalists

Negoaators

Diplomats as dialogical interaconalists

Rhetoricians

Disputants

­f igure 6.5  Four roles of diplomats as dialogical interactionalists.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

148 

Chapter 6

rhetoric: they can make it dialogical or monological, and monological rhetoric goes against the spirit of diplomacy. As Schelling pointed out, “in international affairs, there is mutual dependence as well as opposition.”6 Diplomats, therefore, can use conversation, negotiation, dispute and rhetoric as their interactional modus operandi or general methods of dialogical interaction. However, in international diplomacy as well as in “most conflict situations [that] are essentially bargaining situations,”7 diplomats emerge primarily as negotiators who are involved in both explicit negotiations and implicit bargaining. In traditional diplomacy, by and large, conversing, disputing and rhetoric serve diplomats’ negotiating and bargaining activities and objectives. The distinct role of negotiation in traditional diplomacy is manifested in the fact that it appears both as a mega-​ function and as one of the general methods of interaction with counterparts. Negotiation, as a function, is a task or principal activity. As a method, negotiation is a process of joint decision-​making or a type of interaction. As will be shown in Chapter 8, in social diplomacy, the main and most important method is conversation, although social diplomats can use other forms of dialogical interaction. As previously noted, diplomatic behavior has its own normative side, emphasizing its civilized nature; it is carried out within the framework of certain social rules –​the rules of politeness, tolerance and mutual respect. As a matter of fact, such normativity is one of the foundations that contribute to the dialogic nature of diplomatic interaction. Accordingly, conversation, negotiations, dispute and rhetoric can become full-​fledged methods of dialogical interaction only if they are carried out in compliance with diplomatic norms of etiquette, or civility and social graces. But this does not exclude the possibility for diplomats to be firm, resolute, persistent and persevering in achieving their goals. 2

Diplomatic Skills

Skills have always been considered an important part of diplomatic practice and diplomacy in general. It is no coincidence that skills are mentioned in many definitions of diplomacy. These are some of the skill-​related definitions of diplomacy we can find in dictionaries: diplomacy is “skill in dealing with

6 Ibid. 7 Ibid., p. 5; emphasis original.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset

149

people without offending or upsetting them,”8 “skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility,”9 “the profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations, typically by a country’s representatives abroad.”10 It certainly makes sense that diplomacy is so closely associated with skills as diplomacy has always been considered difficult and subtle work that requires many refined talents. The word “skill” is related to the words “quality” and “ability,” as well as “capacity,” “expertise,” “competence,” “proficiency” and the like. Often, terms indicating personal skills, qualities and abilities are used interchangeably. They may have some similarities but also differences. Thus, a person with certain skills may have particular qualities, and an individual with certain qualities may have some specific skills. Some natural qualities can turn into social skills. For example, kindness as a personal quality can also be considered a social skill. Skills can be learned and trained, while personal qualities are usually considered something more inherent in a person. However, many individual qualities can get change throughout a person’s life, particularly under the influence of education, experience and training. Thus, kindness can appear not only as a personal quality but also as a developed or nurtured skill. Of course, people with certain qualities can acquire some skills more easily than those who don’t have those qualities. Some personal qualities can help to learn certain skills, and some individual skills can be instrumental in developing certain qualities or personality traits. For instance, curiosity as an individual quality is very important for developing many diplomatic skills, especially those related to cross-​cultural sensitivity, communication and analytic thinking. In turn, skills related to cross-​cultural adaptability, social interaction and analytical activities help the individual to obtain or develop many personal qualities, such as social flexibility, cognitive and moral virtues. In short, if personal skills usually point to acquired mastery, individual qualities and abilities are innate. As it is not always possible to draw a clear line between the phenomena behind these concepts, the literature on diplomacy often uses them as related terms or synonyms. It is noteworthy that the US Department of State distinguished 13 “dimensions that reflect the skills, abilities, and personal qualities deemed essential to the work of the Foreign Service at the United States Department of State:”11 (1) composure, (2) cultural 8 9 10 11

Accessed May 6, 2021, https://​dic​tion​ary.cambri​dge.org/​dic​tion​ary/​engl​ish/​diplom​acy. Accessed May 6, 2021, https://​www.merr​iam-​webs​ter.com/​dic​tion​ary/​diplom​acy. Accessed May 6, 2021, https://​www.lex​ico.com/​def​init​ion/​diplom​acy. US Department of State, “13 Dimensions: Foreign Service Officer Qualifications,” accessed April 18, 2021, https://​care​ers.state.gov/​work/​fore​ign-​serv​ice/​offi​cer/​13-​dim​ensi​ons.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

150 

Chapter 6

adaptability, (3) experience and motivation, (4) information integration and analysis, (5) initiative and leadership, (6) judgment, (7) objectivity/​integrity, (8) oral communication, (9) planning and organizing, (10) resourcefulness, (11) working with others, (12) written communication, and (13) quantitative analysis. Indeed, all these terms characterize skills, abilities and personal qualities, therefore it is difficult to attribute them exclusively to any one of these categories. Let’s look at some more descriptions of the skills, abilities and personal qualities of diplomats available in the diplomatic literature. We can find many descriptions of diplomatic skills, abilities and qualities in treatises on diplomacy, statecraft and public administration, scholarly literature, diplomatic memoirs, and journalists’ observations. Ambassadors and other diplomats appear as personages of fictional books and movies. Of course, the requirements for diplomats have constantly changed over time. Now many foreign ministries have their own systems of entrance examinations and qualification requirements for diplomatic jobs. These are some of the existing descriptions of diplomatic skills, abilities and personal qualities, according to which diplomats appear to observers as people with many important virtues. In the book Kutadgu Bilig (Blessed Knowledge), which was written in 1069–​ 1070 in the city of Kashgar in the Kara-​Khanid Khanate, Yusuf Khas Hajib mentioned that ambassadors should have knowledge, intelligence, maturity, calmness, eloquence, entrepreneurial spirit, wisdom, good memory, pleasant appearance and correct posture. They should be loyal, faithful, sincere, well-​ read, sensitive, resourceful, abstemious, open and brave. They should know poetry, mathematics, geometry, backgammon, chess, various languages and scripts, calligraphy, and all the arts and crafts. Ambassador should be able to say pleasant words, ride a horse, shoot, hunt and exercise self-​control.12 This is quite similar to the opinion of Ottaviano Maggi, who in his 1596 pamphlet De legato libri duo asserted that: an ambassador should be a trained theologian, should be well versed in Aristotle and Plato, and should be able at a moment’s notice to solve the most abstruse problems in correct dialectical form: he should also be expert in mathematics, architecture, music, physics, and civil and canon law. He should speak and write Latin fluently, and must also be proficient in Greek, Spanish, French, German and Turkish. While being a trained classical scholar, a historian, a geographer and an expert in 12

Muzaffar Khayrullaev, ed., From the History of Uzbek Diplomacy (Tashkent: The University of World Economy and Diplomacy Press, 2003), pp. 245–​246. [M. M. Хайруллаев умумий таҳрири остида. Ўзбек дипломатияси тарихидан. Тошкент: ЖИДУ, 2003, б. 245–​246].

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset

151

military science, he must also have a cultured taste for poetry. And above all he must be of excellent family, rich, and endowed with a fine physical presence.13 François de Callières’ book De la manière de négocier avec les souverains, published in French in 1716, remains relevant to this day.14 It is, in fact, one of the best books ever written about diplomacy and negotiation. Describing important qualities in diplomats, Callières pointed, particularly, to a spirit of attention and application, right judgment, a sense of subtleties, quick insight, a fertile spirit, the presence of mind to be able to give proper comments on unforeseen matters, evenness of temper, a sedate and quiet disposition, availability, courteousness, agreeability, an easy and engaging carriage, command over themselves, calmness, reserve, discretion, an abundance of patience, and the ability to speak little and listen a great deal. Lord Chesterfield, wishing to prepare his son for future statesmanship and a diplomatic career, wrote in his Letters to His Son (1737–​1768) about the importance of good manners, graces, politeness, taste, knowledge, eloquence, riding, fencing, dancing, knowing languages, reading and writing with elegant simplicity and dignity of style, observing other people and cultures, conducting an artful conversation, dressing well and pleasing others –​everything that can help “in forming the shining character of a complete Gentleman.”15 In his book The Diplomatist, Jules Cambon pointed to such important qualities of the ambassador as flexibility of thinking, the ability to analyze and generalize, perseverance, discipline, firmness of character and independence of mind, composure, moral authority, loyalty, mastery at establishing contacts, easy and casual conversation, self-​control, patience, restraint, dignity, the ability to make a good impression and gain a position in society, and the willingness to take a back seat and keep secrets in negotiations, as well as the absence of swagger, excessive frankness, hurtfulness, arrogance and vanity.16

13 Nicolson, Diplomacy, p. 106. 14 Multiple English translations are available: François de Callières, On the Manner of Negotiating with Princes, translated from the French by A. F. Whyte, with an introduction by Stephen D. Kertesz (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1963); de Callières, The Art of Diplomacy; François de Callières, The Practice of Diplomacy, with introduction by Alexander Frederick Whyte (London: Constable and Company, 1919). 15 Earl of Chesterfield, “Letter clxxxvii,” Chesterfield’s Letters to His Son, Project Gutenberg eBook edition, accessed April 18, 2021, https://​www.gutenb​erg.org/​files/​3361/​3361-​h/​ 3361-​h.htm. 16 Jules Cambon, The Diplomatist, trans. Christopher R. Turner (London: P. Allan, 1931).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

152 

Chapter 6

Of course, it is unrealistic to expect real ambassadors to possess all the qualities listed above, but in the public consciousness, an ambassador is a distinguished person with many renowned qualities, competencies and skills, as well as high social status and influence. There are also many descriptions of the characteristics of diplomats in general and not just ambassadors. They are also characterized by the allocation of many necessary qualities and skills required for diplomatic work. One of the most famous such descriptions was given by Nicolson in his renowned book Diplomacy. Nicolson listed truth, accuracy, calm, patience, good temper, modesty and loyalty as the qualities of an ideal diplomat. “‘But,’ the reader may object, ‘you have forgotten intelligence, knowledge, discernment, prudence, hospitality, charm, industry, courage, and even tact.’ I have not forgotten them. I have taken them for granted,” stated Nicolson.17 According to Robert D. Blackwill, successful diplomats must: (1) possess an abiding interest in and passion for the art and craft of diplomacy and international relations; (2) demonstrate an analytical temperament, (3) write well and quickly, (4) be verbally fluent and concise, (5) ensure meticulous attention to detail, (6) be a tough and effective negotiator, (7) build long-​term physical and mental stamina, (8) accept dangerous assignments, (9) study history, (10) prudently speak their opinion to power, (11) be loyal and truthful to their principal, (12) cultivate policy resilience, (13) acquire relevant work experience, (14) know their political ideology, and (15) be able to take advantage of luck when they encounter it.18 Freeman provided one of the most detailed descriptions of diplomatic skills. He noted that diplomats need certain skills to perform their functions, and “The basic skills required for diplomats to carry out these tasks are in all times and places the same.”19 According to Freeman, the basic skills of diplomats “are mutually supportive and fall into five broadly related categories: agency, advocacy, reporting, counseling, and stewardship.”20 Each of these categories corresponds to a set of skills, the total number of which is 25. Freeman specified the diplomatic skills required to perform the functions of (1) the government’s agent,21 (2) advocates of their nation’s policies and 17 Nicolson, Diplomacy, p. 126. 18 Robert D. Blackwill, “Ideal Qualities of a Successful Diplomat,” paper, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, October 17, 2013, accessed April 18, 2021, https://​www .belfe​rcen​ter.org/​publ​icat​ion/​ideal-​qualit​ies-​suc​cess​ful-​diplo​mat. 19 Freeman Jr., Arts of Power, p. 108. 20 Ibid. 21 This set of skills include the following: “(1) mastery of the arts of negotiation; (2) a demonstrated capacity to elicit prompt, authoritative responses from their own government to

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset

153

perspectives,22 (3) reporters,23 (4) counselors of their governments,24 and (5) stewards of their people’s interests and reputations in foreign lands.25 As we can see, scholars and practitioners note a very large number of personal qualities, skills and abilities that diplomats should possess. These considerations can be based on various arguments and evidence, and they can reflect the personal views of the authors, the peculiarities of the time and culture, and the characteristics of the intended audience. However, one thing is clear: diplomatic work requires many complex skills and personal qualities. In the following section, we will look at the qualities and skills of diplomats that are necessary for effective dialogical interaction and tactful conduct. 3

Diplomatic Skillsets for Dialogical Interaction and Tactful Conduct

In discussing the qualities and abilities individuals need to successfully carry out their diplomatic missions, functions and methods, I will mainly use the concept of skills. By speaking of diplomatic skills, I mean the mastery of executing dialogical interaction in all its forms.

22

23

24

25

the views of their host nation; (3) the ability to add at least the appearance of conviction to the messages they communicate; (4) precision of expression both in their own and in other languages; and (5) a sophisticated grounding in their own nation’s history and culture;” ibid. This set of skills comprise the following: “(1) the credibility that comes from intelligent commitment to its interests and to the policies derived from them; (2) a gift for political calculation; (3) tact; (4) the empathy and ability to help their host nation redefine its interests to be compatible with those of their own government; (5) fluency in the dominant language of their host nation and the principal diplomatic language of its capital; and (6) affability and poise that shrugs at adversity;” ibid., p. 109. This set of skills incorporate the following: “(1) acuity of observation and accuracy of memory; (2) discretion; (3) graceful adaptability to life in alien cultures; (4) ease of fellowship with a wide range of individuals and groups such that they readily share confidences; and (5) facility as tersely vivid but scrupulously accurate writers;” ibid. This set of skills contain the following: “(1) a reputation for selfless dedication to their own nation’s interests; (2) knowledge of their host nation’s history, including a record of its relations with their own country; (3) a finely honed sense of how policy is made in their own government; (4) the acumen to judge when and how to present to their government recommendations for altered courses of action or requests for new instructions; and (5) the knack of allowing others to take credit for notable policy innovation or success;” ibid. This set of skills encompass the following: “(1) concern about their compatriots and a dedication to serving them; (2) understanding of commerce and finance; (3) appreciation of the essentials of military science; and (4) knowledge of diplomatic practices and international law;” ibid., p. 109–​110.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

154 

Chapter 6

Skills are instruments enabling the effective use of methods and performance of functions. One skill can support different methods, and one method may require various skills. Diplomats conducting diverse forms of dialogical interaction may need a great number of skills and their combinations. Apart from some basic skillsets, each diplomat may have individual skills, depending on their personality and style of behavior, mindset, attitudes, dispositions, functions, experience, training, and situation. In Chapter 2, I distinguished the two sides of the performative aspect of diplomacy: dialogical interaction and tactful conduct. They are intertwined phenomena because, for actual diplomatic performance, a diplomat needs to interact with counterparts dialogically and tactfully; dialog is supported by tact, and tact is reinforced by dialog. There are two ways we can go about identifying important diplomatic skills from the perspectives of dialogical interaction and tactfulness. The first is to make a list of all the skills that are necessary for the successful implementation of diplomatic methods. In this case, it is also possible to classify the selected methods. The second way is not to delve into the lists of possible skills, but to find something fundamental that is important for the successful execution of the diplomatic mission in the form of dialogical interaction and with civility. I will outline these two approaches to better understand diplomatic skills. Based on the previous considerations, I distinguish the following five groups of principal skills or skillsets which are instrumental in conducting diplomacy: (1) interoperating skills, (2) reflection skills, (3) organizational skills, (4) self-​regulation skills and (5) moral skills (see Figure 6.6). Diplomats need all these skillsets for acting and interacting dialogically, conversing constructively, negotiating, disputing, and persuading through oral and written means (rhetoric). 3.1 Interoperating Skills Interoperating skills are all about communicating and interacting with others. Diplomats are, of course, communicators, or rather interactional and tactful communicators, because they do not just communicate or help others to communicate, but are called to exert a positive influence. Diplomats are practitioners of engagement and interaction whose purpose is to reach out to others for the common good. In diplomacy, even the tone of communication plays an important role, and this is part of the diplomat’s interoperating skills. Diplomatic communication and interaction are characterized by a combination of civility and social graces with endurance and perseverance. Diplomats’ interoperating skillset includes people skills, social graces, verbal

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

155

Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset

Reflecon skills

Interoperang skills

Organizaonal skills

Principal skillsets

Moral skills

Self-regulaon skills

­f igure 6.6  Principal diplomatic skillsets.

and nonverbal communication skills, cultural and intercultural awareness, persistence and consideration.26 3.2 Reflection Skills Diplomats need to think strategically and have analytical skills. They also should have critical thinking, creativity and problem-​solving skills. Their reflection skillset includes attentiveness and observation, the ability to gather information and analyze it, concentration, critical thinking, argumentation 26

Here we can add such qualities or skills as sensitivity, empathy, rapport, emotional intelligence, receptiveness, open-​mindedness, attentiveness, respectfulness, tact, courteousness, politeness, delicacy, discretion, prudence, good manners, reciprocity, moderation, proper use of words and body language, listening, asking questions, displaying confidence, establishing contacts, knowing languages, using diplomatic language and phrases, meaningful symbols and signaling, eloquence, public speaking, presentation, convincingness, discoursing, narrative building and storytelling, managing (chairing, moderating and facilitating) meetings, working with the public, media and social media, networking, cross-​cultural sensibility, cultural adaptability and intercultural communication skills, determination, diligence, and care.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

156 

Chapter 6

and reasoning, data analysis, assessing situations and forming judgments, creativity, imagination, resourcefulness, problem-​solving, logicality, reporting and drafting skills, note-​taking, writing memos, diplomatic dispatches and speeches, curiosity, good memory, and advising decision-​makers and peers. 3.3 Organizational Skills Contemporary diplomacy may involve the complex and coordinated activity of many organizations, groups and individuals. Diplomats posted abroad work in a diplomatic mission and need an organizational skillset that encompasses leadership, planning and organizing, team-​building, teamwork, coordinating and managing joint activities, goal-​setting, time management, project management, and initiative. Diplomatic conferences, visits and negotiations may require long-​term and comprehensive preparation, and the ability of diplomats to work and coordinate the activities of various ministries, agencies, departments, organizations, companies and individual experts is of paramount importance to the effectiveness of diplomacy. 3.4 Self-​Regulation Skills A diplomatic mission, especially in difficult conditions, requires diplomats to have composure, self-​control and the ability to manage their temper and emotions. In general, self-​regulation can be called an important diplomatic skill. But diplomacy is not just about goodwill, courteousness, self-​regulation and dignified behavior in any situation: it is designed to solve problems and develop relationships. Therefore, diplomatic activity also benefits from the sense of commitment, firmness of purpose, determination and the ability to make decisions in challenging situations. The important aspect of diplomatic behavior is the organic combination of these skills with the features of traditional diplomatic culture, particularly social graces. In a broader sense, diplomats’ self-​regulation skillset incorporates self-​ awareness, self-​monitoring, stress management, mindfulness, peace, patience, resilience, self-​confidence, flexibility, resoluteness, firmness, purposefulness and vigor. Diplomacy is an area in which a combination of goodwill, mindfulness and peace of mind, on the one hand, and determination, purposefulness and perseverance, on the other, works well. 3.5 Moral Skills As an activity based on goodwill and aimed at achieving noble goals, diplomacy requires moral qualities and personal integrity. Genuine diplomacy is an ethical endeavor. Moral qualities and integrity can be considered skills that enable diplomatic behavior. The moral skillset contains honesty, truthfulness,

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset

157

accuracy, modesty, loyalty, compassion, courage, responsibility, tolerance, justness, fairness, credibility and reliability. Without moral credibility, a person cannot be a good diplomat. As we can see, many items from this list of skillsets relate to social skills. This is especially true for interoperational and organizational skillsets. Social skills become even more important in social diplomacy. The second way to better understand and define basic diplomatic skills is to find the most important thing in the skillsets that allow diplomats to perform their tasks, namely, to find ways to solve problems, improve relations, advance certain noble values, and protect their or others’ legitimate rights and interests. To do so, it is important to be constructive, that is, to jointly construct or produce something positive that is acceptable to all interested parties. This requires constructive engagement. In other words, to fulfill the diplomatic mission and tasks of diplomacy, the ability of a diplomat to be constructive –​to act and interact with others constructively –​comes to the fore. We can say that constructiveness is a basic diplomatic skill. Diplomatic constructiveness starts from constructive engagement –​that is, from having goodwill and noble objectives –​and continues through dialogical interaction. Savoir-​faire is the term that most closely expresses this ability to be constructive. It combines many skills associated with dialogical interaction, tactful conduct and diplomacy in general (see Figure 6.7). Savoir-​faire means “the ability to do and say the right thing in any social situation.”27 Savoir-​faire is the ability necessary to engage others in interaction and to act tactfully and successfully in social situations; it represents a core element of social intelligence and is related to social effectiveness.28 Not surprisingly, many dictionaries list savoir-​faire and diplomacy as synonyms. Savoir-​faire is the quintessence of diplomatic skills. It helps diplomats be constructive, giving them the ability to find a way out of even the most difficult situation, while being socially skillful and producing a common good. Diplomatic skills, which focus on savoir-​faire, are essentially constructive instruments or means of social construction that help entities to craft the world of their coexistence. Any explicit agreement or tacit arrangement between entities represents a social construction. This also applies to genuine dialog or storytelling. A diplomat’s task is to find ways of arranging or re-​arranging 27 28

Accessed May 6, 2021, “Savoir-​faire” in Cambridge dictionary: https://​dic​tion​ary.cambri​ dge.org/​dic​tion​ary/​engl​ish/​sav​oir-​faire Accessed May 6, 2021. Ronald E. Riggio, Leslie G. Eaton and David C. Funder, “Skill in Social Situations: The Essence of Savoir-​Faire,” in Social Intelligence and Nonverbal Communication, eds. Robert J. Sternberg and Aleksandra Kostić (New York: Palgrave-​Macmillan, 2020), pp. 333–​358.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

158 

Chapter 6

Diplomac skillsets

Savoir-faire

­f igure 6.7  Savoir-​faire as a core diplomatic skill.

existing social structures to make the world a better place for entities to coexist in. Here, the question arises of whether diplomats can be effective if the other party doesn’t want to cooperate and create such a harmonious world. In other words, can someone use diplomacy unilaterally, and can unilateral diplomacy be effective? This book’s answer is yes. Diplomacy as a goodwill mission and dialogical interaction is designed to help in all situations, even with the most difficult and intractable problems and parties. But to do this, diplomats need to have the ability to be constructive in all circumstances. The diplomatic spirit of constructiveness can be sustained and effective in the face of non-​cooperation or even enmity if, rather than manifesting only in the actions and interactions of the diplomat, it has deep roots in their consciousness or mindset. 4

Diplomatic Dispositions and Attitudes

What enables a person as a diplomat? From an individual’s attributes, we can distinguish their knowledge, worldview, mindset, motivation, dispositions, moral virtues, attitudes, character traits, integrity, abilities and skills, as well as their social and professional belongings, roles and obligations. There are many personal qualities –​both innate and acquired –​which affect the individual’s diplomatic capacities and performances. In Chapter 2, I distinguished aspirational and performative aspects of diplomacy, connecting them to the idea and practice of diplomacy. Among the factors affecting diplomatic aspirations are the individual’s dispositions and attitudes, and among the factors that affect diplomatic performances are the

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset

159

person’s skills and abilities. A person’s dispositions and attitudes point to their mindset, and the individual skills and abilities relate to their behavior. A person’s behavior is influenced not only by their mindset and skills but also by external circumstances. However, even these outer factors are reflected in the individual’s behavior, refracted through their inner condition. Diplomacy can work when a diplomatic actor tries to understand the existing problem or situation, their counterpart’s interests, intentions and behavior, and has the proper skills for dealing with the other party’s selfhood and concerns. Although diplomacy takes place between different entities, it begins with the actor’s sense of Self, particularly in relations with the Other. Without understanding their essential needs, interests and aspirations, a person can get confused in relations between Self and Other. The integrity of the Self is important for the efficiency of the individual’s diplomacy. A person needs to be at peace with themself before they can make peace with others. It is very difficult for a diplomat-​mediator to bring peace and balance in relations with others without having peace in their own mind. As Confucius explained: Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their States were rightly governed. Their States being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.29 In short, even statecraft starts from the individual’s mind, spirit and personality –​their Self. Disposition refers to the basic inclinations of a person, while the attitude has a more concrete direction in that it is always directed toward something. Diplomats’ pursuits are supported by their attitudes, and their attitudes are supported by their dispositions. An individual’s dispositions relate to their personality, character, temper, propensities and inclinations. The following five dispositional factors are fundamental for the inner strength of a diplomat, forming their diplomatic attitudes, driving them to take on a goodwill mission, and giving them the ability for constructive engagement and dialogical interactions: mindfulness,

29 Confucius, The Great Learning, accessed April 16, 2021, http://​class​ics.mit.edu/​Confuc​ius/​ learn​ing.html.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

160 

Chapter 6

Composure Tolerance

Mindfulness

Resilience

Posive disposions

Peace of mind

­f igure 6.8  Positive dispositions of the individual diplomat.

tolerance, composure, resilience and peace of mind. Diplomatic engagement and work –​often in difficult situations –​require a diplomat to possess these positive dispositions (see Figure 6.8). The individual’s engagement with the world starts with their attitudes. The main element that distinguishes the beginning of diplomatic engagement is a consideration: the actor considers the problem, challenge, opportunity or chance that arises. For the diplomatic actor, consideration means being attentive and noticing something meaningful, examining it in order to make a decision. Having positive dispositions, a diplomat can acknowledge other actors or issues and be involved, mission-​ready, committed and responsible. The following five qualities can be regarded as basic attitudinal characteristics required in a personal diplomatic actor or agent: attention, concern, consideration, empathy and duty (see Figure 6.9). Of course, these attitudinal elements exist not just as basic human characteristics, as in the case of dispositions, but in connection to certain external factors. These, therefore, are directed toward someone or something: attention to someone or something; concern about someone or something; consideration for someone; empathy for someone; a duty toward someone or something. These features of the individual mindset are not aspirations yet, but they indicate the beginning of the process of engagement and the starting point of the pursuit of something. We can call them responsive attitudes. Dispositions and attitudes play a significant role in shaping the worldview and basic standpoints of a diplomat. Positive dispositions and responsive attitudes help make a diplomat receptive, sensitive, responsive and open-​ minded, which are essential for the development of a diplomatic approach and way of thinking. Diplomatic aspirations –​a goodwill mission and noble goals –​are also supported by the individual diplomat’s positive dispositions

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

161

Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset

Consideraon Concern

Aenon

Empathy

Responsive atudes

Duty

­f igure 6.9  Responsive attitudes of the individual diplomat.

.

• Diplomac aspiraons

.

• Responsive atudes • Posive disposions

.

­f igure 6.10 Interdependence of positive dispositions, responsible attitudes and diplomatic aspirations.

and responsible attitudes. In turn, such aspirations also have a formative effect on an individual’s attitudes and dispositions (Figure 6.10). 5

A Diplomat’s Personal Behavior Style

Diplomatic work and status provide many opportunities to make an impact, gain important achievements, grow personally and professionally, and improve skills. At the same time, the public is very sensitive to the image, appearance and behavior of diplomats, whether they are conventional or unconventional

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

162 

Chapter 6

actors or agents. That may put some pressure on diplomats, because of which some of them may behave stiffly and be afraid to say or do anything superfluous. In the age of the media and social media, any words or actions of the ambassador and other diplomats that do not live up to the public’s expectations can yield undesirable interpretations and cast a shadow on the corporate actor or cause they represent. This, in turn, limits the ability of diplomats to perform their functions and effectively use diplomatic methods. Because of high responsibilities and fear of making a mistake, some official diplomats behave in a very tense, fearful manner in society. This obscures their personal qualities and interferes with the application of diplomatic skills. Often professional diplomats avoid risk and creativity, and prefer safer ways of dealing with others and tackling difficult issues. Even correspondence between diplomats tends to be written with “safe” diplomatic phrases meant to avoid undesirable interpretations. Often such language is very formal and doesn’t have any significant impact on readers. Diplomats need to be self-​aware and monitor themselves, but too much self-​control may lead to the suppression of the ability of a diplomat to be natural and creative. It is not easy to combine diplomatic duties with naturalness and spontaneity when a person represents an important polity and feels the weight of responsibility in each word they speak or write. However, genuine diplomacy and a diplomat’s sincerity combined with their unique personality and skills can allow individuals to be natural, and that is appealing to others and helps build trust. Genuine diplomacy can be conducted only by genuine diplomats. Manipulative diplomacy depersonalizes diplomats; truthful diplomacy allows them to be who they are. Diplomacy will benefit if diplomats bring to their activity not only skills but also their personality. Skills combined with personal characteristics mean a personal style of behavior. Official diplomats must act in public within a certain formal framework or formal requirements, social norms and collective expectations, and thus be predictable in many ways. From the bureaucratic and social point of view, this gives them some protection, but it also restricts their capabilities. For diplomats to be effective in personal behavior, it is useful to develop a personal style that corresponds to individual experience, capabilities and opportunities, and uses all their potential and skills. Even when diplomats must follow instructions given to them, their personal behavior style may help them to be more effective. Style, as “a distinctive manner or custom of behaving or conducting oneself,”30 can be of many types, and each diplomat may have their own unique, 30

Accessed May 8, 2021, https://​www.merr​iam-​webs​ter.com/​dic​tion​ary/​style.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Diplomatic Methods, Skills and Mindset

163

personal behavioral style. The individual style of diplomatic behavior can be extremely diverse, considering the person’s personality traits and tasks, the features of counterparts, and the situation around. Personal styles of behavior can vary from soft to hard, explicit to implicit, more agreeable to less agreeable, more formal to less formal, more visible to less visible, emotional to unemotional. Of course, all the various styles of individual behavior in diplomacy should correspond to the diplomatic spirit, namely, the peaceful and constructive search for coexistence through goodwill and dialogical interaction. The possibilities of diplomatic language,31 particularly the constructive ambiguity of diplomatic signaling,32 give many opportunities for diplomats to conduct themselves with precision and flexibility.33 But even in using diplomatic language and signaling, a person can apply their individual style, particularly tone, voice and other elements of the body language. Often diplomacy appears to be the art of intonation or tonality. Sometimes the same word used but with different intonations can convey different meanings or provide additional signals. Being an authentic person and having a personal behavioral style allows an individual to make the most of their potential, including knowledge, experience, abilities and situational resources. For example, if the situation encourages a person to dance or sing, play a musical instrument or tell the story, then they may take advantage of the moment by enjoying this and being spontaneous and natural, which allows the individual to better express themself, or creatively deliver a certain message. A person needs to know their own opportunities and limitations, understand the situation and have a good sense of self-​expression. It is important that by using a personal behavior style, the individual feels authenticity, personal integrity and confidence. The ability of a person to use the possibilities of nonverbal communication, including body language, the art of dressing and tone, is of great importance in the application of a personal style of behavior. It is also essential to be trustworthy, accurate and sensitive, including to cultural and cross-​cultural differences. The 31

32

33

Stephen Gaselee, The Language of Diplomacy (Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes, 1939); Nicolson, Diplomacy, pp. 226–​250; Harvey J. Langholtz, “The Psychology of Diplomacy,” in The Psychology of Diplomacy, eds. Harvey J. Langholtz and Chris E. Stout (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), pp. 14–​15; Donna Maria Oglesby, “Diplomatic Language,” in Constantinou, Kerr and Sharp, The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, pp. 242–​254. Raymond Cohen, Theatre of Power: The Art of Diplomatic Signalling (London and New York: Longman, 1987); Christer Jönsson and Karen Aggestam, “Trends in Diplomatic Signalling,” in Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, ed. Jan Melissen (Houndmills: Palgrave, 1999), pp. 151–​170. Langholtz, “The Psychology of Diplomacy.”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

164 

Chapter 6

individual’s behavioral style should allow them to be flexible, but at the same time accurate and consistent. Developing an adequate and effective individual style of behavior helps diplomats build a personal reputation and helps others to have a sense of their trustworthiness and predictability. The following five factors can effectively serve a diplomat in building and using an individual style of behavior: authenticity and genuineness, creativity and resourcefulness, body language and nonverbal communication, open mindedness and sensitivity, and easiness and confidence (see Figure 6.11). The personality of a diplomat is an important resource of diplomacy. Unfortunately, diplomatic schools and trainings pay little attention to the personal characteristics of diplomats and the use of unique personal qualities as a diplomatic resource. An individual diplomat is not just a little screw in a diplomatic machine, and the personal behavioral style of a diplomat deserves in-​depth study and development.

Body language and nonverbal communication

Creativity and resourcefulness

Authenticity and genuineness

Individual behavioral style

Openmindedness and sensitivity

Easiness and confidence

­f igure 6.11 Factors that can enrich an individual style of behavior.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

­c hapter 7

The Social and Relational in Diplomacy Advancement of social studies of diplomacy. Diplomacy as a social practice. The social world as a relational world. Relations and relationships in diplomacy. Power of relationships. Social structuring of relationships. Relationships as a primary and secondary concern in traditional diplomacy. Relationship-​building as a core practice in social diplomacy.

∵ 1

The Social Side of Diplomacy

Engagement and interaction, as well as relations and relationships between actors, are social phenomena,1 and an examination of their features in the diplomatic context is essential to a social approach to the study of diplomacy. Recently, diplomatic studies have been enriched by various social ideas, and many scholars began to treat diplomacy as a social practice.2 Scholars who examine diplomacy through the prism of social relations, social practice and societal development have shown that diplomatic activities are not simply a function of political determinants or interests, and not just a part of international politics and foreign policy, but also deeply connected to social relations, norms, rules, identities and structures that have an essential impact on the conduct of relations between different entities. Even politically oriented diplomacy is built into the international social system, and one of the main “fabrics” in the structure of this system is the “relationships” among the involved parties. 1 Here I did not emphasize “communication,” which is, apparently, a social phenomenon. As I already noted before, this book considers communication an organic part of the interaction. 2 The current development of diplomatic theory represented in the works of Adler-​Nissen, Bjola, Constantinou, Cornago, Cornprobst, Cornut, Der Derian, Jason Dittmer, Jönsson and Hall, Holmes, Fiona McConnell, Melissen, Deepak Nair, Neumann, Pigman, Pouliot, Yaqing Qin, Sharp, Sofer, Nicholas Wheeler, Wiseman, Seanon Wong and other scholars, particularly those of the English school of international relations theory and social constructivism, largely takes place within the social approach to diplomacy (this book refers to the works of these scholars that have contributed to the social study of diplomacy).

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_009 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

166 

Chapter 7

International diplomacy represents a set of communication processes based on rules and norms of behavior, particularly those enshrined in the 1961 Vienna Convention.3 Diplomacy, noted Cornago, is “a particular expression of the wider domains of social relationships.”4 Considering diplomacy as a social practice, Sharp noted that social theorizing about diplomacy is important and helps to understand it better.5 According to Christer Jönsson and Martin Hall, “Diplomatic recognition and socialization are the core mechanisms through which diplomacy helps constituting –​and is, in turn, constituted by –​any given differentiation of international space.”6 Diplomatic recognition itself represents a social phenomenon based on normative interactions of the parties as accountable, intentional actors. The modern academic literature in diplomatic studies suggests insightful reflections on the socializing disposition and mission of diplomacy,7 socialization of adversary states into the international society of states through diplomatic relations,8 the role of diplomacy in the socialization of revolutionary states,9 socialization of states through the socialization of diplomats,10 socialization of national representatives,11 social order in multilateral diplomacy or the so-​called multilateral pecking order,12 stigmatization of 3

Brian Hocking, et al., Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21st Century (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael,”2012). 4 Cornago, Plural Diplomacies, p. 11. 5 Paul Sharp, “Diplomacy in International Relations Theory and Other Disciplinary Perspectives,” in Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices, eds. Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 54. 6 Christer Jönsson and Martin Hall, Essence of Diplomacy (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005), p. 38. 7 Costas Constantinou and James Der Derian, “Sustaining Global Hope: Sovereignty, Power and the Transformation of Diplomacy,” in Sustainable Diplomacies, eds. Costas M. Constantinou and James Der Derian (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010), pp. 1–​24. 8 Geoffrey Wiseman, “Engaging the Enemy: An Essential Norm for Sustainable US Diplomacy,” in Sustainable Diplomacies, eds. Costas M. Constantinou and James Der Derian (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010), pp. 213–​234. 9 David Armstrong, Revolution and World Order: The Revolutionary State in International Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). 10 Neumann, At Home with the Diplomats; Iver B. Neumann, Diplomatic Sites: A Critical Enquiry (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013). 11 Rebecca Adler-​Nissen, “Late Sovereign Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 4, no. 2 (2009): 121–​141. 12 Vincent Pouliot, “Diplomats as Permanent Representatives: The Practical Logics of the Multilateral Pecking Order,” International Journal 66, no. 3 (2011): 543–​561; Vincent Pouliot, International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Social and Relational in Diplomacy

167

states,13 and diplomacy as a social practice with distinctive cultural qualities, including emotional culture.14 Contributions to the development of the social approach in diplomatic studies include the study of social bonding in diplomacy;15 research inspired by Erving Goffman of the role of stigma in constructing international society,16 face-​work and face-​saving in diplomacy;17 and works inspired by Pierre Bourdieu on understanding diplomacy through the prisms of theory of practice,18 symbolic power,19 and the concept of field.20 Diplomatic studies related to social phenomena cover topics such as nonverbal and cross-​cultural communication, body language and signaling,21 face-​to-​face interaction,22 the visual, theatrical and spectacular,23

13 14 15 16 17

18

19 20 21

22

23

Rebecca Adler-​Nissen, “Stigma Management in International Relations: Transgressive Identities, Norms, and Order in International Society,” International Organization 68, no. 1 (2014): 143–​176. Wynne Elizabeth Russell, “Control Yourself, Sir!: A Call for Research into Emotion Cultures in Diplomacy,” in Slavik, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy, pp. 391–​402. Marcus Holmes and Nicholas J. Wheeler, “Social Bonding in Diplomacy,” International Theory 12, no. 1 (2019): 133–​161. Adler-​Nissen, “Stigma Management in International Relations.” Rebecca Adler-​Nissen, “Diplomacy as Impression Management: Strategic Face-​Work and Post-​Colonial Embarrassment,” Working paper 38, Centre for International Peace and Security Studies, McGill University and the Université de Montréal (Montreal: McGill University, 2012); Faizullaev, Alisher (2018). Symbolic Insult in Diplomacy: A Subtle Game of Diplomatic Slap. Boston and Leiden: Brill; Deepak Nair, “Saving Face in Diplomacy: A Political Sociology of Face-​to-​Face Interactions in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations,” European Journal of International Relations 25, no. 3 (2019):672–​697. Vincent Pouliot, “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities,” International Organization 62, no. 2 (2008): 257–​288; Pouliot and Cornut, “Practice Theory;” Catriona Standfield, “Gendering the Practice Turn in Diplomacy,” European Journal of International Relations 26, no. 5 (2020): 140–​165. Rebecca Adler-​Nissen, “Symbolic Power in European Diplomacy: The Struggle Between National Foreign Services and the EU’s External Action Service,” Review of International Studies 40, no. 4 (2013): 657–​681. Rebecca Adler-​Nissen, “On a Field Trip with Bourdieu,” International Political Sociology 5, no. 3 (2011): 327–​330. Jönsson and Aggestam, “Trends in Diplomatic Signalling;” Cohen, Theatre of Power; Raymond Cohen, Negotiating Across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent World (Washington, DC.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2002); Berridge, G. R. Talking to the Enemy: How States Without “Diplomatic Relations” Communicate (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1994). Markus Holmes, Face-​to-​Face Diplomacy: Social Neuroscience and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018); Seanon S. Wong, “Emotions and the communication of intentions in face-​to-​face diplomacy,” European Journal of International Relations 22, no 1 (2016): 144–​167. Constantinou, “Visual Diplomacy;” Neumann, Diplomatic Tenses.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

168 

Chapter 7

culture,24 emotions,25 enmity and friendship,26 psychology,27 apology,28 gifts,29 symbolism and symbolic insults.30 One of the areas in which social ideas have penetrated into diplomatic studies is the study of the “societization” of diplomacy conducted by Jan Melissen. As he pointed out, diplomacy and society are becoming more closely connected.31 The societization of diplomacy represents “the multiple ways in which the practice of diplomacy has become enmeshed with society. This is one of the key trends in diplomacy in our time.”32 According to Melissen, public diplomacy plays an essential role in this process; it serves as a window into society.33 Public diplomacy, by definition, assumes the broad involvement of social ideas and interaction technologies in its theory and practice. The social dimension in diplomatic studies supplements the understanding of political, legal, economic and other aspects of diplomatic relations by taking into consideration such socially determined and meaningful factors as symbolic interaction, role behavior, shared ideas and norms, cultural patterns, identity formation, status-​building, hierarchical relations, in-​group and out-​ group perceptions, attitudes and dispositions, and the relationship between Self and Other as interdependent entities. Diplomacy’s mega-​functions, such 24 Slavik, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy; Jason Dittmer and Fiona McConnell, eds. Diplomatic Cultures and International Politics (London and New York: Routledge, 2016); R. S. Zaharna, “Culture, Cultural Diversity and Humanity-​centered Diplomacies,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14, no. 1–​2 (2019): 117–​133; Faizullaev, “Institutions and Culture.” 25 Todd Hall, Emotional Diplomacy: Official Emotion on the International Stage (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015); Seanon S. Wong, Mapping the Repertoire of Emotions and Their Communicative Functions in Face-​to-​face Diplomacy,” International Studies Review 22, no 1 (2020): 77-​97. 26 Corneliu Bjola, “Understanding Enmity and Friendship in World Politics: The Case for a Diplomatic Approach,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 8, no. 1 (2013): 1–​20. 27 Harvey J. Langholtz and Chris E. Stout, The Psychology of Diplomacy (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004). 28 Shannon Jones, Apology Diplomacy: Justice for All? (The Hague: Netherlands Institute for International Relations “Clingendael,” 2011). 29 “Diplomatic Gifts: The Forum,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 16, no. 1 (2021): 105–​194. 30 Faizullaev, “Diplomacy and Symbolism;” Faizullaev, Symbolic Insult in Diplomacy. 31 Jan Melissen, “Public Diplomacy Between Theory and Practice,” Clingendael Diplomatic Studies Programme Paper, October 10, 2006, accessed April 21, 2021, https://​www.clin​ gend​ael.org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​2016-​02/​20061​200_​cdsp​_​pap​er_​m​elis​sen.pdf. 32 Jan Melissen, “Jan Melissen on Academic Opportunities Around Diplomacy,” Leiden University, March 12, 2020, accessed April 21, 2021, https://​www.uni​vers​itei​tlei​den.nl/​en/​ news/​2020/​03/​jan-​melis​sen-​on-​resea​rch-​cha​llen​ges-​aro​und-​diplom​acy. 33 Melissen, “Public Diplomacy Between Theory and Practice.”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

169

The Social and Relational in Diplomacy

Relaonship A

Relaon B

Interacon Engagement

­f igure 7.1  Engagement, interaction, relation and the relationship between two actors.

as representation and negotiation, serve the social construction of diplomatic relations. This chapter discusses an important aspect of the social approach to diplomacy: relationship-​building between entities, or Self and Other. As a part of the social study of diplomacy, this approach is organically linked with the phenomena of engagement and interaction in diplomacy. To build relationships, actors need to engage and interact with each other and set up relations. Figure 7.1 shows two entities linked with each other through engagement, interaction, relation and relationship. 2

Relations and Relationships in Diplomacy

Although “relations” and “relationship” represent fundamental categories in understanding the essence of diplomacy, until recently scholars mainly paid attention to the political, economic and legal determinants of diplomatic activities, and focused less on the moral ones, showing relatively little interest in diplomacy’s relationship imperative and practices. In current scholarship, relations between international actors are mainly considered a function or consequence of their interests or other non-​relationship determinants. Such an approach presupposes that the congruence of, for example, the interests, values and legal claims of different actors automatically leads to a better relationship between them, and incongruities in interests, values and legal entitlements complicate the relationship. If we accept that the character of relations between entities depends mainly on their interests, values and legal rights, we should see relationships as the secondary or consequential factor in diplomatic activities. Following this logic, diplomacy may not particularly care about relationships between actors per se because relationships are defined purely by the extent to which the parties’ interests, values and legal rights match (see Figure 7.2).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

170 

Chapter 7

Rights

Rights Relaons

Values

Relaonships Interests

Values Interests

­f igure 7.2  Relations and relationships as functions of interests, values and rights.

The actual displacement of relational factors to the background in diplomatic studies took place even though the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations considers the development of friendly relations between nations the essential objective of international diplomacy.34 Thus, we see a paradoxical situation in understanding international diplomacy’s main determinants: on the one hand, it is well-​known that diplomacy is dedicated to the development of friendly relations between nations, but on the other, for many scholars and practitioners, diplomacy’s prime concern lies mostly in the sphere of interests, values and legal rights rather than relationships per se. Of course, the encounter or correlation of interests, values and rights of the parties affects the nature of their relationship, and usually entities with similar interests, values and a common understanding and acceptance of mutual rights and obligations can build better relationships. However, if the major task of diplomacy is relationship-​building or relationship management, then interests, values and legal rights can serve this purpose, while taking a back seat. As interacting entities, diplomatic actors are involved in social relations, and, as Qin noted, “identities and roles of social actors are shaped by social relations.”35 Bjola suggested putting “relationship management” at the center of diplomatic studies and considering diplomacy as a method of managing relations of enmity and friendship in world politics.36 However, he pointed out that “little is known about how relationships of enmity and friendship are made and unmade in international politics.”37 According to Adler-​Nissen, “diplomats are estranged from ir [international relations] theory –​and vice 34 35 36 37

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. Yaqing Qin, “A Relational Theory of World Politics,” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 33–​47, 36. Bjola, “Understanding Enmity and Friendship.” Ibid., p. 9.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Social and Relational in Diplomacy

171

versa –​because ir scholars generally subscribe to substantialism, whereas diplomats tend to think in terms of relations.”38 Indeed, relationship-​building and relationship management appear to be fundamental but not yet well-​ explored aspects of diplomacy.39 The relationship is a social phenomenon, and it is important to bring a social or interactional approach to the analysis of relationship essentials in diplomacy, even when we are examining states and other polities. The role of relationship imperatives and practices is even more important in social-​centered diplomacy. While both “relations” and “relationship” refer to connections or associations between subjects, people tend to use “relations” to speak of ties between large entities such as states, nations and corporations, and use “relationship” for closer, more personalized connections, such as between individuals, families and other small groups. “Relationship” also means “the state of being related or interrelated,”40 or “the way in which two or more people or things are connected, or the state of being connected.”41 In other words, a relationship can indicate or put attention to the status, character or quality of relations between entities: when we speak of the “relationship” between A and B, we usually mean some more or less developed, structured and meaningful relations that A and B have established. Therefore, even large entities such as states may develop relationships if they have a history of relations and meaningful ties. For example, we can say that the United States and the United Kingdom have not just “special relations,” but a close, specific and largely positive relationship as well. However, relationships can also be negative. Iran and Israel have no official relations, but they certainly have a relationship that is currently quite negative. The term “relations” does not necessarily have emotional content, whereas “relationship” is always an emotionally charged term. Relations between A and B may contain very few emotional elements, if any. However, a relationship between C and D implies the presence of emotional components. For example, A and B may have relations because they are members of the same tennis 38 39

40 41

Rebecca Adler-​Nissen, “Conclusion: Relationalism or Why Diplomats Find International Relations Theory Strange,” in Sending, Pouliot and Neumann, Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, p. 285. According to Patrick Jackson and Daniel Nexon, relationalism, as opposed to substantialism, “takes processes of the social transaction as the basic building blocks” of international relations theory; Patrick Thaddeus Jackson and Daniel H. Nexon, “Relations Before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations 5, no. 3 (1999): 291–​332, 291. Accessed April 18, 2021, https://​www.merr​iam-​webs​ter.com/​dic​tion​ary/​relat​ions​hip. Accessed April 18, 2021, https://​www.lex​ico.com/​def​init​ion/​relat​ions​hip.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

172 

Chapter 7 Relaons − interconnectedness A

B Relaonship − the status of relaons

­f igure 7.3  Relations and relationship between two entities.

club, yet only have a brief acquaintance. However, as members of the same family, C and D have relationships that are undoubtedly emotionally charged. So, if “relation” points to interconnectedness, association and relative dependency (relatedness) between actors, “relationship” indicates the existence of certain relations between the actors, a pattern of their interactions and attitudes toward each other, and the status of their interconnectedness (see Figure 7.3). The status of relations or relationships can be structured differently, and defined or categorized in terms of (1) the social roles of the parties (friends, allies, enemies, competitors), (2) the quality of their relations (good, poor, durable, superficial), (3) the significance of the relations (important, unimportant, significant, meaningful), or (4) their metaphoric or symbolic images or meaning (Romeo and Juliet, principal and agent, hegemon and vassal, parents and children, and comparable types of relationships). The more complex the relations between actors, the more multifaceted and nuanced their social framing becomes (see Figure 7.4). In the international arena, people tend to see states as distinctive and purposive actors that interact and enter relations based on their own identities, interests, intentions, values, positions and rights.42 We can discuss the relationship between states or other international actors only if we approach them as intentional and willful entities with selfhood or personhood. As Wendt pointed out, “states are unitary actors to which we legitimately can attribute anthropomorphic qualities like identities, interests, and intentionality.”43 Relations and relationships can be established not only between people, but also between an individual and an animal, between a person and an organization, or between a country and a group of countries. The social world is a relational world, and recognition and relations are the basic factors in actors’ existence in a society. 42

Wendt, “The State as Person;” Alisher Faizullaev, “Individual Experiencing of States,” Review of International Studies 33, no. 3 (2007): 531–​554. 43 Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, p. 43.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

173

The Social and Relational in Diplomacy

By defining the quality of relaons

Through the role-based idenficaon of relaons

Social structuring relaonships

By defining the significance of relaons

Through metaphoric or symbolic images or meaning

­f igure 7.4  The ways of defining the status of relations or socially structuring relationships.

Although the word “relation” is constitutive for both “international relations” and “diplomatic relations,” the relational and relationship aspects of international relations and diplomacy have been underemphasized for a long time. Recently scholars have undertaken significant efforts to scrutinize the specifics of “relations” and “relationships” in international relations, international politics and diplomacy. Still, most current theories of international relations are “substantialist” rather than “relationalist.”44 As Jackson and Nexon noted, “a focus upon processes and relations rather than substances will enable scholars to formulate better theories of world politics.”45 However, both substantialist and relationalist reductionism would miss the essential feature of international affairs: no states (substances) exist without interstate relations, and no interstate relations are possible unless states function as intentional, sovereign entities. That is why relational analysis requires the study of substances (entities), and substantialism can be valuable only in a relational framework. Recently, Qin proposed the “relational theory of world politics.”46 His approach is based on the idea of the interrelatedness of the world and seeing 44 Jackson and Nexon “Relations Before States,” p. 293. 45 Jackson and Nexon, “Relations Before States,” p. 292. 46 Qin, “A Relational Theory of World Politics.”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

174 

Chapter 7

international actors as actors-​in-​relations. According to Qin, actors base their actions primarily on relations, and that underlines the ontological significance of relations. Qin stressed the importance of culture in social theory construction and the importance of individual rationality for Western ir theories. His theory is centered on the concept of relationality that is embedded in Confucian culture, but “at the same time has intellectual value-​added beyond its cultural origin.”47 Relationality may have different features in different national cultures, but it certainly presents one of the key characteristics of diplomatic culture. Relations between intentional actors are always socially constructed, and normative discourse or framing plays a key role in the narration of relationships. In managing their relations, actors need to frame their relationship within existing social structures and norms, and that gives the relationship some predictability. Such a shared frame or intersubjective relational structure, in turn, affects the actors’ attitudes toward each other and their further interactions and relations. When parties see each other as friends, they may expect friendly behavior from one another. So, understanding relations among social actors means discovering the patterns of their connections by using normative categories based on shared knowledge. 3

Social Framing of Relationships

By calling each other “allies” or “enemies,” or feeling that way, actors structure a socially meaningful or normative relational setting, or frame it in terms of relationship roles, quality, significance or symbolism. It is understood that friends can rely on each other and usually help one another –​friendship is created by and creates social attitudes, commitments and expectations. Relational contexts and practices exist in and through social structures that “have three elements: shared knowledge, material resources, and practice.”48 Social structures, according to Wendt, “are defined, in part, by shared understandings, expectations, or knowledge,” and these “constitute the actors in a situation and the nature of their relationships, whether cooperative or conflictual.”49 Even material resources “acquire meaning for human action through the structure

47 48 49

Ibid., p. 33. Alexander Wendt, “Constructing International Politics,” International Security 20, no. 1 (1995): 71–​81, p. 73. Ibid., p. 73.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Social and Relational in Diplomacy

175

of shared knowledge in which they are embedded.”50 Wendt provided an example of the UK’s 500 British nuclear weapons, which “are less threatening to the United States than 5 North Korean nuclear weapons, because the British are friends of the United States and the North Koreans are not, and amity or enmity is a function of shared understandings.”51 Countries or other entities construct friendly relations based on shared knowledge by seeing one another as friends, and also understanding and accepting the other side’s friendly attitude toward them. Friendship is not only an emotional condition but also a social structure of a relationship that allows the parties to better exchange information, interact and rely on each other. That is meaningful for foreign policy, international politics and diplomacy. When actors similarly understand the status of their relationship, they perceive it as a given or an objective factor. In other words, intersubjectivity allows the relationship between diplomatic actors to be seen as an existing social reality that can be objectified (i.e., seen as an object or something that exists as objective reality). However, the objectivity of a relationship is based on the two sides’ shared knowledge about friendship, enmity, respect, dignity, honor and other relational categories. The construction of a relationship is always the narration of the relationship, a reinforcement of socially defined relationship discourses and narratives. The relationship between international actors is affected not only by their bilateral social and legal structures and interactions but also by wider relational structures that affect their existence and activities. The relationship between Germany and France, for example, is partly a function of their bilateral interaction in many areas –​political, economic, social, and so on. However, the relationship also depends on their relations with other international actors, their membership in different international bodies and other relational commitments, as well as on trends in domestic and international politics and the structure of the international system at any given time. Thus, the ability of Germany and France to change their relationship structures at the bilateral level is intertwined with multilateral and systemic macro-​factors. As members of the EU, Germany and France have different opportunities to shape their bilateral relations today than when they were on opposite sides during the Second World War. Thus, the relationship between Germany and France, or between any two other sovereign but interdependent countries, depends on their direct and indirect interactions, micro-​structured setting and net of

50 51

Ibid., p. 73. Ibid., p. 73.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

176 

Chapter 7

relations in a complex, macro-​structured environment. Relationship occurs between purposive social entities and has psychological and emotional connotations too: it can be sensed by actors and affect their moods. Therefore, the relationship is closely connected to actors’ intentions and feelings. The history of the relationship becomes a part of the relationship structure. The relationship between international diplomatic actors can be not only framed but also reframed. Reframing cannot be done just by the will of a handful of individuals; it requires a social shift which is, in turn, not free from the existing political, economic, security, legal, emotional and other conditions. However, even when countries see each other as enemies for a long time because of the clash of national interests or fundamental values, they might be able to restructure their relationship by reframing it, considering and using a new context. New contextual factors can be realized or created by a changed international situation or by considering various domestic issues that had not been taken into account earlier. For example, despite the long enmity between China and the United States in the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon and Chairman Mao Zedong managed to approach US-​China relations from a new perspective by considering the changes in the international environment, including the growing hostility between China and the Soviet Union and China’s rising international power. Mao even began to use a “friendship” discourse in speaking about the United States.52 National enemies cannot become national friends suddenly or just by the wish of a few –​even powerful –​individuals, but influential individuals changing the enmity discourse to a friendship discourse can help reshape existing relationship structures and create a new, more positive understanding of the status of relations. Building and managing relationships between actors require not only certain intentions and discourses that affect existing relational structures, but also specific and deliberative actions or practices. Appendix 3 describes some relationship-​enhancing practices based on meaningful interactions in international diplomacy. Diplomatic relationships and relationship management are sensitive to speech and narrative practices.53 Interaction is action on each other, and no relations and relationships exist without verbal or nonverbal interaction between the actors. However, interaction itself can be predetermined by the existing relational framework: those who set up close and positive relationships, for example, international allies, tend to interact more and in good faith. Enemies are expected to act toward each other with hostility. So,

52 53

Henry Kissinger, On China (New York: The Penguin Press, 2011). Faizullaev and Cornut, “Narrative Practice.”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

177

The Social and Relational in Diplomacy

interactions between parties determine their relationship, and relationships among actors affect their interactions. Relationships between entities may depend on the correlation of their interests, values and rights, and may also depend on what kind of relationships these actors want to have and can build. 4

International Diplomacy in a Relational Context

Traditional diplomacy is embedded in the ir context. States appear as diplomatic actors in their interactions with other international state and non-​state actors through their official representatives in certain relationship settings. Diplomatic studies provide a specific perspective to ir and politics by putting interstate relations in a normative context. Diplomatic normative context, or diplomacy’s norms, rules and means, highlights its social nature and mechanisms. States use diplomacy as a normative instrument of conducting international politics and managing relations between states and non-​state actors. The relational dimension of diplomacy has acquired new importance in the context of public diplomacy. Public diplomacy has various functions, including image-​making, public opinion formation, influencing a general audience or a particular segment of foreign society, value assertion, dialog-​construction, and so on. One of the main tasks of public diplomacy is relationship-​building. Scholars noted that “soft power clearly is about relations, including diplomatic relations,”54 and that “public diplomacy is about building relationships.”55 R. S. Zaharna distinguished the informational and relational frameworks of public diplomacy, and explained that the latter “focuses on relationship-​building and the construction of social structures to advance political objectives.”56 According to her, public diplomacy has three tiers or levels of relationship-​ building initiatives: (1) cultural and educational exchange programs and leadership visits, (2) cultural and language institutes, development aid projects, “twinning” arrangements, relationship-​building campaigns and non-​political networking schemes, and (3) policy networking strategy and coalition building.57 However, in state-​conducted public diplomacy, despite its orientation

54 55 56 57

Adler-​Nissen, “Conclusion,” p. 293. Mark Leonard, Catherine Stead and Conrad Smewing, Public Diplomacy (London: The Foreign Policy Centre, 2002), p. 8. R. S. Zaharna, “Mapping Out a Spectrum of Public Diplomacy Initiatives Information and Relational Communication Frameworks,” in Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, eds. Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor (New York: Routledge, 2009), p. 86. Ibid., pp. 93–​96.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

178 

Chapter 7

toward a foreign public, relationship-​building can serve the political imperatives of the diplomatic actor. One of the most significant advancements in the social theorizing of diplomacy is associated with a Bourdieu-​inspired practice theory.58 International practices are socially organized activities that pertain to world politics,59 and diplomacy is the most fundamental practice in international politics.60 Adler and Pouliot describe their approach to international practices as an inherently relational one that broadens international relation ontology “by taking practices as constitutive of interaction processes.”61 Such an approach places relational practices at the center of diplomatic studies. Sending, Pouliot and Neumann’s book on the relational aspects of diplomacy aims to “bring social theory to bear on diplomacy.”62 It is worth noting that this is done through combining practice theory with a relational approach. As Ian Hurd, a contributor to the book, noted, by adopting a relational perspective, the chapters of the book “narrow the gap between theory and practice: the development, consolidation, and weakening of states makes sense only in terms of continuous processes of diplomatic relations.”63 According to Hurd, “Diplomacy is the social practice by which states interact with other states,”64 and “is, first of all, a social activity.”65 As Adler-​Nissen pointed out: Most diplomats know, in an embodied but often unarticulated sense, that world politics is deeply relational. Their job is to make those relations “work,” and they are convinced that important knowledge can be gained by consulting and meeting with foreign powers, that is, “the other.” As such, they subscribe to a relational thinking (shared to some extent by diplomatic scholars). Relationalism takes as its point of departure the

58 Pouliot, International Security in Practice; Pouliot and Cornut, “Practice Theory;” Jérémie Cornut, “Diplomacy, Agency, and the Logic of Improvisation and Virtuosity in Practice,” European Journal of International Relations 24, no. 3 (2018): 712–​736. 59 Adler and Pouliot, “International Practices,” p. 6. 60 Pouliot, International Security in Practice, p. 11. 61 Ibid., p. 20. 62 Sending, Pouliot and Neumann,Sending, Ole Jacob, Pouliot, Vincent, and Neumann, Iver B. (2015). “Introduction,” in Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, eds. Ole Jacob Sending, Vincent Pouliot, and Iver B. Neumann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 1. 63 Ian Hurd, “Diplomacy and the Politics of International Law,” in Sending, Pouliot and Neumann Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, p. 39. 64 Ibid., p. 31. 65 Ibid., p. 36.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

179

The Social and Relational in Diplomacy

idea that social phenomena making up world politics always develop in relation to other social phenomena.66 Adler-​ Nissen opposed the relational approach to the actor-​ centric approach: “The analysis of diplomacy’s role in world politics has been hindered by a priori classifications of diplomacy in state-​focused, actor-​centric ways.”67 Referring to Tarak Barkawi’s chapter in the same volume,68 she notes: In his discussion on Iraq and the war in Syria, we cannot think of “Iraq” as some kind of unitary actor (of course this is true for all states). Instead, we need to recall the web of relations sustaining the war in Syria, the international flows of money, people material, and arms.69 Indeed, interstate relations may contain a web of relations, and international relations cannot be reduced just to the relations among states, as non-​state actors and social groups play a growing role. However, international diplomatic relations, by definition, are established by state actors who interact and develop relationships with other entities, and in studying diplomacy, the relation-​oriented approach does not contradict but rather complements the actor-​oriented approach. In fact, in understanding diplomacy, the actor-​ centered and the relation-​centered approaches cannot exist without each other. Analyzing relations between states as unitary and purposive actors is essential for traditional diplomatic theory and practice, which doesn’t deny the important role in diplomacy of various social groups that may also be involved in various types of relationship management. Constructivism, more than any other school of thought in ir theory, underlines social perspectives and identity issues in analyzing relations between international actors. According to Wendt’s social theory of international politics, states have inherently relational dimensions and are constituted by their relationships to each other. In that, international relations are constituted by social relations, and states form their identities in relation to Others. Therefore, “managing relationships and determining how we ought to act depend in part on answers to the explanatory question of how certain representations of Self and Other get created.”70 In their relations to each other, states form role 66 Adler-​Nissen, “Conclusion,” p. 286. 67 Ibid., p. 307. 68 Barkawi, “Diplomacy, War, and World Politics.” 69 Adler-​Nissen, “Conclusion,” p. 307. 70 Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, p. 40.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

180 

Chapter 7

identities that “are not based on intrinsic properties and as such exist only in relations to Others.”71 In Wendtian social constructivism, the concept of role appears as one of the key instruments in theorizing about the social and relational international system. Wendt identified three roles –​enemy, rival and friend –​that “are constituted by, and constitute, three distinct, macro-​level cultures of international politics, Hobbesian, Lockean, and Kantian respectively.”72 Thereby, the study of ir is connected with the necessity of examining the social or role relations between states. Actors may or may not reach a common understanding of the status of their relationship or role identities in relation to each other. They may see each other as friends, or one of them may consider the other a friend, but the feeling may not be mutual. States can try to impose certain role identities on each other, for example, calling the other side an “aggressor,” a “failed state” or an “evil empire.” Any role identity has relationship consequences, and it may require specific practices to maintain or change a formed relationship structure. Interstate relations may comprise political, economic, moral, legal and other aspects, but like any relations, they emerge in social interactions and as a result of actors’ engagements with each other and actions on one another. A large investment by a company from state A in state B’s industrial sector may change the type of economic relations among not just the two countries’ businesses but also between the two states themselves as unitary actors. At the same time, the existing relationship structures of the international system could instigate or hamper interactions between the actors. That means A and B can interact in the field of investment only if their relationship, in general, allows such an encounter. In short, agency-​structure interdependency has not only interactional but also relational and relationship ramifications. The existence of different kinds of relationships between actors, for example, friendly or hostile, is consistent with the picture of the world, which reflects the very essence of the social setting of inter-​entity relations and even interpersonal politics. Common sense and political discourse can certainly operate with such socially defined phenomena as “good neighborhood,” rivalry, enmity, coalition, or partnership between states because these and other relationship metaphors are deeply embedded in social consciousness, political terminology, and individual common sense. For example, the term “the Cold War” uses the metaphor of temperature to give, essentially, a social picture of international relations.

71 72

Ibid., p. 227; emphasis original. Ibid., p. 43.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Social and Relational in Diplomacy

181

In an interdependent world, it is essential for actors to have reasonably good relationships among themselves: when relationships suffer, states have difficulty fulfilling essential functions such as protecting citizens, and providing justice, educational opportunities and so on. Referring to Palmerston, who famously said that nations don’t have permanent friends, only permanent interests, Melissen pointed out that while Palmerston may have been right in his time, nowadays countries need “permanent friends” in other nations to safeguard their interests in a globalized world.73 International actors have to manage their relations with other states and non-​state actors when they face political, economic, financial or other challenges: improving relationships with powerful diplomatic actors can be a significant factor in resolving international problems. For sociopolitical actors, constructing and managing relationships is not only a matter of survival and problem-​solving but also an important part of a strategic vision about the future and of identity management. The choice of a strategic course affects the choice of friends and allies, and the choice of friends and allies influences the choice of a strategic course. The same applies to building and managing an entity’s identity: an actor’s sense of Self affects its relationships with other entities, and the actor’s relationships with Others shake its sense of Self. As Joseph Nye pointed out, “power is a relationship.”74 We may also say that in diplomacy, a relationship is a power, an instrument of influence. Jeswald Salacuse stated that “power is who your friends are.”75 Analyzing “relational power,” Qin remarked that “power comes from relations.”76 Therefore, relationship-​building is one of the objectives of diplomatic activity. Diplomats on the field spend a considerable amount of their time building and managing relationships with their counterparts because that is a crucial part of their job. As Adler-​Nissen and Pouliot wrote, “Power should be studied not just as the possession of material capabilities or as discursive dominance, but also from the perspective of everyday social relations, including the ways in which various resources are put to task.”77 Bringing a social perspective to diplomatic relations helps us better understand relationship management in diplomacy 73 74 75 76 77

Jan Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice,” in The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, ed. Jan Melissen (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p. 23. Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power (New York: Basic Books, 1990), p. 160. Jeswald W. Salacuse, Negotiating Life: Secrets for Everyday Diplomacy and Deal Making (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), p. 36. Qin, “A Relational Theory of World Politics,” p. 41. Adler-​Nissen and Pouliot, “Power in Practice,” p. 21.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

182 

Chapter 7

and the ways of building friendly relations among sociopolitical actors. As Qin remarked, “relations constitute the most significant component in the social world, and that the logic of relationality provides explanation to much of socially meaningful action,”78 and diplomacy is a relational practice.79 Relationships, along with interests, values and legal rights, are therefore a driving force of diplomatic actors’ behavior. 5

Relationships as a Primary and Secondary Concern in Traditional Diplomacy

We can consider diplomatic imperative as a necessitated command willfully accepted by actors for their existence or well-​being among other international entities.80 International diplomacy may have various imperatives, and the development, management and regulation of bilateral and multilateral relationships appear to be one of the fundamental imperatives of international diplomacy. We call this a social or relationship-​based imperative. To be applicable in practice, relationship imperatives need specific relationship practices. Dialogical interaction as a meta-​method of diplomacy, and its major forms such as conversation, negotiation, dispute and rhetoric, serve diplomatic relationship-​building. Diplomacy is a key instrument of building, managing and regulating interstate relations as well as relations between states and other international entities. In traditional diplomacy, diplomatic relations represent a particular type of normative sociopolitical relation between states with inherent rules of conduct developed throughout history and accepted by the international community. All this may encourage us to say that diplomacy is all about relations and relationships among international actors, primarily states. Qin, for example, approached diplomacy as relational practice.81 Of course, relational practices –​ building and managing relations –​play a very important role in diplomacy, and all diplomatic actions or interactions can affect the relationship between the involved parties. However, traditional diplomacy can be used by states not only for relational purposes per se, but also for achieving certain political, strategic, 78 79

Qin, “A Relational Theory of World Politics,” p. 44. Yaqing Qin, “Diplomacy as Relational Practice,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15, no. 1–​2 (2020): 165–​173. 80 Faizullaev, Symbolic Insult in Diplomacy. 81 Qin, “Diplomacy as Relational Practice.”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Social and Relational in Diplomacy

183

economic, humanitarian, legal and other objectives, or for advancing certain values or defending certain rights. Depending on the situation, a diplomatic actor may prefer peace, security, or conflict instead of a good relationship with certain other actors. In other words, in international diplomacy, diplomatic relations, actions and interactions may be instigated by various determinants or imperatives and serve both relationship and non-​relationship purposes. Certain imperatives may have altered significance in the diplomatic activities of different states. Various imperatives can also dissimilarly influence a state’s foreign policy and international politics in diverse circumstances. Diplomatic imperatives may get into diverse types of relations: for example, building relationships with state A can serve the political or other interests of state B but contradict its moral stance; state C can consciously worsen its relationships with states D in order to advance its strategic interests; states E and F can maintain economic relations despite essential differences in their fundamental values and understanding of their international rights and obligations. However, normally a diplomatic actor’s basic imperatives tend to be in congruence with each other. Thus, the state’s diplomatic behavior can be based on a dynamic and complementary mixture of its interests, values, relationships and legal rights. In international diplomacy, the actor can be honest or manipulative in explaining its diplomatic pursuits. It may openly admit its real interests, value stance and relationship goals, but it may also resort to manipulation when explaining its determinants. For example, the state may describe its own behavior by referring to moral obligations, but in fact be pursuing political objectives. So, in manipulative diplomacy, the real driving force of an actor’s behavior and its justification could mismatch. In existing international diplomacy, diplomats may be seen “as agents of cooperation among states,”82 but they may also act as agents of competition and even war, or may pursue just the selfish interests of their states. In politically oriented diplomacy, diplomats can fulfill humanitarian missions and advance moral values, and also be involved in the devious actions of their governments. In general, the development of a relationship with other international actors is one of the prime objectives of diplomacy, but the diplomatic actor may also primarily pursue its political, moral and legal objectives. Yet, regardless of its actual imperatives and objectives, any diplomatic action may have relational consequences for the actor. Under the influence 82

Mai’a K. Davis Cross, The European Diplomatic Corps: Diplomats and International Cooperation from Westphalia to Maastricht (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007), p. 1.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

184 

Chapter 7

of the relationship imperative, the state can try to please some other states in order to build better relations with them or become “a friend of a friend” of a powerful state. That is a primary effect of the relational aspirations of diplomacy. However, the relational outcome would be a subsidiary result of the actor’s behavior when it aims at political, moral or legal objectives. So, diplomacy always takes place in the relational environment and has a relationship impact, but for the international diplomatic actor, the status of interstate relations can present primary (direct) or secondary (indirect) concerns. Voting at the United Nations General Assembly or Security Council provides an interesting case of the complexity of ties between relationship and non-​ relationship imperatives of states. Usually, one of two fundamental factors can define the voting position of the state on any draft resolution: the principal stance on the issue according to the state’s interests, values, and legal rights and obligations, or the relationship factor. So, the state may vote for or against a proposed resolution based on its bearing on national interests and/​or its high values and legal justifications, or because of the relationship effect of supporting or opposing the resolution. For example, on March 26, 2014, member states voted at the UN General Assembly on a resolution supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity: 100 states voted in favor of the resolution, 11 voted against it, 58 abstained and 24 did not vote. Russia strongly opposed the draft resolution proposed by Ukraine and “was only able to muster 10 other ‘no’ votes –​Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.”83 It might be suggested that keeping good relations with Russia or acting against some of the advocates of the resolution was the priority for all or most of these ten countries. Sometimes countries with no strong positions on various global issues tend to vote at the United Nations just to please states that are significant for them, while countries who have a clear opinion on these problems based on their policies or their moral and legal views may vote in a way that can damage their relationships with some powerful players. However, countries may consider both relational and non-​relational aspects of the voting challenge because the relationship usually matters even for making a case, and the principal stance plays a role in relationship management in the international arena. Relationship and non-​relationship imperatives of diplomacy may oppose but also complement each other.

83

Edith M. Lederer, “UN General Assembly Votes ‘Yes’ on Ukraine Unity,” Yahoo News, March 28, 2014, accessed April 20, 2021, http://​news.yahoo.com/​un-​gene​ral-​assem​bly-​votes-​yes -​ukra​ine-​unity-​160605​710.html.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Social and Relational in Diplomacy

185

Coordinating and Negotiating Interests, Values, Legal Rights and Relationships in Diplomacy Diplomatic actors often need to coordinate their interests, values, rights and relationships as well as their obligations, promises and commitments. They can do this within or without international bodies, formally or informally, explicitly or tacitly. An international actor can act alone or with others against or in favor of a particular entity or a group, and that may require the actor to negotiate its different imperatives. Sometimes the diplomatic actor will have to decide whether to focus on interests, values, rights or relationships. The strategic and tactic focuses of diplomacy may or may not match, and what is important now may become irrelevant later, and vice versa. Countries may have or declare some international relationship goals, but that may or may not be supported by their interests and values. The United States and China were able to positively change the status of their relationship when Nixon and Mao decided to do so, because such a change was important for both countries for various strategic, political and economic reasons. New circumstances, however, could ruin a country’s major relationship initiative. For example, President Barack Obama’s “reset” (perezagruzka) with Russia is considered a failure,84 or at least raises the question of whether it was another lost opportunity.85 This doesn’t mean that relationship matters are always secondary to interests and value convictions. President Obama’s policy of engagement with Iran, Myanmar, Cuba and others can demonstrate the reverse effect of relationship-​building policy on the dynamics of realpolitik. Sometimes relationship-​building may require certain legal actions. Thus, the development of US-​Cuba relations required some steps from US lawmakers, including lifting economic sanctions and repealing certain existing laws regarding Cuba. Usually, major foreign policy decisions are based on the dynamic equilibrium of the state’s various imperatives. A country’s interest-​based action may jeopardize its relationships with other international actors, and that in turn may affect the country’s interests. Brexit requires the United Kingdom to build a new relationship with the EU. Countries can maintain or develop relationships to achieve certain strategic objectives or advance particular values, but they can build relationships for the sake of relationships too, because relationships with the international 5.1

84 85

Simon Shuster, “A Failed Russia ‘Reset’ Haunts Obama in Europe,” Time, June 3, 2016, accessed May 9, 2021, https://​time.com/​2819​889/​obama-​rus​sia-​eur​ope-​pol​and. Cohen, Stephen F. Cohen, (2011). “Obama’s Russia ‘Reset’: Another Lost Opportunity?,” The Nation, June 1, 2011:, accessed May 9, 2021, https://​www.thenat​ion.com/​arti​cle/​arch​ ive/​oba​mas-​rus​sia-​reset-​anot​her-​lost-​oppo​rtun​ity/​ Accessed May 9, 2021.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

186 

Chapter 7

community are also an asset for them. In other words, a relationship itself can be seen as a value, and valuable relations have a bigger motivational effect than insignificant ones. One of the main reasons for the United Kingdom’s support of the US invasion of Iraq was the UK government’s strong relationship imperative toward the United States. Well before this invasion and completion of the UN weapon inspectors’ work in Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote to US President George W. Bush, “I will be with you, whatever.”86 Of course, such a relationship-​oriented attitude can be supported by interests, values, legal and relationship obligations. Relationships can also be seen as interests and/​ or values, values and relationships can be considered interests, and interests and values may appear as building blocks of relationships. Nevertheless, the relationship was the first and foremost factor in Blair’s decision to invade Iraq. The “special relations” narrative refers not just to the individuals or people, but also to countries as unitary and purposive actors. Speaking about Theresa May as the next British Prime Minister, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest noted that President Obama continued “to rest on the principle that the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is a special one, and it is a relationship that transcends the personalities or political parties of either country’s leader.”87 Often relationships between states are affected by their concrete activities and accomplishments in different areas, for instance, their human rights records, political stance, economic achievements and so on. When state A provides humanitarian assistance or political support to state B, it influences state B’s relations with state A. Relations between state C and state D may deteriorate if state D threatens or occupies a territory of state E that has close political and economic relations with state C. So, relationships between states depend immensely on actions that are significant to both. In this respect, making war and peace between nations are the major causes of interstate relationships. Although an entity’s actions are functions of its aspirations and convictions, diplomatic actors’ real performances have a reverse impact on their pursuits. Thus, not only do imperatives form practices, but practices also influence or reshape imperatives. It is hard for state A to voice human rights concerns regarding state B if A has a poor human rights record itself. Relationships 86 87

John Chilcot, “The Report of the Iraq Inquiry,” Report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors, July 6, 2016, accessed April 20, 2021, http://​www.iraq​inqu​iry.org.uk/​media/​246​416/​the-​rep​ ort-​of-​the-​iraq-​inquir​y_​ex​ecut​ive-​summ​ary.pdf, p. 15. Josh Earnest, “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest,” The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, July 11, 2016, accessed April 20, 2021, https://​www.whi​teho​use.gov/​ the-​press-​off​ice/​2016/​07/​11/​press-​brief​ing-​press-​secret​ary-​josh-​earn​est-​july-​11-​2016.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

The Social and Relational in Diplomacy

187

should be practiced, and diplomacy has developed its ways of practicing relationships (see Appendix 3). In traditional diplomacy, social relations and relationship practices occupy a significant place, although not always the most important. In contrast, in socially oriented unconventional diplomacy, building relationships comes first. And the main instrument of such a practice is dialogical conversation.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

­c hapter 8

Toward Social Diplomacy Everyday and transprofessional diplomacies. Relationship-​building as the key activity in social diplomacy. The power of human relationships. A person-​centered and constructivist approach to building and managing relationships. Trust, justice and relationships. Social diplomats as constructive conversationalists. Softer and harder, receptive and assertive aspects of social diplomacy. Social diplomacy’s don’ts.

∵ 1

Everyday, Transprofessional and Social Diplomacies

People, as social beings, need a benevolent society to reach their potential and become what they can be. The Self needs the Other to be the true Self. Good relationships between people and other entities are an important part of people’s fulfilling lives. During the covid-​19 pandemic, many people missed spending time in cafes or with friends, and many, as the opportunity arose, enjoyed sitting down and having a conversation over a cup of coffee. In such conversations, two things may happen at the same time: casual psychotherapy and social diplomacy. Spontaneous and unstructured psychotherapy happens because people open up their hearts, relieve feelings, listen carefully to each other, speak out, show empathy and provide each other with emotional support. Social and interpersonal diplomacy takes place because interlocutors are courteous, show respect to each other, try to be constructive and jointly develop some common view about the concerns expressed. A street cafe or friends ­circle can serve as a good place for dialogical conversation. People need a dialogical interaction that provides opportunities to be sincere, empathic, constructive and friendly. As social entities, people are natural conversationalists. Conversation is one of the general methods of traditional diplomacy, along with negotiation, dispute and rhetoric, but it is not the most important one there. International diplomacy is primarily about negotiations. Actors and agents in politically oriented diplomacy try to solve problems and improve relations, mainly through negotiations that always have competitive and

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_010 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Toward Social Diplomacy

189

collaborative elements. Conversation, dispute and rhetoric most often support or help diplomatic negotiations and bargaining in traditional diplomacy. Negotiations are in demand, first of all, when the parties have contradicting interests, and political diplomacy is largely about interests. But in social diplomacy, where relationships between entities come to the fore, the need for dialogical conversation increases substantially. Negotiations are a great way to deal with differences in interests and solve problems, but their potential to build good relationships is limited. When negotiations are accompanied with compromises and concessions, and end up with not the best deal, the parties may say agree, shake hands and feel some fulfillment, but this may not be enough for building trusting and enjoyable relationships. The best way to build human relationships is through conversation. Conversation is also the process of joint construction of meanings and shared values. Representatives of the two faiths are unlikely to find a common understanding on matters of religion through debates, rhetoric or negotiations, because no one wants to compromise on their values, but they are much more likely to do so through sincere conversation. The conversation may contain some elements of implicit bargaining –​that is, negotiations without visible negotiations. To use game theory terminology, the conversation can be considered a coordination game. It can also be a game of cooperation, but since it may use some elements of implicit bargaining, the term “coordination game” better expresses this phenomenon. As Cornago remarked, “Diplomacy is ultimately a form of interpersonal relationships.”1 Indeed, the field players, the ultimate performers in the game of negotiation, are individuals. In my book about interpersonal politics,2 I noted that politics in its elementary form is present in the relations between people, even in their ordinary lives. That is, people, as political animals, to use Aristotle’s expression, cannot completely get rid of political relations, even in everyday life and interpersonal relationships, because social relations may comprise some potential for power and influence. At the same time, human relations that focus not on power, dominance, governance and influence, but on respect, dignity, goodwill and mutual understanding are also a vital aspect of human existence and growth, and people can set a goal to improve them, that is, to manifest their humanistic potentials. Diplomacy designed to help in this can be called social diplomacy.

1 Cornago, Plural Diplomacies, p. 1. 2 Faizullaev Power to Power.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

190 

Chapter 8

The term “social diplomacy” has already been used in diplomatic literature, although the phrase remains conceptually undeveloped. In 2002, a conference called Social Diplomacy was held in Warsaw, and the conference proceedings were published in the same year.3 In it, social diplomacy was presented in the context of the dialog between a government and nongovernmental organizations in the international arena, and as the participation of ngo s in international activity. “Social diplomacy is based on the understanding that ­international relations are no longer the exclusive domain of governments,” and citizens can foster international cooperation, remarked Jakub Boratyński in the introduction of the book.4 In 2011, Rianne van Doeveren published a work devoted to engaging the Arab world through social diplomacy.5 The author presented public diplomacy and social diplomacy as different but complementary practices: the first appears to be a component of national diplomatic practice conducted by state actors, and the second emerges as an activity of non-​state actors that “pursues public diplomacy goals but that moves beyond the confined limits of diplomats.”6 To make these two diplomacies “truly complementary, a symbiosis must be found wherein both can operate independently but draw on each other’s strengths when striving for shared interests with a foreign population.”7 In this approach, as in the previous one, social diplomacy is associated, on the one hand, with non-​state actors, and on the other, with international activity. In 2018, Bertran Badie introduced the term “intersocial diplomacy:”8 Intersocial diplomacy designates a form of diplomacy between state and non-​state actors, or among non-​state actors, that manages the gap separating civil societies from each other. The main issue addressed by intersocial diplomacy actors are social, not political.9 According to Badie, the emerging global order incorporates intersocial relations –​a new set of relationships between peoples, groups and sovereign 3 Czubek, Social Diplomacy. 4 Jakub Boratyński, “Introduction,” in Social Diplomacy: The Case of Poland –​International Activity of Polish ngos and Their Dialogue with Government, ed. Grażyna Czubek (Warsaw: Stefan Batory Foundation, 2002), p. 3. 5 van Doeveren, Engaging the Arab World. 6 ibid., p. 19. 7 Ibid., p. 24. 8 Bertran Badie, “Transnationalizing Diplomacy in a Post-​Westphalian World,” in Kerr and Wiseman, Diplomacy in a Globalized World, pp. 90–​109. 9 Ibid., p. 94.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Toward Social Diplomacy

191

states:10 “In these complex new relationships, social issues are becoming dominant, and international social integration among the various international actors is becoming an accepted norm of diplomatic activity.”11 Societies –​individuals, peoples, and groups –​produce intersocial diplomacy, the main issues of which are “social, not political.”12 As Badie suggested, traditional diplomacy of sovereign states must now compete with an emerging intersocial diplomacy that involves both state and non-​state actors. However, despite this competition for influence in the international arena, successful global governance will require a growing interaction between interstate and social diplomacies.13 In considering intersocial diplomacy, Badi paid much attention to social issues and relations between state and non-​state actors, but the main arena for the application of such diplomacy remains international relations. This book conceptualizes social diplomacy as an interconnectional, interactional and relational phenomenon that can take place between predominantly socially defined actors. This means that social diplomacy can take place not only in the international arena, but in any areas where social actors engage with each other, interact, form relations and build relationships –​in public, business and personal life –​and that may happen among communities, organizations, companies, groups, individuals or their aggregations. The social means interconnectional, interactional and relational, and if the connection characterizes a general feature of sociality, the interaction defines the way of forming social connections, the relation points to the established link between social entities, and the relationship describes the quality or features of such ties. In other words, by interacting, social entities form relations, and the relationship indicates the status of this interconnected reality. When I say “social diplomacy,” I mean using the diplomatic spirit and the instruments of diplomacy in social life, including everyday situations. This doesn’t mean that social life has no political aspects: as discussed earlier, sociopolitical entities can be involved in both social and political realities and affairs. However, the main difference between political and social diplomacies is the relative priority given to political and social issues. State-​based international diplomacy is always primarily political because it is a part of the state’s international politics and foreign policy. Social diplomacy, if included in political affairs, including domestic politics, becomes a part of political activity. However, when the use of diplomacy focuses on social issues through 10 11 12 13

Ibid., p. 90. Ibid., p. 91. Ibid., p. 94. Ibid., p. 104.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

192 

Chapter 8

relationship-​building, it becomes social diplomacy. For example, many problems of coexistence based on differences of community, race, religion, other social identities, values and lifestyles can be considered primarily social problems or socially constructed problems. They, of course, can be politicized or become involved in political disputes and controversies. Although public diplomacy also deals with social interaction, social diplomacy is different from it: the former is a part of state diplomacy directed toward the public in another country, while the latter is the diplomacy of socially defined entities. Public diplomacy may make relationship-​building a key activity, but since it is a part of state-​based diplomacy, that relationship-​ building may be greatly influenced by political motives. Social diplomacy comes from the expanded understanding of diplomacy, and essentially it focuses on social interactions and relationship-​building. Like any other form of diplomacy, it can be aimed at various tasks related to the coexistence of different entities, for example, solving problems and conflicts, helping those in need, establishing mutual understanding and so on. At the same time, its primary target is building positive relations between the parties concerned. This, on the one hand, is an important task in itself since a positive relationship can be considered a common good, but on the other hand, it helps to more effectively approach other issues, such as conflict resolution or problem-​solving. Social diplomacy cannot be conducted without the diplomatic spirit, which is expressed in goodwill and engagement, concern, and care. Even social activists who want to change society or protestors striving to change a corrupt political regime can use diplomacy in their activities if they comply with the idea and practice of diplomacy. However, diplomacy cannot be used in banditry, robbery, extortion, blackmail and other criminal affairs, because diplomacy is meant for good deeds, producing common good. Where some elements of diplomacy, for example, tact and courteousness, are used to make threats of violence or for deception, it is manipulative behavior. When an actor intimidates another, even if politely, they are not acting as a social diplomat. Most of the vast literature and reflections about problem-​ solving, relationship-​building and living peacefully in a society with dignity and social graces can be attributed to social diplomacy, although the word “diplomacy” may not appear. Social diplomacy, as presented in this book, is a phenomenon very close to everyday and transprofessional diplomacy. Moreover, it can be considered a kind of everyday and/​or transprofessional diplomacy that focuses on improving relations between social actors. The ideas of everyday and transprofessional diplomacies are gaining momentum. They describe a broader phenomenon than track-​two diplomacy,

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Toward Social Diplomacy

193

which is “the unofficial, constructive interaction between adversaries in political conflict,”14 or multi-​track diplomacy, which is “a conceptual way to view the process of international peacemaking as a living system” that “looks at the web of interconnected activities, individuals, institutions, and communities that operate together for a common goal: a world at peace.”15 Everyday and transprofessional diplomacies relate not only to the field of conflict resolution and peacemaking but also to the positive changes in society and in people’s daily lives. However, the concept of everyday diplomacy has so far been covered from different angles. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology devoted a special issue to this phenomenon in the context of ethnographic studies.16 As Magnus Marsden, Diana Ibañez-​Tirado and David Henig noted in their introduction to the issue, everyday diplomacy uses analytical heuristics to study how individuals and communities engage with and influence decisions about world affairs.17 Jeswald Salacuse approached everyday diplomacy from the perspective of negotiation, as “bargaining, haggling, diplomacy, and horse trading are all forms of negotiation.”18 According to Dittmer, transnational assemblage of bodies, satellites, computers, cables, drones, microwave transmitters, undercover agents, and so on is a kind of everyday diplomacy that, in conjunction with other discursive and material connections between foreign policy apparatuses, enables emergent agencies to reshape global politics.19 Christina Churruca Muguruza discussed everyday humanitarian diplomacy that can appear

14

Joseph V. Montville, “Track Two Diplomacy: The Work of Healing History,” Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations 7, no. 2 (2006): 15–​25, 15. 15 “What is Multi-​Track Diplomacy?,” Institute for Multi-​Track Diplomacy, accessed May 11, 2021, https://​imtds​ite.wordpr​ess.com/​about/​what-​is-​multi-​track-​diplom​acy. 16 Magnus Marsden, Diana Ibañez-​Tirado and David Henig, eds., “Everyday Diplomacy: Insights from Ethnography,” The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 34, no. 2 (2016). 17 Marsden, Magnus, Diana Ibañez-​ Tirado and David Henig, “Everyday Diplomacy: Introduction to Special Issue,” The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 34, no. 2 (2016): 2–​22. 18 Salacuse, Negotiating Life, p. 1. 19 Jason Dittmer, “Everyday Diplomacy: UKUSA Intelligence Cooperation and Geopolitical Assemblages,” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 105, no. 3 (2015): 604–​ 619, 605.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

194 

Chapter 8

as, for example, the practice of accompanying and representing border crossers vis-​a-​vis state and transnational authorities is a form of diplomacy conducted to support migrants and refugees in detention centres, in refugee camps, in conflict zones, in post-​war environments and along borders.20 Iuliia Buyskykh wrote of “everyday diplomacy,” which she understood as “routine grassroots strategies for living alongside neighbors with different ethnic (national) identities and from religious denominations under the burden of contested memories that go back to World War ii and its aftermath.”21 Thus, the concept of everyday diplomacy can cover various phenomena related to the coexistence of people. The development of the ideas of everyday and transprofessional diplomacy is in line with the expansion of the understanding of diplomacy. I would like to focus on the works of Richard Sennett, who provided a micro-​sociological analysis of everyday diplomacy, and of Constantinou, Cornago and McConnell, who conducted conceptual analyses of the phenomenon of everyday and transprofessional diplomacy.22 For Sennett, “[e]‌veryday diplomacy is one way people deal with people they don’t understand, can’t relate to or are in conflict with,” and it “puts dialogic conversation to work practically.”23 Everyday diplomacy happens when people use indirect communication, tact and hints and avoid blunt statements in their ordinary lives, everyday meetings and relations with one another. As Sennett pointed out, people need diplomatic skills “whenever a complex issue cannot be managed through decision-​making.”24 In general, Sennett offered a micro-​sociological view of everyday diplomacy. Constantinou presented a thoughtful and conceptualized analysis of the phenomenon of everyday diplomacy.25 As he noted, although images,

20

Cristina Churruca Muguruza, “Everyday Humanitarian Diplomacy: Experiences from Border Area,” cmi Brief no. 2, Chr. Michelsen Institute, February 2020, accessed April 25, 2021, https://​www.cmi.no/​publi​cati​ons/​file/​7171-​every​day-​human​itar​ian-​diplom​acy-​expe​ rien​ces-​from-​bor​der-​areas.pdf, p. 4. 21 Iuliia Buyskykh, “Forgive, Forget or Feign: Everyday Diplomacy in Local Communities of Polish Subcarpathia,” Journal of Global Catholicism 2, no. 2 (2018): 55–​87, p. 81. 22 A similar phenomenon –​“everyday ambassadorship” was studied by Kate Otto and is discussed in Chapter 4. She offered an appealing understanding of “everyday ambassadors” that is of interest to a wide range of readers and those who want to practice such ambassadorship at locally or globally, offline or online. 23 Sennett, Together, pp. 211–​246. 24 Ibid., p. 241. 25 Constantinou, “Everyday Diplomacy.”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

195

Toward Social Diplomacy

narratives and practices of diplomacy arise daily and everyday diplomacy is a part of our daily lives, it is not always recognized from the perspective of the traditional understanding of diplomacy as the activity of official agents of states. Constantinou recognizes that the development of modern diplomacy is primarily related to the development of the international relations of modern territorial states, but diplomacy, broadly speaking, takes place when someone successfully represents and negotiates for a territory, a group of people or a cause, or successfully mediates between others involved in such representations and negotiations. According to Constantinou, in the modern world, one can proudly become an everyday ambassador, connecting oneself to global civil society, dealing with various social issues and striving to change the world. As an example, he cites the work of blogger and activist Kate Otto,26 who invited concerned individuals to become everyday ambassadors and thus sought to make a difference by connecting to a divided world. People can create everyday embassies by engaging in socially meaningful activities, such as conducting mentoring programs for young women, protecting the rights of immigrants and so on. Constantinou noted that everyone can become an everyday ambassador for a good cause. As he pointed out, in addition to being able to invent their own diplomatic mission, everyday ambassadors can also choose their own stage and medium of action. This can be facilitated by an open diplomatic culture. The ideas of everyday diplomacy were further developed by Costas Constantinou, Noé Cornago and Fiona McConnell in their book Transpro­ fessional Diplomacy.27 According to the authors, diplomacy is no longer limited to a single profession, and its aspects can be found in various professional activities. Referring to various sources, the authors note that in today’s world, former professional diplomats actively engage in international consulting work for governments and companies; governments often hire experienced former ngo activists for diplomatic work; scientists have a growing influence on international interactions; and journalists, creative industry and marketing professionals are involved in public diplomacy, national branding and digital diplomacy. In addition, global business consultants increasingly see diplomatic skills as one of the core competencies that corporate managers have to master. Diplomacy, besides the representation of a polity, “can also entail the representation of global causes and claimed service to humanity as a whole.”28 26 27 28

Everyday Ambassador, accessed April 24, 2021, https://​eve​ryda​yamb​assa​dor.org. Constantinou, Cornago and McConnell, Transprofessional Diplomacy. Ibid., p. 49; emphasis original.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

196 

Chapter 8

Activities of international ngo s, celebrity diplomacy and issue campaigning “are good examples of advocating and missionizing for a wide range of ‘good causes’, such as poverty, alienation, asylum granting, children’s rights, biodiversity and so on.”29 Constantinou, Cornago and McConnell noted that the professionalization of diplomacy was a long historical process that entailed borrowing from various professions –​in particular, the clergy, literati, courtiers and jurists –​but, unlike in other professions, this process was somewhat weak and incomplete. Diplomatic activity is becoming increasingly fragmented, the privileged monopoly of state diplomats is gradually eroding, and the barriers to entry into the profession are being destroyed. According to the authors, the proliferation of “new” diplomatic actors such as ngo s, transnational corporations, de facto states and minority communities has transprofessionalized (not deprofessionalized) diplomacy. In the course of all this, non-​state diplomats have brought new skills and knowledge to the table, but at the same time there is also a strategic emulation of traditional diplomatic skills in which non-​ state actors seek “to learn the diplomatic game and claim legitimacy through mimicking formal diplomatic practices and undergoing socialization in the mores of traditional diplomatic culture.”30 These trends in transprofessional diplomacy, argued Constantinou, Cornago and McConnell, provide particular insights into the changing nature of state and non-​state interactions in diplomacy. By describing social diplomacy, this book focuses on relationship-​ building aspects of transprofessional diplomacy. 2

Social Diplomacy as a Way of Constructing Relationships

Many people are engaged in positive social activities and the creation of common goods –​social and humanitarian workers, medical doctors and nurses, psychotherapists, teachers, community organizers, law enforcement ­professionals, elected officials, mediators, activists, journalists, bloggers, public intellectuals, and so on. In fact, everybody who promotes positive and constructive social relations, including goodwill and everyday ambassadors, acts as a social diplomat. However, unlike professional diplomats who work at foreign ministries, embassies and international organizations, social diplomats don’t belong to a specific professional group. They conduct their diplomatic activities as transprofessional diplomats who are focused on relationship-​building.

29 30

Ibid., p. 49. Ibid., p. 51.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Toward Social Diplomacy

197

One can be a transprofessional diplomat without being a professional diplomat and can use diplomacy in different areas, including in social relations (i.e., relations between or among any social actors such as individuals, groups, organizations, states and interstate bodies). This is about forming and managing relationships through constructive engagement based on a goodwill mission and dialogical interaction. The development of relations means forming or constructing relationships. A and B have no chance to have a meaningful relationship without advancing their relations, and that requires constructive interaction. Social relations are constructed by interaction, and they represent social constructions. Social diplomacy is about building a relationship between entities through diplomatic means –​goodwill, constructive engagement and dialogical interaction. Individuals can act as social diplomats by participating in the resolution of community conflicts, establishing respectful relations between a minority group and the local police department, contributing to the reduction of hate speech in society, promoting a good cause and so on. By using the term “social diplomacy,” I underline the social character and social orientation of diplomatic efforts, which are based on relationship-​building. Unlike in international diplomacy, the political aspect is not the most important or even one of the leading factors in social diplomacy. Predominantly politically oriented diplomacy is mostly about interests, while primarily social diplomacy is mainly about the relationship. Traditional diplomacy also concerns social factors and the development of the relationship between polities can be one of its aims, but international diplomacy is primarily an instrument of foreign policy and international politics and is heavily influenced by political factors. By distinguishing social diplomacy as a new form of diplomatic activity between entities, we put social or relational factors at the center of diplomatic activity. Even when traditional diplomacy is concerned with social issues such as poverty, inequality, children’s rights, education, justice, sanitation or access to water, states’ political, economic and security-​related interests play an important role and affect the activities of diplomatic actors. Social diplomacy cannot, of course, ignore or completely detach itself from political realities and the interests of the stakeholders involved. Still, for such diplomacy, the priority is to work on developing a cooperative and positive relationship among the entities involved, which would allow them to better understand each other, coexist and resolve problems (see Figure 8.1). By acknowledging the interdependence of political and social factors in diplomacy, I also stress the possibility of their relative independence. Hence social diplomacy between or among individuals, groups and organizations

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

198 

Chapter 8

Polical diplomacy

Predominantly aimed at defending and promong interests

Social diplomacy

Predominantly aimed at construcng and managing relaonships

­f igure 8.1  Aims of political and social diplomacies.

can be conducted even when these entities have different political interests, or differences in legal rights and values. The important thing is having interaction, engagement and dialog. The state can also take part in such diplomacy by cultivating good, trusting relations with other entities. The state can support social diplomacy among different entities by instituting justice, and promoting the development of democracy, civil society, local self-​government and people’s engagement in governance. Therefore, social diplomacy, although not devoid of political elements, is largely involved in relational affairs. Of course, the interests of entities, as well as their values and understanding of legal issues, often define their relations. However, social relations, including interpersonal ones, can also be considered a relatively independent construct. Classmates may maintain close ties after finishing school regardless of their occupations, interests or fundamental values because they have established strong and positive relationships. Relatives or neighbors may have close relationships not because of any interests but because of their having frequent interactions. A typical family may have its own power dynamics, and members can enjoy their own interests, values and rights. However, a family is also a close relationship structure that may or may not be affected by its members’ differences in interests, values and rights. Acknowledging such close ties, many countries even give people the right to not testify against family members in criminal cases. What gives strength to human relationships? Why do relationships between people have such significance and impact? The power of a relationship comes from five features: (1) utilitarian value, (2) emotional charge, (3) symbolic meaning, (4) communication potency and (5) the capacity to create a social environment (see Figure 8.2). By the utilitarian value of human relationships, I mean the ability of individuals or groups to achieve something through these

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

199

Toward Social Diplomacy

Emoonal capabilies

Ulitarian capabilies

The power of relaonships between people

Environmental capabilies

Symbolic capabilies

Communicaon capabilies

­f igure 8.2  Factors that give power to human relationships.

relationships, such as influencing each other or getting assistance using certain relationships. For example, because of their relationships, members of a club may support each other in certain endeavors. The second factor relates to the emotional charge or vigor of human relationships. Emotions generated from relationships between people can be a powerful force affecting mindsets and behavior. An example is the power of love or hate. The third power factor is connected to the symbolic meaning of a relationship. A relationship with someone can be very important to a person and can provide meaning to their lives and activities. The fourth factor that makes relationships so powerful is that the Self needs the Other for self-​reflection, a better understanding of life situations, learning and social exchanges, which are vital for any social entity. Even a simple chat or feedback from someone can be useful in this way. Finally, the fifth factor that makes relationships so powerful is their ability to create an atmosphere for growth and fulfillment. Good relationships with others provide a person a positive social ecosystem and the space to be natural, to flourish as a person. A 75-​year Harvard University study of adults’ development, the longest and most comprehensive research of its type, shows that good relationships keep people happier and healthier.31

31

Associated Press, “75-​Year Harvard Study: What Makes Us Happy?” April 21, 2019, accessed May 31, 2021, https://​apn​ews.com/​arti​cle/​6dab1​e79c​34e4​514a​f8d1​84d9​51f5​733.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

200 

Chapter 8

Social relations can be affected by existing institutions and legal norms, cultural traditions and values, economic conditions and sense of justice, political groups and religious organizations, and other factors. However, social diplomacy can be instrumental regardless of the relational landscape between organizations, companies, groups and individuals, as well as relations between the state and other domestic entities: with sincere attention, open-​mindedness, tolerance, compassion and dialogical interaction, the Self can develop a better understanding of Others and can gain more opportunities to construct better relationships. As in any genuine diplomacy, the main instrument of social diplomacy is constructive engagement based on goodwill and dialogical interaction. A simple engagement can be a way of starting interactions and relationships. Sometimes people engage in a relationship based simply on casual contact on the street or in a café. This can also be exploited by manipulators and scammers. As Robert Cialdini showed, people can use various interactional tricks to engage with passers-​by by giving them, for example, flowers for free, which often causes them to give money in return.32 Cialdini attributes such reactions to the power of reciprocity in society. Of course, the examples given in Cialdini’s book represent manipulative engagement and the creation of certain relationships by triggering the social mechanism of reciprocity. But if a person is driven by goodwill, then even a little engagement with someone in the form of a kind greeting or smile can create in interlocutors a certain common good in the form of a good mood. Any social exchange is based on engagement and interaction. By engaging with each other and interacting, parties create an intersubjective reality and generate shared meaning that can support relationships. Social diplomacy is a joint meaning-​making process. To be a master of constructive engagement and dialogical interactions, conducting a positive social exchange, and creating intersubjective reality and shared meaning, a social diplomat needs to have a genuine interest in others, high emotional intelligence and empathy, sensitivity and listening skills, and the desire to understand a counterpart unconditionally. This is a kind of offer to the counterpart, and if the other party ­perceives such a step as safe and not manipulative, it can create opportunities for mutual involvement of the parties. Chapter 9 discusses human greeting as a means of social diplomacy. Figure 8.3 shows the intersubjective reality and shared meaning created by the interaction between Self and Other.

32

Robert Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, rev. ed. (New York: Collins Business, 2007).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

201

Toward Social Diplomacy

Self

Intersubjecve reality and shared meaning

Other

­f igure 8.3  Constructing intersubjective reality and shared meaning through interaction and social exchange between the parties.

Methods of problem-​solving workshops,33 interactive conflict resolution,34 multi-​track diplomacy,35 and person-​centered therapy or encounter groups,36 along with their use in political conflict resolution (a person-​ centered approach to peace),37 are also directed at changing relational structures and/​ or creating new relationships through people-​to-​people interaction, trust-​ building, exchange of opinions, experiences, concerns and feelings. These human-​to-​human interactive means might not yet have played a decisive role in global diplomacy and conflict resolution, but they are promising methods to develop better, more cooperative social relations. Even international conflict, as Herbert Kelman pointed out, “is not merely an intergovernmental or interstate phenomenon but an intersocietal phenomenon.”38 Social diplomacy 33 Herbert C. Kelman, “The Problem-​ Solving Workshop in Conflict Resolution,” in Communication in international politics, ed. R.L. Merritt (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1972), pp. 168–​204. 34 Herbert C. Kelman, “An Interactional Approach to Conflict Resolution and Its Application to Israeli-​Palestinian Relations,” International Interactions 6, no. (1979): 99–​122; Ronald J. Fisher, Interactive Conflict Resolution (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1997); Nadim N. Rouhana, “Interactive Conflict Resolution: Issues in Theory, Methodology, and Evaluation,” in International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War, eds. Paul C. Stern and Daniel Druckman (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000), pp. 294–​337; Harold H. Saunders, with contributions by Louise Diamond, et al., “Interactive Conflict Resolution: A View for Policy Makers on Making and Building Peace,” in International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War, eds. Paul C. Stern and Daniel Druckman (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000), pp. 251–​293. 35 Diamond and McDonald, Multi-​Track Diplomacy; Montville, “Track Two Diplomacy.” 36 Rogers, On Encounter Groups. 37 Edith H. Fine and Judith P. Josephson, “World Diplomats Get a Workout at Rogers’ Workshop,” Los Angeles Times, December 11, 1985, accessed May 11, 2021, https://​www.lati​ mes.com/​archi​ves/​la-​xpm-​1985-​12-​11-​vw-​1185-​story.html; John M. Whiteley, “The Person-​ Centered Approach to Peace,” Counseling and Values 32, no. 1 (1987): 5–​8. 38 Herbert C. Kelman, “Social-​Psychological Dimensions of International Conflict,” in Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques, revised edition, ed. I. William Zartman (Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2007), p. 69.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

202 

Chapter 8

can use instruments of interactive problem-​solving in small groups and other interactive methods for the development of relational structures. The dialogical and social or relational approaches also have some commonalities with social therapy,39 social construction therapy,40 and narrative therapy;41 all of them, in one way or another, try to combine the therapeutic approach with the social construction of human relations. I would like to highlight the views of Carl Rogers, whose client-​centered approach can be very useful for the development and conceptualization of social diplomacy. Rogers was one of the founders of humanistic psychology and established a client-​ centered or person-​centered approach in psychotherapy. In the last years of his life, Rogers was interested in applying his psychological theory to broader social and political relations. In particular, he organized large workshops attended by politicians and public figures, and the Carl Rogers Peace Project focused on the application of his person-​centered approach in resolving social and political conflicts.42 Rogers described three basic characteristics or conditions of the person-​ centered approach in psychotherapy, “but the description applies to all of the foregoing relationships, … in any situation in which the development of the person is a goal.”43 These three elements facilitate understanding and build the relationship between a psychotherapist and their client. The first element could be called genuineness, realness, or congruence. The more the therapist is himself or herself in the relationship, putting up no professional front or personal facade, the greater is the likelihood that the client will change and grow in a constructive manner.44

39

Lois Holzman and Fred Newman, The Practice of Method: An Introduction to the Foundations of Social Therapy (New York: New York Institute for Social Therapy and Research, 1979). 40 Social Construction Therapy Online, accessed April 21, 2021, http://​social​cons​truc​tion​ ther​apy.com. 41 Michael White and David Epston, Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1990); Martin Payne, Narrative Therapy: An Introduction for Counsellors, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks: sage Publications, 2006). 42 Rogers, “The Rust Workshop;” Maria Villas-​Boas Bowen, “Special Characteristics of the Rust Workshop and Their Influence on My Facilitation Process,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 27, no. 3 (1987): 348–​63. 43 Rogers, A Way of Being, p. 115. 44 Ibid.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

203

Toward Social Diplomacy

Applying this to social diplomacy, it is important to understand the outsize role of the diplomat’s honesty, sincerity and genuineness in relationship-​ building. Genuine diplomacy can only be conducted by genuine diplomats. The second element in the Rogerian person-​centered approach is unconditional positive regard: “a positive, acceptant attitude toward whatever the client is at that moment.”45 Rogers also called this “acceptance, or caring, or prizing,”46 which is similar to the diplomatic attitude. Roger’s third element is emphatic understanding, wherein “the therapist senses accurately the feelings and personal meanings that the client is experiencing and communicates this understanding to the client.”47 Listening is key in this regard: This kind of sensitive, active listening is exceedingly rare in our lives. We think we listen, but very rarely do we listen with real understanding, true empathy. Yet listening, of this very special kind, is one of the most potent forces for change that I know.48 We can also say that sensitive and active listening, empathy, and understanding are fundamental parts of a dialogical conversation. Unfortunately, at many international diplomatic conferences, participants mostly speak without really listening to each other. Often, they have pre-​prepared statements to respond to what the other party might say, or whatever it says. This kind of diplomacy, of course, is far from the ideas of active, sensitive listening and understanding that Rogers prescribed. So, unconditional positive regard –​the acceptance of people regardless of who they are –​congruency or genuineness, and empathetic understanding create an atmosphere of trust and growth and help the development of sincere human relationships. All of this can be quite useful for a social diplomat as an engagement and relationship practitioner. In the context of our discussions about constructive engagement in diplomacy, Rogers’ idea that “If you can get to the core of the individual, you discover something constructive, not destructive”49 is particularly relevant.

45 Ibid., p. 116. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Rogers, “Person Centered Approach to Peace,” 23:41–​23:47.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

204 

Chapter 8 Posive relaonship

Trust

Jusce

­f igure 8.4  Interdependence of positive relationship, trust and justice.

Trust and justice are fundamentally important for building a positive relationship. No relationships can be reliable, confident, long-​lasting and mutually satisfactory without trust and justice (see Figure 8.4). Therefore, one of the fundamental tasks of social diplomats is making every effort to build trust and to ensure justice and fairness. To do so, a social diplomat should be honest and authentic, build their credibility and reputation, not let others down, fulfill promises, and have the willingness to listen and share information with the other party as much as possible. We could go so far as to say that no justice and trust can be built without a system of economic and political justice as well as a good judicial system and moral coordinates in society. Indeed, economic, political, legal and moral factors play a fundamental role in people’s relations and trust in each other. Trust is also a matter of credibility.50 Even cultural factors affect trust in society.51 At the same time, goodwill, constructive engagement and dialogical interaction with genuineness and care can help build trust and justice. The most important, essential and valuable instrument of social diplomacy in this regard is a conversation, which is a dialogical phenomenon. Social diplomats may use negotiation or bargaining, discussion, and rhetoric as means of dialogical interaction, but it is the conversation that is the most valuable in keeping with the spirit of social diplomacy.

50 51

William I. Zartman and Maureen Berman, The Practical Negotiator (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 29. Esteban Ortiz-​Ospina and Max Roser, “Trust,” 2016, accessed April 22, 2021, https://​our​ worl​dind​ata.org/​trust.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

205

Toward Social Diplomacy

3

Social Diplomats as Constructive Conversationalists

Conversation as a form of dialogical interaction is the main instrument of the constructive engagement of a social diplomat with others. A good conversation is a partnership; it can only take place between equal entities who not only talk but also listen to each other and experience emotional togetherness. The power of conversation comes from the power of listening, empathy and understanding. A good conversationalist has excellent listening skills, a sincere interest in the counterpart, empathy, sensitivity, delicacy, tolerance and openness. But what if only one party wants to get involved in the conversation? In this case, the task of a social diplomat is to be sincere and with goodwill, to do everything to encourage the other party to engage –​particularly, to demonstrate interest, respect and a desire to listen; this contributes to the opening of a dialog. At the same time, it is important to not get annoyed, remain positive, and be constructive in all aspects and stages of the interaction. Social diplomats don’t need to be agreeable; their congruence and genuineness are more important for being good conversationalists and trust-​builders. However, to be dialogical, even disagreements have to be expressed with sincerity, and an understanding of and respect for the counterpart. Conversation in social diplomacy is not small talk, although it can use small talk as well.52 In the literature, we can find many skills and techniques to conduct a good conversation, and also the personal qualities necessary for a good conversationalist, for example, the ability to ask open-​ended questions, paraphrase, reframe and use positive body language, as well as spontaneity, informality, curiosity, delicacy, cheerfulness, wit, politeness, respectfulness, cooperativeness, moderateness and sense of humor.53 In social diplomacy, conversation requires mindfulness and genuineness, but must not become limited to just pleasantries. Social diplomacy, after all, is aimed at producing or constructing a common good. Of course, it helps to master some basic social skills, such as good greeting, saying thank you, appreciation, recognition, reciprocity, and behaving

52

53

Small talk is often considered as a “pure” form of the art of conversation. As Debra Fine noted, it has an amazing ripple effect; Debra Fine, The Fine Art of Small Talk: How to Start a Conversation, Keep It Going, Build Networking Skills –​and Leave a Positive Impression! (New York: Hachette Books, 2005), p. xiv. Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Margaret Shepherd, The Art of Civilized Conversation: A Guide to Expressing Yourself with Style and Grace (New York: Broadway Books, 2006); The Economist, “Chattering classes;” Blyth, The Art of Conversation.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

206 

Chapter 8

respectfully and with dignity. Individuals’ relationship-​building capacity will increase if they have soft skills such as good emotional intelligence, social graces and composure, as well as the ability to speak clearly and articulately, and to effectively use tone of voice. However, one of the basic skills of social diplomacy is the ability to stay constructive in all conditions. For the social diplomat, constructiveness is a philosophy of life. The individual’s constructiveness and savoir-​faire in interactions are supported by their openness, p ­ ositivity, benevolence, compassion, naturalness, looseness, creativity and willingness to learn in any situation. As mentioned earlier, a political diplomat is, first of all, a negotiator, but a social diplomat is, primarily, a conversationalist, although they can also use other forms of dialogical interaction. Like negotiation, conversation represents social exchange. Unlike negotiation, which always has both cooperative and competitive elements, conversation is a principally cooperative type of social exchange. For a social diplomat, conversation is not a tit-​for-​tat kind of social exchange, but a construction of the common good. When it comes to assisting others in engaging in conversation, the social diplomat acts as a facilitator. Conversation facilitates an exchange of opinions, concerns and suggestions. Since social diplomacy concerns people, psychology is of great importance to it. It is natural for a social diplomat to be a good psychologist and take into account the emotional, cognitive and other psychological characteristics of the interlocutor. Human conversation comprises telling, listening and exchanging of stories. It is a joint effort in storytelling and narrative-​building. In conversation, interlocutors help each other develop their stories and thus emerge as co-​narrators. People may negotiate their stories, but a good and profound conversation is not just bargaining, but the co-​creation of stories. Stories can divide or unite people. Professional diplomats widely use storytelling as a part of diplomatic practice. They try to tell attractive stories about their country in the host country. In traditional diplomacy, storytelling can also help diplomats present an official view in an unofficial language. However, the narratives used and developed in international diplomacy are mostly political or have a political background. The task of a social diplomat as a conversationalist is, first of all, to listen to a counterpart’s narratives and then to construct joint narratives in conversation. Often we can see that people or organizations express opposing or confrontational points of view regarding certain issues. With the escalation of differences, the parties are not inclined to listen to each other and go on to further aggravate the situation. Such confrontations can take place when discussing subjects on which public opinion is sharply divided. What does a social

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Toward Social Diplomacy

207

diplomat do in such situations? Even if a social diplomat has their own point of view on these issues, their first task is to understand the other side. It is useful to know why some people have certain views, where did these come from and the reason behind such an opinion. In doing so, the social diplomat asks questions, clarifies and tries to understand people’s narratives in their wider context, within the framework of social, economic, political and cultural circumstances and values. People, being heard, tend to be more tolerant to the views of others and to hear them. Therefore, a social diplomat can then build jointly with interlocutors a shared view or narrative. To do this, one can suggest looking at the situation from a new perspective, asking, for example, “what if” questions. For a social diplomat, the existence of different positions, approaches and values are completely normal. The basic assumptions of social diplomacy comprise the appreciation of people’s diversity, tolerance for differences, and valuing coexistence in a world made up of distinctive entities. But what to do when one or several of the entities involved are too categorical, or even pose a threat to the life or moral foundations of others? What to do with hate speech and insults? Should a social diplomat be tolerant of such kinds of people and positions? No, but that doesn’t mean matching aggression with aggression, or the desire to defeat the other side at all costs. Social diplomacy requires sensitivity, open-​mindedness and tolerance, but at the same time, social diplomats need to be internally strong, resilient and perseverant. Social diplomats are those who are willing to work with the most difficult people and organizations by constructively engaging them in conversation. Many difficult and problematic people become so not because of their nature, but because they are rejected and not understood by others. Listening and understanding help in working even with those who have completely different positions from us or have unacceptable intentions. The most difficult problems arise when people have differences not just in interests, but in values. Social conflicts based on differences in values are the most complex and difficult. People are usually not inclined to change their values and accept those of others. Value-​based or moral conflicts are very difficult to resolve because people are often willing to stand up for them to the end, or even give their lives for them. In such situations, it is hard to expect that by expressing opposing views, especially in a harsh form, people can come to a mutual understanding and agreement. Value-​related conflicts require long, patient and painstaking work. Social diplomats, as conversationalists, can contribute to their resolution by establishing a dialog, mutual listening and civilized discussion, as well as constructing joint narratives. In other words, they do not reject or attack the narrative of the other side, but instead jointly create

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

208 

Chapter 8

new narratives and values that allow both parties to find mutual understanding and create a common good. Genuine diplomacy requires genuine conversation. Genuine social diplomats influence others through conversation, negotiation and persuasion, not manipulation. At the same time, they are open to being influenced. The noble cause they represent provides social diplomats stability, grounding them even in difficult interactions. The need for genuine diplomacy is particularly acute in the context of the proliferation of hate speech on the Internet, which has sometimes even included offensive posts by diplomats and diplomatic missions. Social diplomacy has its Yin and Yang, its soft and hard, receptive and assertive sides. Being a social diplomat doesn’t mean only being sensitive, soft, flexible and adaptive. Social diplomats cannot achieve much without also having courage, determination, perseverance and assertiveness. In social diplomacy, as in any diplomacy, it is important to be civilized and polite. However, it’s even more important to have savoir-​faire and be constructive. Therefore, it is possible to be soft or firm, compliant or assertive, depending on the situation and the tasks to be solved. But what is especially important is to be constructive all the time, that is, to be focused on solving problems and building positive relationships consistently. To find hope in any impasse, to find opportunities to turn the negative into the positive, to find ways to develop mutual support and relationships in any situation –​these are the qualities of social diplomats as constructive engagement practitioners. To be constructive is to do something that helps solve problems or build relationships, to create a common good. Social diplomacy is a form of social construction. In traditional diplomacy, diplomatic intercourse starts from the establishment of diplomatic relations, which is a constructive process. In social diplomacy, the construction begins with the recognition of a counterpart. Self needs to recognize Other as a partner for conversation in order to commence social construction. However, recognition in social diplomacy is not just the admission by Self of the Other’s existence and legitimization of relations. It is also a recognition of the Other’s concerns, accomplishments, distinctiveness and aspirations. Diplomacy may require some coordination among the involved parties. In traditional diplomacy, this often takes the form of information exchange, negotiation, conversation and other forms of social interaction. For example, coordinated efforts are needed to organize international conferences, negotiations, visits and the signing of agreements. Without coordination of actions and interactions, it is difficult not only to organize, but also to conduct diplomatic proceedings –​often, it requires discussions and negotiations, and the discussions and negotiations themselves, in turn, require coordination of the

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Toward Social Diplomacy

209

actions of the parties. After all, coordination between the parties is necessary to ensure cooperation. It can be said that the need for coordination of actions is embedded in the fabric of diplomatic behavior, although this is not always possible, especially in a conflict situation. At the individual or micro-​level, the actions of professional or transprofessional diplomats often need to be tacitly coordinated. In this regard, it is particularly valuable to analyze the greetings used by individuals and how talks commence, as this often requires coordinated effort and action. Greetings can be considered a form of mini-​diplomacy. As a microcosm of diplomacy, they incorporate all the basic properties of diplomatic activity: goodwill and benevolence, engagement and interaction, coordination and cooperation, social exchange, and the production of a common good. Moreover, greetings and the need to coordinate actions therein may entail certain tacit, fleeting bargaining, which can be called greeting negotiations. Greetings can also be viewed as micro-​conversations. From the point of view of diplomacy, especially social diplomacy, it is interesting to study how individuals coordinate their actions during greetings –​this can help diplomats to be more effective in their social interactions. 4

Social Diplomacy’s Don’ts

Diplomacy belongs to the realm of differences between entities, or between Self and Other. Sometimes, others are not very inclined to accept someone who is different from them in, for example, their opinions, habits or clothing, and may treat them with prejudice or even obvious antipathy. Differences in vital interests of the Self and the Other can lead to clashes and serious conflicts. But a social diplomat always takes an interest in others, even if very different from them, or not in keeping with their ideas of virtuosity. A diplomat is characterized by a willingness to work with others to resolve their differences peacefully. When a person is imbued with diplomacy, it becomes a way of life. For those who devote themselves to diplomacy, it can become a lifelong mission. Social diplomacy requires a certain attitude to life or a diplomatic philosophy. This philosophy is based on the understanding of the need for the coexistence of Self and Other as sovereign but interdependent entities, and the use of savoir-​faire and social graces to support decent life in society. By making coexistence with the Other better, the Self creates better living conditions and improves the quality of life. Conflicts incite the Self to dehumanize the Other, and the more the confrontation, the less the other side is perceived as humane. However, social

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

210 

Chapter 8

diplomacy is a humanistic endeavor, and it tries to treat everyone without exception from the point of view of shared humanity. A better understanding of people, a desire to learn about their motives and find the human side even in wrongdoers, helps social diplomats resolve conflicts and build a better society. In relationships with other people, individuals can experience a variety of feelings, which is quite normal and understandable. However, social diplomacy is a constructivist endeavor, and therefore, a social diplomat needs a high level of self-​awareness and self-​regulation, be open to various options for resolving differences, and always find new opportunities for constructing the common good. To better understand and use diplomacy in social life, it is useful to know what diplomacy is not or what contradicts a diplomatic attitude to life and other entities. This can prevent individuals, groups and organizations from entering the undiplomatic path in managing relationships with others. The following four basic “Nos” can prevent actors from taking an undiplomatic direction: –​ no violence (using force, assault, aggression, abuse), –​ no insult (snub, slap in the face, humiliation, embarrassment), –​ no ignorance (lack of understanding, lack of awareness, mindlessness, disregard), –​ no unilateralism (bias, partisanship, lopsidedness, favoritism). Violence is a sign of war and destruction, insult humiliates a person and robs them of their dignity, ignorance leads to estrangement and alienation, and unilateralism goes against the ideals of dialogical interaction and joint decision-​ making. These are the basic don’ts of social diplomacy (see Figure 8.5). We can, of course, add to the list: for example, no negative emotions, no negative attitudes, no low spirits and no burning bridges. Negative emotions –​ anger, resentment, irritation, hostility, antipathy, cynicism, envy, desperation, frustration, nervousness and confusion –​can interfere with the work of a social diplomat. Negative attitudes –​feeling insufficient and helpless, self-​blame, sense of being a victim, and loss of self-​control –​hinder the work of a social diplomat. The same applies to low spirits –​depression, pessimism, unhappiness, despair, desolation, melancholy, distress and upset. The social diplomat, whose role is to construct positive relationships, should not –​even in difficult situations –​close the door on new solutions, cut off a way back, terminate or destroy relations, stop searching for the common good –​in short, burn bridges. However, as a genuine person, a social diplomat can, of course, experience various emotions, including negative ones. Because of their experiences and upbringing, they may have some negative attitudes too. It is not easy to keep spirits high all the time, especially when dealing with problems, conflicts and

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

211

Toward Social Diplomacy

No violence

No insult

No unilateralism

No ignorance

­f igure 8.5  Basic don’ts of social diplomacy.

difficult situations. It’s also difficult to maintain relationships with everyone, regardless of the nature of previous interactions. However, social diplomats can get a lot of positive energy from their mission, understanding the significance of their efforts, and thereby be able to self-​regulate their emotional states, attitudes and spirits. A positive mood can come from being a positive person, which means being constructive, optimistic, able to see and find good things around, and focused on solving problems rather than assigning blame. Social diplomats, as positive people, try to build trusting relationships, be patient and listen to even those with whom they do not agree. Social diplomacy requires sincerity, integrity, justice and fairness, peacefulness, cooperativeness, and kindness. Social diplomats can be positively persistent and perseverant, and able to defend their interests or common interests without burning bridges. This doesn’t mean they have to agree with everyone, accept insults and embarrassments, or remain silent about injustice. However, even in disagreement and rejection, social diplomats remain positive and seek constructiveness. Social diplomacy uses the power of positivity and constructiveness. In this way, social diplomats are helped by positive thinking, positive feelings, positive vision, positive attitudes, positive actions, positive communication, positive relationships –​in short, a positive lifestyle. With such qualities, social diplomats emerge as agents of positive social change. This book approaches genuine diplomacy as a goodwill mission that turns to a constructive engagement and dialogical interaction that helps parties to

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

212 

Chapter 8

form positive relationships. This, in turn, is instrumental in producing public goods such as problem-​solving and sustainable coexistence. Mission is about dedication, engagement is about involvement, interaction is about exerting influence, and relationship is about social and emotional interrelatedness. Positive relationships mean peaceful, cordial and friendly interconnectedness or mutuality. Figure 8.6 shows how a diplomatic goodwill mission leads to the formation of good relationships through constructive engagement and dialogical interaction.

Goodwill mission

Construcve engagement

Dialogical interacon

Posive relaonship

­f igure 8.6  The “diplomatic ladder” of goodwill mission, constructive engagement, dialogical interaction and positive relationships.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

­c hapter 9

Greetings as Micro-​diplomacy or Coordinated Social Engagement The role of greetings in engaging people with each other. covid-​ 19, social distancing and the problems of coordinating human greetings. Negotiating mutually satisfactory greetings. Goodwill, constructive engagement and dialogical interaction in a cordial greeting. Greeting as an act of diplomacy. Greeting interactions and symbolism in diplomatic ceremonies. Greetings in the context of strategic interaction, game of strategy, coordination game and relationship management. The relationship payoff matrix in greeting bargaining. The social diplomacy of greeting or greeting as a constructive conversation.

∵ 1

Greetings, covid-​1 9 and Human Engagement

Greetings play an important role in people’s engagement with each other, and require the behavioral coordination of the involved parties. The spread of covid-​19 suddenly exacerbated the problems of greeting coordination: many people who were accustomed to saluting each other in a certain way began to experience difficulties in finding a proper greeting because of the fear of contracting the virus. Two incidents in March 2020 attracted much public attention. German Chancellor Angela Merkel extended her hand to Minister of Internal Affairs Horst Seehofer, but he refused to shake it.1 Then they both smiled at each other, laughing at the situation. The second case involves the Prince of Wales who, having arrived at a public event in London and gotten out of a car, stretched his hand out to a person awaiting him but then suddenly

1 The Guardian, “The End of the Handshake: Saying Hello During the Coronavirus Outbreak,” March 3, 2020, accessed May 31, 2021, https://​www.theg​uard​ian.com/​world/​2020/​mar/​03/​ the-​end-​of-​the-​handsh​ake-​say​ing-​hello-​dur​ing-​the-​coro​navi​rus-​outbr​eak.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_011 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

214 

Chapter 9

changed his greeting and performed a Hindu “namaste,” joining his palms in front of him.2 The need to maintain “social distancing” during the pandemic brought some challenges in coordinating human greetings. A similar problematic situation can happen when representatives of different cultures meet: they might not know how best to greet each other or know what to expect. Another uncertain situation could arise after the end of the pandemic: people will have to decide whether to return to their old, habitual greetings or keep the newly learned, socially distanced greetings. The covid-​19 pandemic only highlighted people’s need to coordinate their greeting efforts. However, individuals coordinate and even negotiate their greetings all the time when they face uncertainty or have some degree of freedom in greeting interactions. They do so in order to produce mutually satisfactory greetings. Imagine if a person wants to greet someone they barely know by shaking hands, but their counterpart unexpectedly went to hug them. That would be uncoordinated greeting behavior that would confuse the parties. I regularly walk in the park near my home. There, I often need to decide whether to greet a person walking toward me or to pass by in silence, or how to greet friends, acquaintances or people I barely know. To greet someone properly, sometimes I enter a specific, concealed negotiation. It is not like the usual negotiation process around the table with an agenda, arguments and discussions. Usually, it happens very quickly and without any words. Nevertheless, this is negotiation or bargaining to produce the best outcome –​a mutually satisfactory greeting that is important for the management of relationships. Recently I was walking in the street and suddenly noticed a man and a woman approaching me. I didn’t recognize them, but the woman smiled at me. I quickly began to try to figure out what to do –​wait until they greeted me or say “hello” first? Should I greet both equally or show special regard for the woman? While I was thinking, the couple passed me by. I managed to nod to the woman, but I must have a pretty serious expression. After a while, I realized that the woman was a former colleague with whom I had worked about two decades ago. It would have been nice to have a brief chat with her, but I, or rather both of us, missed that chance. We had just a few seconds to negotiate our greetings and might have found a better solution had I been agile enough in that situation.

2 Jessica Rach, “How Coronavirus is Changing Royal Etiquette,” Mail Online, March 11, 2020, accessed May 31, 2021, https://​www.dailym​ail.co.uk/​fem​ail/​arti​cle-​8100​585/​Pri​nce-​Char​les -​accid​enta​lly-​attem​pts-​shake-​hands-​memb​ers-​Prin​ces-​Trust.html.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Greetings as Micro-diplomacy

215

Not long ago, I attended a birthday party for a colleague and met some old friends and a few new people. I was introduced to a man from Vietnam, who greeted me with a bow. This time I was smart enough to quickly return his bow, after which we had a nice conversation. Then we bade “goodbye” to each other and shook hands. I believe we found a good and mutually satisfactory way of greeting one another at the beginning and the end of our encounter. We momentarily managed to nonverbally negotiate our salutations by being culturally sensitive and attentive to each other. It was an enjoyable social exchange with a good greeting (and parting) deal. Finally, during a recent walk in the park, I noticed a man with whom I had once shaken hands somewhere. The man and I were walking toward each other, and I began to wonder what to do. Should I stop and extend my hand? If we shake hands, should I do so firmly or lightly? Or should I just nod at him and continue to walk? Should I smile or keep a serious face? Or should I pretend that I didn’t notice him? While I was thinking, the man got closer. I decided just to nod and turned my face to do so, but he didn’t even look at me and walked on. Maybe he didn’t notice or recognize me, or decided to ignore me, or avoided negotiating our greetings. In any case, we did not get a greeting deal, but at least I tried. In the park, sometimes, I pre-​negotiate greetings. For example, when I see from a distance a person with whom I might or might not communicate, I often start to preliminarily build up my greeting negotiation strategy. Thus, depending on our relationship or the nonverbal signals from that individual, I can slowly move to the edge of the pathway to avoid contact, or vice versa, walk toward them, instigating and waiting for a greeting exchange. In approaching each other, one of us can send an initial signal of intention or precursory communication marker, which would help us to begin negotiating an appropriate greeting. Usually, such communication markers in greeting pre-​negotiations are ambiguous, and their ambiguity can help the parties save face. For example, in a room where a party is taking place, two acquaintances who see each other with their peripheral vision may, if they do not want to engage in greetings or conversation, pretend that they did not notice each other. When individuals approach each other or see one another indirectly, they can also decide to start a greeting engagement if the other side takes a certain action. Occasionally, I also perform routine greetings. Like others, I find myself in situations where I have to engage in coordinated interaction or negotiate how to greet a counterpart. My behavior in such situations depends to a great extent on existing social norms, cultural patterns and situational expectations. Much also depends on my and my counterpart’s assessments of the situation and of each other, our strategic and communication skills, our sensitivity and

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

216 

Chapter 9

ability to bargain over greetings, which is a type of relationship negotiation. Here, negotiating greetings is not only an instrument of communication but also a means of strategic interaction and relationship management. Greetings are one of the interactional instruments of relationship management. This leads us to consider the role of greeting in diplomacy in general and in social diplomacy in particular. 2

Greeting as an Act of Diplomacy

The most common visual symbol of diplomacy is the handshake. This makes sense: a cordial handshake represents an act of goodwill, and marks positive engagement and dialogical interaction. The handshake can also indicate successful negotiations, reaching an accord, signing agreements, as well as a vital moment of meeting between counterparts such as heads of state or other dignitaries involved in international diplomacy. Often, the handshakes of leaders become significant public acts that are widely interpreted in the mass media and by the public. Many people assess the state of relations between countries or organizations based on their leaders’ handshakes. However, in a broad sense, it is not just a handshake as such, but the greetings that matter. The greetings, of course, can be carried out in the form of a handshake, but there are many other verbal and nonverbal methods of greeting people, such as saying “hello,” bowing, putting a hand on the chest, hugging and so on. Greeting an important guest or partner can be part of a diplomatic ceremony or even an essential element of ceremonial interaction. Thus, different kinds of visits by heads of state or government to another country, such as state visits, official visits or working visits, involve different welcome ceremonies. The entire state visit from a head of state to another country, which usually involves various greeting ceremonies, can be considered one large and extended greeting of the guest by the host country. In short, greetings occupy a vital place in international diplomatic intercourse. Greetings also play an enormous role in people’s daily lives, their interpersonal relations and their social interactions in general. The greeting process may be short, but it is of strategic importance: as an act of goodwill and positive interaction, it contains the potential to develop a constructive dialog. Moreover, the greeting itself is a process of strategic interaction as the actors need to coordinate their actions and anticipate possible reactions to their moves. As Schelling pointed out, “If chess is the standard example of a zero-​ sum game, charades may typify the game of coordination; if pursuit epitomizes

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

217

Greetings as Micro-diplomacy

the zero-​sum game, rendezvous may do the same for the coordination game.”3 So, we can approach greeting from the point of view of diplomatic engagement strategy in both conventional and unconventional diplomacy. Understanding that engagement and dialog begin with genuine greetings of and from the involved parties leads to the study of greeting as an act of diplomacy. Therefore, greetings form a microcosm of diplomacy. And like diplomacy in general, greetings can be rich with elements of bargaining. Representation also plays an essential role in greetings: it’s one thing when A and B greet each other as private individuals, but it’s another story when they represent other entities, especially important ones such as states. Depending on the representational factor, the character and manner of greeting between A and B can be different. A greeting can be daring, challenging, cute, polite, vicious, warm, cold, flirtatious, superficial, obscure and so on. A person who greets another individual or a group of people needs to convey some meaning through it, even if an ambiguous one. And a person who receives a greeting needs to understand its true meaning and somehow respond to it –​even if by ignoring it. So, in a greeting, the coordination of the actors’ moves is usually combined with the coordination of their expectations. Often, greeting becomes a multilayered interaction process. All the key elements of a ceremonial greeting can be explicitly negotiated and arranged beforehand, but in everyday life, especially in unexpected situations, greetings may require tacit coordination of the counterparts’ expectations and moves. Greeting is a strategic interaction that may include elements of coordination and even micro-​negotiation. Since a sincere greeting is an act of positive and constructive engagement, expresses goodwill, contains elements of dialogical interaction, and serves relationship-​building, it can be considered a form of micro-​diplomacy. By considering greeting as micro-​diplomacy and an activity that may require strategic input and coordination with a counterpart, we can look at the process of greeting from diplomatic and game-​theory perspectives. 3

Greeting as an Interactional Instrument of Relationship Management

Greeting is a culturally, situationally and relationally determined symbolic act, and it plays an important role in human communication, interaction and 3 Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, p. 85.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

218 

Chapter 9

relationship management. Greeting between individuals is mostly studied by specialists in social and individual psychology, linguistics, social and linguistic anthropology, psychopathology, psychiatry, neurobiology, ethnology, nonverbal and cross-​cultural communication, business and management, microsociology, and sociolinguistics. However, scholars have paid little attention to the analysis of greetings from the diplomatic, negotiation or bargaining, and game-​theory perspectives. The approach developed in this book is built on Erving Goffman’s analysis of face engagement, face-​work and strategic interaction, and on Thomas Schelling’s study of the game of strategy, coordination and mixed-​motive games, and tacit bargaining. In other words, I approach human greeting by revisiting Goffman’s and Schelling’s views on social interactions or strategic interaction games in the diplomacy context. I argue that in everyday social life, people may implicitly negotiate the agreeable way of greeting by trying to find a greeting focal point through tacit bargaining. Greeting, as any bargaining, is conducted through meaningful social exchange by giving and receiving some symbolic and relationally significant values such as recognition, regard and goodwill. Since the exchange of this kind of social worth can affect further communication dynamics and relationships by creating mutual expectations, relationship obligations and access, it can be considered a type of relational tribute or symbolic reward. This symbolic social worth or tribute can serve as a payoff in the strategic game of negotiating greetings. People can also “trade” or use the relational tribute as a bargaining chip when they implicitly negotiate greetings. This represents a form of strategic negotiation based on symbolic interaction or exchange. Bringing negotiation, game theory, strategic interaction and symbolic interactionism ideas to the study of human greetings leads to another conclusion of this book: an unspoken bargaining of greeting can help people construct greetings as means of intercommunication and relationship management, so greetings help people communicate and manage the relationship to the extent that they can successfully negotiate it. Because of its ambiguity, tacit bargaining can also help interlocutors be flexible and save face during the greeting interaction. At the same time, individuals act in a certain social and cultural environment, or structure, which affects how greetings are negotiated and carried out. That points to the interdependence of social agencies and structures. Greetings help people regulate their relationships in an open or subtle forms. “Greeting is the recognition of an encounter with another person as

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Greetings as Micro-diplomacy

219

socially acceptable.”4 They play an enormous role in interpersonal relations, social life, business, impression management, diplomacy, politics, and building and keeping peace among individuals, groups and nations. Greetings can be used to welcome someone, make contact, tune in to each other, open conversations, craft first impressions, generate interest in the greeter, establish equal or hierarchical social ties (through “top-​down” or “bottom-​up” greetings), and so on. The manner of greeting can indicate a person’s social status and self-​ confidence. As Bell pointed out: Most greetings and farewells, in fact, vividly illustrate some version of the dominant social hierarchy. The more elaborate and formalized the greeting or farewell, the more it calls attention to the relative social status of the parties. In this way, such conventions function like complex rituals by clarifying the social order and, at times, effecting subtle manipulations in that order.5 Greeting may appear as an everyday pleasant or routine practice, a social duty and relationship obligation, an element of public ritual and solemn ceremony, a political necessity, or a situational requirement. It can play a symbolic role and serve as a sign of public recognition and acknowledgment or as a goodwill gesture. Most conversations and negotiations begin with mutual greetings. An act of greeting is an essential part of many religious, diplomatic, sporting and other events. Some hospitality companies have special greeters whose job is to welcome customers. They need to be skillful in the art of human greeting. Face-​to-​face greetings can be formal, informal, friendly, confrontational, respectful, vulgar, intimate, businesslike, warm, cautious and so on. People can use various verbal and nonverbal means –​words, sounds, gestures, touches, mimicry and other movements –​to greet each other. They can strengthen or weaken certain nuances or elements of their greeting, for example, a smile or tone of voice, making them more or less expressive. Greeting rituals and emotional tones may vary depending on social situations and contextual factors: the same people may greet each other differently in a busy street, an office building and a fun party. In their daily lives, people often use socio-​culturally determined and habitual ways of greetings. It could be a conventional handshake, a kiss on the 4 Raymond Firth, “Verbal and Bodily Rituals of Greeting and Parting,” in The Interpretation of Ritual: Essays in Honour of A.I. Richards, ed. J. S. La Fontaine (London: Tavistock, 1972), p. 1. 5 Catherine Bell, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 141.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

220 

Chapter 9

cheek, a bow, a hug, a wave, hands pressed together or any other form of self-​ expression and communicative interaction. In a familiar situation, individuals tend to perform customary salutations. In other words, everyday greetings tend to be ritualized. However, “not all greetings are completely predictable.”6 Many situations leave room for bargaining, and people coordinate or negotiate their greetings almost every day in their face-​to-​face encounters. This can happen when they notice each other, pass by each other, participate in a ceremony, are introduced to one another or introduce themselves to others. Although people usually teach their children how to greet parents and others, they often enter implicit greeting negotiations with them: parents and kids can indirectly offer something to receive a more desirable greeting. Family members or close colleagues can “trade” their best greetings subtly and nonverbally. Diplomats may negotiate how their heads of state or government, or other important officials greet each other –​this is especially significant for official meetings in front of the public and cameras. Individuals can mediate others’ greetings by introducing them to each other. People may avoid greeting each other for good reasons. However, sometimes they also avoid greeting someone just because they don’t know how to properly greet the person, don’t know how to negotiate the greeting or don’t have the willingness to engage in a bargaining interaction to find a greeting focal point. People also have a small chance to negotiate a greeting when they simply follow existing social norms of salutation or the established rules of etiquette, although even in routine situations, they may negotiate some meaningful nuances of greetings. The only time people cannot negotiate greetings is when they completely lack the freedom –​verbally or nonverbally –​to display salutations. Usually, people do not greet enemies or may greet them in a hostile manner. Some individuals tend to greet partners and opponents ambiguously –​using both friendly and confrontational elements –​which may allow for various interpretations. There exist cultural and individual differences in greetings of familiar and unfamiliar people, friends and those with whom actors have a cool or indistinct relationship. By greeting a stranger, an individual starts a new relationship, and by greeting an acquaintance, they may show that “a relationship is still what it was at the termination of the previous participation.”7 Greeting is a symbolic act. It symbolizes recognition, acknowledgment, respect, goodwill and the willingness to communicate. Military and martial 6 Alessandro Duranti, “Universal and Culture‐Specific Properties of Greetings,” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7, no. 1 (1997): 63–​97, 64. 7 Goffman, Interaction Ritual, p. 41.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

221

Greetings as Micro-diplomacy

arts salutes are also symbolic acts of regard. However, greeting as a symbolically meaningful communicative act can fulfill its function only when interlocutors give it an appropriate significance that is understood by all involved ­parties. In other words, negotiating greetings is a process of constructing common knowledge, or joint meaning-​making, producing common goods in the forms of mutual understanding and appreciation or readiness to listen to each other. Actors need to coordinate their actions or moves by observing one another and finding appropriate words, nonverbal means and hints. This kind of strategic interaction takes place through tacit coordination, which is a specific social exchange –​implicit bargaining. 4

Greeting as a Meaningful Social Exchange

As Raymond Firth pointed out, a social relationship is created “by some exchange of signs, as by a word or a nod.”8 Greeting is a form of negotiated social exchange: one who genuinely greets a fellow human being offers them some social value –​recognition, kindness, gentleness, respect, goodwill, trust, care and consideration, and in turn expects, often subconsciously, acknowledgment, regard and sympathy. However, people can also use greeting manipulatively: by supporting noble social exchanges only at the visible level but pursuing ulterior objectives. Greeting may also be seen as a coded behavior that can be deciphered only by those who belong to a certain social circle or network. In other words, some greetings point to and reinforce an in-​group belonging. A dress code may encourage a specific kind of greeting and can serve, in a wider sense, as a coded greeting. Silicon Valley is famous for its informal communication culture and dressing styles, particularly casual greetings among high-​tech companies’ employees and their employers. In general, Wall Street, with its financial service institutions, has a relatively more formal style of communication, dress code and greeting habits. Diplomatic receptions and official meetings with formal attire support protocol-​based greetings. In public places and conventional greeting situations, people tend to demonstrate and expect certain verbal and nonverbal behavior. In the United Kingdom or the United States, a first meeting may require a formal “How do you do?” which usually elicits the query in response. The more informal “hi” or “hello” draws a similarly informal salutation from the counterpart. If a “hi” 8 Firth, “Verbal and Bodily Rituals,” p. 1.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

222 

Chapter 9

were answered with a “How do you do?” it might confuse the person who greeted first. However, some people manage to combine the formal and more cordial forms of social exchange in their greetings, for example, saying “How do you do?” in a heartfelt tone, with a friendly facial expression and open pose. People also can start with one type of greeting and then move to other forms. For example, as Forsell and Åström remarked, “The change from handshaking to hugging during an encounter is associated with a greater emotional involvement in one another often announced by a participant raising the arms, in a display of the intent to hug.”9 Interlocutors can also change their salutation behavior in line with the development of the situation or their greeting negotiation strategies. Social norms, cultural patterns, gender roles, religious beliefs, ethical stands, traditions, customs, business ethos, organizational values, the situational context, individual motivation and personal relationships largely determine people’s salutation patterns and forms of greeting exchange. Thus, in honor-​ oriented cultures, people pay considerable attention to the details of demonstrating respect (or not) in public greetings. Organizational culture can also influence greeting etiquette, and the “giving” and “receiving” aspects of salutation exchanges. Some organizations support informal greetings among their members, irrespective of position, while others impose more formal and hierarchical types of greetings, or more structured social exchange. By imposing a certain type of greeting, organizations and groups may pursue certain collective objectives. Violating greeting order in a hierarchical society or organization can be seen by their members as an insult. Usually, a genuine greeting has a noticeable emotional component and facilitates emotional exchange. Greetings set the emotional tone for further conversation. It requires emotional tuning in the counterpart, demonstrating certain emotions and sometimes hiding others, under the influence of social norms and situational factors. This requires emotional intelligence and self-​ regulation. Facial expressions, tone of voice, posture, gestures, and other body movements and nonverbal signals contribute to the character of a greeting. Reciprocity is a general social rule in greeting interactions. If one of the actors violates existing social norms and refuses to shake an outstretched hand or wrinkles their face, the other one may see this as disregard or an insult. Even “surprise greetings will often involve the participants in a certain amount

9 Lena M. Forsell and Jan A. Åström, “Meanings of Hugging: From Greeting Behavior to Touching Implications,” Comprehensive Psychology 1 (2012): 1–​6, 5.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Greetings as Micro-diplomacy

223

of fumbling and embarrassment.”10 People can be embarrassed when they receive only silence or a nonverbal response to a verbal greeting, or are met with a closed body position in response to open body language. This would be an incomplete or unequal social exchange and thus a spoiled greeting. At the same time, hierarchical societies and organizations may practice a “vertical” type of social exchange in greeting: those who occupy a higher place in the social hierarchy may demonstrate signs of dominance, while those who have a lower social status may symbolically express submission. Greeting interaction is always a social exchange: interlocutors may give and take such relationally significant expressions as acknowledgment, recognition, respect, kindness, care, consideration, courtesy, trust, gentleness, sympathy, goodwill and so on. When people do not greet each other, ignore a greeting or greet one another inappropriately, it may be perceived as a disgrace, disrespect, loss of face or bad manners. The broken or incomplete social exchange may hurt. Greetings thus give a social worth or a kind of relational credit. Usually, those who receive it try to return the favor by responding with an appropriate greeting. In other words, accepting greetings creates, generally, interpersonal commitment. Thus, greeting relates not only to an act of communication in the moment, but also to the creation of mutual obligations for future relationships. Bargaining over greeting, to a certain degree, is a negotiation of future commitment for engagement. Using some game theory ideas to analyze strategic interactions in a face-​to-​ face encounter, Goffman referred to “relationship payoffs.”11 Negotiating greetings can be considered a strategic game with a relationship payoff. By greeting someone, a person offers to them some social worth that helps to start or maintain a relationship. Accepting a greeting means not only gaining that social worth or relationship payoff but also taking on a certain responsibility and obligation: The relational credit becomes a relational loan that needs to be returned (except when a person with a high social status takes greetings for granted). Once people have greeted each other once, they are usually expected to greet one other on future occasions. However, interlocutors can tacitly negotiate the conditions under which they will give and receive such relational credit or relationship payoffs. That is relational bargaining or concealed relationship-​based negotiation over the greeting.

10 Goffman, Relations in Public, p. 76. 11 Goffman, Strategic Interaction, p. 138.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

224  5

Chapter 9

Greeting as a Strategic Interaction and Coordination Game

Goffman proposed a distinctive sociological approach to the study of greeting in everyday life: he considered greeting a part of face-​to-​face interaction and face-​work.12 As an element of face-​to-​face interaction, a greeting may be enjoyable, indifferent or insulting. Greeting, especially in public, can prompt positive and negative emotions, and may necessitate face-​work –​“face-​saving practices” in which a person “must first become aware of the interpretations that others may have placed upon his acts and the interpretations that he ought perhaps to place upon theirs.”13 Goffman discussed greeting behavior in several works. In different contexts, he considered greeting an element of face engagement, face-​work, initiation of encounter or opening, access ceremony, ritual display, recognition ritual, and social recognition. He approached greeting behavior by studying greeting engagement, the role of acquaintance in social life, passing and surprise greeting, initiating engagement among the acquainted and unacquainted, social occasions, social gatherings, and social situations. Numerous factors can influence how people start to communicate with each other. For example, individuals’ social positions and professions, dress, or leisure activities can make it easier for them or strangers to start an encounter.14 However, Goffman noted: when one person does not want to enter into a greeting engagement with another, he will usually act so that the other can believe (or at least take the line) that the slight was due to an unintended not-​seeing of the overture; in turn, the person making the overture, if doubtful about his reception, will not press his greeting so obviously as to leave himself no social fiction should his overture be declined. And when it is known that one individual may feel obliged to cut a second, others and the pair themselves will usually be at pains to keep them from coming together, an avoidance relationship being thus established.15 In other words, in such a situation, individuals engage in a hidden social game or tacit coordination of their behavior. Goffman called this a “face-​saving game.”16 As Goffman pointed out, the tacit cooperation will naturally arise 12 Goffman, Interaction Ritual; Goffman, “On Face-​Work.” 13 Goffman, Interaction Ritual, p. 13. 14 Goffman, Behavior in Public Places. 15 Ibid., p. 115. 16 Goffman, Interaction Ritual, p. 31.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Greetings as Micro-diplomacy

225

so the counterparts in social interaction can save face, “so that the participants together can attain their shared but differently motivated objectives.”17 According to Goffman, “Tact in regard to face-​work often relies for its operation on a tacit agreement to do business through the language of hint –​the language of innuendo, ambiguities, well-​placed pauses, carefully worded jokes, and so on.”18 In tacit interaction, individuals assess not just what they see and hear, but also try to detect some concealed intentions, information and meaning. In other words, they are involved in interpretative activities or disclosure of the meaning of the counterpart’s behavior. Both greeting and avoidance of it are acts of social positioning. Greetings “clarify and fix the roles that the participants will take during the occasion of talk and to commit participants to these roles, while farewells provide a way of unambiguously terminating the encounter.”19 That means greetings help individuals to set up relationship roles and statuses.20 The greeting may serve as a gateway to more socially structured or positionally defined interaction. People normally start meetings with a salutation, and how they greet each other significantly affects not only the process of communication but also the subsequent interpersonal dynamics and status of the relationship. A good and cordial welcome positively affects the spirit of interpersonal or intergroup communication and helps the parties reach mutual understanding. Thus, greeting helps not only to clarify and fix the social roles of the interlocutors but also to construct the relationship in a desired way. Negotiating greetings tacitly and finding tacit agreement over greeting can serve as instruments of such a social construction of relationships. Game theory provides some useful insights into the study of greeting exchanges as a bargaining interaction. Any greeting –​if it is not fully involuntary and formulaic –​is a game of strategy: actors’ behavior depends not only on their intentions, skills and socio-​cultural patterns but also on their expectations of how the counterpart will behave during and after the greeting interaction. As Schelling pointed out, in games of strategy, “the best course of action for each player depends on what the other players do. The term is intended to 17 18 19 20

Ibid., p. 29. Ibid., p. 30. Ibid., p. 41. Describing greeting in the context of social status and hierarchy, Allan and Barbara Pease noted: “Most women curtsey when they meet royalty and men incline their heads or remove their hats, making themselves appear smaller than the royal person … . The more humble or subordinate an individual feels towards another, the lower he stoops his body;” Allan Pease and Barbara Pease, The Definitive Book of Body Language (London: Orion Books, 2004), p. 321.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

226 

Chapter 9

focus on the interdependence of the adversaries’ decisions and on their expectations about each other’s behavior.”21 Goffman used the term strategic interaction for such strategic games between individuals. This is an interaction of two or more parties “where every possible move carries fateful implications for all of the parties.”22 In a strategic interaction, as Goffman noted, the exchange of moves is based on mutual assessment, and the courses of action are made “in the light of one’s thoughts about the others’ thoughts about oneself.”23 Greeting can also be seen as a coordination game: to produce a mutually satisfactory greeting, actors need to coordinate their moves. In everyday life, people negotiate their greetings implicitly –​it is a kind of tacit negotiation or bargaining that Schelling described as a “bargaining in which communication is incomplete or impossible.”24 Actors need to be very quick to figure out how to coordinate their actions before and during the greeting, and all this can last just moments. It is an incomplete communication situation in which actors need to find out how to coordinate their efforts, a strategic situation that involves tacit bargaining. As Schelling pointed out, “The fundamental problem in tacit bargaining is that of coordination.”25 According to him, by negotiating tacitly, individuals watch and interpret each other’s behavior, while being aware that their actions are being interpreted and anticipated in turn, and bearing in mind the expectations they create. As a result, they may reach tacit agreement by finding a focal point (or Schelling point).26 Both Goffman and Schelling see tacit agreement as a phenomenon that requires counterparts to find meaningful signs through the interpretation of each other’s behavior in a situation where they lack information. Negotiating a greeting tacitly means coordinating the involved parties’ behavior to find a greeting focal point. For example, let us consider a situation wherein one person raises their hand to do a “high-​five,” while the other extends their arms for a hug. They can end up high-​fiving, hugging, executing some combination of the two, finding some other option to greet each other or even failing to come up with a tacit agreement on the form of greeting. Finding a focal point means matching the greeting efforts of the actors and creating an integrated or tacitly agreed greeting. The development of the 21 Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, p. 3. 22 Goffman, Strategic Interaction, p. 100–​101. 23 Ibid., p. 101. 24 Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, p. 53. 25 Ibid., p. 69. 26 Ibid.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Greetings as Micro-diplomacy

227

parties’ welcoming efforts depends largely on how they interpret each other’s intentions by observing behavioral indications. With goodwill and openness on both sides and a mutual understanding of this, the parties are more likely to find a focal point in their greeting efforts. A greeting focal point is an intersubjective phenomenon, and it allows the interacting parties to find a suitable way of welcoming each other. Having reached the focal point, interlocutors can experience joy and emotional release, or the tacit agreement can be relatively satisfactory for both or any one of the actors. The absence of a greeting focal point (i.e., an agreeable form of salutation) prevents the social exchange of goodwill and regard, and may cause frustration or embarrassment. Apparently, negotiating greetings and finding a greeting focal point is more complicated in a cross-​cultural environment because people with dissimilar cultural backgrounds may have different greeting habits, alien gestures, movements that are strange to one another, sounds and behavioral hints. In such a situation, it is difficult to find clues, and the interpretation of another person’s behavior may be far from accurate. Cross-​cultural interlocutors can be confused, frustrated and embarrassed by seeing something odd instead of the usual and expected greeting patterns. National cultures may have some gender, age and status-​related elements of greetings that help parties find the way to a greeting focal point. But subcultures can use specific styles of greeting and hints for finding a greeting focal point. For example, youth subcultures everywhere in the world tend to support more informal types of greetings. Thus, despite dissimilarities in national cultures, students or representatives of professional groups from different countries can meet and greet each other more easily than those who do not have similarities in their lifestyles, professional backgrounds or values. People with a common cultural or professional background may have a better chance to understand each other, coordinate their behavior and come to a greeting focal point in comparison with those who don’t have such common ground. Goffman had some reservations about bringing game theory to the study of everyday social interactions. However, he has developed Schelling’s game-​ related ideas in his study of strategic interaction, which he called “the calculative, gamelike aspects of mutual dealing.”27 For Goffman, strategic interaction also means “full interdependence of outcomes,” “mutual awareness of this fact” and the “capacity to make use of this knowledge.”28 Goffman considered

27 Goffman, Strategic Interaction, p. x. 28 Ibid., p. 136; emphasis original.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

228 

Chapter 9

strategic interactions not as usual games, but as “gamey situations”29 in which moves are made “in the light of one’s thoughts about the others’ thoughts about oneself.”30 As he pointed out, “following the crucial work of Schelling, strategic interaction addresses itself directly to the dynamics of interdependence involving mutual awareness.”31 Goffman and Schelling shared many ideas about human behavior and influenced each other.32 There are many similarities between Schelling’s coordination game and Goffman’s strategic interaction, primarily the mutual assessment of the actors or players and the tacit coordination of their actions or moves. Hendrik Vollmer, who comparatively analyzed Schelling’s and Goffman’s views, noted that everyday interaction “appears to be consistently grounded in a game of tacit coordination in which players maximize the utility of maintaining expectations.”33 In many social situations, such interactional coordination starts with bargaining over the greeting focal point. According to Goffman, the course of action or move “involves real physical consequences in the external world;”34 and in a game of strategy, “the world is changed by each move.”35 However, analyzing greeting rules in public places, Goffman points to the limitations of the strategic game approach in the analysis of social encounter: although the dilemma to recognize or not to recognize must be resolved by strategic analysis, the dilemma itself is partly produced by our rules for handling acquainted and unacquainted others during incidental public contact, and these rules are not rules of strategy but are part of the mesh of norms that regulate socially organized co-​mingling.36 Indeed, social norms and expectations, or behavior setting, as Roger Barker called it,37 can instigate specific types of social conduct, including greeting 29 30 31 32

Ibid., p. 102. Ibid., p. 101. Ibid., p. 137. Gary D. Jaworski, “Erving Goffman as Sorcerer’s Apprentice: A Reappraisal of the Schelling-​Goffman Relationship,” The American Sociologist 50, no. 3 (2019): 387–​401. 33 Hendrik Vollmer, “What Kind of Game is Everyday Interaction?” Rationality and Society 25, no. 3 (2013): 370–​404, 393. 34 Goffman, Strategic Interaction, p. 90. 35 Ibid., p. 144. 36 Ibid., p. 139. 37 Roger Barker, Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Greetings as Micro-diplomacy

229

interactions. However, individuals can tacitly negotiate some nuances of their greetings even in a customary situation with familiar people. There are three basic situations in which greetings between individuals can occur in face-​to-​face encounters: conversant, unconversant and partially conversant. The conversant situation is an accustomed social structure where the actors know each other, understand mutual expectations, and realize the best way of coordinating their behavior and finding a greeting focal point. For example, everyday greetings between family members, old friends, close colleagues, or managers and their subordinates in an organization usually take place in a conversant situation. From a game theory perspective, the conversant situation can be considered a game with complete information.38 The unconversant greeting situation arises when actors do not know each other or have little knowledge about what to expect from each other in a given social environment. They may find themselves in an unconversant situation when, for example, they represent different national or organizational cultures or dissimilar understandings of the social occasion or event. In game theory terms, unconversant situations are games with incomplete information. Greetings can also take place in a partially conversant situation, which too is a game with incomplete information. This kind of incompleteness can be related to just one or both of the parties. Thus, one of them may know the other and what to expect from them, or both sides may have some knowledge of each other but not possess enough information about what to expect in the social situation at hand. However, even conversant greeting situations with complete information may require some bargaining. For example, a couple who have lived together for many years can develop certain types of greeting patterns or algorisms when they greet each other in everyday life. Nevertheless, some unexpected events, their emotional states, the level of concentration, the presence of strangers, and other psychological, social and physical factors can affect their greeting behavior and make them more unpredictable. New social and interpersonal situations can also increase greeting uncertainty. So, sometimes even spouses who know each other well can enter a tacit bargaining process to find a greeting focal point. Alongside this, the unconversant greeting situation may encompass some useful information or clue that can help hesitant greeters. For instance, such universally understandable signals as a gentle smile or putting 38

Games with complete information are those where players know all the essential factors regarding the game: the structure and rules of the game; who the players are; and what their objectives, payoffs and strategies are. In games with incomplete information, players have little or no knowledge of these factors.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

230 

Chapter 9

a hand over the heart may facilitate the finding of a greeting focal point in a cross-​cultural communication setting. Usually, ceremonial greetings fall under the category of games with perfect information.39 For example, at any point during an official ceremonial greeting, all participants know what has already happened, what will happen, and what each participant should and will do in the next stage of the joint performance. Often, such coordination and synchronicity of the participants’ actions are achieved by a preliminary and detailed discussion of the ceremony and even rehearsals of sequential acts. The presence of the media can bring additional features to ceremonial greetings. Thus, when the head of one state greets the head of another at an official welcoming ceremony, both participants care about how photographers and cameramen present them. Therefore, from the impression management or image-​making perspectives, actors may try to take an advantageous position during the greeting ceremony. They can do this by some coordination of their behavior. In such a situation, greeting negotiations can have both integrative and distributive elements, making it a mixed-​motive bargaining game. 6

The Relationship Payoff Matrix in a Greeting Negotiation

A greeting payoff matrix can be instrumental in better understanding the interactional interdependence of actors and the strategy of their salutation moves. Table 9.1 shows a relationship payoff matrix for an interactive game of greeting or greeting negotiation, with two players, A and B, who need to decide whether to engage in a passing greeting. If they engage physically by saluting each other, both get the highest relationship payoff (quantified as 2). If one tries to engage but the other avoids a greeting engagement, both find themselves in an awkward situation, but with different levels of embarrassment. For the first actor, it means loss of face (−2), while for the second, it only brings a certain inconvenience − 1). If they ignore each other, both get no payoff (0). To get a maximum payoff and not to be embarrassed, actors need to be good strategists, understand the situation and have a sense of the other’s expectations. The actors’ strategy in this game of greeting bargaining may depend on whether the situation is conversant or unconversant. If both individuals are 39

Games with perfect information are sequential games where players make their moves consecutively, see all move, and know about each other’s previous moves. In games with imperfect information, players make their moves simultaneously and have no opportunity to see what the other side is doing.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

231

Greetings as Micro-diplomacy table 9.1 A greeting payoff matrix with the choice of engagement or non-​engagement

B A Engagement Non-​engagement

Engagement 2, 2 −1, −2

Non-​engagement −2, −1 0, 0

familiar with each other and have a good relationship, the most expected dominant strategy for both would be engagement, resulting in the highest payoff. However, if the actors don’t know each other or are only slightly acquainted, and so have no idea what to expect from each other, non-​engagement would appear the safest dominant strategy, because there is the risk of being embarrassed if the other does not respond favorably. But additional factors such as curiosity, high motivation, communication skills, attractiveness, situational context, the need to acquire information or the willingness to chat with someone can encourage one or both actors to take the risk and be the first to say “hello.” A greeting can be initiated by one or both parties, meaning actors can make their relational offer sequentially or simultaneously.40 Thus, A could say “hello,” and B could return the greeting, both could say it simultaneously, or one could say “hello,” and the other could say “hi” at the same time. Most everyday greetings represent coordination games with sequential moves, because many social or behavioral settings prescribe who should make the first greeting offer. For example, in some cultures or situations, elders people may respond to a greeting from younger people, and in some formal settings, only the elderly and/​or people with higher social status can initiate greetings. Handshaking etiquette suggests that when a man and woman meet, a gentleman should not extend his hand first, but do so only if a lady extends her hand. However, under the influence of various social, psychological and situational factors, people can change this kind of greeting algorithm.

40

Game theory distinguishes between sequential and simultaneous games based on whether the players make their moves one after another or at the same time. In sequential games, players know what the previous moves of the counterpart were, while in simultaneous games, they have no knowledge while taking an action of what the other side is going to do.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

232 

Chapter 9

In a sequential greeting, one of the actors leads by making the first relational offer, while the second can react with a counteroffer or ignore the offer by making no counteroffer. That is a greeting bargaining situation. In the following phases, the parties may exchange roles, with the follower acting as the leading side. In negotiating greetings, as in many other types of bargaining, it is safer to make the first offer in a conversant situation, when actors are familiar with each other and can predict the counteroffer. It becomes riskier to greet first in an unconversant or partially conversant situation, when the parties do not know each other and have no idea what the response might be. At the same time, a person who makes the first move “anchors” the bargaining and can set up a more familiar and acceptable performative setting for themselves, for instance with a nod, a “hi” or a “how do you do?.” When just one party initiates a greeting, the expected payoff for the first offer and the counteroffer, as in a typical bargaining situation, depends on the availability of information about what to expect from the other side in the current situation and the future. When A and B pass each other, the value of the opening offer for A will be higher if they expect a positive response or future relational dividends from B, but the value of the first move for A becomes riskier and will decrease if they have no idea what to expect from B, or it makes sense to avoid further contacts with the other side. So, unconversant situations usually push actors to choose a strategy of making a counteroffer rather than a first greeting offer. In general, this applies to the behavior of strangers on the street. Without necessity or beyond the call of duty, an individual rarely greets strangers, but if someone greets them, then the person usually responds.41 This is the case even in retail stores: Salespeople are taught that if they initiate a handshake with a customer on whom they call unannounced or uninvited, it can produce a negative result as the buyer may not want to welcome them and feels forced to shake hands. Under these circumstances, salespeople are advised that it is better to wait for the other person to initiate the handshake and, if it is not forthcoming, use a small head-​nod as the greeting.42

41

42

Goffman noted differences in greeting behavior in urban and rural areas: In the city, two acquaintances are likely to exchange greetings when they pass close by each other; but in rural areas, this kind of social recognition ritual may be performed even bypassing strangers; Goffman, Relations in Public, p. 75. Pease and Pease, Definitive Book of Body Language, pp. 41–​42.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Greetings as Micro-diplomacy

233

However, some urgent situations require less or no greeting negotiations. For example, a person in a critical situation and a police officer can start talking without any greeting exchanges or premeditated interactions. In the case of a conversant greeting situation, the existing relationship between actors is an important factor in choosing between initiating the first move or reacting to a possible move from the counterpart. If they have a positive relationship, it will encourage a greeting interaction and the resulting positivity. When the actors have a negative relationship, one or both of them may try to avoid a greeting or entering a greeting negotiation. But even people who have a negative attitude to each other can commence greetings under the standing social norms and situational requirements. The same applies to unfamiliar people or those who have a neutral relationship. For example, if strangers meet at a birthday party, it is expected that they will nicely greet each other because that would be the expected normative behavior on such an occasion or in that behavior setting. Or if two married couples meet for the first time in a social gathering, and one of each couple exchange greetings, it is expected that the other two individuals would also do so. Let us consider the situation where two strangers, A and B, attending a major international professional conference, are walking toward each other in the large lobby of the hotel where most of the participants are staying. Judging from their appearance, they are likely to be conference participants, but that could also be a misjudgment. In such a partially conversant situation, both can initiate greetings or ignore one another, or the greeting can be initiated by one of them and the second actor may respond to or ignore the move. Table 9.2 shows the relational payoff matrix for this strategic bargaining game. If A and B simultaneously initiate greetings (i.e., offer each other some relational credit), both get two-​point payoffs. If one makes the first offer, and the second responds with a counteroffer, the first actor gains two points, while the other gets three. That is because initiating a greeting in such an unconversant situation may involve some risk of losing face (in case the other party ignores them or responds inadequately), and the response means securing a relational credit and acting more safely. If one initiates and the second ignores, the first loses two points, and the second loses one. If A and B pass by each other and do not engage in greetings, both have no payoff (0 points). However, A and/​or B may choose more risky behavior and initiate a greeting, as one of the reasons for staying in the hotel is professional networking. If both actors are conference participants, such risky behavior can be rewarding. Thus, many factors, including motivation, can determine engagement in greeting interactions and their payoffs. All this usually happens in a very short time.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

234 

Chapter 9

table 9.2 The payoff matrix for a greeting situation with three choices: (1) initiating a greeting or making the first offer, (2) responding to a greeting or making a counteroffer, and (3) ignoring the greeting of the other side or making no offer

B Initiating (first offer) 2, 2

Initiating A (first offer) Responding 3, 2 (counteroffer) Ignoring -​1, -​2 (no offer)

Responding (counteroffer) 2, 3

Ignoring (no offer) -​2, -​1

0, 0

The payoff matrix of greeting bargaining can differ depending on various circumstances –​the relationship between the parties, their motivations, objectives and social status, cultural norms and the actors’ attitude toward counterparts, and the significance and other characteristics of the situation. Since the perception and evaluation of a greeting may depend on existing social and behavioral norms and patterns, a greeting’s propriety can become a factor affecting greeting negotiations. The more people have similarities in their internalized social norms and attitudes toward etiquette and the assessment of social situations, the more commonalities they tend to have in understanding the propriety of a certain type of salutation and the ways of behavioral coordination for finding a greeting focal point. Table 9.3 shows the payoff matrix for a partially conversant greeting situation where two barely familiar individuals with the same social background meet. Providing other individuals relational credit through greetings can be not only socially beneficial but also enjoyable, especially when the actor receives an even larger relationship payoff in return. This is a kind of mutual social lending or investment in terms of recognition, acknowledgment and respect. However, the matter may become more complicated and stressful when the act of greeting is complicated by such social factors as age and gender differences, ethics and etiquette, status and rules, culture and traditions, profession and education, experiences and established relationships, personal physical

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

235

Greetings as Micro-diplomacy

table 9.3 A payoff matrix for a greeting situation with five possible moves from counterparts: (1) initiating greeting properly, (2) initiating greeting improperly, (3) responding to greeting properly, (4) responding to greeting improperly and (5) non-​engagement

B

Initiating properly Initiating A improperly Responding properly Responding improperly Ignoring

Initiating Initiating Responding Responding Ignoring properly improperly properly improperly 2, 2 1, -​1 2, 2 1, -​1 -​2, -​1 -​1, 1

-​1, -​1

2, 2

1, -​1

-​1, 1

-​1, -​1

-​1, -​2

0, -​1

-​1, 1

-​1, -​1

-​1, 0

0, 0

and emotional conditions, and so on. When people represent different states, their national identities and the relationship between their countries also may affect the character of greeting. Generally, however, society supports reciprocity in people’s interactions and relationships,43 including greeting exchanges. Polite greeting, after all, is a sign of civilization.44 Failing to return greetings can also be detrimental from a strategic perspective: one who has not repaid a relational credit can lose even more important favors in the future. Most people understand this and engage in the greeting coordination game with its bargaining elements. 43 Cialdini, Influence. 44 As Goffman noted, “Even when two persons have great moral cause for mutual animosity they are likely to be willing to exchange a few civil words if brought together unavoidably. And even when they are not on talking terms, they may still feel an uncontrollable urge to exchange recognitional nods when brought together;” Goffman, Behavior in Public Places, p. 116.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

236  7

Chapter 9

Getting to Yes in Greeting, or Social Diplomacy of Greeting

To coordinate their greeting behavior, interlocutors need to have some orientation signs. They can be verbal or nonverbal signals, and in game theory terminology, these are moves. When actors have some freedom to make moves, they can try to do so in a desirable way. Here negotiation happens: both sides may have their own “interests” in pursuing a certain form of exchanging moves, as well as common aspirations to find a greeting focal point. That points to the existence of a “zone of possible agreement” in a greeting negotiation. A greeting focal point can be found within such a zone. Negotiating greeting happens when there is a need to coordinate salutation moves. Sometimes interlocutors may not try to coordinate their greeting behavior or moves. They may have their own predetermined greeting scenario and stick with it. However, under some circumstances, the predetermined scenarios can turn into a coordinated exchange of moves. In greeting bargaining –​as in any other bargaining –​actors can choose integrative or distributive ways of dealing with one another and reaching an agreement. In a greeting situation, actors may have equal greeting power if they can provide each other a similar amount of relational credit. However, one actor may offer more relational credit to the other, for example, when a large investor meets a young entrepreneur seeking funding. That means one of the actors can be more powerful than the other in greeting negotiations. The actor with a stronger best alternative to a negotiated agreement (batna) can afford a certain way of welcoming or ignoring the counterpart because they may not need to set up or maintain a relationship with the other side. In relational bargaining, the weaker actor is the one that has a stronger desire to greet a counterpart. However, relationship-​based negotiations are more complicated than interest-​based ones, and even a powerful actor who is not attracted to a weak actor’s relational credits, can engage in a greeting interaction with the less powerful actor because of social norms or acquaintanceship. The more powerful actor can also enthusiastically greet the less powerful one as a means of social investment for the future, because of personal affection or as a goodwill gesture. Under the influence of various factors, actors can regulate their facial expressions, poses, gestures, and tone of voice to manage the relational credit exchanges. Based on the judgment of the situation and the involved parties, people can use different verbal and nonverbal means to give and repay relational credits and loans. Tacit bargaining of greetings can be highly nuanced. What is the best greeting behavior for an actor who doesn’t know how they might be saluted by somebody, or when they are greeted in an unexpected manner, such as if the counterpart suddenly opens their arms for a hug, holds

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Greetings as Micro-diplomacy

237

an outstretched hand too long during the handshake, comes too close to say “hello,” or just bows in reaction to an extended hand? What is the best salutation strategy when a close friend displays a greeting with some unusual voice or facial expression? Actors have better opportunities to coordinate their salutation moves and mutually construct integrative greetings when they are mindful, peaceful, sincere and flexible, and demonstrate engagement, recognition, kindness and appreciation. To find a greeting focal point, it is i­nstrumental to be positive, attentive and understandable. Using game theory terminology, it is useful to have a pure strategy and send clear signals to the counterpart. In the case of an unconversant situation, that is, first of all, a strategy of positivity that doesn’t trigger a sense of threat or anxiety. This can be achieved to a great extent through open and relaxed body position and language. To positively coordinate greetings, it is also important for actors to be psychologically, physically and socially attuned to each other: to be able to detect the emotional condition of the counterpart, adequately use nonverbal signals, and understand the social situation and contextual factors.45 Thus, greetings at a funeral and wedding party require the attendants to show different emotions, particularly through facial expressions. It is quite difficult “getting to yes” in greeting bargaining when parties don’t coordinate their behavior emotionally and expressively. Understanding culture, traditions, customs and situational factors, as well as actors’ needs and aspirations, helps individuals negotiate and perform greetings. Greetings and greeting negotiations are also affected by actors’ attitudes and interest in each other, their relationship, mood, communication skills and confidence. Sometimes even with goodwill, actors can fail in finding a greeting focal point. One of the reasons for this might be the lack of negotiating greeting or coordination efforts to reach a commonly acceptable salutation. In greeting negotiations, actors normally signal each other about their conditions and intentions through different concealed means and hints. A good negotiator who wants to jointly construct mutually acceptable greetings tries to be not only positive and attentive, but also understand how the other side receives indirect signals and give feedback on the received indications. In a greeting situation with the possibility of multiple behavioral reactions, interlocutors try to catch the meaning of each other’s moves. Expectations and interpretations play a significant role in reading greeting signals. Culture 45

In international politics and diplomacy, the encounter, including greeting interaction, may also depend on the political situation. Thus, sometimes diplomatic representatives from unfriendly countries show hostility during official conference debates but are nice to each other outside the conference room.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

238 

Chapter 9

and the history of interpersonal relations may provide some hints on how to read these signals. When communication signals have a clear meaning, they are perceived as relational markers. For example, a smile is a universal marker that signals goodwill. However, even such a social marker can be interpreted differently and may have different meanings depending on the type of smile and its connections with other elements of nonverbal behavior. Interlocutors have a better chance to find a greeting focal point and reach a greeting agreement tacitly when their interests and intentions correspond, and when they can adequately interpret each other’s behavioral hints. Studying greeting as a negotiation process underlines some aspects of negotiation that have thus far remained somewhat obscure: negotiating during a very short time in a mostly nonverbal way. Even such quick and tacit bargaining is a very complex and strategic interaction in human relations. Quick joint decision-​making in face-​to-​face interactions is a common form of meaning-​ making, construction of relationships and coordination of social behavior. Tacit negotiation of greetings is an instrument of the social construction of meaning. Since a sincere greeting is a very important element in positive engagement, it occupies a worthy place in the arsenal of a social diplomat. In an uncertain situation, a social diplomat may try to find a focal point of greeting by treating it as a kind of tacit negotiation process. However, the important task of a social diplomat is to turn the greeting process into a constructive conversation as far as possible, that is, to transform the negotiation dynamics of the greeting coordination into the dynamics of the conversation. To do this, the main conditions are unconditional interest in the partner and acceptance of them as an attractive person, showing a sincere desire to enter communication with them without any threat or risk. In other words, if the negotiator in the greeting goes to the social exchange offering something (relational credit) and expecting to get something in return, then the social diplomat takes this exchange process to a new level, offering their full attention and respect, without expecting anything in return. However, usually, it is this behavior that many are ready to reciprocate.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Conclusion This book offers an extended understanding of diplomacy as a constructive engagement of an intentional entity with counterparts that incorporates a goodwill mission and dialogic interaction. The constructive spirit of diplomacy can be aimed at resolving conflicts or other problems, protecting interests and developing mutual understanding, or building trust and relationships. By and large, diplomacy occurs because of the need for distinctive and purposeful entities to coexist. By reviewing the existing concepts of diplomacy, this book focused on actors and their interactions, which has led to the study of relational aspects of diplomatic endeavor. The focus on building relationships through diplomatic means makes this a social study of diplomacy. The need for a broader approach to diplomacy and the emergence of new forms of diplomacy is an imperative of our time. As this book shows, traditional diplomacy in the form of state-​based and internationally oriented diplomacy, and such unconventional forms of it as socially-​minded diplomacy, can learn from and enrich each other. Despite the wide recognition of “friendly relations between nations” as a principal objective of international diplomacy, diplomatic scholars have often overlooked relationship imperatives and practices of diplomacy. This is quite understandable, because for much of the long history of diplomatic studies, most scholars and practitioners have looked at diplomacy through the prism of political, economic, security and legal issues, and in the case of some countries, recognized the role of certain high values or moral imperatives in conducting diplomacy. Acknowledging the leading role of interests, values, and international legal norms as major determinants of diplomatic behavior may lead to the recognition of the dependence of relationships between countries and other diplomatic actors as being reliant on how they interrelate their interests, values, and legal rights and obligations. Indeed, relationships of international actors often depend on their interest-​based, value-​based and rights-based imperatives. However, in the international arena, states, as diplomatic actors, can pursue not only their politically, morally and legally determined objectives, but also certain types of relationship goals per se. In other words, in international diplomacy, relationship-​building may be of primary or secondary importance for the actors. In this regard, the position presented in this book is somewhat different from the opinion of Yaqing Qin, who considered international diplomacy as

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_012 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

240 Conclusion relational practice in the first place.1 The relational aspect of international diplomacy is indeed fundamental for diplomatic activity and connected with all its other dimensions and objectives. Whether it be efforts to reduce arms, attract investment, organize humanitarian operations, or resolve international conflict, all diplomatic actions and interactions take place in a relational context and affect the relationship between state actors and other diplomatic players. However, in international diplomacy, relationship-​based imperatives and practices exist alongside interest-​based, value-​based and rights-based imperatives and practices, and often relationship-​building is not the most important factor for the diplomatic actors. The actor’s interests, values, legal rights and relationships affect its identity, and the more congruent they are, the more they provide integrity to the existence, actions and interactions of the diplomatic actor. However, an actor’s interests, values, rights and relationships may contradict each other too, depriving the actor of integrity. Interest, value, rights and relationship imperatives are intertwined, although they could emerge as relatively independent phenomena in diplomacy. Interests are a matter of basic needs, values are a matter of beliefs and principles, legal rights are a matter of law and legal regulation, and relationships are a matter of sociality and relatedness. Interests, values, rights and relationships may influence or even merge with each other. For the state as a diplomatic actor, improving relationships with other international entities can be an aim, or means to achieve objectives related to interests, value and rights. Often interest, value, rights and relationship imperatives emerge as a holistic aggregation, parts of which depend on each other and support one another. In diplomacy, interests, values, rights and relationships tend to form an interdependent system: Interests, values and rights occur in a relational context; interests, rights and relationships can appear as values; and values, rights and relationships can be regarded as interests. The power of a relationship increases when it is understood as an interest and/​or value and/​or right. By negotiating political, economic, legal or moral issues, countries also negotiate the relationship between them. By developing relationships, they may promote their interests, values and rights. Relationship management in diplomacy may go side-​by-​side with the management of interests, rights and values. But relationship-​building may become a leading factor in diplomacy when it comes to such unconventional forms of diplomacy as socially oriented or social diplomacy. The wide spread of social ideas and approaches in modern 1 Qin, “Diplomacy as Relational Practice.”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Conclusion

241

diplomatic studies is linked to the trend toward a more expanded understanding of the phenomenon of diplomacy itself. And this trend, in turn, arose because of the increasing complexity of the modern world, the emergence of new actors and challenges, the growing interdependence of various actors at the global, regional and local levels, and the need for new diplomatic ideas and practices in the changing political and social environment. Since the human being is both a social and a political entity, it is difficult to fully separate the social and the political in people and in their relationships. However, traditional diplomacy is primarily political because it is a part of international politics and serves the foreign policies of states. Diplomacy focused on interaction and relationship-​building can be considered social diplomacy, although it cannot entirely break away from such mostly political phenomena as power and power distribution, influence and governance, and dominance and hierarchy. Nevertheless, individuals, groups, organizations, states and their aggregations as intentional sociopolitical entities can focus on making their interactions more effective for enhancing relationships, or acting and interacting more as social actors. Thus, we can talk about social diplomacy, which is designed to improve the ability of entities to build a more meaningful coexistence in an increasingly complex world. Relationships can be formed not just as consequences of the encounter of political, moral and legal factors but also as a result of the actors’ constructive engagement and interaction. When people spend time together, communicate or listen to each other, they develop relationships. Through ­engagement and interaction, people form a certain structure in their relationships and bring some quality to them: positive or negative, short-​term or long-​term, sensually rich or emotionally cold. So, social diplomacy aimed at relationship-​ building is a dialogical interaction practice based on goodwill and constructive engagement. In order to interact, entities need to engage with each other. This book distinguishes the two levels of engagement of a diplomatic actor with a counterpart: mental, which is expressed as aspirations, and bodily, which takes place in practice or performances. Diplomatic aspirations are manifested in goodwill missions and noble objectives, and diplomatic performances are employed through such dialogical forms as negotiation, conversation, dispute and rhetoric, while observing the norms of civility. This book distinguishes between genuine and manipulative diplomacy: in the former, the intentions and actions of the diplomatic actor match each other, but in the latter, they are in contradiction. Bodily engagement between people usually begins with a greeting. Diplomatic engagement requires goodwill, noble aspirations and genuine

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

242 Conclusion interest in the interlocutor. The book shows that greetings can be considered a form of mini-​diplomacy and can be carried out as greeting negotiations. The negotiation or bargaining mode is a social exchange in which the parties want to get something valuable in return for something else. For example, respect for respect, a smile for openness, and so on. The conversational mode of greeting also represents a social exchange, but for a social diplomat it is an unconditional acceptance of a counterpart, being empathetic and showing respect, regardless of what the other side does, because the diplomat appreciates the value of human communication and interaction, and the production of common goods through sincere recognition and acknowledgment. That opens a path to constructing a positive relationship, which in turn helps approach issues of mutual concern constructively. This book shows that while in traditional, politically oriented diplomacy, negotiations are the main method of dialogical interaction, in social diplomacy, conversation comes to the fore. Negotiation is for reaching an agreement, and conversation is for meaning-​making, achieving mutual understanding and building positive and constructive relationships. Jointly producing meaning in conversation is not the same as reaching an agreement in a negotiation, although mutual meaning-​making may comprise some elements of implicit negotiation. Value-​based conflicts and disagreements cannot be resolved by negotiation as no one wants to compromise on fundamental values, but they can be overcome through dialogical conversation by creating a common understanding and joint narratives. While diplomats in international diplomacy mainly function as negotiators, diplomats in social diplomacy are primarily conversationalists, although they can also use other methods of dialogical interaction. Conversation in social diplomacy is not just casual talk but a constructive endeavor: through relationship-​building, diplomats can produce such common goods as mutual understanding and acceptance, conflict resolution, and problem-​solving. To do so, social diplomats need to be genuine, treat counterparts with unconditional positive regard and strive for emphatic understanding –​these are the qualities that Carl Rogers referred to in his humanistic approach to human growth and peacebuilding. However, social diplomats need not only such virtues as sensitivity, empathy and responsiveness, but also determination, perseverance, confidence and so on. In short, they need to be resilient. Social diplomacy is a humanistic endeavor. It is no accident that it brings together “human diplomacy,” which Costas Constantinou championed,2 and 2 Constantinou, Human Diplomacy and Spirituality.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Conclusion

243

the ideas of humanistic psychology. Diplomacy is a multidimensional and multifaceted activity, and it may use various and multidisciplinary instruments, including the development of common narratives. A good conversation always involves joint narrative-​building, and narrative practice is an i­ntegral part of social diplomacy. Although social diplomacy refers to all entities, including states, organizations, companies, groups of people and individuals, it is, first of all, the diplomacy of human relations. Interpersonal diplomacy can be regarded as a subfield of social diplomacy. New forms of diplomacy can and should learn from traditional diplomacy, which has developed its instruments over centuries. But international diplomacy can also learn from unconventional diplomacies. For example, engaging in wider conversations and making better use of them, paying more attention to building positive relationship structures and being more genuine. Diplomacy is also an area of strategy and strategic interactions. Effective diplomacy moves toward its strategic goals through coordinated moves. This means that entities interacting with each other as diplomatic actors or agents should consider the consequences of their own and others’ actions, and what can be expected from the other side or parties in the following steps of interaction. Interstate diplomacy can set up different strategic goals, such as protecting national interests, resolving international conflicts, improving the country’s image abroad, and promoting values such as democracy and human rights. People, groups and organizations involved in social diplomacy can also act and interact by setting strategic goals. Even in everyday life, diplomacy emerges as a strategic game of positive and constructive influencing that can occur directly or indirectly, visibly or invisibly. The main strategic mantra of social diplomacy is constructiveness; social diplomats seek to be constructive in any interactional situation. The tone of voice, hand gestures, choice of words and other aspects of human behavior can be a part of the strategy of constructiveness supported by the goodwill mission and noble objectives of the social diplomat. Such a strategy assumes that diplomats, even when they find themselves in difficult situations, are always ready to make creative moves, seek alternatives, and reconstruct and reframe the situation and problems. The constructive strategy requires a diplomat to be continuously and comprehensively constructive. Seeking justice and building trust serve the strategy of constructiveness. Social diplomats can act as facilitators in the interaction and conversation of groups, organizations, individuals, states and other entities. They can facilitate mutual understanding, relationship-​building, problem-​solving and positive change. Social diplomacy doesn’t require institutionalization and formal representations (although it can use different kinds of goodwill ambassadors),

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

244 Conclusion but it can be supported by democratic institutions and ideas. Regardless of whether diplomats function within a government agency, international structure, ngo, or independently, diplomats can act as agents of positive social change. Social diplomats may encounter misunderstandings, resistance, aggression and unwillingness to engage in conversation. Dealing with such situations is part of their mission. Social diplomats must be able to take on such challenging missions. A sense of mission helps to be respectful with others, not take offense and keep one’s temper. Some may say that this is idealistic, that the world is full of ugliness, injustice, malicious people and greedy organizations. Even so, social diplomacy is needed to improve this world and bring about positive social change. Of course, not everyone wants to become a social diplomat, and there may be no need for that. Still, the more people who do, the better. Diplomatic intercourse and wider international, transnational and domestic interactions have become more interdependent and intertwined, so ­modern diplomacy has increased its capacity to affect the whole system of international relations. Globalization, the Internet, traditional and social media, international and regional political and economic organizations, transnational companies, nongovernmental bodies, private individuals, tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, and the development of economic and trade relations are shaping the structure of international relations and expanding the channels and means of international interactions. Modern diplomatic players need to cope with this trend. Traditionally, as Neumann noted, the focus of diplomacy was maintenance, not change.3 Such a position may contribute to the resistance to engagement and interaction. Only a dynamic and developing world has a future, and this dynamism will increase the role of diplomats as interactionists or practitioners of engagement. In other words, modern and future challenges increasingly require diplomats to act as agents of change. Future diplomacy will need new, more advanced and flexible organizational settings, cultures and decision-​ making mechanisms. In these circumstances, diplomats should have not only more advanced interactional competence, analytical strength and decision-​ making skills, but also a higher level of creativity and increased responsibility. In the modern world, diplomats need to be change agents, and engagement and relational practitioners. In the context of the increasing interconnectedness and interdependence of people and other entities, even a little diplomatic effort at the local level 3 Neumann, At Home with the Diplomats, p. 16.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Conclusion

245

may have far-​reaching consequences. In fact, even a small community-​level diplomat, an individual noble act or a little goodwill can make a big difference in society at large by triggering a change in the structure of human relationships in their social environment.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Appendix 1

“Engagement” in International Diplomacy The term “engagement” frequently appears in official documents, scholarly literature and news headlines. However, the concept of engagement in the context of international diplomacy is not yet sufficiently developed. Sometimes it points to the interaction with problematic or adversarial states, states that need international assistance, or fresh involvement in a certain region or with a new state. We could also see the use of the concept of engagement in an international warning context. Thus, Miloslav Mincic defines positive engagement “as a way of influencing the behavior of regimes considered threatening to the United States and the international community.”1 But the concept of diplomatic engagement could be used as a platform or starting point for the interactional practice of developing relationships or relational practice of the actor with other entities. By initiating and conducting engagement with others, diplomats can act as leaders of engagement, interaction and relationship-​building. Alan Henrikson noted that although “engagement” is a very broad concept that covers everything from military interactions to civilian involvement abroad, it “has primarily a diplomatic meaning, specifically implying a willingness to talk directly with those with whom it may not be possible, or even desirable to agree.”2 This term describes “the new emphasis on diplomatic outreach in American foreign policy.”3 An engagement policy concept took hold when Barack Obama was elected US president in 2008. In contrast to such strategic concepts as military, economic and political “containment” that dominated during the Cold War, this policy focuses on establishing and maintaining firm contact, efficient communication and, when possible, friendly relationships.4 Engagement diplomacy of the United States can be conducted through a variety of methods, “sometimes alongside US military operations, mixed coercion with outreach in a complex and shifting pattern of intended persuasiveness.”5 According to Henrikson, such practices encompass not only traditional diplomacy with resident ambassadors at foreign capitals, but also special representatives and special envoys to deal with particular problems and thematic issues as well as multifaceted involvement with other countries’ ngo s and populations. Therefore, although it remains mainly 1 Miroslav Mincic, The Logic of Positive Engagement (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011), p. vii. 2 Alan K. Henrikson, “United States Contemporary Diplomacy: Implementing a Foreign Policy of ‘Engagement,’” in Kerr and Wiseman, Diplomacy in a Globalized World, p. 285. 3 Ibid., p. 270. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., p. 272.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_013 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

248 

Appendix 1

state-​to-​state diplomacy, it also involves state-​to-​society interaction and even society-​ to-​society interchange.6 Isolate or Engage: Adversarial States, US Foreign Policy and Public Diplomacy, a book edited by Geoffrey Wiseman,7 focuses on US engagement or isolation policies toward adversarial states with which the United States has had limited or no official diplomatic relations. As Wiseman remarked, since the state system was founded, “governments have had to decide whether to isolate or engage adversarial states.”8 In Wiseman’s opinion, the United States has traditionally either refrained from establishing or severed official diplomatic ties with adversarial states, but at the same time, it has often simultaneously used public diplomacy to communicate with and influence the publics of these countries. This was done in the hope that public opinion would deter the adversarial government or push it to take a more accommodating position toward the United States.9 Wiseman suggests that the United States believes in the effectiveness of isolating governments of adversarial states and engaging their publics, and that may reflect an optimistic view on the wisdom of the people and a pessimistic view about governments (including its own).10 We can distinguish a variety of engagements. In his book on engagement between the United States and the Muslim world, Darrel Ezell pointed to “sacred-​secular,” “religious,” “interreligious,” “spiritual,” “dialog-​based,” “direct two-​way communicative,” “two-​way dialogical,” “interactive,” “multitrack dialogical,” “ad-​hoc,” “proactive,” “diplomatic,” “public diplomacy,” “top-​down,” “bottom-​up,” “comprehensive,” “meaningful,” “human-​to-​human,” “people-​to-​people,” “state-​nonstate actor,” “collective,” “broad,” “grassroots,” “direct communicative,” and “constructive” engagements, as well as engagement between “state and religious nonstate actors.” He spoke of “engagement with adversaries,” “engagement strategy,” “strategic form of engagement,” “engagement opportunities,” “complementary approach to engagement,” “extensive forms of engagement,” “rules of engagement,” “pre-​engagement” and “engagement setting.”11 Although the concept of engagement is not extensively theorized in the ir and diplomatic context, Ezell’s deliberate approach shows the potential for its theoretical development and diversification.

6 7 8 9 10 11

Ibid., pp. 271–​272. Geoffrey Wiseman, ed., Isolate or Engage: Adversarial States, US Foreign Policy and Public Diplomacy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015). Wiseman, “Introduction,” p. 1. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 4. Darrel Ezell, Beyond Cairo: US Engagement with the Muslim World (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

“Engagement” in International Diplomacy

249

Recently, the word “engagement” is increasingly being used in the context of public diplomacy. The term describes “various communication and public diplomacy activities with foreign publics,” and “a range of practices designed to influence or persuade foreign audiences.”12 As Zaharna remarked, unlike traditional government-​to-​government diplomacy with its demarcation lines of engagement ranging from diplomatic isolation to senior-​level contacts, public diplomacy employs a broader understanding of engagement that suggests audience involvement or participation in public diplomacy initiatives, including relationship-​building.13 Ezell also pointed out that unlike in traditional state-​centric public diplomacy, the “new public diplomacy” recognizes the importance of engagement with non-​state actors.14 The word “engagement” played a key role in President Obama’s foreign policy and diplomacy. In his Nobel Lecture, he mentioned “engagement” four times.15 In his opinion, “Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy –​but there must be consequences when those things fail.”16 According to President Obama, “engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation” but “sanctions without outreach –​condemnation without discussion –​can carry forward only a crippling status quo.”17 He also remarked that “No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door,” and he stressed the need “to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.”18 President Obama mentioned Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland and US President Ronald Reagan’s engagement with the Soviet Union as examples of creating new political opportunities and changes. President Obama’s engagement politics is mostly understood in the context of the challenging US relations with Iran and North Korea, as well as the American diplomatic efforts to improve relations with the Muslim and Arab world.19 12

Matthew Wallin, “Engagement: What does it Mean for Public Diplomacy?” American Security Project, June 11, 2013, accessed April 15, 2021, https://​www.amer​ican​secu​rity​proj​ ect.org/​eng​agem​ent-​what-​does-​it-​mean-​for-​pub​lic-​diplom​acy. 13 R. S. Zaharna, “The Public Diplomacy Challenges of Strategic Stakeholder Engagement,” in Trials of Engagement: The Future of US Public Diplomacy, eds. Ali Fischer and Scott Lucas (Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2011), p. 202. 14 Ezell, Beyond Cairo, p. 18. 15 Barack H. Obama, “Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize,” The White House, December 10, 2009, accessed April 16, 2021, https://​obam​awhi​teho​use .archi​ves.gov/​the-​press-​off​ice/​rema​rks-​presid​ent-​acc​epta​nce-​nobel-​peace-​prize. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 For relations with Iran, see Suzanne Maloney, “Engagement with Iran: The Sequel,” The Brookings Institution, January 31, 2013, accessed April 16, 2021, http://​www.brooki​ngs .edu/​resea​rch/​artic​les/​2013/​01/​iran-​malo​ney. For North Korea, see Glenn Kessler, “North Korean Nuclear Blast Tests Obama’s Engagement Policy,” Washington Post, May 26, 2009,

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

250 

Appendix 1

The engagement of diplomatic actors with terrorist organizations, “rogue states” or criminals is a complex and morally challenging issue. Usually, in such a difficult situation, diplomatic actors try to consider the characteristics of the situation, including the threat to people’s lives, public perception, the prospects for resolving a crisis and so on. The problems of engaging with challenging entities emphasize that diplomatic actions and interactions have, among others, moral aspects. For President Obama and his administration, to a certain extent, the term “engagement” was synonymous with “public diplomacy.” In this context, Nicholas Gull offered interesting reflections about “engagement.”20 This is not a term of public diplomacy, he noted, and “engagement” is used in various fields, including marketing, the military and ngo work, in a slightly different sense. While acknowledging that “engagement” is the word of the moment and that it is used to describe a broader field than just diplomacy, namely, providing “a logic for coordinating the management of international aid and development and the whole range of activities that go to make up a nation’s ‘soft power,’”21 Gull nevertheless warned that for “Obama-​era Global Engagement to mean more than Bush-​era Public Diplomacy it needs to be more than Bush-​era Public Diplomacy.”22 In other words, in the absence of real content, the word “engagement” may simply turn out to be a euphemism. Zaharna also noted that “engagement is increasingly being used as a substitute for public diplomacy,”23 and “soon after President Barack Obama took office in early 2009, public diplomacy and soft power were gradually being replaced by engagement and smart power.”24 However, as Zaharna stated, the term of engagement “still remain accessed April 16, 2021, http://​www.was​hing​tonp​ost.com/​wp-​dyn/​cont​ent/​arti​cle/​2009/​ 05/​25/​AR20​0905​2501​961.html; Mohamed El-​Khawas, “Obama’s Engagement Strategy with Iran: Limited Results,” Mediterranean Quarterly 22, no. 1 (2011): 93–​113; James Traub, “The Five-​Year Engagement,” Foreign Policy, February 8, 2013, accessed April 16, 2021, http://​ www.foreig​npol​icy.com/​artic​les/​2013/​02/​08/​the_​five_​year_​e​ngag​emen​t_​ba​rack​_​oba​ma _​i​ran; Scott Lucas, “US-​Iran Engagement: Washington to Drop Nuclear Precondition on Talks?” EAWorldView, April 15, 2009, accessed April 16, 2021, http://​endu​ring​amer​ica .squa​resp​ace.com/​april-​2009/​2009/​4/​15/​us-​iran-​eng​agem​ent-​was​hing​ton-​to-​drop-​nucl​ ear-​preco​ndit​ion-​o.html. For the Muslim world, see Barack H. Obama, “Remarks by the President at Cairo University,” The White House, June 4, 2009, accessed April 16, 2021, https://​obam​awhi​teho​use.archi​ves.gov/​the-​press-​off​ice/​rema​rks-​presid​ent-​cairo-​uni​vers​ ity-​6-​04-​09. 20 Nicholas J. Gull, “Engagement is the New Public Diplomacy or the Adventures of a Euphemism of a Euphemism,” usc Center on Public Diplomacy, June 5, 2009, accessed April 16, 2021, https://​usc​publ​icdi​plom​acy.org/​blog/​eng​agem​ent-​new-​pub​lic-​diplom​acy -​or-​adv​entu​res-​euphem​ism-​euphem​ism. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Zaharna, “Public Diplomacy Challenges,”, p. 202. 24 Ibid., p. 203.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

“Engagement” in International Diplomacy

251

loosely defined in public diplomacy.”25 Thus the concept of diplomatic engagement needs further theoretical development. In a diplomatic context, as we can see, the “engagement” discourse is mainly used for describing (1) the state’s involvement in official diplomatic relations with other states, (2) the state’s interaction with problematic or challenging states, (3) the state’s connection with a new state or region, (4) the state’s involvement with a non-​state actor, and (5) public diplomacy practice executed through official and unofficial channels but primarily directed toward non-​state actors within another nation. However, the engagement practice is important not only with new or adversarial countries, but also with old and well-​connected allies: sometimes remaining engaged to maintain or expand a relationship can be more difficult than building it from scratch. The category of diplomatic engagement has an ethical or evaluative dimension. Thus, people may see the engagement of states or their representatives with other entities such nations as proper or inappropriate, correct or incorrect, acceptable or unacceptable, accurate or inaccurate, genuine or dubious, skillful or unskillful, sensible or senseless, wise or foolish, legitimate or illegitimate, fair or unfair, timely or untimely, decent or indecent, and so on. In international diplomacy, engagement practice has social, political, moral and legal dimensions. In socially oriented diplomacy, it may be filled with constructive meaning in relation to all kinds of entities –​government officials and criminals, rich and poor people, successful individuals and those who are struggling, state agencies and ngo s, professional associations and extremist groups –​ because this is what a diplomatic mission of goodwill implies. No one can be an agent of positive social change without engaging with the necessary institutions and actors, especially the most challenging and difficult ones. International diplomatic engagement with certain countries can be examined through political, economic, legal, cultural, moral and other prisms. For example, according to a senior Clinton administration official the decision to engage with Libya was ‘fundamentally a moral question about rogue states … to what extent should … [a rogue state] be rehabilitated for sins of the past … the Clinton administration in its final analysis was never able to come to the conclusion … did it want to go that far?’ … In hard cases of proliferation such as Iran and North Korea, where the stakes are seen to be much larger, he argued, moral questions simply may not apply.26

25 Ibid., p. 203. 26 Janne E. Nolan, Diplomacy and Security in the Twenty-​ First Century (Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, 2009), p. 91.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

252 

Appendix 1

President Biden also addressed the concept of engagement in one of his first foreign policy speeches: “By leading with diplomacy, we must also mean engaging our adversaries and our competitors diplomatically, where it’s in our interest, and advance the security of the American people.”27 However, diplomacy, as Ray Takeyh noted, “may not work with every targeted nation,” and the purpose of an engagement policy “is not to transform adversaries into allies, but to seek adjustments in their behavior and ambitions.”28 Engagement can assume a variety of interactional tools, including delicate diplomacy, attracting third-​party mediation and using hidden channels for discussion. Countries, organizations and individuals can find creative ways of engaging adversaries, as was demonstrated by Norway’s official and unofficial diplomacy during the Oslo talks between Israeli and Palestinian representatives in 1993.29 Recently, the concept of engagement has become quite notable in diplomatic studies and among practitioners of diplomacy. But this concept, used in different meanings, needs further theorizing. Approaching diplomatic practice as a specific way of engagement of Self with Other allows us to better understand diplomacy as a social practice. 27 28 29

Biden, “Remarks by President Biden.” Ray Takeyh, “The Essence of Diplomatic Engagement,” Boston Globe, October 7, 2009, accessed April 16, 2021, http://​www.bos​ton.com/​bost​ongl​obe/​editor​ial_​opin​ion/​oped/​ artic​les/​2009/​10/​07/​the_​essen​ce_​o​f_​di​plom​atic​_​eng​agem​ent. Dean G. Pruitt, Jacob Bercovitch and William I. Zartman, “Brief History of the Oslo Talks,” International Negotiation 2, no. 2 (1997): 177–​182.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Appendix 2

Interaction Structures in International Diplomacy Diplomatic actors, agencies and agents function in certain international, transnational and domestic interaction structures. Without some structural ties, parties cannot speak to each other, negotiate or persuade one another. Physical, social, political, legal, ideological, institutional, organizational, cultural, linguistic, economic, educational, informational, digital and other structural elements and connections make international diplomatic players’ performances possible. Considering the agent-​structure problem in ir theory, Wendt pointed out: [It] has its origins in two truisms about social life … : 1) human beings and their organizations are purposeful actors whose actions help reproduce or transform the society in which they live; and 2) society is made up of social relationships, which structure the interactions between these purposeful actors.1 According to Wendt, this suggests that human agents and social structures are interdependent. Diplomacy, in this regard, is one of the instruments for creating structural ties through the interaction of diplomatic actors, who, in turn, are dependent on these structures and act as their operational attributes. Relationships between actors are formed through their interaction. Diplomatic actors, agencies and agents may try to form new relationship structures between states, organizations, groups and individuals in an international environment. External or internal conditions can hinder this potential of diplomatic actors, but in a globalizing world, even the most complex situations like international conflicts, pandemics or an extremely unfavorable political atmosphere cannot fully destroy it. In the modern world, no government or international organization can completely isolate any country or organization, particularly in terms of information exchange and interaction. Often the question is not of whether to speak to certain regimes or organizations, but of what the adequate forms of engagement and interaction are. Diplomatic actors can influence the development or restriction of relationships in various areas. Governments and their diplomatic agencies can exercise engagement and interactions with others in different ways, such as by easing a visa regime, welcoming foreign investment and tourism, preparing and signing a political declaration or economic agreement, supporting youth and educational exchanges, establishing 1 Alexander Wendt, “The Agent-​ Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,” International Organization 41, no. 3 (1987): 335–​370, 337–​338.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_014 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

254 

Appendix 2

cooperation programs in culture or science, organizing public debates or music festivals, and so on. Diplomatic ties can facilitate communication and interaction between states and governments, and among people. However, in pursuing political objectives or based on a moral stand, state-​centric diplomacy can also complicate or even break certain types of international interactions. Sanctions as a means of coercive diplomacy lead to the restriction of interactional ties between countries and other international players.2 In international politics and diplomacy, sanctions can also be used in a broader context, as instruments of pressure, prevention, punishment and restriction. A particular international interaction structure, for example, a regional one, can be more or less advanced. The EU is an example of a developed structure of regional interactions based on an institutional framework. The EU and its official institutions (the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and others) also support many nongovernmental engagement structures helping students, professionals and other groups to engage with EU member states and beyond. For example, the Erasmus student exchange program initially and then the Erasmus Plus program were designed to support the internationalization of universities, mobility, skills development, and employability of students and graduates, thanks to the expanding structures and opportunities for interchange and interaction between higher education institutions and their representatives. In other words, the creation of new interactional structures generates new opportunities for the involved parties. More advanced interaction structures require more sophisticated types of management and regulation. The present-​day international trade regime lags behind the development of global structures of human connection and interaction. However, further liberalization of trade interactions may threaten some of the current political, economic, social and cultural structures, which could draw resistance from some actors. At the same time, this can also provide the existing structures and actors new opportunities to develop and adapt to a new environment. Many regions of the world have underdeveloped international interaction structures, which negatively affects the development of relationships between various entities. Some countries may not have diplomatic relations and may instead be officially represented to one another only through “interest sections” inside the embassies of a third country. This, of course, imposes certain restrictions on diplomatic ties and international interactions. However, diplomatic and other international actors nowadays have many other channels and means for getting involved with each other, such as the Internet, media, social media and messenger apps. Because of the covid-​19 pandemic, international diplomacy has significantly increased its use of modern information and

2 Cooper A. Drury, “Sanctions as Coercive Diplomacy: The U. S. President’s Decision to Initiate Economic Sanctions,” Political Research Quarterly 54, no. 3 (2001): 485–​508.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Interaction Structures in International Diplomacy

255

communication technologies, especially video conferencing.3 In some regions where states have underdeveloped institutional ties but common culture, governmental and nongovernmental organizations and their individual representatives often enter interactions that are informal, tacit and “invisible” to alien observers, using common cultural codes and patterns.4 The structural development of international interactions, for example, by institutional means, helps states, organizations and individuals to engage with each other more fully. Advanced and multiple structures provide more opportunities for diplomatic agencies and agents to negotiate and make joint decisions, though such structures create a need to manage complexities. In other words, the more structurally developed international and intranational relations are, the more these relations require organizational, technological and educational advancement of the diplomatic actors, agencies and agents and their competence, creativity and ability to deal with challenging matters and complicated environments. One of the most visible and recognized international interaction structures is the international organization. The United Nations, for example, can be instrumental in organizing international communications and interactions through diplomatic means, in accordance with its charter and procedural rules. With its conferences, meetings and other activities, venues and physical infrastructure, technical and human resources, organizational and linguistic settings, missions and agencies, normative and procedural inputs, the UN provides some structural opportunities for states, and their diplomatic agencies and agents to engage with each other. The UN, like many other international bodies, is a networking organization that also expands its interaction structure by bringing in ngo s, prominent personalities and volunteers with the expectation that their interactions, based on diplomacy, will lead to positive changes in international relations. Essentially, an international organization is a social construct designed to create various kinds of new relational constructs capable of linking participants in a meaningful way. International structures, including international organizations, provide actors opportunities for interactions and socialization. Membership in an international organization puts the relationship between member states in an agreed normative context that may have political, moral, legal, social and psychological significance. The

3 Alisher Faizullaev, “Diplomacy’s Response to the Coronavirus,” The Hague Diplomacy Blog, May 18, 2020, accessed April 16, 2021, https://​www.uni​vers​itei​tlei​den.nl/​hjd/​news/​2020/​ blog-​post-​-​-​dip​loma​cys-​respo​nse-​to-​the-​coro​navi​rus; Alisher Faizullaev, “Diplomacy’s Response to the Coronavirus (Part II),” The Hague Diplomacy Blog, May 28, 2020, accessed April 16, 2021, https://​www.uni​vers​itei​tlei​den.nl/​hjd/​news/​2020/​blog-​post-​-​-​dip​loma​cys -​respo​nse-​to-​the-​coro​navi​rus-​part-​ii. 4 Faizullaev, “Institutions and Culture.”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

256 

Appendix 2

social effect of membership is manifested in the intensification of interactions and the formation of new relationship structures. Improving diplomatic actors’ relationships usually leads to stronger commitments between them and, as a result, greater social expectations from each other. Commitments and expectations among international actors may affect their political, moral, legal and social stances. Political differences, organizational inefficiency and changing the environment can also negatively affect or even destroy an international organization, as was the case with the League of Nations. Membership in international bodies can be based on different principles and criteria: common history (the Commonwealth of Nations), linguistic and cultural similarities (the International Organization of La Francophonie and International Organization of Turkic Culture), political and security interests (nato), reduction of poverty (the World Bank), geo-​economic factors (Arctic Council), universal peace, security and human rights values (United Nations and Council of Europe), or other principles. But regardless of the basic determinants that bring actors into an international organization, any international body represents a corporate structure that may foster one type and hinder another type of relations between its members. In other words, irrespective of its nature, an international body affects the character of social ties and relationships between its members. By acquiring in-​group status, diplomatic actors become more socialized and enter closer social relationships. Such an in-​group status requires an enhanced type of relationship management, including building and maintaining a certain organizational culture, code of conduct, rituals and other forms of symbolic interaction. International organizations create a pecking order or hierarchical social structure.5 To maintain their identity, culture and traditions, international bodies and forums tend to exercise different kinds of habitual or ceremonial practices that become instrumental in relationship management by symbolic means. The tradition of wearing a host country’s national clothing is a small cultural or ritual element of annual meetings of heads of state and governments of the Asia-​Pacific Economic Cooperation (apec), but it is a recognized part of the body’s social identity and relationship patterns.6 The advanced international interaction structure allows entities to use a variety of channels and instruments to communicate, act on each other and get involved in relationship development practices. International diplomacy becomes more effective when it employs the capacities of governments, foreign ministries, parliaments, embassies, special envoys, goodwill ambassadors, cultural and educational organizations, 5 Pouliot, “Diplomats as Permanent Representatives;” Pouliot, International Pecking Orders. 6 Adam Taylor, “APEC’s Silly Shirts: The Awkward Tradition that Won’t Go Away,” The Washington Post, November 10, 2014, accessed April 20, 2021, https://​www.was​hing​tonp​ost.com/​news/​ wor​ldvi​ews/​wp/​2014/​11/​10/​apecs-​silly-​shi​rts-​the-​awkw​ard-​tradit​ion-​that-​wont-​go-​away.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Interaction Structures in International Diplomacy

257

the media, social media, celebrities, businesses, sports, nongovernmental structures, experts, civil society, private citizens, and so on. Diplomatic input also depends on the financial capacities of states to send delegations abroad, receive foreign delegations, use advanced information technologies, participate in international organizations, conferences and informal talks, and set up diplomatic missions abroad. Diplomatic intercourse among states is embedded in and determined by the wider system of international, transnational and domestic interactional structures, including legal, social and informational ones, and it in turn affects that interaction complex. Although diplomacy is designed to facilitate international ties and relationships, sometimes because of the situation or political necessity, diplomacy doesn’t aim to foster interactional structures or even tries to slow down political, economic, financial and other links and exchange opportunities. For example, during a refugee crisis, ­countries may try to slow or stop the influx of people. However, the trend toward globalization is growing and cannot be stopped. Diplomats can act as engagement and interaction practitioners and change agents by considering levels, areas, channels, intensity, modality, exposure and intentionality of interactions. The moral aspect of diplomatic interaction, meanwhile, is related more to the issue of diplomatic engagement.

1

Levels of Diplomatic Interactions

International interactions by diplomatic means can be organized at different levels. State, official or working visits; meetings at the level of foreign ministers, deputy ministers, ambassadors or other diplomats; appointing an ambassador or a chargé d’affaires to a particular country; sending a high-​level or low-​level delegation to a conference; and a variety of symbolic gestures are some specific diplomatic practices and demonstrate the level of mutual engagement. In general, the level of diplomatic intercourse between actors indicates their significance to each other. Some countries have strict rules for inviting heads of foreign countries for a state visit, including restricting the number of such diplomatic events per year. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Queen usually receives no more than two foreign heads of state each year for state visits. Thus, only a small number of foreign leaders may receive this honor, symbolizing the level and importance of their relations with the UK. Diplomatic connections do not represent the whole variety of interstate and international connections. Sometimes countries may have extensive trade links without much diplomatic engagement, or vice versa. However, by managing the level of diplomatic engagement, states can influence other aspects of international relations. Thus, often a head of state takes a high-​level business delegation to a foreign country as part of an official or working visit.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

258  2

Appendix 2

Areas Affected by Diplomatic Interactions

Countries may touch on many or a few areas of concern in the course of diplomatic interaction. The political, diplomatic, ideological, religious, economic, financial, military, security, scientific, technological, educational, legal, social, humanitarian, informational and cultural fields are among them. Diplomatic actors may have “sectoral engagement,” supporting ties in some areas but rejecting any connections or intercourse in others. Improving diplomatic relations between states usually has a positive impact on intensification and diversification of bilateral and multilateral interactional structures, and multi-​field interactions support the strengthening of diplomatic relations. Often diplomatic engagement serves as an instrument for discovering new fields of international interactions and cooperation. Economic diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, sports diplomacy, science diplomacy and the like characterize diplomatic inputs in various areas of international cooperation. Diplomatic intercourse can also follow the development of ties between countries, companies or organizations in various fields. For example, businesses may invite an ambassador to inaugurate their project in a foreign country, which may provide an opportunity for diplomatic representatives to develop ties with the business community in the host country.

3

Channels of Diplomatic Interaction

Channels of diplomatic interaction might be single or multiple, official or unofficial, direct or indirect, personalized or impersonal, bilateral or multilateral, and so on. The use of good offices, facilitation, mediation and the state’s interests sections of a foreign embassy are examples of the ways of conducting indirect interaction. The 1962 Cuban missile crisis was a case in which a lack of reliable communication channels between the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union could have produced tragic consequences. That is why, after the crisis, the countries set up a direct hotline for urgent consultations between their leaders in case of international emergencies. Diplomacy can exploit different channels of international interaction, and multi-​ channel interactions between actors help to develop more stable and balanced relationships between them. Diplomacy can be used between enemies even during the war. For example, during the Vietnam War, the United States and North Vietnam were engaged in diplomatic interactions with the intermediary help of Hungary and Poland;7 and during the Iran hostage crisis of 1980, the Iranian and US governments 7 James G. Hershberg, “Peace Probes and the Bombing Pause: Hungarian and Polish Diplomacy During the Vietnam War, December 1965–​January 1966,” Journal of Cold War Studies 5, no. 2

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Interaction Structures in International Diplomacy

259

were involved in negotiations with the Algerian government’s mediation.8 In the Cuban missile crisis, the US and Soviet sides made chaotic attempts to use existing channels of communication or find new ones. These included the official channels of foreign ministries and embassies, meetings between Attorney General Robert Kennedy and the Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, and even an unofficial communication channel between abc News television correspondent John Scalli and Alexandr Feklisov, the kgb resident in Washington, dc.9 All this suggests that diplomacy can find a variety of communication channels for better international and transnational interaction even in the most difficult situations.

4

The Intensity of Diplomatic Interactions

Diplomatic engagement and interactions can have a higher or lower intensity or frequency. Some nation-​states maintain intense diplomatic interactions, while others communicate only twice a year, when their heads of state exchange congratulatory letters on their respective national day celebrations. The political, economic and security interests of a state concerning another state or close ties between citizens and social groups of different countries may lead to the establishment of diplomatic missions and consulates abroad, and these agencies can facilitate not only interstate interactions but also people-​to-​people contact. Because of the covid-​19 pandemic, diplomatic missions abroad started to intensively use video conferences in their interactions not only with government agencies and officials in the host country but also with the citizens there. Multilateral diplomacy generally supports the intensification of international interaction. International organizations provide governments with opportunities for permanent communication and negotiation, but different actors use these opportunities differently, depending on their policies, objectives and capabilities. In international organizations as well as in bilateral diplomatic settings, along with the political and economic weight of countries and their interests, individual diplomats’ personalities and skills also make a difference.

(2003): 32–​67; Zoltán Szőke, “Delusion or Reality? Secret Hungarian Diplomacy During the Vietnam War,” Journal of Cold War Studies 12, no. 4 (2010): 119–​180. 8 Randa M. Slim, “Small-​State Mediators in International Relations: The Algerian Mediation of the Iranian Hostage Crisis,” in Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches to Conflict Management, eds. Jacob Bercovitch and Jeffrey Z. Rubin (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1992), pp. 206–​231. 9 Aleksandr Fusenko and Timothy Naftali, “Soviet Intelligence and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Intelligence and National Security 13, no. 3 (1998): 64–​87.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

260  5

Appendix 2

Modality of Diplomatic Interactions

International interactions may have a positive, negative, neutral or ambivalent modality, and diplomacy may contribute to regulating or articulating the tone. For example, over several decades, US-​Iran relations acquired a negative modality; the histories of China-​Japan and France-​Germany interactions have many ambiguities; Soviet-​India relations generally had a positive modality; and Switzerland is famous for maintaining neutrality in its foreign policy, which affects Swiss diplomatic interactions with a variety of international actors. The modality of diplomatic interactions may fluctuate depending on various external and internal factors, including political, economic, social and psychological ones. The tone of diplomatic intercourse may have an impact on the mood of interstate relations as a whole and vice versa. However, different channels, levels and fields of international interaction can support different relationship modalities, and countries may have more friendly interactions in one area, but more hostile ones in another (for example, North and South Korea have recently developed relations in the field of sports, while in many other areas their relationships remain tense). Diplomacy, especially public diplomacy, can be instrumental in managing, regulating and developing the modality and mood of the actor’s interactions with the outside world. International treaties, leaders’ joint communiqués and declarations, visits, ceremonies and symbolic gestures, the establishment of bilateral and multilateral commissions, exchange programs, political consultations, interviews and public statements by diplomats, and other diplomatic events or activities can affect the modality of interactions between international actors. Leaders’ interpersonal chemistry also can influence the mood of interstate interactions.

6

Exposure of Diplomatic Interactions

Diplomatic interactions can be more open or more hidden. Significant open interactions between important diplomatic actors are usually covered by the media, studied by analysts and followed by other observers. Conversely, hidden interactions are not visible to outsiders. For example, the Molotov-​Ribbentrop Pact, with the secret protocols signed on August 23, 1939, was a result of hidden diplomatic intercourse between the Soviet and German governments. The nature of state-​based diplomatic intercourse is such that secret talks will always be a part of international diplomacy. However, the Internet and social media have created new and not always easily traceable channels of international and transnational interactions with the involvement of individuals, companies, organizations, state and non-​state actors. The media and Internet have turned into effective tools for exposing

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Interaction Structures in International Diplomacy

261

hidden diplomatic activities to the public. WikiLeaks pointed to the vulnerability of classified diplomatic communication and messaging.

7

The Intentionality of Diplomatic Interactions

International interaction by diplomatic means can be intentional or unintentional. Alongside planned or organized diplomatic actions and interactions, unintentional contacts between diplomats can also occur, for example, during a conference, social event or reception. Sometimes, diplomats arrange a seemingly casual meeting between high-​ranking representatives of parties who usually avoid public encounters. However, diplomatic intercourse is a mainly intentional and purposeful activity. According to their diplomatic imperatives, governments may try to encourage some and hinder other engagements between their home companies, ngo s or citizens and their counterparts in certain countries; support or prevent the movement of workforces from one state to another; and increase or decrease the number of foreign students, cultural exchanges and so forth. Sometimes diplomats have to react to unexpected events, crises and opportunities, and with the increasing complexity of the world, the importance of the strategic readiness of diplomatic actors to respond to modern challenges will only grow further. When the covid-​19 pandemic began, diplomacy started to use new information technologies fairly quickly, but at the same time, many shortcomings were found in international diplomatic interaction at the multilateral level.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Appendix 3

Relationship-​Enhancing Practices in International Diplomacy Relationships and interactions between diplomatic actors can differ in their scope, intensity, modality, complexity and so on. In international diplomacy, relationships can be built and supported at different levels: states, organizations, groups, individuals and aggregates of these entities. These relationship levels can be relatively interdependent and independent. Worsening or improving the relationship between states usually affects relations between organizations and individuals who represent the states. However, individual diplomats or foreign ministries might still keep positive personal and working relations even during relationship crises between their respective states. Close personal relations between leaders or other key individuals can be instrumental in the development of relationships between countries. For example, good interpersonal relationships between President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and US President Jimmy Carter played a significant role in the Camp David negotiations in 1978. To elaborate a shared understanding of the status of bilateral and multilateral relations, diplomatic actors can send and receive relationship signals, and may also try to match or change the other side’s relationship expectations. Diplomatic actors are sensitive to the level of diplomatic representation or meetings, cooperation in international organizations, tone of communication, and other relationship codes and indicators. Thus, for diplomacy, there is a relational difference between the situations when states A and B are represented in their respective capitals by ambassadors and when it is by chargés d’affaires. States can have diplomatic relations even without embassies or official representatives in each other’s capitals, but that usually points to the low-​ intensity or low status of their relationship. Engagement and interaction are the practical basis for any relationship, so to practice and develop relationships, entities must engage with each other and interact. Actors can enter relationships willfully –​through deliberate engagement or under the influence of external forces, such as situational need, pressure, compulsion, coercion, intimidation and so on. In international diplomacy, actors use both goodwill and coercive means for engagement and relationship management. However, the development of friendly relations between nations requires a positive engagement between diplomatic actors. In a wider sense, any diplomatic practice can be considered a relationship practice since all kinds of interactions affect the status of relations between actors. In a narrower, more specific sense, however, international diplomacy has developed over

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | DOI:10.1163/9789004517356_015 Alisher

Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Relationship-Enhancing Practices

263

centuries certain explicit practices of developing and maintaining relationships between diplomatic actors through various types of engagement and interaction. For the development of friendly relations between nations, trust becomes a fundamental issue. As Bjola pointed out, a question of trust is key in understanding the process of relationship-​building and turning enmity into friendship, and diplomatic perspectives can propose a pragmatic shift of the focus from “the rather elusive question about trust to the more tangible issue of diplomatic engagement.”1 A trustful relationship between Self and Other cannot be enforced by anyone; it can only be formed by mutual effort, through constructive, step-​by-​step engagement. To build up a trusting relationship between Self and Other, all social actors –​whether schoolchildren, university students, relatives, club members, men, women, businesses, ngo s, states or international bodies –​need to be positively engaged with each other. Spouses, parents and children, citizens’ groups, and government agencies, states and interstate bodies who rarely communicate and interact with each other have limited opportunities to develop positive and trusting relationships. Even with established diplomatic relations, states have almost no sense of relationship if they only interact occasionally. On the contrary, states opposing each other on key issues may have quite a rich, albeit negative relationship, even without having official diplomatic ties. Actors need to make interactional efforts to turn their poor or negative relationships into positive ones. Desire alone is not enough for relationship-​building: parties need to do the practical labor, the relational performances. International actors can engage with each other in different areas –​political, military, economic, cultural, scientific, and so on –​and through various means, for instance, by debates, condemning each other, using weapons, trade, investments, art exhibitions, educational exchange, joint research programs and diplomatic correspondence. They can also build up a relationship and engage indirectly, for example, through a third party or the media, or by tacit bargaining. Interstate engagement can be supported or hindered by official and unofficial efforts and channels, political and economic interests, moral and cultural factors, historical memory, physical infrastructure, telephone and Internet communication, and so on. Countries may engage with each other to make peace or war, to create or solve problems. Once engaged, they can be honest or dishonest, and respect or hate each other. Interstate engagement can be prolonged or brief, deep or superficial. Though engagement is the basis for any relationship, not every kind of engagement helps develop a friendly relationship between nations. Diplomatic relations and interactions represent a particular form of engagement between international actors, and diplomacy has specific types of engagement activities to support its relationship pursuits at the practical level. These activities can be called diplomatic relationship practices. 1 Bjola, “Understanding Enmity and Friendship,” p. 14.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

264 

Appendix 3

Diplomatic practices represent a cluster of international practices –​“socially organized activities that pertain to world politics, broadly constituted.”2 As Adler and Pouliot pointed out, practice is a socially meaningful pattern of action, a more or less competent performance, based on background knowledge.3 To be relational, the social meaning of practice has to be commonly understood by the parties engaging each other. Such intersubjectivity allows diplomatic actors to perform relationship practices safely and to have reasonable expectations about their effects. In other words, diplomatic relationship practices, as any actions and interactions in diplomacy, are deeply embedded in shared social norms and expectations. International diplomacy has a variety of social practices prompted by diplomatic actors’ aspirations and objectives. A practice can be considered relational if it affects the relationship between the parties. However, the efficiency of relationship practices is limited when actors try to develop better bilateral or multilateral relations but at the same time have conflicting interests, values or legal stands. Actors are more likely to achieve friendship when their efforts are supported by all four fundamental imperatives –​interest-​based, value-​based, rights-​based and relationship-​based. Nevertheless, just by wanting to develop relations and performing relationship practices, diplomatic actors may shape their interests, values, commitments and obligations. Relationship practices are meaningful patterns of actions to achieve relationship management objectives, and they are competent performances by organizations and individuals who represent diplomatic actors: heads of state and governments, foreign ministries and ministers, embassies and ambassadors, parliaments and parliamentarians, governments, governmental bodies and officials, and so on. Non-​state actors can also be involved in international diplomatic relationship practices as influential actors. As a meaningful, patterned, and competent social activity, a relationship-​building practice in diplomacy requires some effort or labor –​a deliberative act based on background knowledge. In international diplomacy, relationship practices represent a meaningful activity for those who perform them. Diplomats do their jobs not only by serving their countries’ interests, values, rights and commitments, but also by performing relationship practices for “pure” relationship-​building purposes. We can distinguish the following 15 relationship-​enhancing practices in international diplomacy: 1. intercommunication 2. honoring 3. affiliation 4. collaboration

2 Adler, and Pouliot, “International Practices,” p. 7. 3 Ibid., p. 6–​7.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Relationship-Enhancing Practices

265

5. helping 6. empathizing 7. ceremony 8. normative behavior 9. entertaining 10. apology 11. commitment 12. framing relationships 13. giving a gift 14. cultural interest 15. public engagement These practices represent different types of social exchange and are designed to strengthen the relationship between diplomatic actors, or between the diplomatic actor and other entities. In particular, they may influence the structure of relationships on an emotional level by cementing them with emotional elements. A brief description of these practices follows.

1

The Practice of Communication

Intercommunication practice involves contacting the counterpart, maintaining the interconnection, voicing, discoursing, and expressing ideas, concerns, positions and suggestions. Intercommunication is not just sending or receiving a message or signal; it is a two-​way street and it assumes the activity of all parties involved. Intercommunication involves any means that gives the Self a sense of having reached out to the Other. Intercommunication between the parties can be direct or indirect, discursive or non-​discursive, verbal or nonverbal, formal or informal, frequent or infrequent, intensive or sketchy, high-​level or low-​level, long-​term or short-​term, honest or dishonest, clear or ambiguous, single-​channel or multi-​channel, related to a few or multiple issues, and so on. Diplomatic intercommunication has a variety of forms, including visits, conversations, exchange of notes verbales and delegations, establishing joint commissions and working groups, organizing conferences and press conferences, opening embassies and appointing envoys, releasing joint statements, adapting communiqués, sharing confidential information, and so on. Diplomatic language has its own style, forms and commonly used phrases and idioms that help diplomats to understand each other. Intercommunication helps to build and enhance relationships, while isolation, denial and ignorance hurt relationships. When one state wants to improve its relationship with another, the first thing it should do is start intercommunicating with the other side.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

266  2

Appendix 3

The Practice of Honoring

Honoring practice is esteeming, dignifying, respecting, demonstrating courtesy and offering higher social status by social means to a counterpart. Social status plays an enormous role in diplomacy. Higher status gives not only a better opportunity to exert influence but also enhanced relationship-​building opportunities: those who have high social status can attract attention, make wider social ties and look more influential. A status-​building activity is a social practice that has relational consequences. International diplomacy uses various practices of honoring states and their representatives. Among them are organizing state and official visits, ceremonial greetings of important guests, providing diplomatic immunity and other privileges, awarding medals and other honors, using respectful phrases and delicate speech, celebrating achievements, and so on. Even merely addressing a high-​level diplomat as “Your Excellency” serves relationship-​building. In international diplomacy, it is a usual practice to address deputy ministers as “Minister” –​a practice of discursively raising someone’s social status. Status could also be given or acquired by possessing luxury goods and exclusive services, membership in an elite club, and access to powerful people, celebrities, other influential individuals and prestigious clusters of the society. Any disrespect to a state and its official representatives is perceived by them as diplomatic assault or a relationship-​damaging practice. Lowering the level of diplomatic representation or recalling an ambassador is also considered a negative status practice or form of symbolic insult. Reciprocity is a part of diplomatic practice, and by offering others respect, honor and higher status, countries and their representatives may expect to receive the same treatment from them.

3

The Practice of Affiliation

Affiliation practice involves forming official or unofficial alliances, coalitions, ties, networks and other forms of grouping. By doing so, states incorporate themselves into formal or informal integrational structures. Countries can change relationships by establishing various kinds of associations based on political, economic, cultural and other platforms. Membership in an international organization leads to some cohesion between states and facilitates forming relationship structures among members. Actors could legalize and institutionalize ties by belonging to in-​group structures. But just formal interstate bonds are not always efficient and reliable. Historical memory and emotions could cement or damage international connections. Official partnership or friendship agreements can give impetus to diplomatic interactions between countries, and make travel, trade, investment and information exchange easier, but comprehensive relationships between nations are based on a complex set of factors.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Relationship-Enhancing Practices

267

Cultural commonalities can play an instrumental role in interstate relationship management, and there are several international groupings based on cultural and linguistic patterns. Political conflicts and differences can overshadow cultural similarities. Diplomats see various associations and assemblies as opportunities to improve relationships between states as well as to further their interests, values and rights. Shared aims, values, policies, political, economic, historical, cultural and other commonalities serve these purposes. However, association with one state or group of countries can instigate feelings of “us” and “them,” in-​group and out-​group opposition.

4

The Practice of Collaboration

Collaboration practice entails cooperation with other actors, creating a partnership, teamwork, or engagement in an activity requiring actions directed at joint problem-​ solving or achieving commonly desired results. Cooperation in poverty reduction, peacebuilding, relief operations, adopting UN Security Council resolutions and so on help countries strengthen their relationships, and at the same time, good relationships usually help produce common goods. Collaboration is also a process of trust-​building. Consultation is a specific type of collaboration in international diplomacy. It represents conversational cooperation –​sharing information, talking, listening and discussion –​between allies or parties who have developed a certain level of trust in each other. Many foreign ministries and diplomats practice formal and informal consultations, and conference diplomacy cannot happen without consultations among the stakeholders before and during a conference. When countries develop a significant partnership, consultation becomes an expected element of their relationship. Cohen referred to the “Nixon shock” of 1971 and the damage to US-​Japan relations when the US president’s decision to visit China was announced without prior consultation with Japan, a close US ally.4

5

The Practice of Helping

Helping practice involves assisting others, giving material and/​or moral support, providing aid, funding, technical expertise, know-​how, grants, scholarships and so on. It also includes supporting the counterpart in its endeavors, backing its aims and initiatives, and encouraging it in the performance of difficult tasks. When one country helps another, especially in an emergency, the relationship between them usually becomes

4 Cohen, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 53.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

268 

Appendix 3

warmer. Often, so-​called disaster diplomacy plays a role in softening the relationship between antagonist countries.5 Countries can help each other not just for the sake of the aid recipient but also to pursue their own objectives. Usually, however, the official aid policy of a country is based on highly regarded global values. Nevertheless, relationships play an essential role in providing aid and humanitarian assistance, especially educational and research grants and exchange programs to foreign countries. Assistance and support, in this case, are, to a large extent, instruments of maintaining or developing existing relationships.

6

The Practice of Empathizing

Empathizing practice is the expression on behalf of a country, or its people, leadership or government, sympathy toward another country concerning tragic events such as an airplane crash, natural disaster or terrorist attack that takes peoples’ lives. States and their representatives can communicate empathy by offering condolences, making phone calls and statements, observing a moment of silence during a public event, writing letters, publishing newspaper articles and/​or social media posts, lowering national flags, organizing mass demonstrations, visiting embassies, signing remembrance books, and other emotionally charged actions. Countries and people who have suffered in such situations are sensitive to sympathy from other international actors, and such social kindness is considered not only a sign of moral support and humanity but also an indication of the interstate relationship status. The practice of conveying sympathy and solidarity expresses understanding and feeling that always has both cognitive and emotional components that affect international relationships. One of the forms of expressing compassion is indicating, verbally or nonverbally, solidarity with a country with regards to certain actions or positions it has taken.

7

The Practice of Ceremony

The practice of ceremony comprises participating in symbolic interactions and ritualized engagements. Symbolism plays an important role in diplomacy, and diplomatic ceremonies are designed to demonstrate grandeur, magnificence and the significance

5 Ilan Kelman, Disaster Diplomacy: How Disasters Affect Peace and Conflict (London and New York: Routledge, 2012).

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Relationship-Enhancing Practices

269

of the parties’ relationships. Diplomatic ceremonies may require ceremonial attire, decorations, entourage and sometimes even official cars or a couch. Diplomatic ceremonies such as presenting credentials, inspecting guards, gun salutes, state dinners, solemn entries and so on are spectacular events, and, like any theatrical performance, they involve both actors and spectators. It is hard to imagine diplomatic events like the G-​7 or G-​20 summits without some rituals such as ceremonial greetings and group photos. Throughout history, ceremonies have become an inseparable part of diplomatic engagement, relationship-​building and a sense of togetherness. By providing emotionally charged experiences to participants and observers, ceremonies affect the understanding and feeling of the relationship between diplomatic actors. In short, they tend to “emotionally cement” relationships and give them a special, elevated status and significance.

8

The Practice of Normative Behavior

Normative behavior practice entails engaging in actions and interactions according to social norms, observing diplomatic rules and habits, customizing engagement practices with counterparts, and conventionalizing joint activities. Diplomacy has its own code of conduct developed and adapted throughout its long history. Socially acceptable standardization of international diplomatic conduct based on an understanding of the norms of civility and mutual respect is a part of safeguarding and strengthening international relationships, and providing communal “insurance” and durability to relational interactions. In international diplomacy, diplomatic language, manners and behavior are highly normative, elaborate and codified activities. The protocol is essential for bringing order and equality into relations between diplomatic actors. Diplomatic protocol helps avoid embarrassments in social interactions at various events. In the past, some envoys have even fought duels because they felt slighted by the other party. Formalities, including formalized language, courtesies, “proper” behavior, dress and even form of address during diplomatic conferences protect diplomats’ selves, dignities and status. Face-​work and face-​saving are important elements of diplomatic practice.6 Reciprocity, social propriety of manners and appearance, following corporate norms, adapting rules of procedures in conferences, accepting a precedence defined by protocol, and other arranged practices provide some predictability to diplomatic behavior and help to keep relations in order. As Adler and Pouliot remarked, practices

6 Adler-​ Nissen, “Diplomacy as Impression Management;” Faizullaev, Symbolic Insult in Diplomacy; Nair, “Saving Face in Diplomacy.”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

270 

Appendix 3

create socially constructed traditions in reinforcing certain meanings, including expectations.7 Normative practice facilitates mutual understanding and certainty. By adapting their behavior to existing norms and making them patterned, diplomats strengthen the international social order. However, exceeding the formalities of some diplomatic practices can make it difficult to have more truthful and open communication and interaction between diplomatic actors. That is why diplomats sometimes need to avoid formalities and enter informal talks to better interact, understand each other and reach an agreement.

9

The Practice of Entertaining

Entertaining is the art of pleasing a counterpart, providing partners a good time, amusement, cultural, aesthetic, gastronomic and other socially grounded and accepted pleasures, courtesy and leisure. Diplomatic socialization is an essential part of diplomatic life and practice. The diplomatic corps is a unique social group that tends to have various social activities that may contain political meaning. In fact, for diplomats, social clubs, diplomatic family activities, participation in exhibitions, receptions, dinners, film and food festivals, dancing parties, recitals, theatrical performances and other entertainment are not just fun, but work, involving information exchange and networking. Therefore, these social duties are also considered a diplomatic function. Diplomats need a lot of time to make contacts and develop relations at the personal and organizational levels. Sometimes diplomats may develop quite trusted relationships even with those who represent unfriendly countries, and that can provide some opportunities to advance closer ties between their respective states. Communal engagements within diplomatic corps may create certain types of social obligations among diplomats: when a diplomat invites a colleague to a reception or another social event, they may expect to get an invitation in return. That is an expected social exchange, but it does not work all the time. However, most diplomats are constantly involved in various forms of relationship-​building through social events and consider such activity an essential part of their job (fieldwork).

10

The Practice of Apology

Apology is a significant symbolic instrument of improving relationships between diplomatic actors who share a dramatic or controversial past. Often nations who have

7 Adler and Pouliot, “International Practices,” p. 12.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

271

Relationship-Enhancing Practices

suffered from foreign actions demand from the assailant an apology as a precondition to normalizing the relationship. Apologies restructure relationships, making them more acceptable for the side that still feels pain. It is a form of “reparatory justice” or “symbolic reparation.”8 Apology in diplomacy is a social practice that affects emotions, historical memory and relationships, and it may also have political and legal consequences. Therefore, those who are challenged to offer an apology may find themselves in a difficult situation of choosing between the attractiveness of improving relations, on the one hand, and saving faces and protecting interests, on the other. In such situations, the actor’s value-​based imperatives can play a role in making a decision. Another important factor is how apologies are communicated: for face-​saving purposes, the involved parties may present to the public a different reading or interpretation of an apology made through diplomatic channels.

11

The Practice of Commitment

Commitment practice includes taking on an obligation or making a promise, outlining socially desirable goals, dedication to a mission, and adjusting behavior to social expectations or partners’ preferences. The commitment’s nature and consequences may be social, political, legal or emotional, and those who are committed to something tend to acquire a new relationship status from those who value that obligation. Fulfilling commitments strengthens relationships, while unmet promises can damage them. So, commitment may advance or hinder trust and relationships, depending on its execution. International diplomacy includes various forms of commitments such as private or public promises, outlining goals, signing bilateral and multilateral treaties or secret protocols, releasing statements or joint communiques, declaring actions or visions, joining or sharing the international community’s objectives and principles, and so on. As a social practice, commitment becomes more powerful when performed publicly and supported by an agreement.

12

The Practice of Framing Relationships

Relationship framing practice involves identifying, classifying or naming someone a friend, ally or enemy, distinguishing or differentiating counterparts from each other

8 Jones, Apology Diplomacy.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

272 

Appendix 3

in terms of relationships, putting relationships within a certain relational frame, and accentuating the significance or insignificance of relationships. Relations between countries can be defined as “special,” “friendly,” “hostile,” or “tense,” and in political discourse, one can notice the use of terms such as “rogue-​state,” “pariah-​state,” or “evil empire.” Definition or clarification of relationship status is a process of social structuring, making the discursive case for the creation of shared knowledge. A clearly labeled and thus structured relationship between Self and Other, or relational attitude towards Other creates both opportunities and limitations for the involved parties. When two countries recognize each other as friends or allies, it is expected that they will be friendly toward each other. Wendt’s example of five North Korean nuclear missiles being more threatening to the United States than 500 British ones illustrates the effect of social or relationship framing. Distinguishing relationships is not a fixed phenomenon: it may be changed over time, depending on the dynamics of the actors’ interests, values and relations with other parties. Apart from clear national enemies, rivals and friends, a country might have undefined or ambiguously defined counterparts. Usually, politicians and diplomats who want to develop relations with another country or other international actors emphasize the importance of relationships with them. Categorizing or branding relations or other actors are an important element of the narration of relationships, narrative-​building and storytelling in diplomacy. Diplomats participate in the process of framing and reframing bilateral and multilateral relationships between international actors. That affects the character of international relations.

13

The Practice of Giving a Gift

Gift-​giving is an act of goodwill or reciprocity in relationships. The exchange of gifts is an old and common practice in diplomacy. This is usually done on occasions such as visits, holidays or other significant events. The diplomatic gift is intended to symbolize goodwill, signify good relations and indicate a desire to further develop relationships. It can also be presented as a response to a gift received from the counterpart. In 2021, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy dedicated a special forum with nine articles to a discussion of diplomatic gifts.9 In diplomacy, it is not uncommon for parties to agree on their intended gifts in advance, as well as on how to present them. This can be a public or private event, with or without the participation of journalists. The practice of diplomatic gifts can play a role in the development of relations between countries, as in the case of Chinese panda diplomacy (giving pandas to some

9 “Diplomatic Gifts: The Forum.”

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Relationship-Enhancing Practices

273

countries), which began in the 50s of the last century. A diplomatic gift can have a very extravagant character, like the gift of an elephant by Louis ix of France to Henry iii of England in the 13th century,10 or cause a public discussion, like the gifts of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to US President Barack Obama.11 In 2014, The Washington Post provided its assessment of the best and worst diplomatic gifts presented to President Obama.12 Taking into account the peculiarities of bilateral relations and the personal tastes of a foreign leader, diplomats often conduct some research on what is best to present to the other side. However, sometimes an awkward situation can arise. For example, in some countries it is customary to give respected people their portraits painted on a vase or on a carpet. But there are places where such portraits are more suitable in relation to deceased people. Therefore, a gift to a person of such a portrait may not always be quite proper, although in diplomacy, when receiving such a gift, it is customary not to express confusion. States may have their own internal regulations regarding receiving a diplomatic gift from foreign countries. The exchange of gifts may have political, economic, cultural and other aspects, as well as open and hidden meanings. In any case, the choice, presentation and receipt of a gift in diplomacy are strongly connected to relationship imperatives and serve as relationship-​enhancing practices.

14

The Practice of Cultural Interest

Usually, an interest in the culture of another nation contributes to the development of relations with that nation. Diplomacy has its own specific culture, but is also influenced by national cultures. The presence of the elements of national culture has always occupied a special place in diplomatic activities, and diplomatic actors have always demonstrated appreciation of others showing interest in their culture. Diplomacy plays a role in honoring other countries by showing interest in and respect for their culture, history and achievements.

10 11 12

Wright, Jonathan. The Ambassadors. From Ancient Greece to the Nation State (London: HarperPress, 2006), p. 71. France24. “Bling-​bling Sarkozy gave Obama $41,674 in gifts.” April 26, 2013. Accessed February 28, 2022. https://​www.franc​e24.com/​en/​20130​426-​fra​nce-​sark​ozy-​obama-​gifts -​her​mes-​dior-​201-​carla-​bruni. Bump, Philip. “All 274 gifts given to Barack Obama between 2009 and 2012, ranked.” The Washington Post, August 4, 2014. Accessed February 28, 2022. https://​www.was​hing​tonp​ ost.com/​news/​the-​fix/​wp/​2014/​08/​04/​every-​gift-​given-​to-​bar​ack-​obama-​betw​een-​2009 -​and-​2012-​ran​ked/​.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

274 

Appendix 3

If we treat culture not just as a form of expression of spirituality or a certain type of human activity, such as fine arts, cinema, theater, dance, literature and photography, but also as a feature of human communities, then the relationship between diplomacy and culture can be viewed in a broader context. Culture, in this sense, influences international relations and politics as well as social sentiments and personal behavior. Some cultures may have more of a relationship orientation than others, and representatives of “collectivistic” and “high-​context” cultures usually pay more attention to relational matters than those who represent “individualistic” or “low-​context” cultures.13 Diplomats can be more task-​oriented or people-​oriented, and that affects their negotiation styles.14 States’ behavior is affected by their societies’ cultures. However, because of the lack of research, it is difficult to say that some states as diplomatic actors are more relationship-​centered than others. I can only suggest that a state may be more task-​oriented with one counterpart, and more relationship-​oriented with another. In diplomacy, states are represented by individuals, and cross-​cultural differences between people, including their orientation to tasks or relationships, may affect the ways international diplomacy is conducted. In diplomacy, it is important to respect the cultures of others, to understand the cultural characteristics of other nations, organizations, groups and individuals, and to be able to build relationships despite cultural differences. Showing a sincere interest in a foreign culture is an important diplomatic resource for the development of relationships.

15

The Practice of Public Engagement

Public engagements, or joint appearances in public, show mutual interest and togetherness. Various types of public engagement are practiced in diplomacy. Among them are official visits with participation in joint press conferences and receptions, “family photos” at conferences, the organization of common cultural and sporting events, and so on. Some diplomatic joint public appearances are considered particularly prestigious, such as being in the Oval Office of the White House with the US president or s­ itting next to the Queen at a state banquet at Buckingham Palace. Even a level of attendance at a diplomatic function at an embassy in a foreign capital is considered a sign of relationship status: the number of officials from the host country not only sends political signals but also affects the diplomatic mood and feelings of the involved parties. 13 Cohen, Negotiating Across Cultures; R. S. Zaharna, “Beyond the Individualism–​ Collectivism Divide to Relationalism: Explicating Cultural Assumptions in the Concept of ‘Relationships,’” Communication Theory 26, no. 2 (2015): 190–​211. 14 Cohen, Negotiating Across Cultures.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Relationship-Enhancing Practices

275

Some of the relationship-​enhancing practices listed above can be multifaceted: for example, diplomatic dining involves communicating, entertaining, honoring, assembling, cooperating and sympathizing practices. In some contexts, it can also be a part of ceremonial and normative activities. The common feature for all these relationship-​enhancing practices in diplomacy is the engagement in joint, predominantly coordinated and cooperative activity. In their relationship practices, diplomats can use all the interactive methods of diplomacy –​ conversation, negotiation, discussion and rhetoric. However, as coordinated and cooperative activities, these practices are mostly conversational interactions.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

References Adler, Emanuel, and Vincent Pouliot. “International Practices.” International Theory 3, no. 1 (2011): 1–​36. Adler-​ Nissen, Rebecca. “Conclusion: Relationalism or Why Diplomats Find International Relations Theory Strange.” In Sending, Pouliot and Neumann, Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, pp. 284–​308. Adler-​Nissen, Rebecca. “Diplomacy as Impression Management: Strategic Face-​Work and Post-​Colonial Embarrassment.” Working paper 38. Centre for International Peace and Security Studies, McGill University and the Université de Montréal. Montreal: McGill University, 2012. Adler-​Nissen, Rebecca. “Diplomatic Agency.” In Constantinou, Kerr and Sharp, The sage Handbook of Diplomacy, pp. 92–​103. Adler-​Nissen, Rebecca. “Late Sovereign Diplomacy.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 4, no. 2 (2009): 121–​141. Adler-​Nissen, Rebecca. “On a Field Trip with Bourdieu.” International Political Sociology 5, no. 3 (2011): 327–​330. Adler-​Nissen, Rebecca. “Stigma Management in International Relations: Transgressive Identities, Norms, and Order in International Society.” International Organization 68, no. 1 (2014): 143–​176. Adler-​ Nissen, Rebecca. “Symbolic Power in European Diplomacy: The Struggle Between National Foreign Services and the EU’s External Action Service.” Review of International Studies 40, no. 4 (2013): 657–​681. Adler-​Nissen, Rebecca, and Vincent Pouliot. “Power in Practice: Negotiating the International Intervention in Libya.” European Journal of International Relations 20, no. 4 (2014): 889–​911. ani. “Goodwill Ambassadors Retain Right to Speak in Personal Capacity: UN on Priyanka Chopra’s Tweet Row.” August 24, 2019. Accessed December 18, 2021. https://​ www.anin​ews.in/​news/​world/​us/​goodw​ill-​amba​ssad​ors-​ret​ain-​right-​to-​speak-​in -​perso​nal-​capac​ity-​un-​on-​priya​nka-​chop​ras-​tweet-​row201​9082​4013​257. Armstrong, David. Revolution and World Order: The Revolutionary State in International Society. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Associated Press. “75-​Year Harvard Study: What Makes Us Happy?” April 21, 2019. Accessed May 31, 2021. https://​apn​ews.com/​arti​cle/​6dab1​e79c​34e4​514a​f8d1​84d9​ 51f5​733. Babbitt, Eileen. “Challenges for International Diplomatic Agents.” In Negotiating on Behalf Others: Advice to Lawyers, Business Executives, Sports Agents, Diplomats, Politicians, and Everybody Else, edited by Robert H. Mnookin, Lawrence E. Susskind and Pacey C. Foster, pp. 135–​150. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

References

277

Badie, Bertran. “Transnationalizing Diplomacy in a Post-​Westphalian World.” In Kerr and Wiseman, Diplomacy in a Globalized World, pp. 90–​109. Barkawi, Tarak. “Diplomacy, War, and World Politics.” In Sending, Pouliot and Neumann, Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, pp. 55–​79. Barker, Roger. Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968. Barston, R. P. Modern Diplomacy, 4th ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2013. Bell, Catherine. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Berridge, G. R. Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Berridge, G. R. Talking to the Enemy: How States Without “Diplomatic Relations” Communicate. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1994. Berridge, G. R. and Alan James. A Dictionary of Diplomacy. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Bjola, Corneliu. “Understanding Enmity and Friendship in World Politics: The Case for a Diplomatic Approach.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 8, no. 1 (2013): 1–​20. Bjola, Corneliu, and Markus Holmes. Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge, 2015. Bjola, Corneliu, and Markus Kornprobst. Understanding International Diplomacy: Theory, Practice and Ethics. Abingdon: Routledge, 2013. Biden, Joe. “Remarks by President Biden on America’s Place in the World.” The White House. February 4, 2021. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://​www.whi​teho​use.gov/​brief​ ing-​room/​speec​hes-​rema​rks/​2021/​02/​04/​rema​rks-​by-​presid​ent-​biden-​on-​ameri​ cas-​place-​in-​the-​world. Blackwill, Robert D. “Ideal Qualities of a Successful Diplomat.” Paper. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. October 17, 2013. Accessed April 18, 2021. https://​ www.belfe​rcen​ter.org/​publ​icat​ion/​ideal-​qualit​ies-​suc​cess​ful-​diplo​mat. Blyth, Catherine. The Art of Conversation: A Guided Tour of a Neglected Pleasure. London: John Murray, 2008. Boratyński, Jakub. “Introduction.” In Social Diplomacy: The Case of Poland –​ International Activity of Polish NGOs and Their Dialogue with Government, edited by Grażyna Czubek, p. 3. Warsaw: Stefan Batory Foundation, 2002. Bowen, Maria Villas-​Boas. “Special Characteristics of the Rust Workshop and Their Influence on My Facilitation Process.” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 27, no. 3 (1987): 348–​63. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

278 References Buyskykh, Iuliia. “Forgive, Forget or Feign: Everyday Diplomacy in Local Communities of Polish Subcarpathia.” Journal of Global Catholicism 2, no. 2 (2018): 55–​87. Callières, François de. The Art of Diplomacy, edited by H. M.A Keens-​Soper and Karl W. Schweizer. New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, 1983. Callières, François De. On the Manner of Negotiating with Princes. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1963. Callières, François de. The Practice of Diplomacy, with an Introduction by Alexander Frederick Whyte. London: Constable and Company, 1919. Cambon, Jules. The Diplomatist. Translated by Christopher R. Turner. London: P. Allan, 1931. Chesterfield, Earl of. “Letter CLXXXVII.” In Chesterfield’s Letters to His Son. Project Gutenberg eBook edition. Accessed April 18, 2021. https://​www.gutenb​erg.org/​files/​ 3361/​3361-​h/​3361-​h.htm. Chilcot, John. “The Report of the Iraq Inquiry.” Report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors. July 6, 2016. Accessed April 20, 2021. http://​www.iraq​inqu​iry.org.uk/​ media/​246​416/​the-​rep​ort-​of-​the-​iraq-​inquir​y_​ex​ecut​ive-​summ​ary.pdf. Cialdini, Robert. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Rev. ed. New York: Collins Business, 2007. Cohen, Raymond. Negotiating Across Cultures: International Communication in an Interdependent World. Washington, DC.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2002. Cohen, Raymond. Theatre of Power: The Art of Diplomatic Signalling. London and New York: Longman, 1987. Cohen, Stephen F. “Obama’s Russia ‘Reset’: Another Lost Opportunity?” The Nation. June 1, 2011. Accessed May 9, 2021. https://​www.thenat​ion.com/​arti​cle/​arch​ive/​oba​ mas-​rus​sia-​reset-​anot​her-​lost-​oppo​rtun​ity. Confucius. The Great Learning. Accessed April 16, 2021. http://​class​ics.mit.edu/​Confuc​ ius/​learn​ing.html. Constantinou, Costas. “Between Statecraft and Humanism.” International Studies Review 15, no. 2 (2013): 141–​162. Constantinou, Costas. “Everyday Diplomacy: Mission, Spectacle and the Remaking of Diplomatic Culture.” In Diplomatic Cultures and International Politics, edited by Jason Dittmer and Fiona McConnell, pp. 23–​40. London and New York: Routledge, 2016. Constantinou, Costas. Human Diplomacy and Spirituality. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael,” 2006. Constantinou, Costas. “On Homo-​Diplomacy.” Space and Culture 9, no. 4 (2006): 351–​364. Constantinou, Costas. On the Way to Diplomacy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Constantinou, Costas. “Visual Diplomacy: Reflections on Diplomatic Spectacle and Cinematic Thinking.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 13, no. 4 (2018): 387–​409.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

References

279

Constantinou, Costas and James Der Derian. “Sustaining Global Hope: Sovereignty, Power and the Transformation of Diplomacy.” In Sustainable Diplomacies, edited by Costas M. Constantinou and James Der Derian, pp. 1–​24. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010. Constantinou, Costas, Noé Cornago and Fiona McConnell. Transprofessional Diplomacy. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016. Constantinou, Costas M., Pauline Kerr and Paul Sharp, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy. Los Angeles: sage Publications, 2016. Cooper, Andrew F. Celebrity Diplomacy. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016. Cornago, Noé. Plural Diplomacies: Normative Predicaments and Functional Imperatives. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013. Cornut, Jérémie. “Diplomacy, Agency, and the Logic of Improvisation and Virtuosity in Practice.” European Journal of International Relations 24, no. 3 (2018): 712–​736. Cornut, Jérémie. “To Be a Diplomat Abroad: Diplomatic Practice at Embassies.” Cooperation and Conflict 50, no. 3 (2015): 385–​401. Cross, Mai’a K. Davis. The European Diplomatic Corps: Diplomats and International Cooperation from Westphalia to Maastricht. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007. Czubek, Grażyna, ed. Social Diplomacy: The Case of Poland –​International Activity of Polish NGOs and Their Dialogue with Government. Warsaw: Stefan Batory Foundation, 2002. de Magalhães, José Calvet. The Pure Concept of Diplomacy. Translated by Bernardo Futscher Pereira. New York: Greenwood, 1988. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. “Our Strategy and Guiding Principles.” Republic of Ireland. Accessed April 17, 2021. https://​www.dfa.ie/​about-​us/​what-​we -​do/​our-​strat​egy-​and-​guid​ing-​pri​ncip​les. Der Derian, James. “Mediating Estrangement: A Theory for Diplomacy.” Review of International Studies 13, no. 2 (1987): 91–​110. Der Derian, James. On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987. Diamond, Louise, and John W. McDonald. Multi-​Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace, 3rd ed. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1996. “Diplomatic Gifts: The Forum.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 16, no. 1 (2021): 105–​194. Dittmer, Jason and Fiona McConnell, eds. Diplomatic Cultures and International Politics. London and New York: Routledge, 2016. Dittmer, Jason. “Everyday Diplomacy: UKUSA Intelligence Cooperation and Geopolitical Assemblages.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 105, no. 3 (2015): 604–​619. Drury, Cooper A. “Sanctions as Coercive Diplomacy: The U. S. President’s Decision to Initiate Economic Sanctions.” Political Research Quarterly 54, no. 3 (2001): 485–​508.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

280 References Duranti, Alessandro. “Universal and Culture‐Specific Properties of Greetings.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7, no. 1 (1997): 63–​97. Earnest, Josh. “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest.” The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. July 11, 2016. Accessed April 20, 2021. https://​www.whi​ teho​use.gov/​the-​press-​off​ice/​2016/​07/​11/​press-​brief​ing-​press-​secret​ary-​josh-​earn​ est-​july-​11-​2016. The Economist. “Chattering Classes.” December 19, 2006. Accessed April 17, 2021. https://​www.econom​ist.com/​spec​ial-​rep​ort/​2006/​12/​19/​cha​tter​ing-​clas​ses. El-​Khawas, Mohamed. “Obama’s Engagement Strategy with Iran: Limited Results.” Mediterranean Quarterly 22, no. 1 (2011): 93–​113. Ezell, Darrel. Beyond Cairo: US Engagement with the Muslim World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Faizullaev, Alisher. “Bargaining Lessons From the Bazaar.” Negotiation Newsletter, Harvard Law School, Harvard University, 15, no. 2 (2012): 6–​7. Faizullaev, Alisher. “Diplomacy and Self.” Diplomacy and Statecraft 17, no. 3 (2006): 497–​522. Faizullaev, Alisher. “Diplomacy and Symbolism.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 8, no. 2 (2013): 91–​114. Faizullaev, Alisher. “Diplomacy’s Response to the Coronavirus.” The Hague Diplomacy Blog. May 18, 2020. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://​www.uni​vers​itei​tlei​den.nl/​hjd/​ news/​2020/​blog-​post-​-​-​dip​loma​cys-​respo​nse-​to-​the-​coro​navi​rus. Faizullaev, Alisher. “Diplomacy’s Response to the Coronavirus (Part ii).” The Hague Diplomacy Blog.  May 28, 2020. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://​www.uni​vers​ itei​tlei​den.nl/​hjd/​news/​2020/​blog-​post-​-​- ​dip​loma​cys-​respo​nse-​to-​the- ​coro​navi​ rus-​part-​ii. Faizullaev, Alisher. “Diplomatic Interactions and Negotiations.” Negotiation Journal 30, no. 3 (2014): 275–​299. Faizullaev, Alisher. “Individual Experiencing of States,” Review of International Studies 33, no. 3 (2007): 531–​554. Faizullaev, Alisher. “Institutions and Culture in Regional Interactions and Negotiations: The Case of Central Asia.” Cambridge Central Asia Review 1, no. 1 (2014): 17–​26. Faizullaev, Alisher. “Negotiating Security in Central Asia: Explicit and Tacit Dimensions.” In Tug of War: Negotiating Security in Eurasia, edited by Fen Osler Hampson and Mikhail Troitskiy, pp. 163–​181. Waterloo, ON: cigi Press, 2017. Файзуллаев, Алишер. Как держава с державой: политика межличностных отношений. Москва: Смысл, 2011. [Faizullaev, Alisher. Power to Power: Politics of Interpersonal Relations. Moscow: Smysl, 2011]. Faizullaev, Alisher. Symbolic Insult in Diplomacy: A Subtle Game of Diplomatic Slap. Boston and Leiden: Brill, 2018.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

References

281

Faizullaev, Alisher and Jérémie Cornut. “Narrative Practice in International Politics and Diplomacy: The Case of the Crimean Crisis.” Journal of International Relations and Development 20, no. 3 (2017): 578–​604. Fall, Papa Louis, and Guangting Tang. “Goodwill Ambassadors in the United Nations System.” United Nations, Joint Inspection Unit. 2006. Accessed April 17, 2021. https://​und​ocs.org/​en/​JIU/​NOTE/​2006/​1. Fine, Debra. The Fine Art of Small Talk: How to Start a Conversation, Keep It Going, Build Networking Skills –​ and Leave a Positive Impression! New York: Hachette Books, 2005. Fine, Edith H. and Judith P. Josephson. “World Diplomats Get a Workout at Rogers’ Workshop.” Los Angeles Times. December 11, 1985. Accessed May 11, 2021. https://​ www.lati​mes.com/​archi​ves/​la-​xpm-​1985-​12-​11-​vw-​1185-​story.html. Firth, Raymond. “Verbal and Bodily Rituals of Greeting and Parting.” In The Interpretation of Ritual: Essays in Honour of A.I. Richards, edited by J. S. La Fontaine. London: Tavistock, 1972, pp. 1–​38. Fisher, Ronald J. Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1997. Forsell, Lena M., and Jan A. Åström. “Meanings of Hugging: From Greeting Behavior to Touching Implications.” Comprehensive Psychology 1 (2012): 1–​6. France 24. “Coronavirus Spotlights Swedish Segregation.” April 18, 2020. Accessed April 17, 2021. https://​www.franc​e24.com/​en/​20200​418-​coro​navi​rus-​spo​tlig​hts-​swed​ish -​segr​egat​ion. Freeman Jr., Chas. W. Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997. Friedman, Lisa. “With John Kerry Pick, Biden Selects a ‘Climate Envoy’ With Stature.” The New York Times, November 23, 2020. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://​www.nyti​ mes.com/​2020/​11/​23/​clim​ate/​john-​kerry-​clim​ate-​cha​nge.html. Fusenko, Aleksandr, and Timothy Naftali. “Soviet Intelligence and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” Intelligence and National Security 13, no. 3 (1998): 64–​87. Gaselee, Stephen. The Language of Diplomacy. Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes, 1939. George, Alexander. “Coercive Diplomacy: Definition and Characteristics.” In The Limits of Coercive Diplomacy, 2nd ed., edited by Alexander L. George and William E. Simons, pp. 7–​11. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994. George, Alexander L. Forceful Persuasion: Coercive Diplomacy as an Alternative to War. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 1991. Goffman, Erving. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press, 1963. Goffman, Erving. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-​to-​Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

282 References Goffman, Erving. “On Face-​ Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” Psychiatry 18, no. 3 (1955): 213–​231. Goffman, Erving. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday, 1959. Goffman, Erving. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books, 1971. Goffman, Erving. Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1969. Government of the Netherlands. “Introducing the European Human Rights Ambassadors: A Joint Blog.” Blog post. November 13, 2020. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://​www.gov​ernm​ent.nl/​lat​est/​news/​2020/​11/​13/​intr​oduc​ing-​the-​europ​ean -​human-​rig​hts-​amba​ssad​ors. Gull, Nicholas J. “Engagement is the New Public Diplomacy or the Adventures of a Euphemism of a Euphemism.” usc Center on Public Diplomacy. June 5, 2009. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://​usc​publ​icdi​plom​acy.org/​blog/​eng​agem​ent-​new -​pub​lic-​diplom​acy-​or-​adv​entu​res-​euphem​ism-​euphem​ism. Hall, Todd. Emotional Diplomacy: Official Emotion on the International Stage. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015. Hamilton, Keith, and Richard Langhorne. The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration. London: Routledge, 1995. Hart, Dan, and Asaf Siniver. “The Meaning of Diplomacy.” International Negotiation 26, no. 2 (2021): c. Henrikson, Alan K. “United States Contemporary Diplomacy: Implementing a Foreign Policy of ‘Engagement.’” In Kerr and Wiseman, Diplomacy in a Globalized World, pp. 269–​288. Hershberg, James G. “Peace Probes and the Bombing Pause: Hungarian and Polish Diplomacy During the Vietnam War, December 1965–​January 1966.” Journal of Cold War Studies 5, no. 2 (2003): 32–​67. Hocking, Brian. “Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Forms, Functions, and Frustrations.” In Kurbalija and Katrandjiev, Multistakeholder Diplomacy, pp. 13–​29. Hocking, Brian, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan and Paul Sharp. Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21st Century. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael,” 2012. Holmes, Markus. Face-​ to-​ Face Diplomacy: Social Neuroscience and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Holmes, Markus. “The Force of Face-​to-​Face Diplomacy: Mirror Neurons and the Problem of Intentions.” International Organization 67, no. 4 (2013): 829–​861. Holmes, Marcus, and Nicholas J. Wheeler. “Social Bonding in Diplomacy.” International Theory 12, no. 1 (2019): 133–​161. Holzman, Lois, and Fred Newman. The Practice of Method: An Introduction to the Foundations of Social Therapy. New York: New York Institute for Social Therapy and Research, 1979. Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

References

283

Hurd, Ian. “Diplomacy and the Politics of International Law.” In Sending, Pouliot and Neumann, Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, pp. 31–​54. Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus and Daniel H. Nexon. “Relations Before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 5, no. 3 (1999): 291–​332. Jackson, Thomas. “Paradiplomacy and Political Geography: The Geopolitics of Substate Regional Diplomacy.” Geography Compass 12, no. 2 (2018): 1–​11. Jacobsen, Peter Vigo. “Coercive Diplomacy.” In Constantinou, Kerr and Sharp, The sage Handbook of Diplomacy, pp. 476–​486. Jaworski, Gary D. “Erving Goffman as Sorcerer’s Apprentice. A Reappraisal of the Schelling-​Goffman Relationship.” The American Sociologist 50, no. 3 (2019): 387–​401. Jiang, Steven. “Washington Opens De Facto Embassy in Taiwan, Angering China.” cnn. June 12, 2018. Accessed May 1, 2021. https://​edit​ion.cnn.com/​2018/​06/​12/​asia/​us-​tai​ wan-​de-​facto-​emba​ssy-​china-​intl/​index.html. Jones, Shannon. Apology Diplomacy: Justice for All?. The Hague: Netherlands Institute for International Relations “Clingendael,” 2011. Jönsson, Christer. “Diplomacy, Bargaining and Negotiation.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons, pp. 212–​234. London: Sage Publications, 2002. Jönsson, Christer and Karen Aggestam. “Trends in Diplomatic Signalling.” In Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, edited by Jan Melissen, pp. 151–​170. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999. Jönsson, Christer, and Martin Hall. Essence of Diplomacy. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Kelman, Herbert C. “An Interactional Approach to Conflict Resolution and Its Application to Israeli-​Palestinian Relations.” International Interactions 6, no. 2 (1979): 99–​122. Kelman, Herbert C. “The Problem-​Solving Workshop in Conflict Resolution.” in Communication in international politics, edited by R.L. Merritt, pp. 168–​204. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972. Kelman, Herbert C. “Social-​Psychological Dimensions of International Conflict.” In Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques, revised edition, edited by I. William Zartman, pp. 61–​107. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2007. Kelman, Ilan. Disaster Diplomacy: How Disasters Affect Peace and Conflict. London and New York: Routledge, 2012. Kerr, Pauline and Geoffrey Wiseman, eds. Diplomacy in a Globalized World, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Kerr, Pauline and Geoffrey Wiseman. “Introduction.” In Kerr and Wiseman, Diplomacy in a Globalized World, pp. 1–​18.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

284 References Kessler, Glenn. “North Korean Nuclear Blast Tests Obama’s Engagement Policy.” Washington Post. May 26, 2009. Accessed April 16, 2021. http://​www.was​hing​tonp​ ost.com/​wp-​dyn/​cont​ent/​arti​cle/​2009/​05/​25/​AR20​0905​2501​961.html. Хайруллаев, М. М. умумий таҳрири остида. Ўзбек дипломатияси тарихидан. Тошкент: ЖИДУ, 2003. [Khayrullaev, Muzaffar, ed. From the History of Uzbek Diplomacy. Tashkent: The University of World Economy and Diplomacy Press, 2003]. Kissinger, Henry. On China. New York: The Penguin Press, 2011. Kurbalija, Jovan, and Valentin Katrandjiev. “Introduction.” in Kurbalija and Katrandjiev, Multistakeholder Diplomacy, pp. 5–​12. Kurbalija, Jovan, and Valentin Katrandjiev, eds. Multistakeholder Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities. Malta and Geneva: DiploFoundation, 2006. Langholtz, Harvey J. “The Psychology of Diplomacy.” In The Psychology of Diplomacy, edited by Harvey J. Langholtz and Chris E. Stout, pp. 1–​17. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. Langholtz, Harvey J. and Chris E. Stout, eds. The Psychology of Diplomacy. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. Lebow, Richard Ned. The Art of Bargaining. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Lederer, Edith M. “UN General Assembly Votes ‘Yes’ on Ukraine Unity.” Yahoo News. March 28, 2014. Accessed April 20, 2021. http://​news.yahoo.com/​un-​gene​ral-​assem​ bly-​votes-​yes-​ukra​ine-​unity-​160605​710.html. Leonard, Mark, Catherine Stead and Conrad Smewing. Public Diplomacy. London: The Foreign Policy Centre, 2002. Lewicki, Roy, Bruce Barry and David Saunders. Negotiation, 7th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Education, 2014. Lucas, Scott. “US-​Iran Engagement: Washington to Drop Nuclear Precondition on Talks?” EAWorldView. April 15, 2009. Accessed April 16, 2021. http://​endu​ring​amer​ ica.squa​resp​ace.com/​april-​2009/​2009/​4/​15/​us-​iran-​eng​agem​ent-​was​hing​ton-​to -​drop-​nucl​ear-​preco​ndit​ion-​o.html. Maloney, Suzanne. “Engagement with Iran: The Sequel.” The Brookings Institution. January 31. 2013. Accessed April 16, 2021. http://​www.brooki​ngs.edu/​resea​rch/​artic​ les/​2013/​01/​iran-​malo​ney. Marks, Sally, and Chas W. Freeman. “Diplomacy.” Encyclopedia Britannica. December 14, 2020. Accessed April 15, 2021. https://​www.bri​tann​ica.com/​topic/​diplom​acy. Marsden, Magnus, Diana Ibañez-​Tirado and David Henig. “Everyday Diplomacy: Introduction to Special Issue.” The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 34, no. 2 (2016): 2–​22. Mattingly, Garrett. Renaissance Diplomacy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1955. Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self, and Society: The Definitive Edition. Edited by Charles W. Morris. Annotated by Daniel R. Huebner and Hans Joas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

References

285

Melissen, Jan. “Jan Melissen on Academic Opportunities Around Diplomacy.” Leiden University. March 12, 2020. Accessed April 21, 2021. https://​www.uni​vers​itei​tlei​den .nl/​en/​news/​2020/​03/​jan-​melis​sen-​on-​resea​rch-​cha​llen​ges-​aro​und-​diplom​acy. Melissen, Jan. “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice.” In The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, edited by Jan Melissen, pp. 3–​27. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Melissen, Jan. “Public Diplomacy Between Theory and Practice.” Clingendael Diplomatic Studies Programme Paper. October 10, 2006. Accessed April 21, 2021. https://​www.clin​gend​ael.org/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​2016-​02/​20061​200_​cdsp​_​pap​er_​m​ elis​sen.pdf. Mincic, Miroslav. The Logic of Positive Engagement. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Main Responsibilities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China.” People’s Republic of China. Accessed April 18, 2021. https://​www.fmprc.gov.cn/​mfa_​eng/​wjb​_​663​304/​zyzz​_​663​306. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia. “Vision and Mission.” Accessed April 17, 2021. https://​www.kln.gov.my/​web/​guest/​viss​ion-​miss​ion#:~:text=​To%20prov​ide%20lea​ ders​hip%20in%20the,thro​ugh%20dyna​mic%20and%20pr​oact​ive%20di​plom​acy. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands. “Special Appointments.” Accessed April 17, 2021. https://​www.gov​ernm​ent.nl/​min​istr​ies/​minis​try-​of-​fore​ign-​affa​irs/​org​anis​ atio​nal-​struct​ure/​spec​ial-​appoi​ntme​nts. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore. https://​www.mfa.gov.sg/​cont​ent/​dam/​mfa/​ ima​ges/​media​_​cen​ter/​publi​cati​ons/​mfa_​b​roch​ure/​MFAB​roch​ure.pdf Accessed July 14, 2016. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore. “Mission, Vision, and Values.” Accessed April 17, 2021. https://​www.mfa.gov.sg/​About-​MFA/​Vis​ion-​Miss​ion-​and-​Val​ues. Montville, Joseph. V. “Track Two Diplomacy: The Work of Healing History.” Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations 7, no. 2 (2006): 15–​25. Muguruza, Cristina Churruca. “Everyday Humanitarian Diplomacy: Experiences from Border Area.” cmi Brief no. 2. Chr. Michelsen Institute. February 2020. Accessed April 25, 2021. https://​www.cmi.no/​publi​cati​ons/​file/​7171-​every​day-​human​itar​ian -​diplom​acy-​expe​rien​ces-​from-​bor​der-​areas.pdf. Muthoo, Abhinay. “A Non-​ Technical Introduction to Bargaining Theory.” World Economics 1 no. 2 (2000): 145–​166. Nair, Deepak. “Saving Face in Diplomacy: A Political Sociology of Face-​ to-​ Face Interactions in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.” European Journal of International Relations 25, no. 3 (2019): 672–​697. Neergaard, Sigrid Frees. “Vietnamese Student Swedish Ambassador for a Day.” ScandAsia. October 4, 2019. Accessed April 18, 2021. https://​scanda​sia.com/​vie​tnam​ ese-​stud​ent-​swed​ish-​amb​assa​dor-​for-​a-​day.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

286 References Neumann, Iver, B. At Home with the Diplomats: Inside a European Foreign Ministry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012. Neumann, Iver B. Diplomatic Sites: A Critical Enquiry. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013. Neumann, Iver B. Diplomatic Tenses: A Social Evolutionary Perspective on Diplomacy. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2020. Neumann, Iver B. “Self and Other in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 2, no. 2 (1996): 139–​174. Neumann, Iver B. “To Be a Diplomat.” International Studies Perspectives 6, no. 1 (2005): 72–​93. Nexon, Daniel. “The ‘Failure’ of the ‘Reset:’ Obama’s Great Mistake? Or Putin’s?” The Washington Post. March 5, 2014. Accessed April 15, 2021. http://​www.was​hing​tonp​ ost.com/​blogs/​mon​key-​cage/​wp/​2014/​03/​04/​the-​fail​ure- ​of-​the-​reset- ​oba​mas -​great-​mist​ake-​or-​puti​nss. Nicolson, Harold. Diplomacy. London: Oxford University Press, 1939. Nolan, Janne E. Diplomacy and Security in the Twenty-​First Century. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, 2009. Nye, Joseph S., Jr. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books, 1990. Obama, Barack H. “Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize.” The White House. December 10, 2009. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://​ obam ​ awhi ​ teho ​ u se.archi ​ ves.gov/ ​ t he- ​ p ress- ​ o ff ​ i ce/ ​ rema ​ r ks- ​ p resid ​ e nt- ​ a cc ​ e pta​ nce-​nobel-​peace-​prize. Obama, Barack H. “Remarks by the President at Cairo University.” The White House. June 4, 2009. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://​obam​awhi​teho​use.archi​ves.gov/​the -​press-​off​ice/​rema​rks-​presid​ent-​cairo-​uni​vers​ity-​6-​04-​09. Oglesby, Donna Maria. “Diplomatic Language.” In Constantinou, Kerr and Sharp, The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, pp. 242–​254. Ortiz-​Ospina, Esteban, and Max Roser. “Trust.” 2016. Accessed April 22, 2021. https://​ our​worl​dind​ata.org/​trust. Otto, Kate. Everyday Ambassador: Make a Difference by Connecting in a Disconnected World. New York: atria Paperback, 2015. Pamment, James. “The Mediatization of Diplomacy.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 9, no. 3 (2014): 253–​289. Payne, Martin. Narrative Therapy: An Introduction for Counsellors. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: sage Publications, 2006. Pease, Allan, and Barbara Pease. The Definitive Book of Body Language. London: Orion Books, 2004. Pigman, Geoffrey Allen. Contemporary Diplomacy: Representation and Communication in a Globalized World. Cambridge: Polity, 2010.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

References

287

Pigman, Geoffrey Allen. “Debates about Contemporary and Future Diplomacy.” In Kerr and Wiseman, Diplomacy in a Globalized World, pp. 72–​89. Postema, Saskia, and Jan Melissen. “UN Celebrity Diplomacy in China: Activism, Symbolism and National Ambition Online.” International Affairs 97, no. 3 (2021): 667–​684. Pouliot, Vincent. “Diplomats as Permanent Representatives: The Practical Logics of the Multilateral Pecking Order.” International Journal 66, no. 3 (2011): 543–​561. Pouliot, Vincent. International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Pouliot, Vincent. International Security in Practice: The Politics of NATO-​ Russia Diplomacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Pouliot, Vincent. “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities.” International Organization 62, no. 2 (2008): 257–​288. Pouliot, Vincent, and Jérémie Cornut. “Practice Theory and the Study of Diplomacy: A Research Agenda.” Cooperation and Conflict 50, no. 3 (2015): 297–​315. Pruitt, Dean G., Jacob Bercovitch and William I. Zartman. “Brief History of the Oslo Talks.” International Negotiation 2, no. 2 (1997): 177–​182. Qin, Yaqing. “Diplomacy as Relational Practice.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 15, nos. 1–​2 (2020): 165–​173. Qin, Yaqing. “A Relational Theory of World Politics.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 33–​47. Rach, Jessica. “How Coronavirus is Changing Royal Etiquette.” Mail Online. March 11, 2020. Accessed May 31, 2021. https://​www.dailym​ail.co.uk/​fem​ail/​arti​cle-​8100​ 585/​Pri​nce- ​Char​les-​accid​enta​lly-​attem​pts-​shake-​hands-​memb​ers-​Prin​ces-​Trust .html. Rana, Kishan S. The 21st Century Ambassador: Plenipotentiary to Chief Executive. Malta and Geneva: DiploFoundation, 2004. Rana, Kishan S. “Embassies, Permanent Missions and Special Missions.” In Constantinou, Kerr and Sharp, The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, pp. 149–​160. Riggio, Ronald E., Leslie G. Eaton and David C. Funder. “Skill in Social Situations: The Essence of Savoir-Faire.” In Social Intelligence and Nonverbal Communication, edited by Robert J. Sternberg and Aleksandra Kostić, pp. 333–358. New York: PalgraveMacmillan, 2020. Riordan, Shaun. “Stop Inventing ‘New Diplomacies.’” Blog post. USC Center on Public Diplomacy. June 21, 2017. Accessed April 14, 2021. https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/ blog/stop-inventing-new-diplomacies. Rogers, Carl. On Encounter Groups. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. Rogers, Carl. “Person Centered Approach to Peace, Part 1.” YouTube video. 51:31. Posted by “Quest For Peace” on December 3, 2013. Accessed May 11, 2021. https://​www.yout​ ube.com/​watch?v=​2k_​b​VHUS​9rA.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

288 References Rogers, Carl R. “The Rust Workshop: A Personal Overview.” Journal of Humanistic Psychology 26, no. 3 (1986): 23–​45. Rogers, Carl. A Way of Being. Boston: Houghton and Mifflin, 1980. Rouhana, Nadim N. “Interactive Conflict Resolution: Issues in Theory, Methodology, and Evaluation.” In International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War, edited by Paul C. Stern and Daniel Druckman, pp. 294–​337. Washington, DC: National Academy Press 2000. Ruengchinda, Zazithorn. “Young, Inspiring Vietnamese Ladies Invited to be ‘Ambassador for a Day.’” ScandAsia. March 14, 2021. Accessed April 18, 2021. https://​ scanda​sia.com/​amb​assa​dor-​loc​hen-​invi​tes-​you​ngin​spir​ing-​vie​tnam​ese-​women-​to -​join-​amb​assa​dor-​for-​a-​day-​campa​ign. Russell, Wynne Elizabeth. “Control Yourself, Sir!: A Call for Research into Emotion Cultures in Diplomacy.” In Slavik, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy, pp. 391–​402. Salacuse, Jeswald W. Negotiating Life: Secrets for Everyday Diplomacy and Deal Making. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Saunders, Harold H., with contributions by Louise Diamond, Herbert C. Kelman, John Marks, Joseph V. Montville and Vamik Volkan. “Interactive Conflict Resolution: A View for Policy Makers on Making and Building Peace.” In International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War, edited by Paul C. Stern and Daniel Druckman, pp. 251–​293. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000. Schelling, Thomas. Arms and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966. Schelling, Thomas. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980. Sending, Ole Jacob, Vincent Pouliot and Iver B. Neumann, eds. Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Sending, Ole Jacob, Vincent Pouliot and Iver B. Neumann. “Introduction.” In Sending, Pouliot and Neumann, Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, pp. 1–​30. Sennett, Richard. Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation. London: Penguin Books, 2012. Sharp, Paul. Diplomacy in the 21st Century: A Brief Introduction. Abingdon: Routledge, 2019. Sharp, Paul. “Diplomacy in International Relations Theory and Other Disciplinary Perspectives.” In Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices, edited by Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman, pp. 51–​58. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Sharp, Paul. Diplomatic Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

References

289

Sharp, Paul. “For Diplomacy: Representation and the Study of International Relations.” International Studies Review 1, no. 1 (1999): 33–​57. Sharp, Paul. “The Idea of Diplomatic Culture and its Sources.” In Slavik, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy, pp. 361–​379. Shepherd, Margaret. The Art of Civilized Conversation: A Guide to Expressing Yourself with Style and Grace. New York: Broadway Books, 2006. Shuster, Simon. “A Failed Russia ‘Reset’ Haunts Obama in Europe.” Time. June 3, 2016. Accessed May 9, 2021. https://​time.com/​2819​889/​obama-​rus​sia-​eur​ope-​pol​and. Slavik, Hannah, ed. Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy. Malta and Geneva: DiploFoundation, 2004. Slim, Randa M. “Small-​State Mediators in International Relations: The Algerian Mediation of the Iranian Hostage Crisis.” In Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches to Conflict Management, edited by Jacob Bercovitch and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, pp. 206–​231. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1992. Sofer, Sasson. The Courtiers of Civilization: A Study of Diplomacy. New York: suny Press, 2013. Standfield, Catriona. “Gendering the Practice Turn in Diplomacy.” European Journal of International Relations 26, no. 5 (2020): 140–​165. Szőke, Zoltán. “Delusion or Reality? Secret Hungarian Diplomacy During the Vietnam War.” Journal of Cold War Studies 12, no. 4 (2010): 119–​180. Takeyh, Ray. “The Essence of Diplomatic Engagement.” Boston Globe. October 7, 2009. Accessed April 16, 2021. http://​www.bos​ton.com/​bost​ongl​obe/​editor​ial_​opin​ion/​ oped/​artic​les/​2009/​10/​07/​the_​essen​ce_​o​f_​di​plom​atic​_​eng​agem​ent. Tan, Wendy W. “American First Ladies as Goodwill Ambassadors.” City University of New York Academic Works. 2010. Accessed April 17, 2021. https://​academ​icwo​rks .cuny.edu/​cgi/​view​cont​ent.cgi?arti​cle=​1011&cont​ext=​hc_​p​ubs. Taylor, Adam. “APEC’s Silly Shirts: The Awkward Tradition that Won’t Go Away.” The Washington Post. November 10, 2014. Accessed April 20, 2021. https://​www.was​ hing​tonp​ost.com/​news/​wor​ldvi​ews/​wp/​2014/​11/​10/​apecs-​silly-​shi​rts-​the-​awkw​ard -​tradit​ion-​that-​wont-​go-​away. The Guardian. “The End of the Handshake: Saying Hello During the Coronavirus Outbreak.” March 3, 2020. Accessed May 31, 2021. https://​www.theg​uard​ian.com/​ world/​2020/​mar/​03/​the-​end-​of-​the-​handsh​ake-​say​ing-​hello-​dur​ing-​the-​coro​navi​ rus-​outbr​eak. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. United Nations. April 18, 1961: Accessed April 13, 2021. http://​legal.un.org/​ilc/​texts/​inst​rume​nts/​engl​ish/​conv​ enti​ons/​9_​1_​1​961.pdf. Torbiorn, Ingemar. Living Abroad: Personal Adjustment and Personal Policy in the Overseas Settings. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1982.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

290 References Traub, James. “The Five-​Year Engagement.” Foreign Policy. February 8, 2013. Accessed April 16, 2021. http://​www.foreig​npol​icy.com/​artic​les/​2013/​02/​08/​the_​five_​year_​e​ ngag​emen​t_​ba​rack​_​oba​ma_​i​ran. United Nations. “Who Are the United Nations Goodwill Ambassadors and Messengers of Peace and How Are They Appointed?” Ask dag. Dag Hammarskjöld Library. Accessed April 17, 2021. https://​ask.un.org/​faq/​14597#:~:text=​Uni​ted%20Nati​ ons%20G​oodw​ill%20Amba​ssad​ors%20and%20Mes​seng​ers%20of%20Pe​ace%20 are%20di​stin​guis​hed,work%20of%20the%20Uni​ted%20Nati​ons. US Department of State. “13 Dimensions: Foreign Service Officer Qualifications.” Accessed April 18, 2021. https://​care​ers.state.gov/​work/​fore​ign-​serv​ice/​offi​cer/​13 -​dim​ensi​ons. US Department of State. “Ambassadors at Large.” Accessed April 17, 2021. https://​hist​ ory.state.gov/​depart​ment​hist​ory/​peo​ple/​princi​palo​ffic​ers/​amb​assa​dor-​at-​large. US Department of State. “Our Mission.” Accessed April 18, 2021. https://​www.state.gov/​ about. van Doeveren, Rianne. Engaging the Arab World through Social Diplomacy. The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael,” 2011. Vollmer, Hendrik. “What Kind of Game is Everyday Interaction?” Rationality and Society 25, no. 3 (2013): 370–​404. Wallin, Matthew. “Engagement: What does it Mean for Public Diplomacy?” American Security Project. June 11, 2013. Accessed April 15, 2021. https://​www.amer​ican​secu​rity​ proj​ect.org/​eng​agem​ent-​what-​does-​it-​mean-​for-​pub​lic-​diplom​acy. Watson, Adam. Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States. London: Eyre Methuen, 1982. Wellman, David Joseph. “Religion and Diplomacy.” In Constantinou, Kerr and Sharp, The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, pp. 577–​590. Wendt, Alexander. “The Agent-​Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.” International Organization 41, no. 3 (1987): 335–​370. Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security 20, no. 1 (1995): 71–​81. Wendt, Alexander. “The State as Person in International Theory.” Review of International Studies 30, no. 2 (2004): 289–​316. Wendt, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. “What is Multi-​Track Diplomacy?” Institute for Multi-​Track Diplomacy. Accessed May 11, 2021. https://​imtds​ite.wordpr​ess.com/​about/​what-​is-​multi-​track-​diplom​acy. Wheeler, Mark. “Celebrity Diplomacy.” In Constantinou, Kerr and Sharp, The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, pp. 530–​539. Wheeler, Mark. “Celebrity Diplomacy: United Nations’ Goodwill Ambassadors and Messengers of Peace.” Celebrity Studies 2, no. 1 (2011): 6–​18.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

References

291

White, Michael, and David Epston. Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1990. Whiteley, John M. “The Person-​Centered Approach to Peace.” Counseling and Values 32, no. 1 (1987): 5–​8. Wiseman, Geoffrey. “Engaging the Enemy: An Essential Norm for Sustainable US Diplomacy.” In Sustainable Diplomacies, edited by Costas M. Constantinou and James Der Derian, pp. 213–​234. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010. Wiseman, Geoffrey. “Introduction.” In Isolate or Engage: Adversarial States, US Foreign Policy and Public Diplomacy, edited by Geoffrey Wiseman, pp. 1–​23. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015. Wiseman, Geoffrey, ed. Isolate or Engage: Adversarial States, US Foreign Policy and Public Diplomacy. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015. Wiseman, Geoffrey. “‘Polylateralism’: Diplomacy’s Third Dimension.” Public Diplomacy Magazine 4 (Summer 2010): 24–​39. Wiseman, Geoffrey. “Polylateralism” and New Modes of Global Dialogue. Discussion Papers No. 59. Leicester: Leicester Diplomatic Studies Programme, 1999. Wiseman, Geoffrey. “Public Diplomacy and Hostile Nations.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14, nos. 1–​2 (2019): 134–​153. Wiseman, Geoffrey. “The Public Diplomacy Role of Celebrity Diplomats.” University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy. Accessed May 17, 2021. https://​ usc​publ​icdi​plom​acy.org/​resea​rch_​proj​ect/​the_​public_​diplomacy_​role​_​of_​cele​brit​ y_​di​plom​ats. Wong, Seanon S. “Emotions and the communication of intentions in face-​to-​face diplomacy.” European Journal of International Relations 22, no 1 (2016): 144-​167. Wong, Seanon S. “Mapping the Repertoire of Emotions and Their Communicative Functions in Face-​to-​face Diplomacy.” International Studies Review 22, no 1 (2020): 77–​97. Zaharna, R. S. “Beyond the Individualism –​Collectivism Divide to Relationalism: Explicating Cultural Assumptions in the Concept of ‘Relationships.’” Communication Theory 26, no. 2 (2015): 190–​211. Zaharna R. S. “Culture, Cultural Diversity and Humanity-​centered Diplomacies.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14, no. 1–​2 (2019): 117–​133. Zaharna, R. S. “Mapping Out a Spectrum of Public Diplomacy Initiatives Information and Relational Communication Frameworks.” In Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, edited by Nancy Snow and Philip M. Taylor, pp. 86–​100. New York: Routledge, 2009. Zaharna, R. S. “The Public Diplomacy Challenges of Strategic Stakeholder Engagement.” In Trials of Engagement: The Future of US Public Diplomacy, edited by Ali Fischer and Scott Lucas, pp. 201–​229. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2011.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

292 References Zartman, I. William. “Diplomacy and Negotiation.” In Constantinou, Kerr and Sharp, The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, pp. 207–​219. Zartman, William I. “Diplomacy as Negotiation and Mediation.” In Kerr and Wiseman, Diplomacy in a Globalized World, pp. 110–​126. Zartman, William I. and Maureen Berman. The Practical Negotiator. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982.

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Index actor/​s 1, 3, 12, 35, 66. See also entity corporate 68–​72, 90, 96, 100, 104, 162 diplomatic 4, 22–​28, 30–​32, 34–​35, 37, 39–​44, 51, 53–​57, 65–​68, 70–​72, 74, 82–​ 83, 86–​89, 91, 112–​114, 125–​127, 130, 131, 133, 139, 159, 160, 170, 175–​178, 181–​186, 196, 197, 239–​241, 243, 250, 253, 254, 255, 256, 258, 260–​265 269, 270, 273, 274 independent 74 individual 68–​70, 72–​74, 83, 90–​91 institutionalized 23 international 45, 86, 169, 172, 174, 175, 179, 181–​183, 185, 191, 239, 254, 256, 260, 263, 268, 272 legal 24, 25, 27 moral 24, 25 organization 71–​74 political 24–​25, 27, 28 social 1, 24, 25, 27–​28, 50, 61, 170, 174, 191, 192, 197, 241, 263 sociopolitical 2, 30, 37, 54, 181, 182 state 1, 35, 71–​73, 77, 84, 86, 97, 177, 179, 190, 191, 240 Adler, Emanuel 51, 178, 264, 269–​270 Adler-​Nissen, Rebecca 6, 67, 87, 165–​167, 170–​171, 177–​179, 181, 269 advocacy 57, 121, 124, 152 advocating 93, 103, 110, 125, 126, 129, 196 agency/​agencies  corporate 69, 70 diplomatic 70, 71, 110, 120, 253, 255 government 119, 120, 244, 259, 263 humanitarian 19 organization 68–​71, 76, 84, 90, 91, 134 state 251 United Nations 72, 79, 97 agent/​s  diplomatic 70, 71, 75–​76, 78, 81, 83, 91, 114, 119, 120, 255 individual 24, 68–​73, 83, 84, 90, 91, 104, 134 official 11, 44, 66, 67, 195 aggression 44–​46, 84, 90, 207, 210, 244 aggressor 180

agreement 4, 61, 65, 76, 86, 112, 134–​136, 138, 157, 207, 208, 216, 225–​227, 236, 238, 242, 253, 266, 270, 271 agrément 80 alienation 18, 40, 196, 210 alliance 28, 42, 43, 87, 135, 266 ambassador 1, 2, 11, 12, 40, 45, 48, 53, 71, 75–​82, 91, 124, 128–​134, 139, 150–​152, 162, 243, 247, 257, 258, 262, 264, 266 ambassador-​at-​large 78, 80 ambassadorial feeling 93 everyday 2, 115–​116, 194–​196 goodwill (See goodwill ambassador) nontraditional 5, 93, 95, 115 traditional 93, 95–​96, 113 unconventional 5, 92–​116 appearance 42, 81, 82, 108, 130, 140, 150, 153, 161, 233, 269, 274 appointment 80, 97, 100, 103, 111 Armstrong, David 166 aspirations 4, 31, 39, 41, 48, 51–​53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63–​65, 83, 158–​161, 184, 186, 208, 236, 237, 241, 264 assertiveness 208 assistance 25, 61, 103, 121, 126, 186, 199, 247, 268 Åström, Jan A. 222 attaché 76 attitude 29, 31, 54, 59, 88, 100, 115, 154, 158–​ 161, 168, 172, 174, 175, 186, 203, 209–​211, 233, 234, 237, 272 authority 19, 28, 76, 95, 100, 103–​108, 112–​114, 151 personal authority 108 awareness 17, 95, 155, 210, 227, 228 mutual awareness 227, 228 Babbitt, Eileen 83 Badie, Bertran 190–​191 Baker, James 13 balance 38–​41, 66, 88–​89, 159, 249, 258 dynamic balance 88 sense of balance 88 bargaining 45–​46, 117, 125, 127, 136–​142, 148, 189, 193, 204, 206, 209, 213, 214, 217–​218, 220–​221, 223, 225–​226, 228–​230, 232–​ 238, 242, 263

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

294 Index bargaining (cont.) chip 218 distributive 136, 236 explicit 136 implicit 137–​141, 148, 189, 221 power 45 strategic 138, 233 tacit 136–​139, 218, 226, 229, 236, 238, 263 Barkawi, Tarak 45, 179 Barker, Roger 228 Barry, Bruce 137 Barston, R. P. 32, 45, 124 batna (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) 236 Bell, Catherine 219 benevolence 64, 96, 206, 209 Bercovitch, Jacob 252 Berridge, G. R. 27, 119, 134, 142, 167 Biden, Joe 79, 121–​122, 252 bilateral relations 81, 175, 273 Bismarck 36 Bjola, Corneliu 17, 23, 131, 165, 168, 170, 263 Blackwill, Robert D. 152 Blair, Tony 36, 186 Blyth, Catherine 144, 205 body language 107, 141, 155, 163–​164, 167, 205, 223 Boratyñski, Jakub 190 Bourdieu, Pierre 167, 178 Bowen, Maria Villas-​Boas 202 Brown, Penelope 205 Bull, Hadley 11–​12, 44, 66 Bush, George W. 186, 250 Buyskykh, Iuliia 194 Cambon, Jules 151 caring 203 Carter, Jimmy 262 cause, good/​decent 47, 84, 85, 103, 113, 195–​197 celebrity 35, 98, 100 ceremony 80–​81, 128, 216, 219, 220, 224, 230, 265, 268–​269 ceremonial 82, 124, 216, 217, 230, 256, 266, 269, 275 chargé d'affaires 76, 257 Chesterfield, Lord 151 Chilcot, John 186

Cialdini, Robert 200, 235 citizen 54, 84, 92, 122, 124–​126, 128, 181, 190, 257, 259, 261 civility 45, 56, 57, 59, 83, 148, 154, 241, 269 civilization 74, 93, 235 civilized 4, 17, 40, 59, 74, 90, 93, 148, 207, 208 civilizing 17, 48, 65, 87 civil society 37, 195, 198, 257 client-​centered approach 202 coalition 39, 43, 86, 135, 177, 180, 266 coexistence 4, 18–​19, 32, 38–​40, 50, 52, 53, 65, 135, 143, 157, 163, 192, 194, 207, 209, 212, 241 Cohen, Raymond 16, 163, 167, 267, 274 Cohen, Stephen F. 185 combat 50 commitment 52, 139, 156, 174, 175, 185, 223, 256, 264, 265, 271 common good 53, 57, 65, 85, 154, 157, 192, 196, 200, 205, 206, 208–​210, 221, 242, 267 common ground 17, 134, 139, 145, 227 common sense 50, 74, 180 communication  informal 221 institutionalized 17, 23 markers 215 nonverbal 84, 130, 141, 155, 163, 164 open 270 oral 150 signals 238 written 142, 150 community 27, 28, 74, 91, 99, 100, 107, 123, 138, 182, 186, 191–​193, 196, 197, 245, 247, 271, 274 compassion 96, 110, 157, 200, 206, 268 concern 44, 54, 64, 88, 96, 100, 125, 126, 134, 140, 153, 160, 161, 170, 182, 192, 242, 258 concessions 134, 136, 139, 189 conduct  code of 57, 83, 256, 269 diplomatic code of 57–​58, 85 of international relations 12, 23, 44, 66 tactful 57, 58, 61, 65, 153, 154, 157 conflict 9, 45, 50, 52, 54, 61, 64, 74, 90, 112, 138, 143, 183, 192–​194, 197, 201, 202, 207, 209–​210, 239, 240, 242, 243, 253, 267 confrontation 47, 143, 145, 206, 209

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Index Confucius 159 connection 22, 28, 38, 57, 74, 77, 80, 86, 88, 104, 110, 113, 115, 132, 160, 171, 174, 191, 238, 251, 253, 254, 257, 266 connectedness 6, 25, 37–​39, 87 Constantinou, Costas 2, 6, 16, 19–​21, 32, 39, 44, 131, 165, 166, 167, 194–​196, 242 construction 86, 157, 169, 175, 177, 189, 206, 208, 238 constructing 89, 167, 181, 196, 197, 201, 205, 207, 210, 221, 242 construction of meaning 189, 238 constructive engagement 7, 58, 61–​64, 68, 84, 85, 88, 90, 95, 114, 117, 143, 157, 159, 197, 200, 203–​205, 208, 211–​212, 217, 239, 241, 248. See also engagement constructiveness 61, 64, 65, 85, 157–​158, 206, 211, 243 consul 76 consulate 53, 71, 76, 118–​120, 124, 259 consultation 57, 86, 118, 137, 258, 260, 267 contact 116, 131, 151, 155, 200, 215, 219, 232, 247, 249, 259, 261, 270 eye contact 116 control 28, 29, 122, 132, 150, 151, 156, 162, 210 conversation 42, 47, 81, 95, 139, 140, 144, 146–​ 148, 151, 182, 188–​189, 194, 204–​208, 215, 222, 238, 241–​244, 275 dialogical conversation 187–​189, 203, 242 micro-​conversation 209 conviction 25, 47, 93, 95, 107, 132, 185, 186 Cooper, Andrew 98 cooperation 1, 23, 29, 61, 88, 122, 124, 143–​ 147, 189, 190, 209, 224, 258, 262, 267 cooperativeness 205, 211 Cornago, Noé 2–​4, 6, 21, 165, 166, 189, 194–​196 Cornut, Jérémie 6, 24, 51, 77, 165, 167, 176, 178 coronavirus 34 covid-​1 9 126, 188, 213–​214, 254, 259, 261 costume 132 counterpart 41, 55, 57, 61, 65, 68, 71, 76, 83–​85, 90, 93, 120, 124, 128, 136, 144–​146, 148, 154, 159, 163, 181, 200, 205, 206, 208, 214–​217, 221, 222, 225, 226, 231, 233–​237, 239, 241, 242, 261, 265–​267, 269–​272 country  foreign 77, 99, 124, 133, 257, 258

295 home 54, 93, 120 host 77, 81, 99, 128, 131, 206, 216, 256, 258, 259, 274 sending 131 courtesy 223, 266, 270 courteousness 151, 155, 156, 192 Cox, Sansariay  credentials 80–​82, 102, 108, 112, 132, 269 crisis 65, 250, 257–​259 crisis management 125, 127 cross-​cultural 149, 155, 163, 167, 218, 227, 230, 274 Cross, Mai’a K. Davis 183 cross-​national 36 Cuban Missile Crisis 258, 259 culture  collectivistic 74 common culture 28, 255 cultural event 42, 129 individualistic culture 74 organizational culture 110, 222, 229, 256 cunning 49 curiosity 149, 156, 205, 231 Czubek, Grazyna 3, 190 debate 130, 145–​147, 189, 254, 263 de Callières, François 133, 151 deception 44, 47, 192 decision-​making 37, 74, 83, 91, 133, 134, 137, 138, 141, 148, 194, 238 decision-​maker 68, 83, 114, 124, 156 Declaration of Principles  deed 77, 101, 113, 192 delegate 76 delicacy 155, 205 democracy 125, 198, 243 denial 265 Der Derian, James 18, 37, 38, 54, 165, 166 destruction 44, 45, 48, 50, 134, 143, 210 dialogical interaction/​s 5, 47, 57–​59, 61, 68, 85, 90, 91, 117, 142–​148, 153–​154, 157–​159, 163, 182, 188, 197, 200, 204–​206, 210–​212, 216, 217, 241, 242 conversation, negotiation, dispute and rhetoric as general methods of 144, 147, 148, 182 dialogicality 85 dialogical stance 48

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

296 Index dialogue 17, 59 Diamond, Louise 2, 201 diaspora 124 dictator 110 dictatorship 37 difference 4, 17, 35, 40, 43, 44, 50, 54, 55, 61, 65, 71, 116, 125, 143, 163, 183, 189, 192, 195, 198, 206, 207, 209, 210, 220, 234, 256, 262, 267, 274 making a difference 116 resolving differences 50, 54, 55, 65, 125, 210 digital 32, 86, 98, 114–​116, 131, 195, 253 dignity 4, 40, 85, 93, 122, 151, 175, 189, 192, 206, 210, 249 diligence 96, 155 diplomacy  actional or performative sides of 49 aspirational and performative aspects of 51–​52, 59, 158 authentic 47 broad/​broader/​enlarged/​expanded/​ extended understanding of 2, 17, 19–​ 22, 30, 67, 70, 192, 194, 239 conventional 23, 27, 31, 66, 77–​78, 112, 217 diversification of 3, 32, 34, 35 essence of 14, 19, 48, 169 everyday 2, 35, 70, 193–​195 expanded conception of 32 forms of 3, 27, 32, 239, 240, 243 general methods of 144, 147–​148, 188 genuine 4, 17, 37, 46–​49, 53, 55, 84, 143, 156, 162, 200, 203, 208, 211 homo 2 human 44, 242 as humanistic idea 45 idea of 2, 5, 37, 45, 48–​53, 55, 59, 63, 65, 68, 88, 96 institutionalized 67 intentional and executional features of 49 interest-​driven 25 international 32, 50, 188, 243 intersocial 190–​191 manipulative 48, 49, 54–​55, 162, 183, 241 meaning of 29–​30, 32, 50 means of 34–​35 meta-​method in 5, 57, 142–​143, 182

mini-​diplomacy 209, 242 moral and ethical foundations of 50 narrow understanding of 13–​15 objectives of 55, 88, 181, 183 pseudo 4, 48 public 1, 87, 98, 99, 112, 125, 131, 168, 177, 190, 192, 195, 248–​251, 260 quasi 49 relationship-​driven 25 rights-​driven 25 social (See social diplomacy) social norms of 57 social understanding of 6, 165 spirit of 46, 47, 63–​65, 93, 95, 101, 148, 239 state-​based 20, 70, 91, 119, 130, 133, 192 traditional 5–​7, 23, 27, 32, 66, 77–​81, 86, 88, 92, 93, 100, 102, 117–​119, 125, 128, 130, 134, 148, 177, 182, 187–​189, 191, 197, 206, 208, 239, 241, 243, 247 traditional understanding of 4, 30, 36, 195 transprofessional 2, 6, 21, 31, 33, 70, 192–​ 194, 196 unconventional 6, 104, 113, 187, 217 understanding of 10, 16, 17–​22, 30, 36, 50, 67, 70, 92, 130, 192, 194, 195, 239 value-​driven 25, 104 diplomat  career 119 everyday 83 independent 35, 103 junior 124 political appointee 119 professional 2, 14, 24, 54, 70, 77, 119, 139, 162, 196, 206, 209 social (See social diplomat) state 196 transprofessional 196–​197, 209 diplomatic  action 48, 144, 182, 183, 240, 250, 261 activity 40, 54, 74, 127, 156, 181, 191, 196, 197, 209, 240 agent (See Diplomat) assignment 53 behavior 74, 83, 84, 148, 156, 163, 183, 209, 239, 269 culture 156, 174, 195, 196

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

297

Index discourse 23, 39, 58 engagement 58, 59, 160, 217, 241–​242, 247, 251, 257–​259, 263, 269 field-​player 84, 90 functions 117–​141 intentions 48, 56 interaction/​s 30, 43, 56, 58, 59, 83, 84, 87, 89, 148, 257–​261, 266 language 153, 155, 163, 265, 269 means 34, 55, 84, 197, 239, 255, 257, 261 method/​s 35, 43, 58, 74, 117, 128, 142–​148, 154, 162 mindset 158–​160 mission/​s 2, 5, 52–​53, 64, 68, 69, 76–​78, 84, 101, 117–​119, 123–​130, 135, 153, 154, 156, 157, 195, 208, 251, 257, 259 negotiation/​s 134–​138, 189, 218 norms 56, 57, 85, 148 objectives 52–​55 performance/​s 48, 51, 56–​58, 61, 142, 158, 241 philosophy 209 players 67, 77, 240, 244, 253 practice/​s 15, 51, 55, 80, 142, 148, 153, 190, 196, 206, 252, 257, 262, 264, 266, 269, 270 protocol 57, 269 relations 2, 36, 76–​77, 83, 86, 166, 168–​ 169, 173, 176–​179, 181–​183, 208, 248, 251, 254, 258, 262–​264 representation 81, 82, 127, 131–​133, 262, 266 representative/​s 80, 91, 92, 102, 237, 258 skills 49, 118, 148–​154, 157, 162, 194–​196 spirit 63–​65, 158, 163, 191, 192 strategies 36, 122 studies 4, 7, 51, 58, 59, 165–​168, 170, 177, 178, 239, 241, 252 disarmament 98, 122 discourse 23, 39, 58, 61, 92, 99, 125, 146, 174–​ 176, 180, 251, 272 discrimination 40 disinformation 44 disparity 40, 61 disposition 54, 151, 154, 158–​161, 166, 168 dispute 32, 46, 89, 144–​148, 182, 188, 189, 192, 241 territorial dispute 27

disrespect 40, 85, 223, 266 distinction 28, 40, 128 distinctiveness 4, 39, 40, 208 Dittmer, Jason 165, 168, 193 diversity 29, 86, 116, 207 Dobrynin, Anatoly 259 dominance 181, 189, 223, 241 drafting 122, 156 Drury, Cooper A. 254 Dujarric, Stephane 100 Duranti, Alessandro 220 Earnest, Josh 186 Eaton, Leslie G. 157 education 32, 103, 110, 111, 113, 149, 181, 234, 255, 258, 263 El-​Khawas, Mohamed 250 embarrassment 57, 211, 223, 227, 230, 269 embassy 76–​77, 99, 110, 119, 124, 130, 142, 258, 274 emissary 76 emotional 28, 42, 48, 135, 137, 163, 167, 171–​172, 175, 176, 188, 198, 199, 205, 206, 211, 212, 222, 227, 229, 235, 237, 241, 265, 268–​269, 271 exchange 222 intelligence 155, 200, 206, 222 tone 219, 222 emotions 156, 168, 199, 210, 222, 224, 237, 266, 271 empathy 115, 116, 144, 153, 155, 160, 188, 200, 203, 205, 242, 268 engagement  with adversaries 87, 248 bodily 7, 58, 59, 241 combative 44 competitive 61 concealed 41 constructive (See constructive engagement) destructive 61–​63, 85 diplomatic (See diplomatic engagement) face (See face engagement) global 250 mental 39, 59, 241 military 44 mixed-​motive 61, 63

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

298 Index engagement (cont.) mutual 59, 60, 257, 263 negative 61 nonviolent 44 positive 61, 216, 217, 238, 241, 247, 262, 263 skillful 40, 251 English School of international relations theory 11, 165 enmity 1, 84, 158, 168, 170, 175, 176, 180, 263 entity  alienated 54, 59 distinct 39, 50, 207, 239 intentional 4, 27, 39, 72, 239 political entity/​entities 12–​15, 19, 22–​24, 27–​30, 32, 67, 241 purposeful 1, 3, 4, 30, 39, 68, 239 social entity/​entities 22, 28–​29, 35, 176, 188, 191, 199 sociopolitical entity/​entities 22, 30–​31, 37, 67, 68, 74, 75, 83, 84, 86, 134, 143, 191, 241 envoy/​s  diplomatic 75, 80 personal 79 presidential 79, 80 special 79–​80, 247, 256 unofficial 79 Epstein, Susan B.  Epston, David 202 equality 85, 114, 144, 269 estrangement 18, 210 ethnicity 116 etiquette 57, 148, 220, 222, 231, 234 Excellency 40, 76, 266 exchange  exchange programs 142, 177, 254, 260, 268 mutual exchange 143 social (See social exchange) experience 37, 85, 99, 113, 132, 149, 150, 152, 154, 162, 163, 205, 210, 213, 227, 234, 269 Ezell, Darrel 248 face  face engagement 218, 224 face-​saving 167, 224–​225, 269, 271 face-​work 131, 167, 218, 224–​225, 269 facilitator/​s 141, 206, 243 Fall, Papa 97

family 28, 33, 35, 75, 106–​108, 110, 198, 220, 229, 270, 274 feeling 29, 31, 50, 57, 84, 93, 174, 176, 180, 188, 201, 203, 210, 211, 267–​269, 274 Feklisov, Alexandr 259 fighting 36 Fine, Debra 205 Fine, Edith H. 201 First Ladies 96 Firth, Raymond 219, 221 Fisher, Ronald 201 flexibility 100, 149, 151, 156, 163 focal point 136–​139, 218, 220, 226–​230, 234, 236–​238 foreign  affairs 2, 21, 119, 122–​123, 142 policy 4, 9, 10, 13–​15, 23, 24, 27, 45, 54, 75, 90, 121, 133, 165, 175, 183, 185, 191, 197, 241, 247, 249, 252, 260 service 10, 122, 149 Forsell, Lena M. 222 Freeman, Chas W. 59, 124, 138, 152 Friedman, Lisa 79 friend 106, 107, 172, 174–​176, 180–​181, 184, 188, 214, 215, 220, 229, 237, 271–​272 friendliness 96 friendship 61, 168, 170, 174–​176, 263, 264, 266 function/​s  diplomatic (See diplomatic functions) macro-​function/​s 127–​129 master-​function/​s 126–​127 mega-​function/​s 127–​140, 168–​169 micro-​function/​s 127–​129 servient-​function/​s 126–​127 strategic function/​s 127 subservient-​function 126–​127 Funder, David C. 157 Fusenko, Aleksandr 259 game/​s  of balance 38 with complete information 229 of cooperation 189 coordination 189, 213, 216–​217, 224, 226, 228, 230, 231, 235 of greeting 230 with imperfect information 230 with incomplete information 229

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Index mixed-​motive 218 with perfect information 230 sequential 230, 231 simultaneous 231 of strategy 218, 225, 228 theory 7, 56, 139, 189, 217, 218, 223, 225, 227, 229, 231, 236, 237 Gaselee, Stephen 163 gentleness 221, 223 geopolitics 88 George, Alexander L. 46 Goffman, Erving 7, 105, 106, 131, 167, 218, 220, 223–​228, 232, 235 goodwill ambassador/​s 5, 79, 96–​104, 111–​ 115, 243, 256 appointed 79, 97–​105, 111, 113–​115 independent 97, 104, 112–​115 volunteer 96, 97, 101–​105, 111, 113–​115 goodwill mission 4, 5, 50, 53–​56, 59, 61, 63–​65, 68, 74, 84, 159, 160, 197, 211–​212, 239, 241, 243 governance 6, 28, 29, 32, 37, 132–​133, 189, 191, 198, 241 governing 19, 72, 132 greeting  bargaining 217, 218, 220, 223, 226, 230, 232, 234, 236–​238, 242 as coordination game 224, 226, 231, 235 engagement 215, 224, 230 exchange/​s 215, 222, 225, 233, 235 focal point 218, 220, 226–​230, 234, 236–​238 and game of strategy 225 genuine 217, 222 interaction/​s 214, 218, 222, 223, 225, 233, 236, 237 as micro-​diplomacy 213–​238 negotiation/​s 209, 215, 220, 222, 230, 233, 234, 236, 237, 242 payoff matrix 230–​231, 233–​235 pre-​negotiation 215 as strategic interaction 216–​218, 224, 226–​228, 238 Gull, Nicholas 250 Hall, Todd 169 Hamilton, Keith 14, 15 Hart, Dan 82 hate speeches 1, 197, 207, 208 hatred 57, 61, 84

299 Henig, David 193 Henrikson, Alan 247 herald 76 Hershberg, James G. 258 heuristics 193 hierarchy 28–​29, 109, 111, 219, 222, 223, 225, 241, 256 high commissions 53 commissioner 76, 78 Hitler 90 Hocking, Brian 3, 166 Holmes, Marcus 131, 165, 167 honesty 156, 203 honor 40, 175, 257, 266 honorable 40, 55 Hood [Holzman], Lois 202 hostility 57, 61, 84, 149, 176, 210, 237 hotline 258 human 3, 6, 18, 21, 22, 27, 29, 32, 38, 39, 44, 45, 69, 93, 98, 101, 114–​116, 160, 174, 189, 198–​203, 206, 210, 213, 214, 217–​219, 228, 238, 242–​243, 253, 274 being 38, 83, 221, 241 diplomacy (See diplomacy) growth 242 rights 80, 98, 103, 114, 122, 125, 141, 186, 243, 249, 256 humanistic 43–​45, 74, 189, 210, 242, 243 diplomacy 6 psychology 202, 243 society 44 humanity 195, 210, 268 humiliation 61, 210 humility 115, 116 humor 205 Hurd, Ian 178 Ibañez-​Tirado, Diana 193 identity 16, 39, 40, 108, 110, 168, 179–​181, 240, 256 ignorance 210, 211, 265 image 82, 100, 106, 124, 125, 128, 141, 161, 243 image-​making 125, 127, 129, 177, 230 immunities 92, 266 impact 1, 78, 82, 86, 92, 96, 114, 161, 162, 165, 184, 186, 258, 260 imperative/​s 23, 25, 75, 89, 169, 171, 178, 182–​ 186, 239–​240, 261, 264, 271, 273 diplomatic 182, 183, 261

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

300 Index imperative/​s (cont.) legal, or right/​s-​based 23, 89, 239, 240, 264 moral, or value-​based 23, 75, 89, 239, 240, 264, 271 political, or interest-​based 89, 178, 239, 240, 264 social, or relationship-​based 23, 89, 182, 240, 264 independence 38, 151, 197 indifference 59 influence  each other 22, 42, 137, 138, 199, 228 mutual 4, 29, 144, 147 other/​others 43, 45, 208, 257 influencing  mutual 57, 141 positive and constructive 243 positive social 95 informality 205 information 1, 37, 48, 77, 122, 124, 150, 155, 175, 204, 208, 225, 226, 229–​232, 253, 254, 257, 265–​267, 270 injustice 211, 244 institution/​s 1, 3, 15, 16, 18, 28, 37, 46, 86, 87, 93, 119, 120, 122, 193, 200, 221, 244, 251, 254 democratic 37, 244 international 119 social 93, 95 insult 47, 56, 61, 85, 207, 210, 211, 222, 266 symbolic 47, 168, 266 integrity 25, 41, 122, 150, 156, 158, 159, 163, 184, 211, 240 personal 156, 163 territorial 25, 184 intentions 48, 49, 54, 56, 77, 96, 112–​113, 136, 159, 172, 176, 207, 215, 225, 227, 237, 238, 241 interaction/​s. See also dialogical interaction domestic 86, 244, 253, 257 intentionality of 257 international 195, 244, 254–​261 monological 85 sociopolitical 29, 41 strategic 7, 138, 216–​218, 221, 223, 224, 226–​228, 238, 243 transnational 244, 259, 260

interdependence 1, 25, 32, 36, 38, 135, 161, 197, 204, 218, 226–​228, 230, 241, 244 interest/​s  economic 26, 263 mutual 4, 37, 144, 274 national 23, 90, 120, 121, 135, 176, 184, 243 political 197, 198, 259 intermediary 76, 258 international  affairs 3, 100, 148, 173 community 27, 91, 99, 123, 138, 182, 247, 271 connections 86, 257, 266 intergovernmental organization 24, 27 nongovernmental organization 71 organizations 1, 24, 53, 72, 78, 79, 82, 92, 196, 253, 255–​257, 259, 262, 266 practices 178, 264 relations 4, 11–​13, 19–​24, 36, 44, 45, 66, 75, 134, 135, 137, 138, 149, 152, 170, 173, 178–​180, 185, 190, 191, 195, 244, 255, 257, 272, 274 interpersonal  diplomacy 32, 34, 50, 188, 243 politics 180, 189 relations/​relationships 2, 11, 189, 216, 219, 238, 262 interpretation 18, 35–​36, 90, 122, 162, 220, 224, 226, 227, 237, 271 intersocial relations 190–​191 intersocietal phenomenon 201 intersubjective 111, 174, 200–​201, 227 intersubjectivity 175, 264 intrigue 48 Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus 171, 173 Jackson, Thomas 9 Jacobsen, Peter Vigo 46 James, Alan 16, 142 Jaworski, Gary D. 228 Jiang, Steven 77 Jolie, Angelina 1 Jones, Shannon 168, 171 Jönsson, Christer 14–​16, 18, 44, 163, 165–​167 Josephson, Judith P. 201 judgment 42, 54, 150, 151, 156, 236 justice 49, 50, 93, 103, 112, 114, 181, 197, 198, 200, 204, 211, 243, 271

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Index Katrandjiev, Valentin 3 Keens-​Soper, H. M.A. 133 Kelman, Herbert C. 201 Kelman, Ilan 268 Kennedy, Robert 259 Kerr, Pauline 86 Kerry, John 79 Kessler, Glenn 249 Khayrullaev, Muzaffar 150 kindness 96, 112, 149, 211, 221, 223, 237, 268 Kissinger, Henry 13, 15, 176 Kornprobst, Markus 17, 23 Kurbalija, Jovan 3 Langholtz, Harvey J. 163, 168 Langhorne, Richard 14, 15 law 25, 27, 28, 104, 109, 122, 185, 240 international 24, 27, 86, 103–​104, 123, 153 leadership 29, 33, 86, 121, 141, 150, 156, 177, 268 Lebow, Richard Ned 136, 137 Lederer, Edith M. 184 legal  credibility 106 entity 108 norms 2, 84, 104, 112, 200, 239 rights 23, 25, 28, 89–​90, 108, 109, 135, 169, 170, 182–​185, 198, 239, 240 status 108 legate 76 legitimize 23 Leonard, Mark 177 Levinson, Stephen C. 205 Lewicki, Roy 137 listening 47, 57, 116, 134, 143, 155, 200, 203, 205–​207, 267 living peacefully 192 Lucas, Scott 250 Machiavellianism 49 Magalhães, José Calvet de 14, 15, 45–​46 Maloney, Suzanne 249 manners 82, 132, 151, 155, 223, 269 Mao, Zedong 176, 185 Marks, Sally 59 Marsden, Magnus 193 mass media 34, 37, 216

301 Mattingly, Garret 45, 81 May, Theresa 186 McConnell, Fiona 2, 6, 21, 165, 168, 194–​196 McDonald, John W. 2, 201 Mead, George Herbert 39 meaningfulness 29 meaning-​making 200, 221, 242 social construction of meaning 238 media 1–​3, 9, 32–​34, 37, 42, 93, 105, 110, 114, 115, 130, 131, 135, 140–​142, 144, 155, 162, 216, 230, 244, 254, 257, 260, 263 mediation 18, 37, 57, 118, 124, 252, 258, 259 Melissen, Jan 6, 98, 165, 168, 181 mercy 103 mercifulness  messenger 74, 76, 97–​98 Messenger for Peace 67 Mincic, Miloslav 247 mindfulness 54, 156, 159, 160, 205 minister 76, 80, 119, 264, 266 minority group 197 misrecognition 47 misunderstanding 75, 136, 244 Mnookin, Robert H. 83 moderateness 205 monological stance 48, 84 Montville, Joseph V. 193 moral  actor 25 authority 100, 103, 104, 114, 151 conflicts 207 credibility 106, 157 determinants 24, 26, 27 imperatives 23, 75, 239 morality 27, 28 objectives 183, 184 rights 108, 109 skillset/​skills 154, 156–​158 values 26, 32, 104, 183 virtues 149, 158 motivation 150, 158, 222, 231, 233, 234 move 49, 222, 226, 228, 230, 232–​233 salutation moves 230, 236, 237 Muguruza, Christina Churruca 193–​194 multilateral diplomacy 33, 166, 259. See also diplomacy multilateralism 85 Muthoo, Abhinay 138

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

302 Index Naftali, Timothy 259 Nair, Deepak 165, 167, 269 narrative 86, 125, 131, 132, 146, 155, 175, 176, 186, 195, 202, 206–​208, 242, 243 national. See also interest cultures 174, 227, 273 enemies 176, 272 friends 176 security 122 Neergaard, Sigrid Frees 99 negotiation. See also diplomatic, and greeting and bargaining 136–​139, 141, 189 as diplomatic mega-​function 133–​141 distributive 136, 230 explicit 136–​141, 148 implicit 136, 138, 139, 242 integrative 137, 230 strategic 218 negotiator 6, 80, 137–​139, 141, 145, 147, 148, 152, 206, 237, 238, 242 networking 42, 125, 129, 155, 177, 233, 255, 270 Neumann, Iver B. 6, 19, 39, 44, 47–​48, 54, 131, 132, 165–​167, 178, 244 Newman, Fred 202 Nexon, Daniel 87, 171, 173 Nicolson, Harold 9–​11, 13, 15, 133–​134, 151, 152, 163 Nixon, Richard 176, 185, 267 Nolan, Janne E. 251 non-​engagement 59–​62, 231, 235 nongovernmental organization (ngo) 1, 3, 19, 43, 67, 69, 71, 97, 99, 103, 104, 119, 190, 196, 251, 255, 261 non-​interference 89 non-​proliferation 122 nonverbal. See also communication behavior 82, 107, 221, 238 means 219, 221, 236 signals 215, 222, 236, 237 normative  behavior 233, 265, 269–​270 discourse 174 interactions 166 regulation 110 norm/​s  institutional 108

social 44, 57, 108, 109, 162, 215, 220, 222, 228, 233, 234, 236, 264, 269 notetaking 124, 134, 156 note verbale 142 nuncio 76, 78 Nye, Joseph 181 Obama, Barack 185, 186, 247, 249–​250, 273 obligation 23, 25, 28, 84, 135, 158, 170, 183–​ 186, 218, 219, 223, 239, 264, 270, 271 observation 57, 125, 150, 153, 155 offender 85 Oglesby, Donna Maria 163 oneness 40 openness 49, 146, 205, 206, 227, 242 opponent 46, 143, 145–​147, 220 orating  Ortiz-​Ospina, Esteban 204 Other. See Self and Self/​Other otherness 39–​44 Otto, Kate 2, 115–​116, 194, 195 overseas 122 Palmerston 181 Pamment, James 131 paradiplomacy 3, 33 passion 116, 152 patience 47, 115, 116, 151, 152, 156 Payne, Martin 202 payoff 218, 229, 230–​235 relationship payoff 223, 230, 234 peace 3, 4, 9, 36, 45, 47, 50, 52–​54, 64, 65, 97, 98, 103, 114, 143, 156, 159, 183, 186, 193, 219, 263 peacebuilding 7, 47, 50, 98, 242, 267 peace enforcement 47 peacemaking 54, 193 Pease, Allan 225, 232 Pease, Barbara 225, 232 personality 80, 101, 116, 135, 149, 154, 159, 162–​164 person-​centered approach 7, 201–​203 to peace 201 personhood 39, 172 personness 40 persuasion 46, 47, 57, 208 Pigman, Geoffrey Allen 16, 124, 165 plenipotentiary 76, 80

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

303

Index plural 33, 131 pluralism 29, 85 politeness 83, 84, 148, 151, 155, 205 political. See also relations affairs 23, 191 agenda 48, 114 analysis 126 behavior (See behavior) being 29 conflict (See conflict) discourse 180, 272 goal 25 maneuver 49 manipulation 48 politicality 28, 32 politicalness 22, 28–​29, 32 politics. See also interpersonal everyday 28 international 2, 4, 23, 24, 27, 45, 46, 48, 49, 54, 75, 98, 130, 133, 139, 165, 170, 173, 175, 177–​179, 180, 183, 191, 197, 237, 241, 254 world 11, 30, 46, 66–​67, 87, 170, 173, 178–​ 179, 264 polity 19, 162, 195 Pope John Paul 249 population 84, 190, 247 positive  attitude 211 positivity 206, 211, 233, 237 social changes 43, 113, 211, 244, 251 Postema, Saskia 98 Pouliot, Vincent 6, 19, 51, 87, 132, 165–​167, 178, 181, 256, 264, 269, 270 poverty 1, 112, 120, 196, 197, 256, 267 power. See also relation and relationship distribution 6, 88, 241 protecting 76 representational 114 pre-​negotiation 137, 215 presentability 131–​133 presentation 81, 82, 105–​106, 112, 124, 131–​ 132, 155, 273 problem/​s  managing 23 problem-​solving workshop 201 solving 13, 50, 54, 55, 65, 88, 125, 192, 208, 211

professional diplomat. See diplomat prominence 42, 96, 132 promotion  value promotion 126 protocol. See diplomatic protocol Pruitt, Dean G. 252 public. See also diplomacy awareness 95 good 1, 17, 45, 48, 61, 75, 113 opinion 177, 206, 248 perception 34, 125, 127, 250 recognition 219 ritual 219 Qin, Yaqing 165, 170, 173–​174, 181, 182, 239, 240 Queen 81, 257, 274 Rach, Jessica 214 Rana, Kishan S. 82, 124 Reagan, Ronald 249 realpolitik 50, 185 reciprocity 74, 136, 155, 200, 205, 222, 235, 266, 269, 272 reciprocality  recognition 40, 47, 59, 61, 64, 104, 108, 110–​ 114, 166, 172, 205, 208, 218–​221, 223, 224, 232, 234, 237, 239, 242 reconciliation 53, 103 reframing 176, 272 regime 192, 247, 249, 253, 254 totalitarian 37 relational  approach 178–​179, 202 bargaining 223, 236 credit 223, 233–​236, 238 dimension of diplomacy 177 framework 173, 176, 177 loan 223 markers 238 offer 231, 232 practice 178, 182, 240, 247 structure 86, 87, 174–​176, 201, 202 tribute 218 relation/​s. See also international friendly 50, 53, 65, 68, 120, 123, 170, 175, 182, 239, 247, 262, 263 human 4, 21, 22, 45, 101, 189, 202, 238, 243

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

304 Index relation/​s (cont.) interpersonal 2, 216, 219, 238 interstate 9, 14, 24, 36, 173, 177, 179, 180, 182, 184, 186, 260, 267, 268 political 23, 29, 31, 83, 189, 202 power 3, 22 relationalist 173 social 28, 31, 32, 83, 165, 166, 170, 179, 181, 187, 189, 190, 196–​198, 200, 201, 221, 256 special 171, 186 status of 172–​173, 176, 262 relationship/​s  balanced 40, 88–​89, 258 building 35, 44, 54, 65, 93, 124, 135, 170, 171, 177–​178, 181, 182, 185, 192, 197, 206, 217, 239–​243, 247, 249, 263, 264, 266, 269, 270 construction of 225, 238 discourse 175 good 50, 181, 183, 188, 189, 199, 212, 231, 267 management of 21, 214 managing 1, 31, 54, 65, 125, 176, 179, 181, 197, 210 metaphors 180 negative 233, 263 obligations 186, 218 payoffs 223 positive 50, 64, 171, 176, 192, 197, 198, 204, 208, 210–​212, 233, 242, 243 power of 198, 240 relationship-​based negotiation 223, 236 relationship-​building practice 264 roles 174, 225 social framing of 174–​177 religion 37, 189, 192 reporting 74, 77, 123–​126, 152, 156 representability 132, 133 representation  explicit 77, 107, 108, 112 explicit self-​representation 106, 108–​ 110, 112 externally authorized 5 formal diplomatic 81 implicit self-​representation 5, 106–​107 individual 76, 107 organizational 76–​77 permanent 53

quasi-​representation 5, 107–​108 representational performance  self-​constituted 5, 105, 106, 112 of a state 76 representative  democracy  official 24, 40, 66, 70, 81, 83, 92, 130, 139, 177, 262, 266 permanent 77, 78 senior 80 special 80, 247 representing  oneself (See self-​representation) reputation 80, 82, 96, 103, 104, 110–​114, 132, 153, 164, 204 resident coordinators of the United Nations 78 resilience 122, 152, 156, 160 resolving differences 50, 54, 55, 65, 125, 210 resourcefulness 49, 150, 156, 164 respect 17, 40, 61, 84, 85, 89, 96, 122, 144, 148, 175, 188, 189, 205, 220, 221–​223, 234, 238, 242, 263, 266, 269, 273, 274 mutual 89, 148, 269 respectfulness 57, 155, 205 responsiveness 144, 242 rhetoric 5, 6, 42, 132, 144, 146–​148, 154, 182, 188, 189, 204, 241, 275 rhetorician 146, 147 Riggio, Ronald E. 157 right/​s. See also legal rights children's 196, 197 civic 108, 109 moral 108, 109 universal 122 Riordan, Shaun 36 rival 24, 180, 272 Rogers, Carl 7, 201–​203, 242 Carl Rogers Peace Project 202 Roser, Max 204 Rosier, Bernard de 45 Rouhana, Nadim M. 201 Rubin, Geffrey Z. 259 Ruengchinda, Zazithorn 100 rule/​s  of law 25, 27, 122 of procedures 137, 146, 269 Russell, Wynne Elizabeth 167

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

Index Sadat, Anwar 262 Salacuse, Jeswald 181, 193 salutation  salutation exchanges 222 salutation moves 230, 236, 237 Satow, Ernest 12 Saunders, David 137 Saunders, Harold H. 201 savoir-​faire 5, 9, 131, 157–​158, 206, 208, 209 as a core diplomatic skill 158 Scalli, John 259 Schelling, Thomas 7, 45–​46, 136, 138–​139, 146, 148, 216–​218, 225–​228 Second World War 175 security 1, 25, 122, 125, 134, 141, 176, 183, 197, 239, 252, 256, 258, 259 self  collective 74 individual 74 Self and Other (See Other) self-​concept 39 selfhood 4, 40, 159, 172 sense of 39, 41, 88, 159, 181 Self/​Other  paradigm 4, 39, 40–​44 realm 40, 41 Sending, Ole Jacob 19, 132, 178 Sennett, Richard 2, 21, 194 sensitivity 83, 149, 155, 164, 200, 205, 207, 215, 242 separateness 38–​39, 59 shared  knowledge 174, 175, 272 understanding 174, 175, 262 values 189 Sharp, Paul 6, 9, 12–​16, 23, 35, 38, 67, 130, 165, 166 Shepherd, Margaret 206 Shuster, Simon 185 sincerity 144, 162, 203, 205, 211 Siniver, Asaf 82 skills. See also diplomatic skills skillfulness 64 social 96, 116, 131, 149, 157, 205 Slavik, Hannah 168 Slim, Randa M. 259 small talk 205 Smewing, Conrad 177

305 social  connections 110, 191 consciousness 180 construction 157, 169, 197, 202, 208, 225, 238 constructivism 165, 180 graces 44, 56, 57, 83, 84, 90, 93, 148, 154, 156, 192, 206, 209 media 1–​3, 32, 93, 110, 115, 131, 140–​142, 144, 155, 162, 244, 254, 257, 260, 268 networks 37, 116 recognition (See recognition) therapy 202 validation 108 worth 218, 223 social diplomacy 3, 7, 27, 31–​32, 50, 96, 104, 115, 165, 188–​192, 196–​211, 236, 240–​244. See also diplomacy social diplomat 6, 50, 112, 113, 192, 196, 197, 200, 203–​211, 238, 242–​244. See also diplomat social exchange 87, 199–​201, 206, 209, 215, 218, 221–​223, 227, 238, 242, 265, 270 Social good 102 Sofer, Sasson 74, 75, 124, 165 soldier 44 solemn entry 81 sovereignty 38, 122 Standfield, Catriona 167 state  failed 180 receiving 79, 102, 123, 142 sending 79, 81, 102, 123, 125 state-​based diplomacy (See diplomacy) statecraft 13, 14, 150, 159 statehood 84, 125 vassal 12 status 28, 79–​80, 266, 269, 271, 272 social 76, 82, 108–​111, 152, 219, 223, 225, 231, 234, 266 symbolic 66 Stead, Catherine 177 storytelling 146, 155, 157, 206, 272 Stout, Chris E. 163, 168 strategy 46 dominant 231 pure 237 substantialist. See relationalist

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University

306 Index symbol 125, 132, 155, 216 symbolism 77, 81–​82, 168, 174, 268 symbolic. See also insult act 80, 217, 220–​221 action 82 interactionism 218 reward 218 significance 81, 125 symbolizing 124, 257 sympathy 221, 223, 268 Szõke, Zoltán 259 tacit. See also bargaining agreement 136, 225–​227 cooperation 224 coordination 217, 221, 224, 228 interaction 137, 139, 225 tact 9, 12, 21, 83, 131, 152–​155, 192, 225 tactfulness 5, 9, 57, 83, 154, 157 Takeyh, Ray 252 Talleyrand, Prince of 49 Tang, Guangting 97 Tan, Wendy 96 Taylor, Adam 256 teamwork 122, 156, 267 territory 20, 26, 68, 77, 186, 195 The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) xvii, 2, 120, 123, 170 threat 1, 45–​47, 49, 70, 139, 143, 192, 237, 238, 250 Thunberg, Greta 1 tit-​for-​tat 206 togetherness 31, 38, 205, 269, 274 tolerance 64, 96, 145, 148, 157, 160, 200, 205, 207 Torbiorn, Ingemar 93 tradeoff 138, 139 Traub, James 250 trust 49, 50, 65, 74, 110, 162, 188, 203–​205, 221, 223, 239, 243, 263, 267, 271 trust-​building 49, 113, 267 trustworthiness 132, 164

unconditional positive regard 7, 203, 242 understanding/​s  emphatic 7, 203, 242 mutual 65, 103, 189, 192, 207, 208, 221, 225, 227, 239, 242, 243, 270 shared 174–​175, 262 unilateralism 85, 210, 211 United Nations 1, 66, 69, 70, 72, 76–​79, 97–​ 100, 103–​104, 122, 184, 186, 255, 256 General Assembly 184 Secretary-​General 79, 97, 100 Security Council 146, 184, 267 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 72 unpredictability 44 van Doeveren, Rianne 3, 190 Vollmer, Hendrik 228 Wallin, Matthey 249 war 36, 44–​49, 61, 62, 210, 258 combative engagement 44 Watson, Adam 17, 18 Wellman, David Joseph 45 Wendt, Alexander 39, 82, 130, 172, 174–​175, 179–​180, 253, 272 Westbrook, Raymond 16 Wheeler, Mark 98–​99 Wheeler, Nicholas 165, 167 Whiteley, John M. 201 White, Michael 202 Wiseman, Geoffrey 6, 16, 17, 30, 86, 98, 165, 166, 248 Wong, Seanon S. 165, 168, 169 Yin and Yang 29, 138, 208 Zaharna, R. S. 168, 177, 249, 250–​251, 274 Zartman, William I. 204, 252 zero-​sum game 217 zone of possible agreement (zopa) 236

Alisher Faizullaev - 978-90-04-51735-6 Downloaded from Brill.com09/01/2023 02:49:43AM via Western University