The Courtiers of Civilization: A Study of Diplomacy

Preface

ix Preface At the center of this study of diplomacy stands its principal protagonist —the professional diplomat. Our main purpose is to evaluate anew the portrait and the reputation of the diplomatic envoy in Western society. We consider the following three constitutive propositions: first, that practice was always central to the evolution of diplomatic culture; second, that the nature of diplomacy, which is inherently stable, may withstand the challenges of contemporary international politics; and last, that diplomatic practice is embedded within an “ethical-pluralist” tendency and is fundamentally intertwined with diplomatic competence. The “diplomat” is one of the most vilified and ridiculed persona in the history of international affairs, as well as in literary works. The suspicions , the criticism, and the bias directed against diplomats are old as the profession itself. There is, indeed, no other civil servant so closely associated with adjectives such as “failure” and “decline.” The portrayal of diplomats as timid and incompetent is related, first and foremost, to their close association with power. In this regard, diplomats are the victims of their vocation. The dim view taken of diplomats is quite striking in comparison with that of statesmen, sovereigns, and captains of war. Diplomats’ presumed social privileges, and essential diplomatic virtues, such as moderation and truthfulness, have repeatedly cast them as chosen scapegoats. Diplomats’ political weakness, but also the fundamental misunderstanding of the essence of diplomacy, impede and hamper their ability to be efficient moral agents of international society. Diplomats’ political dependence and obedience are hardly enough to save them from public wrath. On the contrary, their detachment and reserve, which are x Preface essential for success, open the way for the accusation that they are merely executioners of orders. There is, it seems, an incompatibility between the moral essence of diplomacy, and the ignominious place allocated to its practitioners. Ultimately, they may succumb to a Byzantine fate, where their lives and the welfare of the state are two divergent considerations. Diplomacy could have been emancipatory, and more constructive in its achievements. Instead, it has been relegated to a secondary place in international politics. This study attempts to construct a more coherent, and implicitly more favorable, profile of professional diplomats than emerges from their popular image. Diplomacy is neither a preconceived idea, nor an abstract construct. It was originated and ordained in the necessity to conduct relations among separate political entities in a civilized way. At its best, diplomacy was capable of overcoming prejudices, and moderating international conflicts. Good diplomacy, observed the diplomat and poet Alexis SaintL éger, is “imagination, foresight, suggestion, representation, execution.” Diplomacy is a unique social encounter, with an inclination toward the peaceful and the consensual. It has a civilizational standing, as exemplified by its origins in different cultures, and at different periods in history. If the essence of diplomacy is still valid, then much is to be gained from the classical writings of philosophers and practitioners, from Rosier to Satow and Nicolson.    Diplomacy’s place within international theory is rather precarious. The attempt to construct a diplomatic theory of international relations may prove inconclusive at present, especially since international theory, in all its approaches and schools, is currently immersed in one of its deepest crises. The intellectual uncertainty that has prevailed since the end of the Cold War era has brought about a certain fruition in the search for new concepts and methods, but theoretical refinement was not enough to cope with the accelerating pace of change taking place in the world order. Certainly, abandoning diplomacy in international theory would constitute a failure, not supported by any valid methodological or theoretical principles. Though they complain about the intellectual paucity of diplomatic study, theorists have not been able to integrate diplomacy in a meaningful way into their theoretical frameworks, nor to significantly enhance our understanding of international reality. Methodologically, this study is interdisciplinary, relying on historical evidence, sociological analysis, and, where appropriate, political thought. It is substantially based to a great extent on reading classical diplomatic texts from the late Renaissance to the last century. We Preface xi consider the writings of diplomatists to be an important source, despite their laudatory, even narcissistic tone. There is also much to be gained from sociological scholarship. The writings of, for instance, Georg Simmel and Norbert Elias, provide profound insights into the social properties of the diplomatic encounter, and on the concepts of social distance and estrangement. Indeed, the pluralistic approach is most appropriate...