Reciprocity

We have identified coexistence and reciprocity as central normative themes running through all diplomatic practice. The other side of the same coin is that in eras when the dominant polities are not prepared to acknowledge equal rights and to negotiate on the basis of reciprocity, diplomacy will not flourish or develop. This applies, in particular, to the all-embracing Roman Empire. The soul of the diplomatic idea is reciprocity, and this was an unfashionable notion in the domineering environment of Roman politics after victories in war. Nor did reciprocity find real sympathy in medieval Europe, when the Empire and the papacy had inherited the Roman claim to rule the world. Similarly, the intensification of religious strife in Europe in the late sixteenth century nearly wrecked the diplomatic system originating in Renaissance Italy.

In other eras, when the reciprocity principle had been accepted, family metaphors were often used to symbolize equal rights and fair exchanges. In the diplomacy of the Ancient Near East they figured prominently. Kings exchanging diplomatic correspondence called each other “brother,” characterized their alliances as “brotherhood,” and described relations of “love,” “enjoying” and “not afflicting” each other’s heart, sharing resources and gratifying each other’s desires. Sometimes, due to differences in age, the image of a father–son relationship was invoked instead.  Whereas paternity seems to have been an expression of indebtedness and deference, fraternity was associated with alliances and friendly relations, albeit not necessarily equality. Exchanges, ranging from brides, gifts and wealth to military assistance, were governed by strong norms of reciprocity. Despite the frequent use of family metaphors, specific reciprocity – where the participants insist on an appropriate “quid” for every “quo” – rather than diffuse reciprocity – where no immediate return is expected – seems to have been the predominant norm. While there are many expressions of expected equivalence of behavior in bilateral relations, variations on the theme “do to me what I have done to you,” mostly reflect expectations of specific rather than diffuse reciprocity.

This was obvious in the exchanges of gifts. “My gift does not amount to what I have given you every year,” complained the Babylonian king to the Egyptian Pharaoh. The Mittanian king Tushratta voiced similar grievances about his gifts: “in comparison with mine they are not equivalent”; moreover, “my brother has not given to me the equivalent of what he dispatched to my father.” While such complaints reflect ingrained expectations of specific reciprocity, one could argue that gift exchanges which are unbalanced in the short term and thus generate the need for continuing contact are much better suited to the preservation of political relationships than barter exchanges, which are perfectly balanced by definition.

Specific reciprocity was expected in other areas as well, such as the treatment of messengers. Tushratta repeatedly told the Egyptian Pharaoh that he would detain the Pharaoh’s messenger, “until my brother lets my messengers go and they come to me.” In short, behind the professed brotherly love in the Amarna Letters one can discern a preference for hard-nosed tit-for-tat strategies. The rule of reciprocity generated an endless process of bargaining in the guise of a competition in generosity.

In the same way that family metaphors were central in Near Eastern diplomacy, notions of extended kinship formed the basis of reciprocity in Ancient Greece. Kinship claims often harked back to the mythical past, and “the Greeks attributed to the Heroic Age a form of internationalism like that of medieval chivalry, participation in a common adventure as in a medieval Crusade.” Appeals to kinship created by direct descent from gods or heroes in prehistoric epochs were central to entering into diplomatic relations. Kinship pleas applied to relations not only between Greek city-states but also between Greeks and non-Greeks, such as the Persian Empire. For the propagation of common ancestry across and beyond the Greek world, it was an essential feature of some of the most famous gods and heroes that they were remembered as promiscuous wanderers. For the panhellenic ambitions of Philip and Alexander, for example, it was important to invoke the myth that a descendant of Heracles founded the royal line of Macedon. These myths of origin and kinship were regarded not as myths but as knowledge. In the Archaic period, having the same ‘Greek’ heroes sire genealogies of Indians, Persians, Etruscans, Epirote Molossians, and so on, apparently seemed natural to many, although perhaps not to non-Greek peoples who were supposed to have descended, say, from Heracles.

In short, diplomatic appeals to kinship between polities existed through most of antiquity. In its origins, kinship diplomacy took concepts of the household, the family, and the clan, and applied them to relations between polities. Two historical transformations tended to erode the use of family metaphors in diplomacy: the rise of Rome to the status of a world empire, and the rise of Christianity with its competing vision of kinship based on religion.

Yet family metaphors figure in Byzantine diplomacy as well. The Persian shah was referred to as the emperor’s “brother.” Unlike Persia, other polities were not considered proper states, and their rulers were mostly labeled “sons” of the emperor. The fraternal relationship with Persia could be reversed in times of conflict, when the shah, too, was addressed as “son.” Friendship metaphors replaced family metaphors to symbolize reciprocity in medieval diplomacy. Resident ambassadors were sent “to win or preserve the friendship of a prince.”

That phrase was a legacy from the earliest stage of the new diplomacy when residents were exchanged only between allies. In some such form as “to conserve and extend the ancient friendship between our two republics,” “because of the loyalty and affection with which my father and I have always regarded the city of Florence,” “in order that your grace my be a partaker of all our thoughts as a friend and brother should,” it remained in use even when the users were habitual enemies on the verge of an open breach.

Today metaphors of family and friendship are reserved for diplomatic rhetoric on festive occasions, whereas hard data on trade balances, foreign investment, currency exchange rates and the like are used as indices of reciprocity. As mentioned earlier, the practice among states of retaliating the expulsion of their diplomats for espionage by expelling an equivalent number of diplomats from the initiating state is a clear-cut case of specific reciprocity. Principles of “give-and-take” also continue to apply to the exchange of information within the diplomatic community. In short, the few examples given above indicate different ways of expressing reciprocity in symbolic, ritualized ways. At the same time, they illustrate the field of tension between specific and diffuse reciprocity that has characterized diplomatic relations throughout history.

?After-reading activities

1 Comprehension questions

1 What is the role of reciprocity in diplomacy?

2What is the use of family metaphors in diplomacy? Give examples.

3 What examples of specific and diffuse reciprocity can be found in history of diplomacy?

4 What is the role of reciprocity in exchange of gifts?

5 What procedures were connected with treatment of messengers?

6 What was the role of appeals to common kinship in Ancient World?

7 What metaphors besides family metaphor could be found in diplomatic relations throughout history?

8 Are metaphors used in diplomacy today?

9 Under what circumstances can diplomats be expelled?

10 What does the principle of “give-and-take” illustrate?

Work with the dictionary and consult the text to do tasks 2 and 3

2 Translate  words and word combinations  from English into  Ukrainian and use them in your own sentences

         Reciprocity; to acknowledge; to flourish; domineering environment; sympathy; papacy; intensification; religious strife; to originate; metaphor; Near East; brotherhood; indebtedness; albeit; grievance; by definition; treatment; to detain; hard-nosed tit-for-tat strategy; in the guise of; generosity; to hark back to; Crusade; ancestry; kinship; genealogy; shah; prince; on the verge of; currency exchange rate

3 Translate from Ukrainian into English

     Взаємність, взаємність поступок; рівноправність; інтенсифікація, підсилення;  кореспонденція; союз; пошана, повага; братерство; двосторонні; кур’єр; реалістичний; ведення переговорів; князь; вірність, відданість; риторика, ораторське мистецтво; вигнання, висилка; напруженість

4 Complete the sentences with words or phrases from the list

        

Tensions; alliance; correspondence; deference; bargaining; city-state; loyalty; bilateral relations; rhetoric; originate; messenger

1.     After all, innovations tend to reflect and fit in with the socioeconomic circumstances of the country or countries in which they _______.

2.     In Europe as a whole, ________ between rulers seems to have been a key means of diplomacy,29 while their meetings, such as that of Louis the German and his brother, Charles of West Frankia, in 870, provided a key opportunity for negotiations.

3.     Rather than forming an anti-U.S. ___________, countries are ‘soft balancing:’ coordinating their diplomatic positions to oppose U.S. policy and obtain more influence together.

4.     Thus, the Spathar-Milescu embassy from Tsar Alexis to the K’ang-hsi Emperor of China faced the fundamental problem that Spathar-Milescu refused to kowtow; a mark of __________ that Europeans correctly saw as taking due respect to the point of humiliating subservience.

5.     Whether this is deemed acceptable or not will depend on the state of _________   ________between the two nations.

6.     They know that it is the message, not the _________, that is the key.

7.     Coercive __________ tactics tend to result in increasingly coercive bargaining on all sides as threats and punishments are reciprocated in a potentially escalating spiral.

8.     My arrival coming just three years after the Iranian Revolution, I found myself literally in an insular __________ whose major communities were newly wary of one another.

9.     The Iran–Iraq War was in its early years and the _______ of Arab to Arab, amply proven in retrospect by the end of the conflict six years hence, was only a hypothesis, a naive one in many eyes.

10. On the other hand, Chinese political discourse is often characterized by a fierce nationalist ______ that is reinforced by the Communist Party’s determination to maintain authoritarian rule.

11. Traditionally public diplomacy was closely linked to conflicts and __________ between countries.

5 Say if the following statements are true according to the text.

1 Central normative themes running through all diplomatic practice are equality and coexistence.

2 Reciprocity was not a popular notion in times of Roman Empire.

3 In diplomacy family matters symbolize sovereignty.

4 Alliance and friendship were embodied in the concept of fraternity.

5 Diplomacy was based on  specific reciprocity.

6 Treatment of messengers was the instance of diffuse reciprocity.

7 Ancient diplomacy was about showing goodwill and generosity.

8 To enter into diplomatic relations in prehistoric epochs one was to claim relationship to a deity or a hero.

9 Diplomatic appeals to kinship existed for a short period of time.

10 Today metaphors of family and friendship are used in diplomacy on festive occasions.

Shared symbols and references: diplomatic protocol

A shared language and shared codes of interpretation are prerequisites for diplomatic communication. The institutionalization of mutually understood phrases and expressions as well as rules governing the external forms of intercourse, include significant elements of ritualization. Protocol, in this wider sense, probably goes as far back as there have been contacts between polities. The term protocol comes from two Greek words meaning “first glue,” and originally denoted the first leaf glued on to a manuscript. In a figurative sense, protocol has come to refer to the basic etiquette, or “stage-directions,” for the enactment of diplomacy.

One can find examples of ritualized phrases and an acute sense of protocol already in the Amarna Letters. The address and greeting phrases of the tablets constituted symbolic expressions of status. Only if the sender was superior or equal to the addressee did he name himself first. Deviations were noted and given sinister interpretations, as in this exchange:

And now, as to the tablet that you sent me, why did you put your name over my name? And who now is the one who upsets the good relations between us, and is such conduct the accepted practice? My brother, did you write to me with peace in mind? And if you are my brother, why have you exalted your name … ?

Other ritualized formulations were used to indicate relative status as well. When a new monarch succeeded to the throne there were pledges of, or demands for, “ten times more love” than for the predecessor. For a demandeur, who wanted to deflate the size of requested concessions from the more powerful Egypt, it was commonplace to use the phrase “gold is as plentiful as dirt” in Egypt. Various expressions of deference adhered to what scholars of the Ancient Near East call “prostration formulae.” Kings or vassals “touched the hem” of the receiver’s garment, “fell at their feet,” or considered themselves “dirt under their sandals.” Another common idiom was “to strike the hand,” which was used to express refusals of offers of alliance or breakoff of friendly relations. The phrase appears to refer to the thrusting back of a hand outstretched in friendship or previously clasped in friendship, and indicates that agreements were confirmed by the perennial handshakes.

Similar examples of a fine-tuned language can be found in Byzantine diplomacy. In fact, the sense of protocol pervaded all Byzantine letters where linguistic nuances express the relative status and relationship of writer and recipient. And by the mid-fifteenth century, all the principal chanceries of Europe had in their formularies model credentials showing how each of their neighbours should be addressed, and most legal textbooks laid down the general rules to be observed.

Modern diplomatic language is replete with standardized phrases and guarded understatements. For example, a verbal or written communication to the effect that the diplomat’s government “cannot remain indifferent to” an international issue, is understood to signal intervention; and the government that expresses “grave concern” over a matter is expected to adopt a strong position. Each era, in short, appears to have had its own set of ritualized phrases that were well understood among diplomatic agents and rulers and enabled them to communicate even unpleasant things with an amount of tact and courtesy.

Moreover, the format of written and oral diplomatic communications has always been subject to strict conventions. Already sixteenth-century BC Hittite treaties follow a set pattern of preamble, historical introduction, provisions, deposition, list of divine witnesses and, finally, curses and blessings. The form of the diplomatic correspondence in the Amarna Letters is similarly standardized. After an address, directed to the scribe who will read the letter, follows a salutation, consisting of a report of the sender’s well-being and an expression of good wishes for the addressee. The body of the letter consists of varying combinations of declarations of friendship, discussions of gifts associated with this friendship, proposals of marriage, and list of goods exchanged at the time of marriage.

The heraldic practices described in Homer’s Iliad indicate the existence of implicit rules of oral presentation in Ancient Greek diplomacy. Explicit rules of oral and written presentation were formulated in the medieval art of composing diplomatic discourses for public delivery, ars arengandi. Resident ambassadors in Renaissance Italy prepared two kinds of information for their rulers in addition to their regular dispatches: “reports,” which were periodical, carefully prepared statements of the political situation in the host polity; and “relations,” which were their final reports on the completion of their mission. Similar interventions are expected from ambassadors to this day.

In contemporary official communication a distinction is made between a note, a formal letter addressed to the foreign minister, signed by the ambassador, and written in the first person; a note verbale, an unsigned letter from the embassy to the Foreign Ministry, written in the third person; and an aide-mémoire or memorandum, which records facts already known, or statements already made, and carries no signature.

The ritualized courtesy that we associate with diplomatic communication has oriental roots. “The East had … long been accustomed to a studied courtesy, and it was from its more polished manners that Western Europe was later to acquire those polite forms of intercourse which marked the age of chivalry.” The emphasis on ceremonial can also be traced back to Oriental diplomacy.

Eighth-century BC descriptions of the reception of envoys in the multistate system of Ancient China detail the formalities of offering and declining gifts. One study of diplomacy in the Ch’un-ch’iu (Spring and Autumn) period, 722–481 BC, elaborates on the great amount of ritual in the relations between the states, which strove to outdo each other in their ceremonies to such an extent that their ability to put on a rich ceremonial front frequently determined their position among their associates.” The elaborate rituals served as a reflection of economic strength and, since their rigidity required much discipline, as an indication of the efficiency of the current regime. The extreme formality of diplomatic relations required a lot from the emissaries. For example, they could not attend any ceremonies to which their rank did not entitle them; at banquets in their honor, they had to be able to respond appropriately to toasts, which usually involved the ability to select for the occasion a fitting verse from the well-known songs of the time; and practically all the major events in the life of a ruling family required some sort of diplomatic representation. It is significant that still a millennium later, in the seventh century, China’s diplomatic relations were handled by officials at the Court of State Ceremonies.

Byzantine emperors similarly attached extreme importance to ceremonial and the reception of ambassadors. In fact, one emperor, Constantine Porphyogenius wrote a detailed Book of Ceremonies, which apparently served as a manual for his successors. Byzantium pursued a “diplomacy of hospitality,” a routine of lavish receptions and banquets at the palace with a large number of foreign guests in attendance whose obvious purpose was to create an impression of greatness and world power. A special department, skrinion barbarôn, arranged the reception of foreign ambassadors and saw to it that they were suitably impressed. The ceremonies were designed to reflect the orderliness and stability of celestial and imperial power, with a heavy emphasis on the association of the emperor with Christ. The skrinion barbarôn eventually developed into a virtual foreign ministry.

The close relationship between Byzantium and Venice provided a channel of transmission of such attention to ceremonial to the Western world. Thus, in Renaissance Venice a record was kept, the Libro Ceremoniale, of the exact ceremonies performed for each visiting dignitary. This served as a manual for the ritual treatment of future guests.

For each visitor a raft of ceremonial decisions had to be made: how far into the lagoon must the senators (and how many senators) go to meet the visiting dignitary; should the doge – the Venetian head of government – rise from his seat or come down from his daise in the Collegio in order to greet an ambassador; how valuable should the gold chain be that was the customary gift to foreign representatives; and what were the Venetian officials to wear at the reception?

The elaborate body of rules governing the behavior of participants and the minutest details of ceremonies reduced the possibility that inadvertent acts of diplomats might lead to miscommunication with foreign rulers. Diplomatic envoys had varied ceremonial functions in the late Middle Ages, a period of “a thousand formalities”:

Marriage ceremonies required the presence of ambassadors representing states friendly to those becoming allied through marriage, and a reluctance to send ambassadors or orators to grace a wedding would tend to indicate a coolness toward at least one of the parties. The death of a friendly prince or a member of his family was another of those climactic events surrounded with solemn pageantry and calling for an embassy to share the grief and offer condolences. “Funeral diplomacy” has been resurrected as a variant of summitry in modern times, but then less for its ceremonial functions and more as an opportunity for valuable contacts between the successors in power and politicians from other countries.

The exchange of gifts as part of the diplomatic ceremonial from antiquity onwards could of course degenerate into bribes, and the line between the two was diffuse – much in the same way that information gathering may convert into spying. While much less elaborate and significant, some ceremonials remain in modern diplomacy. For instance, the reception of a new ambassador is still surrounded by rituals. And state visits have retained time-honored ceremonial forms, including the exchange of gifts and banquets.

The conclusion of treaties seems to have been associated with rituals throughout history. In the Ancient Near East treaties invariably ended with summons to the deities of both parties to act as witnesses to the treaty provisions and explicit threats of divine retribution were envisaged in case of violation. The number of deities assembled as treaty witnesses was often substantial, in some cases approaching one thousand. Oaths were sworn by the gods of both parties, so that each ruler exposed himself to the punishment of both sets of deities should he fail to comply.

Moreover, the conclusion of treaties was accompanied by sacrifice and other gestures symbolic of the punishment that would follow a breach of the treaty. Several letters refer to the sacrifice of an animal, most often the foal of an ass. For the nomads, the donkey was their sole auxiliary at a time when horses were virtually unknown. Thus the sacrifice of a donkey stressed, by its costly and spectacular nature, the importance of the consecrated event. In connection with swearing the oath, each ruler was said to “touch his throat.” Possibly he drew a knife, or perhaps a finger, across his throat, symbolizing the fate of treaty breakers. It is unclear whether the animal sacrifice and “touching the throat” were alternative or complementary ceremonies.

There is a striking similarity with treaty rituals in Ancient China. There, too, an animal – usually a calf or an ox – was sacrificed. The treaty document was bound to the sacrificial animal, whose left ear was cut off. Both the document and the lips of the principals were smeared with blood from the ear. The document, one copy of which was buried with the sacrificial animal while the signatories kept one copy each, contained an oath invoking the wrath of the gods upon anyone who violated the covenant. When the Romans concluded a treaty, officials had the treaty read aloud to the envoys of the other contracting party, pronounced a curse on any violator of its terms, whereupon they cut the throat of a sow with the lapis silex, a dagger of immense antiquity.  In short, early diplomacy in different parts of the world seems to validate the common view among anthropologists that ritual sacrifice is a substitute for the primal violence that threatens to destroy society.

In Ancient Greece, on the other hand, the conclusion of a treaty was accompanied by a libation to the gods, spondai, and was generally affirmed by oaths, horkoi. Both terms came to be used figuratively to refer to treaties. The ritual sacrifice had thus taken on a more symbolic form, which has survived until our days in the form of the ritual champagne toasts accompanying the signing of modern treaties.

The practice of uttering religious oaths as part of the ceremony of signing treaty documents is found in early Byzantine diplomacy as well. The Byzantines accepted non-Christian oaths of validation, in a way reminiscent of the Ancient Near East practice of invoking multiple deities as witnesses. Religious appeals, at a time when Gods were considered as real as the material world, had its advantages; “since divine sanction rather than national consent gave ancient international law its obligatory quality, it was in some respects more feared and binding than modern international law.”

In sum, different historical eras have developed a sense of protocol that has enabled diplomats to concentrate on substantive issues without adding unnecessary disagreements about the external forms of intercourse, while at the same time allowing for discrete signaling through deviations from ritualized forms and expressions.

?After-reading activities

1 Comprehension questions

1 What is required for diplomatic communication?

2 What is protocol?

3 When and where can we find first examples of diplomatic protocols?

4 What are the earliest examples of courtesy and fine language in diplomacy?

5 How can modern diplomats make use of refined language? Give examples.

6 What are the traditional conventions of formal written and oral diplomatic communication?

7What is the difference between note, note verbale and memorandum?

8 What are the traditions and implications of gifts in diplomacy?

9 What are the ceremonies connected with reception of ambassadors?

10 What are the traditions connected with signing treaties and agreements?

Work with the dictionary and consult the text to do tasks 2 and 3

2 Translate  words and word combinations  from English into  Ukrainian and use them in your own sentences

Institutionalization; intercourse; ritualization; protocol; figurative sense; etiquette; enactment; greeting; tablets; deviation; to upset; to exalt; formulation; pledge; demandeur; to deflate; concession; to adhere; prostration; garment; alliance; breakoff; to thrust; to clasp; perennial; fine-tuned language; credentials; replete; standardized phrase; understatement; indifferent; grave concern; courtesy; convention; preamble; provision; deposition; scribe; salutation; heraldic practice; implicit rule; note verbale; signature; chivalry; emissary; lavish; dignitary; doge; inadvertent; miscommunication; pageantry; condolences; bribe; deity; retribution; foal; ass; nomad; consecrated event; signatory

3 Translate from Ukrainian into English

Передумова; відносини, зв’язок; протокол; умова, положення; статус; формулювання; поступка, концесія; союз, альянс; вірчі грамоти; применшення, стримане висловлювання; інтервенція; глибоке занепокоєння; дипломатичний представник; ввічливість; передмова, вступ; положення, умова; оголошення; офіційне повідомлення, депеша; міністр закордонних справ; вербальна нота; пам’ятний листок; емісар, агент; сановник; небажання; співчуття; хабар, підкуп; порушення; клятва; діяти відповідно до правил; який підписався чи взяв участь у підписанні; відносини, зв’язок

4 Complete the sentences with words or phrases from the list

         Missions; status; institutionalization; protocol; violations; concession; credentials; memorandum; declarations; dispatch; formulation; alliances; foreign minister; allied; intervention;

1.     What J. William Fulbright proposed in 1946 was the ______ of his own overseas odyssey.

2.     All social groups can be reached in this way, although the higher in the hierarchy of a profession one aims for, the more prestigious the program has to be, and the likelihood increases that the person will be unable to accept due to work pressure or simply ________.

3.     This, of course, is subsumed within the broader debate regarding the present ________ and future role of professional diplomats and the environments in which they operate.

4.     In Gareth Evans’ and Bruce Grant’s ______________ of the ‘niche diplomacy’ idea, both countries, but more especially Norway, have also concentrated resources ‘in specific areas best able to generate returns worth having, rather than trying to cover the field’.

5.     Public diplomacy is particularly important for implementing GRIT as it can be used

6.     to make clear the cooperative nature of a _____________ and the desire for a reciprocating action by an adversary.

7.     His challenge was not to build lasting _______ or mergers of Arab states, but to loosen the political framework within which Arabs found themselves.

8.     The growth of civil society and global social movements is changing the character

9.     of multilateral diplomacy, as its intergovernmental _______ are redefined in the light of growing participation by non-governmental organizations.

10. The most glaring recent example of disunity was the Iraq crisis, but the problem of an obvious discrepancy between lofty ideals as expressed in EU _________ and concrete action is notorious.

11. In 1936, an Associated Press _______ from Paris noted that Leftists were applauding the pledge of the new (and short-lived) French premier Albert Sarraut to “use ‘public diplomacy’ in foreign affairs.”

12. _______ abroad are typically small, with perhaps only two or three diplomats to cover the whole range of diplomatic tasks.

13. It can pursue a wide variety of objectives, such as in the field of political dialogue, trade and foreign investment, the establishment of links with civil society groups beyond the opinion gatekeepers, but also has ‘hard power’ goals such as alliance management, conflict prevention or military ______________.

14. It was Gareth Evans, when serving as ______     ________ of ‘middlepower’ Australia, who gave ‘niche diplomacy’ its name.

15. The value of international cultural interchange is to win respect for the cultural achievements of our free society, where that respect is necessary to inspire cooperation with us in world affairs’, according to a 1950 ________ from the Bureau of the Budget that differs little from the utilitarian approach that governs US cultural diplomacy today.

16.  US policy-makers could have learned from their experiences in Yugoslavia and the Gulf Wars of the 1990s that a political mandate from the ‘international community’ (preferably the UN Security Council) comes with the handy permission to use foreign bases, _______ troops, financial means to fund the operation, and – most importantly – the credibility and status of legitimacy.

17. Asia worries about China’s economic and political rise; Europe mainly about China’s _______ of human rights; and the US worries about both.

5 Say if the following statements are true according to the text.

1 Diplomatic protocol is rooted in ritualization.

2 The term protocol comes from two Greek words meaning ‘ritual’.

3 Modern diplomatic language is full of exaggerations.

4 Each century has had its own set of phrases understood among diplomatic agents.

5 Conventions govern written and oral diplomatic communications.

6 In history diplomatic relations were not very formal.

7 Diplomatic ceremonial of exchange of gifts could result in bribes.

8 The conclusion of treaties was often accompanied by human sacrifice in Ancient China.

9 Ritual sacrifice in ancient world symbolized the danger of violating the treaty.

10 Protocol  helped to develop similar discreet signals for diplomats.

Write an essay on Amarna Letters or Ch’un-ch’iu (Spring and Autumn) and their role in history of diplomatic protocol.

Diplomacy, mediation and international society

It can be suggested that diplomacy plays a crucial role in mediating universalism and particularism, and that diplomacy thereby in a sense constitutes and produces international society. Each combination of universalism and particularism – whether settled in a treaty or, more commonly, continuously negotiated – represents a differentiation of political space. Each resolution specifies, often implicitly, who “we” are and which competence we have (universalism), and who “I” am and which competence I have (particularism).

Let us briefly illustrate the intermingling and messiness of material with the

example of the so-called Westphalian system emerging as a result of the peace agreement after the Thirty Years War. The Peace of Westphalia organized Europe on the basis of particularism. It represented a new diplomatic arrangement – an order created by states, for states – and replaced most of the legal vestiges of hierarchy, at the pinnacle of which were the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor.  In the words of scholars, a new international society “evolved out of the struggle between the forces tending towards a hegemonial order and those which succeeded in pushing the new Europe towards the independent end of our spectrum.” The seventeenth century resolution was a compromise between several material and ideational propensities, none of which had prevailed as a result of the war. In our terms, it is noteworthy that the Westphalian system was a compromise between the universalistic idea of Christian unity, reformulated as a natural law derived from God, and the particularistic notion of sovereignty. Whereas the Westphalian settlement is traditionally viewed as the death knell for a Christian society of polities, strong vestiges of universalism remained. First, sovereignty did not imply equality. The notion that all kings were directly ordained by God rather than by the pope, did not at all mean that all kings were equal. And while the Peace of Westphalia “was largely successful in containing the hegemonic aspirations of the Habsburgs, … it did not anticipate the ambitions of the Bourbon Louis XIV to dominate Europe.”

In Westphalian example above the treaties of Osnabrück and Münster specified, both implicitly and explicitly, that “we” were Christiansand that “I” was a King ordained by God. Diplomacy contributes to, as well as reflects, this differentiation of international society. Let us turn, next, to three essential dimensions of diplomacy that capture the mechanisms involved in mediating universalism and particularism.

         Scholars distinguish three essential or constitutive dimensions of diplomacy: communication, representation and reproduction of international society. Diplomacy is often characterized as communication between polities. Without communication there can be no diplomacy. Negotiation is generally regarded as the core of, and sometimes equated with, diplomacy.

Representation is another core dimension of diplomacy, insofar as diplomats are representatives of principals, acting on their behalf and standing as symbols of them and their polities. Reproduction, finally, refers to the ways in which diplomacy contributes to the creation and continuation of a particular international society. By “reproduction” scholars mean the processes by which polities, or groups of polities, maintain themselves as such. As partisans of flux, scholars favor a concept that emphasizes the need to explain permanence. Reproduction implies that continuity cannot be taken for granted. 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.

?After-reading activities

1 Comprehension questions

1 What is the role of diplomacy in international society?

2 What is the difference between universalism and particularism?

3 Where do universalism and particularism manifest themselves in international relations?

4 How many dimensions of diplomacy can scholars single out?

5 What are these dimensions? Define each of them.

6 What is the essence of representation?

7 What is the function of reproduction in international relations?

8 What is scholarly definition of reproduction?

9 What does the concept of reproduction imply?

10 What does diplomacy help constitute?

Work with the dictionary and consult the text to do tasks 2 and 3

2 Translate  words and word combinations  from English into  Ukrainian and use them in your own sentences

Crucial role; universalism; particularism; implicitly; constitutive; reproduction; to equate with; principal; on behalf; flux; socialization

3 Translate from Ukrainian into English

Бути сполучною ланкою; партикуляризм; становити; договір, угода; резолюція; аспект, вимір; зв’язок, комунікація; прирівнювати; сталість, незмінність

4 Complete the sentences with words or phrases from the list

         Treaty; reproduction; mediating; equate; constitute; dimension; contribute; communication; produce; resolutions 

1.     It may be safe to say, however, that if Fulbright students were made more aware of the ______ function in exchange then more students would undertake this role as part of their sojourn.

2.     It is, however, realistic to aspire to influencing the milieu factors that _______ the psychological and political environment in which attitudes and policies towards other countries are debated.

3.     Taken together, these pieces in the public diplomacy jigsaw ________ a more intricate picture than is apparent at first sight – and certainly one more complex than the assumptions on which some governments’ official public diplomacy efforts appear to rest.

4.     The Ottawa Convention – the ‘most rapidly ratified’ such international _____ ever – came into force on 1 March 1999.

5.     In their local committees, people were invited to discuss foreign policy issues and submit ______ on them to higher bodies.

6.     The relative absence of these countries from the internet reminds us both of the great imbalance of power that exists in this ______ of public diplomacy and the low tolerance of the strong for feelings of insecurity.

7.     Along with the ______ of the command center for constant monitoring of international media, the Rapid Response Unit issues daily guidance complete with talking points for American embassies and consulates to respond to emergent matters in the media. 

8.     Despite this, the concept of public diplomacy is not employed, not even recognized, among the majority of officials who were interviewed for this research, nor is it found in any of the Commission’s or Council Secretariat’s policy papers or other types of ________.

9.     The impression, however, is that like many governments and diplomatic missions elsewhere, the Taliban diplomats felt under pressure to respond to something, the demands of the mass media as articulated by the Islamabad press corps, which they did not particularly _____ with the world of publics and their opinions.

10. Used well, it can ___________ to the EU’s ‘meta-narrative’   by providing a sense of belonging to the same community of values.

5 Say if the following statements are true according to the text.

1 Diplomacy helps to mediate universalism and particularism.

2 In each resolution traces of universalism and particularism can be found.

3 Diplomacy establishes the differentiation of international society.

4 There are four essential dimensions of diplomacy.

5 Negotiation is the basis of diplomacy.

6 Negotiation is as synonym of  diplomacy.

7 Representation is not a core dimension of diplomacy.

8 Reproduction is the synonym of representation.

9 Representation helps polities, or groups of polities maintain themselves as such.

10 Reproduction means that continuity should be taken for granted.

 Write an essay on Treaty of Westphalia  and its role in international relations.