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.
