What criticisms can be levelled against modern diplomacy
Some criticisms of present — day diplomacy are worth considering, and the debate about them is helping to change diplomatic practice. The most familiar concerns secrecy. Many people feel that secret diplomacy leads to intrigue and war, and that in this democratic century the public has a right to know what is being said in its name.
The media have a vested interest in the maximum of disclosure, and much of the public favours it. Governments, and especially professional diplomats, are less sure. Bargaining between governments, as between business corporations, needs a degree of discretion to succeed. The exploratory diplomacy that feels out the possibilities for a deal between states, or a resolution in the Security Council, has to take place in confidence if it is to realize its potential: especially when a broad package is under discussion, a number of options have to be examined on "what if' basis. In democracies, where every public offer will be criticized by the political opposition and the media, a bargain openly discussed will usually mean no bargain at all. Also, a government that discloses what other governments say to it in confidence will soon find itself excluded from the confidential diplomatic dialogue, to its own serious loss. It is a question of where to draw the line between secrecy and disclosure.
A criticism similar to the distrust of secret diplomacy is that the international relations of a democracy should not be left in the hands of professional diplomats. A diplomatic service, it is argued, is unrepresentative: it is a self-perpetuating body that does its own recruiting. It forms an unelected elite that evolves and keeps alive ideas about "the national interest", as opposed to the wishes of the democracy, and persuades government minis-
ters, who come and go, to accept these ideas and allow the diplomatic service to implement them. This criticism needs to be taken seriously. The argument that the demos does not know what is wise or prudent in foreign affairs, that it is misinformed by propaganda and the media, and that elected governments are often ignorant and ideologically prejudiced, is an argument against democracy itself. Democracy certainly comes at a price: and that price is mitigated in the foreign field by having a body of professional experts, who determine the long-term national interest in much greater detail than ministers have time or training for, and submit their conclusions as one factor for ministers to take into account.
On the other hand there is a case for ensuring that not only the statesmen who determine and increasingly conduct the democracy's diplomatic dialogue, but also the permanent envoys to some of the most important foreign capitals and international organizations, are political figures identified with the government of the day. The US practice of assigning ambassadorships to people who have contributed to election campaigns has obvious disadvantages, but there is a real gain both to the Administration and to the host government to have an American ambassador who has easy access to the President and knows his mind. It can be argued that for the same reasons "non-career" European ambassadors at posts like Tokyo, Washington and the United Nations tend to be more effective politically than professional diplomats, provided they are supported by an adequate professional staff. But each case needs to be judged on its merits: as so often in diplomacy, there is no hard and fast rule.
Questions for discussion:
What is your position concerning secrecy in diplomatic matters? What should be open to public scrutiny and what should remain secret?
How valid from your point of view is the argument that diplomatic officers constitute an influential elite in modern society?
3. Should ambassadors be career or non-career diplomats? Should the choice depend on a country where this or that ambassador is assigned? Does a national envoy have to be a personality, an independent thinker or an obedient and disciplined civil servant?
Read the article below once and try to find answers to the questions that follow:
What does the present system of recruitment into the Diplomatic Service in GB consist in?
Who wants to change the system of recruitment?
On what grounds is the present system criticized?