Diplomats versus politicians

Diplomats versus politicians

Amidst the Trump-Kim Summit and a vomit of commentary on ‘presidential diplomacy’, ‘face-to-face diplomacy’, ‘summit diplomacy’ and even ‘Trumpian diplomacy’, we’ve somehow come to accept politicians as diplomats. It may be time to recall the difference – before it’s too late. While it may be splitting hairs, leadership summits are not ‘diplomacy’. If we consider

Amidst the Trump-Kim Summit and a vomit of commentary on ‘presidential diplomacy’, ‘face-to-face diplomacy’, ‘summit diplomacy’ and even ‘Trumpian diplomacy’, we’ve somehow come to accept politicians as diplomats. It may be time to recall the difference – before it’s too late.

While it may be splitting hairs, leadership summits are not ‘diplomacy’. If we consider diplomacy to be the mediation of estranged entities by official representatives, then leadership summits aren’t diplomacy. Even the simplest definition, diplomacy is what diplomats do, then leadership summits aren’t diplomacy. There’s certainly lots of diplomacy before, around, and after summits – negotiation, protocol, drafting, public diplomacy, reporting – but what the leaders themselves actually do is not diplomacy – it’s political leadership.

History is a powerful teacher. Political leadership and diplomacy evolved over thousands of years into distinct fields. While a leader can display diplomacy, and a diplomat can display leadership – they are very different roles. There are good reasons for this separation.

First, political leaders are reliant on domestic electoral or other power bases. This means they focus on domestic events, and domestic stakeholders and supporters influence their decision making. Social media means what is external is also domestic – and vice versa. It’s hard to imagine Cohen’s congressional testimony not influencing Trump’s performance. In contrast, diplomats are public servants. Their performance depends solely on standards of integrity and professionalism.

Second, in strategic terms, political leadership is an instrument to be brought out at the right time – not on opening. In chess, leadership pieces are played at the right time. The King is vulnerable and is protected, the Queen is powerful and used strategically. Why send the leaders out at the earliest stages? Let the Pawns (Foreign Service Officers) do the early work, the Knights, Bishops and Rooks (Under-Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries, and Special Representatives) do the set-up, and the King or Queen (Secretary of State or President) take the glory.

Third, having leaders play a larger role at opening, essentially when working level negotiations are still underway, makes subsequent delegation impossible. The delegate is discounted and is seen as an impediment to the decision maker. The role of US Special Representative for North Korea, Stephen Biegun, was already difficult with Trump’s undermining Twitter platitudes. It becomes more difficult with every summit. Excluding him from the ‘social dinner’ at the Metropole didn’t help either.

Finally, political leaders are not trained in diplomacy. Politicians profit from rhetoric. They tend towards the emotional, dramatic, sentimental, moral, or exhibitive aspects of interaction. They want “quick fixes” and to “win” or “walk away”. Diplomats profit from reliability, accuracy, patience, modesty and tact. They seek practical, common sense, outcomes – arriving at a position which best accommodates their needs that are also acceptable to the other side.

Most importantly, the idea that political leaders can profit from ‘friendship’, ‘trust’ or any other form of intuitive supposition made at a summit is laughable. Diplomatic trust cannot be built through leadership summits.

Believing political leaders can gain a solid understanding of a partner’s intentions through face-to-face meetings is according them undeserved capabilities that exist only in the domain of psychologists, intelligence agents, and used car dealers. Imagining that three or four meetings within the term of a presidency can achieve what diplomats establish over an entire career belies the concept of diplomatic trust.

Diplomats know that trust and intention cannot be discerned by handshakes, voice tone, facial expressions, eye contact, twitches, or body posture. Culture affects negotiation. Culture can make eye contact honest or aggressive, and a smile welcoming or weird. Diplomats overcome such differences through tacit knowledge, experience and universal modes of interaction or protocol. For a diplomat, trust itself is based on the idea that a partner can hold their word and secure the support to fulfil agreements. This trust can only be built up over time and through repeated interaction.

British diplomat Harold Nicolson argued there is a stock market of diplomatic reputation that’s built up over repeated interaction. As classes of diplomats from partner countries progress through the ranks they come to an estimation of each other’s character. When they face each other in major negotiations at the senior levels of their career, they already know who is reliable and who is not, who to trust, and who to distrust. Diplomacy evolved as a permanent institution in every capital city across the globe because it facilitated the building of diplomatic trust, which in turn supplemented the lack of political trust.

Political leadership and diplomacy are different. Remembering this points to the need to fill the ranks of the foreign ministries, give diplomats the trust, confidence and resources they deserve, and allow them to do their jobs. Any junior diplomat who has waited hours at the airport for a politician’s arrival knows there is a big difference between political leadership and diplomacy. It’s time senior political leaders recognize this as well.

As published 6 March 2019 at Lowy Interpreter.

Jeffrey Robertson

http://www.junotane.com/single-post/2019/03/18/Diplomats-versus-politicians

Leadership and the Nation Brand

Please follow and like us:
error

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages

RSS BIDD

  • The Domestic Dimension of Public Diplomacy 11th July 2019
    The Domestic Dimension of Public Diplomacy Nov 6, 2018 Discussions of public diplomacy often favor an international scope, especially as states address how they are perceived by publics abroad. But as Jitka Pánek Jurková of Charles University in Prague notes in a new analysis, the domestic dimension of public diplomacy is drawing increased attention. What […]
  • How to Build a More Diverse Foreign Policy Sector 10th July 2019
    How to Build a More Diverse Foreign Policy Sector Oct 16, 2018 For many, the terms "male, pale and Yale" come to mind when thinking of foreign policy leadership. This can have dire consequences for foreign policy practice. As civic and community engagement firm Vestige Strategies notes in a recent report on diversity and inclusion […]

RSS Diplo Portal Belgrade

Catalog of Destroyed and Desecrated Churches in Kosovo ( VIDEO )

Most Viewed Posts

  • Twitter Suspends Hamas Accounts
    By ROBERT MACKEYLast Updated, Sunday, Jan. 19 | Several Twitter accounts used by the military wing of Hamas have been suspended by the social network in recent days, angering the Islamist militants and delighting Israel’s military. #Twitter has suspended the official account of #Hamas, a terrorist group that uses social media to threaten #Israel http://t.co/g1UxKc9fpf
  • The State of Gastrodiplomacy
    By Paul Rockower It is fitting that a magazine devoted to studying innovations and trends in the field of public diplomacy has turned its focus on an increasingly popular forms of cultural diplomacy: gastrodiplomacy. Public Diplomacy Magazine’s Summer 2009 issue on Middle Powers explored the behavior of middle powers and the contours of “middlepowermanship.” Articles

How Belgrade based diplomats use Digital Diplomacy and Internet 2016

Diplo Portal Belgrade

Please follow and like us:
error
Scroll Up
error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)