This extraordinary expression is often given as a most obvious oxymoron, and many of us are familiar with the comment attributed to various Tudor politicians in England to the effect that diplomacy is merely war carried on by peaceful means. Another observation, dating from an even earlier period, was that ambassadors had spying as their principal aim and occupation, it being assumed that all princes would make the same use of this situation.
The idea of "open diplomacy" seems to have arisen among politicians in the USA who believed that traditional secretive diplomacy had some kind of flavour of dishonesty. This makes it necessary for anyone thinking about the question to study what is the genuine reason for diplomatic (and also consular) activity.
For some years, at a fairly low level, I had experience of consular problems, and this proved to me conclusively that consular representation is essential in our modern world, where many people travel in foreign states. I was the French Agent consulaire in Dover, effectively covering much of South-East England, to ensure fair and proper treatment of French citizens in trouble and also to facilitate links between local English people and authorities and France. Apart from that, I had several minor quasi-diplomatic tasks related to visits of French naval vessels to ports in the area and other matters of smooth relations between France and the United Kingdom.
However, one must never confuse diplomatic actions with those which are consular, since the latter tend to relate to the problems of individuals whereas diplomacy concerns the relations between the states themselves. One of my most important functions was to act as a means of liaison between British Police (Kent County Constabulary) and Customs (then known as Her Majesty's Customs and Excise) and such French authorities as might be responsible for the matters which had arisen. This included making sure that every French citizen accused of any offence should enjoy all the rights to which he or she was entitled under the law. Later, as an Avocat (trial lawyer) in France I had regular contacts with the British Consular Officials every time that I was defending British citizens, and they did (as I had done in England) little things to make life easier for accused persons and their families, without interfering in the proper legal process.
Diplomacy ensures that there is some kind of regular contact between the local government and the state which has sent out its representatives, and much depends on some form of social contact, which can notoriously get out of hand when there is too much concentration on cocktail parties, as we read in much comic fiction. This contact when properly used has, as one of its major purposes, the advantage of enabling minor problems to be resolved, quite often totally unofficially, between persons who have the benefit of knowing one another. Obviously, at the higher levels, the problems can be of world shattering importance, and require very delicate solutions which for various reasons must be done in absolute secrecy. This is where any idea of "open diplomacy" becomes ridiculous since any kind of opening up of how a particular problem was solved can make such a solution impossible.
An interesting variant on "open diplomacy" is what is sometimes called "foghorn diplomacy" of which two of the most notable current practitioners are Mr George W. Bush and Dr Condoleezza Rice (following in the footsteps of Mr William J. Clinton, Mrs Madeleine Albright and more recently Mr John Bolton), whereby every step taken in dealing with another state is made the subject of thunderous declarations of so-called "principles". As the whole world knows, this can give highly entertaining and generally ludicrous results, such as Mr Bush's very recent statement that "it is unacceptable for any state to invade another sovereign state", even if he did later qualify this by reference to democratically elected governments.
One of the results of any tendency to making such declarations is that the leaders of other states often count on using them for their own benefit, and one of the most notable recent successes in this field was when Mr Robert Mugabe managed to get Mr Bush and Mr J. Gordon Brown to condemn his actions. As I have previously written, he could not have wished for a better guarantee of sympathy from other states than to be condemned by the "leaders" of countries which had committed so many much more serious international crimes. In addition, he could (as if in passing) point out that the United Kingdom (under Mrs Thatcher) had failed to carry out its promises to Zimbabwe under past agreements, and he was thus able to divert all international attention from the ghastly horrors committed by his own very unpleasant régime. Similarly, Mr Vladimir Putin and his "successor" Mr Dimitri Medvedev must have danced for joy when Mr Bush came out with his (clearly ill thought out) condemnation of invasions of sovereign states. What better support could they have received. Mr Bush and Dr Rice do not seem to have learned that their praise of any group or person is almost certain to be the "kiss of death", and that condemnation by them brings joy to those whom they criticise.
Let every state get back to the old and highly efficient system whereby all diplomacy is carried on confidentially and in secret and only successful results are made public. "Open diplomacy" is a red herring which can only harm those who try to operate it, but it can also threaten world peace.
© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com
This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!
