DIPLOMACY AND POLITICS 4

  DIPLOMACY AND POLITICS  4

something else akin to a world parliament. Nations could remain sovereign, but would come to resemble constituencies more than autonomous political agents. If such a body ever succeeds, it will not have done away with traditional politics, or with diplomacy in the service of politics. It would merely offer an alternative setting and language for negotiating interests among its members. Put another way, it is not the structure of political systems that dictates the role for diplomacy; structures condition, but do not directly determine, let alone predetermine, it. This is the starting point for understanding the inter-relationship of politics and diplomacy today. They have their root in the quantity and the quality of power in the world. The first relates how power rises and falls, who wields it, and how; the second relates how the powerful deal with one another and with the less powerful, and, occasionally, with the least powerful. Each has a normative aspect. Politics, by its association with government, is, on occasion, occupied with dispensing justice. Diplomacy, by its contraposition to war, is occupied with preserving peace. Good politics tend to be perceived as being just. Good diplomacy tends to be peaceful and, we could add, to the mutual advantage of the parties involved, however powerful they may be. That is to say, both good politics and good diplomacy extend beyond raison d’etat or ‘reason of state,’ even though the latter remains an important element of world order. Diplomats are subservient to the state. Where politicians obstruct the interests of the state, diplomats are called in to show a way ahead. Where politics compel an aggressive policy, diplomats are charged with softening its edges. Where politicians suggest a reactive, or passive, policy, diplomats are meant to explore alternatives, usually indirect ones, to achieve the aims that a more direct, but impractical policy, would not achieve. All this is not to say that diplomacy is entirely auxiliary to politics. Wise diplomats learn how to determine the ‘facts on the ground’ through the purveyance of information, advice, and authority. Nevertheless, without a direct role in politics, diplomacy is weak given that its value and strength derive primarily from its capacity to enhance political leverage in the interests of the state, however indirect and intricate some of its methods can appear. There is rarely a use for diplomacy conducted for its own sake, divorced from politics. Yet, at the same time, politics without diplomacy would not always be viable. “As long as the state remains at the center of international relations,” Sofer has written, “diplomacy will be anchored in the political domain, aspiring to relations without resorting to force. There is no adequate alternative for diplomatic practice as the most prudent method for reconciling contradictory interests, or for other parties to agree to an accepted resolution” (Sofer, 2013, 14). The claim is emphatic, but also true.