HENRIKSON Alan Diplomacys Possible Futures

7232019 HENRIKSON Alan Diplomacys Possible Futures

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullhenrikson-alan-diplomacys-possible-futures 125

copy K i klijk B ill NV L id 2006 DOI 10 1163187119006X101870

Diplomacyrsquos Possible Futures1

Alan K HenriksonTe Fletcher School o Law and Diplomacy

ufs University Medord MA 02155 USAalanhenriksontufsedu

Received 18 December 2005 accepted 3 February 2006

Summary

In an attempt to think beyond the immediate horizon or diplomacy 1047297ve possible utures

are envisioned lsquoDisintermediationrsquo suggests that diplomats in competition with a dynamic private sector may need to adopt business methods and use the internet mdash or be bypassedlsquoEuropeanizationrsquo could largely subordinate bilateral diplomacy within the regional EuropeanUnion ramework although space might be lef or lsquopublic diplomaticrsquo unctions Internationallsquodemocratizationrsquo would accord a larger role to states hitherto excluded rom decision-making

within multilateral institutions and also to civil society lsquoTematizationrsquo would require a higherdegree o 1047298exibility rom diplomats as they engage in crusade-like efforts against terrorismdisease and other such threats lsquoAmericanizationrsquo implies the adjustment by diplomats to a

world in which lsquointernational relationsrsquo are conducted along the lines o US domestic politics

with lobbying and advocacy becoming major activities Te need to win greater public supporti not necessarily to involve the people directly in diplomacy is evident in all o these lsquoprojective visionsrsquocopy Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden 2006

Key WordsFuture projections or diplomacy disintermediation integrated diplomatic services democratizationo diplomacy thematic diplomacy crisis management gaiatsu diplomacy

Te Hague Journal o Diplomacy 1 (2006) 3-27

1) Tis article is based on and adapted rom the text o lsquoTe Future o Diplomacy Five ProjectiveVisionsrsquo in Clingendael Discussion Papers in Diplomacy no 96 January 2005 (Te HagueNetherlands Institute o International Relations lsquoClingendaelrsquo 2005) and in lsquo250 Jahre Von derOrientalischen zur Diplomatischen Akademie in Wien Symposium A Changing Europe in aChanging Worldrsquo Favorita Papers 042004 (Vienna Diplomatische Akademie 2004) pp 21-36



4 Alan K Henrikson

Introduction

What ollows will attempt with due modesty beore the Unknowable to

depict a number o possible utures o diplomacy mdash lsquoragments o uturehistoryrsquo as these plausible visions might be called A true lsquopredictive historyrsquoas the philosopher Immanuel Kant conceived it would be lsquoa divinatoryhistorical narrative o things imminent in uture timersquo mdash that is an actualstoryline o impending events2 In projecting history orward I shall nottry to oresee it in Kantrsquos sense I shall nonetheless endeavour to thinkbeyond the immediate horizon and to envision the situation and character

o diplomacy as it might appear in perhaps twenty to 50 years rom nowDiplomacy evolves and as Harold Nicolson long ago recognized it canchange quickly3

Such conscious uture-projection is more and more necessary because with history having accelerated as it has done national governments inter-national organizations and those who represent them are called to make veryrapid and precise decisions Te exigencies o political decision-making in the

world today put a premium on anticipation mdash on insight and oresight mdashas well as on re1047298ective hindsight Tese qualities are ortunately ones or which diplomats are known

Te lsquolessonsrsquo o experience mdash o past history mdash are a necessary guideo course Nineteenth-century history is studied today because manynineteenth-century problems are with us Tese include the phenomenon oterrorism resulting rom radical ideologies as well as rom nationalist eelings

against both imperial structures and modernizing orces4 In some respectsthe nineteenth century is as relevant to our situation today as is the twentiethcentury with its large-scale geostrategies as these were carried out by major

powers in two world wars and a worldwide Cold War Te nineteenth century

2) Immanuel Kant lsquoAn Old 983121uestion Raised Again Is the Human Race Constantly Progressing rsquo

[1798] in Lewis White Beck (ed) Kant On History (Upper Saddle River NJ Library o LiberalArts Prentice Hall 2001) p 1373) Harold Nicolson Te Evolution o Diplomacy Being the Chichele Lectures delivered at theUniversity o Oxord in No983158ember 1953 (New York Collier Books 1962) As Nicolson notes thedirection o change in diplomatic method is not always orward-tending lsquoTe word ldquoevolutionrdquois not intended to suggest a continuous progression rom the rudimentary to the effi cient onthe contrary I hope to show that international intercourse has always been subject to strangeretrogressionsrsquo (p 10)4) Walter Laqueur A History o errorism (New Brunswick NJ ransaction 2001)



Diplomacyrsquos Possible Futures 5

was at least at the international level relatively peaceul Internationalstability was maintained by statesmen and diplomats in the discourse o thelsquoConcert o Europersquo and through the balance o the European great powers

that underlay it Te lsquolong peacersquo o the Cold War years was by contrast lessdependent on diplomatic harmonization than on military equilibration mdashthe correlation o armed orces and a non-quanti1047297able lsquobalance o terrorrsquoimposed by nuclear technology and pre-emptive-strike antasies5

Despite some resemblances with the past the twenty-1047297rst century maystill be very different rom what has gone beore Te international systemtoday which is lsquounipolarrsquo in that the United States is clearly militarily

predominant is pervaded by the processes o globalization Driven byeconomics as well as technology globalization is a orce that seems tobe largely beyond the control o political leadership mdash or still less o

proessional diplomacy Nonetheless the dynamics o globalization mayoffer opportunities or diplomats More than leaders or offi cials at homeever can diplomats experience directly the upheavals that globalizationand related turbulences can produce Tese include the lsquoclashes o civilizationrsquoamong them the conrontation o the Western world with Islam that asSamuel Huntington has contended give conceptual de1047297nition to our time6 Diplomats should be in a position i they are prepared and politicallyauthorized and popularly supported to lead a lsquodialogue o civilizationsrsquo7

Globalization mdash the global spread o ideas goods and money that istransorming our cultures mdash is not o course entirely new As a historian

I see it as dating rom the turn o the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when it came to be widely believed that the world system was lsquoclosedrsquoPeople saw that there was no longer an open rontier or expansion thatoutward industrial and political orces were beginning to bump intoeach other and that expansionist energies could even bounce back upontheir sources impacting upon metropolitan societies Te political

5) See John Lewis Gaddis Te Long Peace Inquiries into the History o the Cold War (New YorkOxord University Press 1987) on these and other actors that maintained the tense stability othe Cold War period6) Samuel P Huntington Te Clash o Civilizations and the Remaking o World Order (NewYork Simon amp Schuster 1996)7) One such initiative undertaken multilaterally at the instigation o a reormist governmentin Iran in 1998 was the United Nations Year o Dialogue among Civilizations 2001 seehttpwwwunorgDialogue



6 Alan K Henrikson

geographer Halord Mackinder vividly likened this new situation to a kindo echo chamber A sound rom Europe mdash or today more likely rom else-

where mdash could spread outwards in concentric rings converge at a point

on the opposite end o the earth and then come crashing back lsquoEveryexplosion o social orcesrsquo Mackinder warned lsquoinstead o being dissipated ina surrounding circuit o unknown space and barbaric chaos will be sharplyre-echoed rom the ar side o the globe and weak elements in the politicaland economic organisms o the world will be shattered in consequencersquo8

Diplomats are uniquely well placed to swim in such historical and culturalcrosscurrents More than that in the midst o these reverberations they

should be able to identiy and interpret the essential messages and relay theseto their governments and also to their publics No group is better situated to1047297lter out the eedback effects o globalized communication

Te span o globalization is o course limited and also uneven mdash despitethe image that we generally hold o everyone everywhere talking withanyone anywhere As the British diplomat Robert Cooper has observeddifferent parts o the world are living in different phases o history Pre-modern modern and post-modern elements coexist in the same world eveninside some o the same countries9 A diplomatrsquos intermediary role can thusin some places seem like time travel and require chronological as well asgeographical imagination

Tere are still regional differences In Robert Kaganrsquos provocative essaylsquoPower and Weaknessrsquo Americans are said to be living in an older world o

lsquopowerrsquo whereas Europeans have moved beyond that to live in lsquoa sel-contained world o laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation[ ] the realization o Kantrsquos ldquoPerpetual Peacerdquorsquo [1795]10 Henry Kissingerdoes not even perceive a single world system Despite the uniying effectso globalization he believes that the world has a number o lsquointernationalsystemsrsquo within it existing side by side Te lsquogreat powersrsquo o Asia or examplelive in lsquothe world o equilibriumrsquo He comments lsquoWars between them are

not likely but neither are they excluded Te international order o Asia

8) Halord J Mackinder lsquoTe Geographical Pivot o Historyrsquo [1904] in Halord J Mackinder Democratic Ideals and Reality with additional papers edited and with an introduction by Andrew J Pearce (New York Norton 1962) p 242 9) Robert Cooper lsquoTe New Liberal Imperialismrsquo Observer Worldview 7 April 2002 See also hisTe Postmodern State and World Order (London Demos 2000)10) Robert Kagan lsquoPower and Weaknessrsquo Policy Review no 113 JuneJuly 2002 pp 3-28




thereore resembles that o nineteenth-century Europe more than that othe twenty-1047297rst-century North Atlanticrsquo11 Te very rules o interaction arethereore likely to be different rom one lsquosystemrsquo to another Tis also puts

a premium on the diplomatrsquos international experience and cosmopolitan as well as local knowledge

What are the possible worlds into which the uture diplomat may entergiven that uniorm global development is still incomplete and likely toremain so Te 1047297ve projective visions o diplomacy that suggest themselvesto me on the basis o much re1047298ection are shaped by an awareness o the

worldrsquos variation in terms o both history and geography12 My undamental

criterion is whether a new or rapidly evolving pattern is likely to stand thetest o time No model o diplomacyrsquos possible uture is likely to 1047297t all parts othe world even while globalizing or uniying in the same way and with equal

plausibility Some patterns are more likely to be realized in certain placesOther patterns however could become more nearly global or universal

Te 1047297ve models mdash or lsquoragmentsrsquo mdash o diplomacyrsquos possible uturehistory have been given the ollowing names the exact meaning o whichmay not initially be ully evident disintermediation Europeanizationdemocratization thematization and Americanization13 Each shall be brie1047298ydescribed and explained in turn

Disintermediation

A 1047297rst model or the uture o diplomacy mdash re1047298ecting the strong challenge posed by the dynamism o the private sector mdash is that state-run diplomacy

11) Henry Kissinger Does America Need a Foreign Policy oward a Diplomacy or the wenty-FirstCentury (New York Simon amp Schuster 2001) pp 25 and 11012) Alan K Henrikson (ed) Negotiating World Order Te Artisanship and Architecture o Global

Diplomacy (Wilmington DE Scholarly Resources 1986) and Alan K Henrikson lsquoDiplomacy

or the wenty-First Century ldquoRecrafing the Old Guildrdquorsquo a retrospective essay based on WiltonPark Conerence 503 21-25 July 1997 on lsquoDiplomacy Proession in Perilrsquo in Colin Jenningsand Nicholas Hopkinson (eds) Current Issues in International Diplomacy and Foreign Policy vol 1(London Te Stationery Offi ce 1999) pp 3-47 wherein it is posited that the body o practitionerso diplomacy lsquois in act one o the constitutive ldquoordersrdquo o the international system and it has beenat least since the Congress o Viennarsquo (p 7)13) Tese are the terms o categorization that I used as a speaker on lsquoTe Future o Diplomacyrsquoduring the closing symposium o lsquoTe Role o Diplomats in the Modern Worldrsquo 697th Wilton ParkConerence UK 13-17 January 2003



8 Alan K Henrikson

with its ormal structures and bureaucratic procedures could be largelybypassed mdash that is no longer chosen as the preerred intermediary Indeed

with the increase o transparency that globalization brings or many

international purposes there may be no need or a lsquomiddlemanrsquo at all Tis is ageneral trend that is affecting governmental authorities and institutions not

just oreign ministries and diplomatic services Te term lsquodisintermediationrsquo(admittedly a mouthul) originated o course in the 1047297eld o economics todescribe what happens when producers o goods or services become able mdashby using the internet and e-business salesrsquo methods or instance mdash to lsquocut outthe middlemanrsquo and get directly in touch with the customer

A ormer senior Canadian Department o Foreign Affairsrsquo offi cialGeorge Haynal who himsel has a business background applies theterm lsquodisintermediationrsquo to the pattern that he sees beginning o private

withdrawal rom the use o governmental services mdash on the analogy o what happened to Canadarsquos chartered banks in the 1990s14 People just didnot want to use the established old banks any more Tey did not want to

put their business through them and ound instead that brokerage 1047297rmsinsurance companies and other 1047297nancial-service providers could ul1047297ltheir needs more cheaply more effi ciently and also more rewardingly Tesame Haynal suggests could happen to diplomatic services in Canadaand elsewhere

All established institutions that purport to act as intermediariesbetween people and power to view the phenomenon more generally and

philosophically as Haynal does are being subjected to similar challenges olegitimacy and mandate Tey are being lsquodisintermediatedrsquo or bypassed byconstituents who eel constrained by excessive paternalism stirred to act by aseeming lack o accountability on the part o institutions to which they haveentrusted their affairs and very importantly newly empowered to act ontheir own by inormation technology As Haynal sees it disintermediation isa truly historic challenge Te response o institutions might (or might not)

be transormative Haynal notes or comparison the limited response o theCatholic Church to the challenge o the Reormation15

14) George Haynal lsquoDiplomacy on the Ascendant in the Age o Disintermediationrsquo paper discussedat the workshop lsquoTe Future o Diplomacyrsquo co-sponsored by the Munk Center o InternationalStudies University o oronto and the Department o Foreign Affairs and International radeCanada in oronto 22 April 200215) Haynal lsquoDiplomacy on the Ascendant in the Age o Disintermediationrsquo




o carry this history-based scenario urther corporations providing newservices somewhat in competition with governments might actually begin toconduct their own lsquooreign policiesrsquo Numerous multinational corporations

today have budgets that are larger than those o many sovereign states mdashthree-quarters o which are quite small with populations o 20 million orewer Why or example does a large 1047297nancial corporation such as FidelityInvestments mdash or many years Americarsquos largest mutual unds company mdashreally need diplomats It has its own sources o inormation plus the meansto gather it and even extensive representation abroad mdash its own lsquooreignservicersquo

Te above-described speculative uture mdash in which diplomacy wouldhave to work to reorm itsel in order to meet heavy private-sector pres-sures mdash implies a relatively peaceul mdash or at least politically stable mdash

world one in which most transactions can take place normally and withoutthe likelihood o major disruption Te events o 11 September 2001 mdashthe al-Qaeda attacks on the World rade Center and the Pentagon mdashsuddenly lsquobrought the state back inrsquo in order to provide homeland securityerrorist attacks in New York City Washington Madrid and London andrecurrently in Baghdad and some other highly populated centres elsewherein the world have produced an upsurge o statism or state protectionism

Te lsquo911rsquo effect however may wear off I it does the lsquoprivatizationrsquo ooreign policy and diplomacy and even o physical-security services maybecome much more prevalent Te consequence or lsquodisintermediatedrsquo

diplomacy might be that as a result o stronger competition the diplomatic proession will be required to mimic private enterprise and its methods Onealready sees experiments in the lsquobrandingrsquo o countries such as the early efforto the UKrsquos Labour government under Prime Minister ony Blair to promotethe image o lsquoCool Britanniarsquo16 Te US governmentrsquos more recent effort tosell the idea o lsquoAmericarsquo to the Arab and larger Islamic world using MadisonAvenue methods is also illustrative o the new approach17 Te penetration o

16) Simon Anholt Brand New Justice How Branding Place and Products Can Help the DevelopingWorld (Amsterdam Butterworth Heinemann 2005) Wally Olins Wally Olins on Brand (LondonTames amp Hudson 2004) Wally Olins lsquoMaking a National Brandrsquo in Jan Melissen (ed) Te

New Public Diplomacy Sof Power in International Relations (Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan2005) pp 169-179 and Mark Leonard Catherine Stead and Conrad Smewing Public Diplomacy (London Foreign Policy Centre 2002)17) Charlotte Beers Under-Secretary or Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs lsquoUS PublicDiplomacy in the Arab and Muslim Worldsrsquo remarks at the Washington Institute or Near EastPolicy Washington DC 7 May 2002 httpwwwstategovrus10424htm



10 Alan K Henrikson

lsquomarketingrsquo techniques into the public diplomacy o governments indicatesthe proound adaptation or reormation that proessional diplomacy couldundergo18

It should be noted however that there are counter-trends perhaps evenlong-term ones Te very technology o the lsquoinormation agersquo that permitsdirect communication and lsquodisintermediationrsquo also creates opportun-ities mdash although probably on balance smaller opportunities mdash or stateintererence Te government o the Peoplersquos Republic o China (PRC) alsquorisingrsquo power has sought to manage the communicationsrsquo 1047298ow in and out othe Chinese mainland with some skill With the demonstrated ambition o

playing a major role in twenty-1047297rst-century Asian and also global diplomaticrelations it naturally is jealous o its state prerogatives and offi cial prestige19 It thus aims at lsquoreintermediationrsquo20 By arranging to preserve its intermediaryunctions against pressures that would deprive it o its dominance andcentral role the government o the PRC engages in what has been calledin the business world lsquo anti-disintermediationrsquo It can employ legal andadministrative action as well as use economic incentives and disincentives21 In China and perhaps other authoritarian societies market orces and populardemands may thereore rom time to time meet their match in state power inthe exercise o Macht

Europeanization

A second model or diplomacyrsquos possible uture pertinent especially to themore advanced regions o the world is that o lsquogoing Europeanrsquo mdash that is osubordinating or even replacing national diplomatic services with integrated-

18) Symptomatic o this is Mark Leonard and Vidhya Alakeson Going Public Diplomacy or the Inormation Age (London Foreign Policy Centre 2000)19) Evan S Medeiros and M aylor Fravel lsquoChinarsquos New Diplomacyrsquo Foreign Affairs vol 82 no

6 NovemberDecember 2003 pp 22-35 David Shambaugh lsquoChinarsquos New Diplomacy in Asiarsquo Foreign Service Journal vol 82 no 5 May 2005 pp 30-38 and Stuart Harris lsquoGlobalization andChinarsquos Diplomacy Structure and Processrsquo Working Paper 20029 Department o InternationalRelations Research School o Paci1047297c and Asian Studies Australian National University CanberraDecember 200220) I am indebted or this point and or the aorementioned scholarly reerences to my colleague atthe Fletcher School o Law and Diplomacy Proessor Alan Wachman21) lsquoGoogle Censors Itsel or Chinarsquo BBC News 25 January 2006 httpnewsbbccouk2hitechnology4645596stm




international or even ully joint services Within the EU bilateral diplomaticmissions are already being somewhat eclipsed by the inner communicativeactivity o the EU and also by efforts to create a Common Foreign and Security

Policy (CFSP) or a united Europe Te lsquocross-national collegial solidarityrsquoo the members o the Comiteacute des repreacutesentants permanents (COREPER)o the Council o the EU in particular demonstrates the uniying effect oengagement by national representatives in the same basic activity mdash thato building lsquoEuropersquo22 One is reminded o Harold Nicolsonrsquos commenton European diplomats in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries lsquoTeydesired the same sort o world As de Calliegraveres had already notice in 1716

they tended to develop a corporate identity independent o their nationalidentityrsquo23

According to the Draf reaty Establishing a Constitution or Europethere would be i and when the reaty or a partial substitute measure isenacted a new European lsquoUnion Minister or Foreign Affairsrsquo (Article I-28)Tis person intended also to be one o the Vice-Presidents o the EuropeanCommission would have responsibility or conducting the CFSP and orthe overall consistency o the international relations o the European Unionand its members He or she it was stipulated should also express the EUrsquos

positions in international organizations and at conerences In ul1047297llingthis mandate the Union Minister or Foreign Affairs was to be lsquoassistedby a European External Action Servicersquo that would lsquowork in cooperation

with the diplomatic services o the Member Statesrsquo (Article III-296) Even

within the United Nations Security Council mdash o which two Europeancountries Britain and France are permanent members under the Charter mdashthere would be deerence to EU positions lsquoWhen the Union has de1047297neda position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Councilagenda those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall requestthat the Union Minister or Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Unionrsquos

positionrsquo (Article III-305)24

22) Joze Baacutetora lsquoDoes the European Union ransorm the Institution o Diplomacyrsquo Clingendael Discussion Papers in Diplomacy no 87 (Te Hague Netherlands Institute o International RelationslsquoClingendaelrsquo 2003) p 1423) Nicolson Te Evolution o Diplomacy p 10224) Draf reaty Establishing a Constitution or Europe as appro983158ed by the Intergo983158ernmentalConerence on 18 June 2004 reaties vol 1 (Brussels General Secretariat Council o the EuropeanUnion 2004)



12 Alan K Henrikson

Seen rom the outside this does not really look like lsquomultilateralrsquo diplomacyalthough it is sometimes called that Relations within the area o the EuropeanUnion itsel are less and less lsquodiplomaticrsquo in the traditional sense o that term

Tey are inter-domestic lsquoTe process o European integrationrsquo as analysts havenoted lsquois marked by a growing interconnectedness o domestic administrativesystems o member states where sector-speci1047297c policies are coordinated acrossnational borders without involving diplomatsrsquo25 Diplomacyrsquos new intra-European mode conorms to a process o isomorphism How ar this processo policy integration across diverse sectors can go given the centriugaleffects o the EUrsquos recent addition o ten new members that are mostly rom

the less-developed and more nationalistic eastern parts o Europe remains tobe seen With urther enlargement lsquodeepeningrsquo may give way to lsquowideningrsquo

Despite the increase o EU integration European countriesrsquo bilateralrelationships including those established diplomatically by their bilateralmissions in one anotherrsquos capitals are likely to survive Partly because otheir close physical locations and their intimate histories many countries inEurope may still think o oreign policy in lsquobilateralrsquo terms Many o theserelationships are lsquospecialrsquo mdash such as that between Austria and HungaryConsular work and many related cultural activities also o course remainbilateral Bilateral embassies which now commonly house offi cers belongingto other governmental departments and agencies as well as proessionaldiplomats can provide orientation as well as habitation Te ambassador canbe an lsquoarbiterrsquo among these elements Heshe can also lsquoinject realityrsquo based

on local knowledge into brie1047297ngs o ministers Tere is a urther reason why bilateral embassies may remain important in the EU era It has beennoted that there is an lsquoillusion o amiliarityrsquo among EU statesrsquo decision-makers because o the regularity o their meetings and requency o theirconsultations Bilateral diplomacy can be a corrective to and balance againstthis over-scheduling mdash or lsquocalendarrsquo mdash effect26

Ambassador Karl Teodor Paschke ormer Director-General or

Personnel and Administration o the German Ministry o Foreign Affairsconcluded in a special inspection report to the German government regarding

25) Baacutetora lsquoDoes the European Union ransorm the Institution o Diplomacyrsquo p 1026) Tese and related points regarding bilateral diplomacy and bilateral embassies are noted in theReport o the January 2003 Wilton Park Conerence on lsquoTe Role o Diplomats in Modern Worldrsquoavailable at httpwwwwiltonparkorgukconerencesreportwrapperaspconre= WP697




Germanyrsquos embassies in EU countries that although lsquocertain unctionso traditional diplomacy have become super1047298uousrsquo such as handing overletters and delivering ormal deacutemarches Germanyrsquos lsquoembassies in Europe

have not become obsoletersquo He ound widespread consensus that lsquoEuropeancooperation can only thrive where it is sustained and underpinned by stableclose trouble-ree bilateral relations between EU membersrsquo I anythingPaschkersquos report suggests that the need or bilateral missions in Europemay actually be increasing because o the growing need or governments tolsquoexplainrsquo their countriesrsquo policies and politics to the publics o their ellowEU member states27

Te European Union has a particular challenge in this respect with itslsquodemocratic de1047297citrsquo mdash the widespread perception that policies and decisionsare made in Brussels and in Strasbourg without adequate participation oreven knowledge or inormed consent on the part o the mass o Europersquosordinary citizens Te low voter turnout or the June 2004 EuropeanParliament elections was particularly alarming lsquoTe average overall turnout

was just over 45 per centrsquo Te Economist noted lsquoby some margin the lowestever recorded or elections to the European Parliamentrsquo Most lsquodepressingrsquo oall lsquoat least to believers in the European projectrsquo was the extremely low votein the new member countries in Poland or instance it was just slightly overone-1047297fh o the electorate lsquoDisillusion with Europersquo then was maniestedalso in the protest vote or lsquoa rag-bag o populist nationalist and explicitlyanti-EU partiesrsquo28

Tis reaction too may be an indication o the complex process olsquoEuropeanizationrsquo and o things both positive and negative to come Terejection o the EU Constitutional reaty by a majority o both French andDutch voters in their national reerenda in May and June 2005 respectivelyclearly indicated disaffection Some o this popular eeling it is importantto emphasize was directed against their own governmentsrsquo leadership and

possibly that o their neighbours and also against EU budgetary inequities and

unwelcome social policies rather than against the goal o urther European

27) Karl Paschke Report on the Special Inspection o Fourteen German Embassies in the Countrieso the European Union (Berlin Federal Foreign Offi ce September 2000)28) lsquoTe European Elections A Plague on All Teir Housesrsquo Te Economist vol 371 no 8380 19

June 2004 pp 14-15



14 Alan K Henrikson

development as such29 Both lsquobilateralrsquo and lsquomultilateralrsquo diplomacy on the part o European states and the diplomacy o a lsquocommunitarianrsquo EuropeanUnion will need to play a larger role within society lsquoEuropeanizationrsquo at

whatever speed will surely continueIt may even spread Te European Unionrsquos increasing international role

is in1047298uencing the shape as well as the substance o the lsquopartnerrsquo entities with which it deals While these are mostly individual countries mdashnotably the countries that are designated or possible accession and arenegotiating with European diplomats the adjustments needed to absorband implement the acquis communautaire mdash Europersquos partners also include

regional organizations such as the new Arican Union (AU)30 Not merelybecause the AU and its members depend heavily on the EU or developmentaid and other assistance Arica is receiving a European organizationalimprint Te Caribbean and Paci1047297c regions too are eeling the effect olsquoEuropeanizationrsquo in the orm o parallel structures As Ambassador MichaelLake recently head o the Delegation o the European Commission in SouthArica observes

Te Lomeacute Conventions now the Cotounou Accord set up an institutional structure whichmirrors the EUrsquos own internal structure COREPER is paralleled by the ACP Committeeo Ambassadors and together they meet in the ACP-EU Committee o Ambassadors TeCouncil o Ministers is paralleled by the ACP Council o Ministers and together they meet inthe ACP-EU Council o Ministers Te Secretariat o the Council has its counterpart mdash theACP Secretariat Te European Parliament has its counterpart mdash the ACP ParliamentaryAssembly mdash and they meet in the ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly Te result is a somewhat

Brussels-centric diplomatic orum31

Trough the dialogues that the European Union periodically holds withLatin American and Caribbean countries and with the nations o South-East Asia in the context o EU-LAC and ASEM conerences respectivelythose broad and distant regions are also directly encountering the diplomaticmodel o lsquoEuropeanizationrsquo

29) wenty Questions on the Future o Europe Te EU afer lsquoNonrsquo and lsquoNeersquo special report (LondonTe Economist Intelligence Unit June 2005)30) lsquoTe EU and Arica owards a Strategic Partnershiprsquo Council o the European Union Brussels19 December 2005 1596105 ( Presse 367)31) Personal communication rom Michael P Lake 2005-2006 European Union Fellow at theFletcher School o Law and Diplomacy ufs University 21 January 2006




Democratization

Tis leads to the third model or ragment o possible uture diplomatic

history I call it lsquodiplomacy as democracyrsquo Tis reers to democracyat the international level Tis is a concept that Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali sought expressly to develop when he was serving as Secretary-General o the United Nations in his paper An Agenda or DemocracylsquoDemocratization internationallyrsquo he argued is a necessity on threeronts mdash that o transorming the structures o the United Nations itselthat o providing new actors on the international scene with ormal means o

participation there and that o achieving a culture o democracy throughoutinternational societyI coness to earlier scepticism o the lsquointernational democracyrsquo idea as

it seemed to rest on a aulty analogy o countries with persons Te basic principle o lsquoone country one votersquo at the UN with no weighting ismaniestly undemocratic when one considers the size o the populationso China and also other larger countries such as India Indonesia Japan or

Brazil that are not permanent members o the UN Security Council Yet theUN Charterrsquos reaffi rmation o lsquothe equal rightsrsquo o lsquonations large and smallrsquoand the UN commitment to act in accordance with the principle o lsquothesovereign equality o all its Membersrsquo (Article 2 paragraph 2) are likely toremain undamental norms o the world organization

Owing in part to an interest in geography I have come to see lsquodemocracyrsquoat the international level as well as at the national level as a system o

representation o points o view as well as an expression o numbers o personsI reer not to the points o view o individual countries as lsquocountriesrsquo or to the

points o view o clusters o countries conceived as lsquoregionsrsquo in the votinggroup sense but rather to their situational points o view mdash ultimately

physical points o view lsquoDemocracyrsquo at the international level should include geographical representation Tere must surely have been a nature-based as well as a Burkean or other philosophical element in the thinking o theounders o the United Nations when they wrote into the Charter in the 1047297rst

paragraph o Article 23 the phrase lsquoequitable geographical distributionrsquo as amajor criterion or the election o non-permanent members to the SecurityCouncil

My consultative work on the diplomacy o small states or theCommonwealth Secretariat and the World Bank has urther sensitized me

to the possible meaning o this requirement as very small states can be highly



16 Alan K Henrikson

responsive indicators o the well-being o the entire global system Smallstatesrsquo perspectives add new sight-lines to the international consensus Teseare especially valuable regarding matters o the global environment Indeed

the Association o Small Island States (AOSIS) has been characterized as thelsquointernational consciencersquo on that subject32 An illustration o an initiativetaken by them is the Global Conerence on the Sustainable Developmento Small Island Developing States which was held in Bridgetown Barbadosin 1994 From that conerence resulted the Barbados Programme o Action

which has ramed the discussion o the environmental and developmentconcerns o the worldrsquos island and coastal developing countries ever since As

current UN Secretary-General Ko1047297 Annan has said the places inhabited by peoples o the small island states are the lsquoront-line zone where in concentratedorm many o the main problems o environment and development areunoldingrsquo33

Teir experiences and perspectives are invaluable to us all Many otheir problems although local to them are regional inter-regional andeven global Te catastrophic impact o the December 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and ensuing tsunami elt most immediately bylow-lying coastal communities in Indonesia and Sri Lanka and also bysome smaller Indian Ocean states including the Maldives and Seychellesdemonstrates the vulnerability that can result rom damaging coralreeselling mangrove trees and bulldozing coastal dunes as well as on a largerscale systemic global warming and rising sea levels34 In the northern

hemisphere too climate change is a lsquolocalrsquo concern and affectedlsquosmallerrsquo peoples mdash native groups as well as countries such as Iceland orNorway mdash have strongly voiced their worries internationally As the Arcticicecap melts so their very identities and also possibly their material uturesare put at risk Greenhouse gas-heightened warming said Paul Crowley othe Inuit Circumpolar Conerence during the December 2005 UN climate

32) W Jackson Davis lsquoTe Alliance o Small Island States (AOSIS) Te International Consciencersquo Asia-Paci1047297c Magazine vol 2 May 1996 pp 17-22 AOSIS with now some 43 member states andobservers lsquounctions primarily as an ad hoc lobby and negotiating voice or small island developingstates (SIDS) within the United Nationsrsquo systemrsquo see lsquoAlliance o Small Island Statesrsquo httpwwwsidsnetorgaosis33) Statement by the Secretary-General General Assembly Plenary ndash 1b ndash Press Release GA9610wenty-Second Special Session ENVDEV519 1st Meeting (AM) 27 September 199934) lsquo2004 Indian Ocean Earthquakersquo httpenwikipediaorgwiki2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake




conerence in Montreal threatens lsquothe destruction o the hunting and ood-gathering culture o the Inuit in this centuryrsquo35 Even the continued 1047298ow o theGul Stream it is now reported could be adversely affected in time possibly

even reversed i the Kyoto Protocol and its long-range emissionsrsquo standardsare not universally accepted and effectively implemented36 Recognition othe lsquoglobalnessrsquo o environmental and other physically related world-systemicissues is a very sound basis along with population size and wealth or powerconsiderations or determining the lsquoequitable geographical distributionrsquo oin1047298uence at the United Nations and in related negotiating contexts

Solutions to truly global problems as Inge Kaul and her colleagues at

the UN Development Programme (UNDP) have emphasized shouldincreasingly be seen in terms o providing lsquoglobal public goodsrsquo mdash that isthose that are in everyonersquos interest or differently stated in the democraticinterest As Kaul and her UNDP team point out there is a lsquoparticipation gaprsquothat prevents global problems rom being well understood and adequatelyaddressed Despite lsquothe spread o democracyrsquo there are still lsquomarginal and

voiceless groupsrsquo Tey suggest that by expanding the role o lsquocivil societyrsquoand also o the lsquoprivate sectorrsquo in international negotiations governmentscould lsquoenhance their leverage over policy outcomes while promoting

pluralism and diversityrsquo While keeping in mind the need or lsquolegitimacyand representativenessrsquo mdash that is the ormal requirements o one-countryone-vote democracy based on sovereignty mdash they observe that lsquothe decision-making structures in many major multilateral organizations are due or

re-evaluationrsquo37

What could this mean or diplomacy It could mean that as thelsquodemocraticrsquo responsiveness o the international community growsdiplomats are increasingly assigned to multilateral work within a reormedand more open United Nationsrsquo system It could urther mean thatthey will be assigned directly to lsquopriority concernsrsquo mdash or example to

35) Charles J Hanley lsquoArctic Natives Seek Global Warming Rulingrsquo Associated Press 8 December200536) lsquoGlobal Warming Study Provides Cold Comort or North Europeansrsquo Inno983158ations Report 24 June 2005 httpwwwinnovations-reportdehtmlberichtegeowissenschafenbericht-45769html37) Inge Kaul Isabelle Grunberg and Marc A Stern (eds) Global Public Goods InternationalCooperation in the Twenty-First Century (New York Oxord University Press or the UnitedNations Development Programme 1999) pp 12-13



18 Alan K Henrikson

environmental and developmental and also to health issues (such as HIVAids or avian 1047298u) mdash rather than to countries as such or even to internationalorganizations at all

Tematization

Tis brings me to my ourth uturistic model the rise o what has beencalled lsquothematic diplomacyrsquo Tis is akin to but also is somewhat broaderthan the more technical lsquounctionalrsquo diplomacy mdash such as the highly

specialized diplomacy o trade negotiations as practised at the Worldrade Organization or nuclear saeguards discussions such as carriedout within the ramework o the Non-Prolieration reaty and the institu-tional setting o the International Atomic Energy Agency or example It isalso older Te nineteenth-century (and continuing) international campaignagainst lsquoslaveryrsquo mdash or more particularly the slave-trade mdash is a case in

point38

lsquoDevelopmentrsquo itsel is one current grand overarching theme lsquoHumanrightsrsquo in general terms is another So too is lsquosecurityrsquo o course Tis word suggests ar more than merely police protection or physical deence provided by armed orces It implies the psychological and social need toeel sae mdash a subjective problem as well as an objective problem Te sourceso insecurity today are many and some are internal39 Teme-related orthematized diplomacy is a way o mobilizing the resources o society and

also o mobilizing public opinion mdash internationally as well as at home Tecurrent and possibly long-term lsquoglobal war on terrorrsquo o the United States isthe prime contemporary example How long this preoccupation with globalterrorism will last mdash whether it will be temporary and associated with a

particular administration mdash will depend in part on the course o events mdashthat is on detailed uture history in Kantrsquos lsquonarrativersquo or ully predictivesense Incidents can determine trends

38) WEB du Bois Te Suppression o the Aican Slave-rade to the United States o America 1638-1870 (New York Longmans Green 1896) William L Mathieson Great Britain and the Slave-rade 1839-1865 (London Longmans Green 1929) Betty Fladeland Men and Brothers Anglo-

American Anti-Slavery Cooperation (Urbana IL University o Illinois Press 1972) and HughTomas Te Slave-rade Te Story o the Atlantic Slave-rade 1440-1870 (New York Simon ampSchuster 1997)39) Dan Caldwell and Robert E Williams Jr Seeking Security in an Insecure World (Lanham MDRowman amp Little1047297eld 2006)




Te British historian Niall Ferguson taking a longer-than-usual viewthinks that 11 September 2001 actually changed very little It was lsquoless o aturning point than is generally believedrsquo he writes Yet as a lsquodeep trendrsquo as he

terms it lsquothe spread o terrorismrsquo or lsquouse o violence by non-state organizationsin pursuit o extreme political goalsrsquo will likely continue into the uture Tehijacking o planes and suicide attacks on high-value targets had occurredlong beore lsquoAll that was really new on 11 September was that these tried-and-tested tactics were applied in combination and in the United Statesrsquo40

Tematic diplomacy is topical as this example suggests in the sense obeing contingent upon occurrences upon things that happen and make

news Tese occurrences although sometimes dramatic can be very localand also ephemeral Tematic diplomacy tends to be ocused on emergenciesAn outbreak o amine in the Sahel or a SARS epidemic in China or areport o nuclear rumblings on the Asian subcontinent or perhaps on theKorean peninsula might concentrate global attention Such events can beused to highlight lsquothemesrsquo which may or may not be related to basic trendsTematized diplomacy resembles in this respect another kind o diplo-macy mdash crisis management mdash which does not even attempt to address themore proound or enduring causes o problems41

Te skilul exploitation o critical happenings however can set a nationand other nations that may be associated with it on a long orward courselsquoMaking historyrsquo in this way might turn out to be going on a tangentand a serious historical policy miscue It is diffi cult to know in advance

Leadership sometimes does make its own destiny President George WBushrsquos resolve afer the events o lsquo911rsquo was impressive in its way He sawAmerica mdash the whole country mdash as having been lsquoattackedrsquo and persuadedmost Americans that the United States was lsquoat warrsquo with al-Qaeda and anyother terrorist enterprise with a global reach I reactive it was decisivePresident Bush remembers exactly what he was thinking when he wastold that a second aeroplane had hit the second tower o the World rade

Center lsquoTey had declared war on usrsquo he recalled lsquoand I made up my mind

40) Niall Ferguson lsquo2011rsquo Te New York imes Magazine 2 December 200141) Charles F Hermann (ed) International Crises Insights om Behavioral Research (New YorkFree Press 1972) Alexander L George (ed) Avoiding War Problems o Crisis Management (Boulder CO Westview 1991) and Hans-Christian Hagman European Crisis Management

and Deence Te Search or Capabilities Adelphi Paper (Oxord Oxord University Press or theInternational Institute or Strategic Studies 2002)



20 Alan K Henrikson

at that moment that we were going to warrsquo42 Te lsquowarrsquo characterizationmdash as surely was expected o US leaders mdash turned out to be a powerulrhetorical engine o consent mdash at least o acquiescence While it did not

launch a lsquocrusadersquo a word that President Bush once inadvisably used it didhelp diplomats and military offi cers to orm an ad hoc lsquocoalition o the will-ingrsquo mdash a broader and even more diverse alignment than was the internationalalliance led by the United States during the Cold War43

A highly lsquothematizedrsquo coalition is not likely to be permanent Its existencedepends upon continually having something to react to and visible targetsto pursue In organizational and operational terms this invites the creation

o lsquotask orcesrsquo and lsquospecial missionsrsquo typically consisting o outsiders andexperts rather than o ormally accredited diplomats or established residentrepresentatives Tematic diplomacy is not institutional or positionalOperating within a lsquothematizedrsquo climate o opinion such as that o the presentthe challenge or traditional diplomacy is to strive to maintain on the basiso well-situated acilities and long-developed relationships constancy o

presence and continuity o representation44 Te capacity to deal even withinternational crises as with smaller emergencies depends on being there Temost effective diplomat is the one who is locally involved and on the scene

Americanization

Te 1047297fh and 1047297nal model o a possible uture or diplomacy is the most

complex and interesting o all By lsquoAmericanizationrsquo I distinctly do not mean what is today sometimes much too easily said that the United States hasbecome an lsquoempirersquo and being the sole surviving superpower is exercising(whether it knows it or not) lsquohegemonicrsquo control over the world45 What Ihave in mind is something very different although not completely unrelatedTis last vision o diplomacy shall be called the lsquoAmerican politics as world

politicsrsquo model as more than once in Europe I have heard the observation

42) Bob Woodward Bush at War (New York Simon amp Schuster 2002) p 1543) William H Riker Te Teory o Political Coalitions (New Haven C Yale University Press1962) notes the element o lsquodemagogueryrsquo that can override the calculations necessary to maintainan effective international coalition (pp 242-243)44) GR Berridge Diplomacy Teory and Practice (Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan 2005) ch 7on lsquoBilateral Diplomacy Conventionalrsquo recognizes the adaptability o permanent embassies45) Niall Ferguson Colossus Te Price o Americarsquos Empire (New York Penguin 2004)




that nowadays and or the oreseeable uture lsquodiplomacy will be aboutreacting to the United Statesrsquo Te signi1047297cant difference between this

present-day necessity and the Cold War-era necessity o reacting to (or

lsquocontainingrsquo) the Soviet Union is that the present reaction is an inter actionand this interaction occurs largely but not entirely inside the United StatesTe essential perception and lsquovisionaryrsquo projection is that there is occurringmore and more an approximation and even assimilation o lsquointernationalrelationsrsquo to the model o American domestic politics

Te United States is an open society Moreover it is one without a pre-eminent centre mdash that is a single controlling point whether Washington

DC or within it the presidency or Congress Te separation o powersand the ederal system and also the increased in1047298uence o interest groupsand the media in American national policy-making make the processeso government in the United States highly indeterminate In this respectoreign policy is increasingly not very different rom domestic policy46 Telocus o decision mdash where power actually lies mdash is ofen diffi cult to 1047297nd

A ormer British ambassador to the United States Sir NicholasHenderson vividly complained about this situation lsquoYou donrsquot have a systemo governmentrsquo he said when trying to gain US support or the UnitedKingdom during the 1982 FalklandsMalvinas crisis lsquoIn France or Germanyi you want to persuade the Government o a particular point o view or1047297nd out their view on something itrsquos quite clear where the power resides Itresides with the Government Here therersquos a whole maze o different corridors

o power and in1047298uence Terersquos the Administration Terersquos the CongressTere are the staffers Terersquos the press Tere are the institutions Terersquosthe judiciary Te lawyers in this town You know itrsquos diffi cult not to believethat the May1047298ower was ull o lawyersrsquo Perhaps indirectly admitting his ownoccasional wanderings in pursuit o the ever-relocating elusive quarry o

power in Washington he noted lsquoA amiliar sight in Washington is to seesome bemused diplomat pacing the corridors o the Capitol trying to 1047297nd

out where the decisions are being taken And when hersquos ound that out hemay 1047297nd it isnrsquot on the Hill afer all Itrsquos somewhere elsersquo47

46) James M McCormick American Foreign Policy and Process (Belmont CA Tomson Wads- worth 2005)47) Lynn Rosellini lsquoBritish Ambassador Days in Crisisrsquo Te New York imes 21 April 1982quoted in Alan K Henrikson lsquoldquoA Small Cozy own Global in Scoperdquo Washington DCrsquo Ekistics OIKI sum IKH Te Problems and Science o Human Settlements vol 50 no 299 MarchApril 1983

pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson

Te real problem o dealing with the United States is thereore not that o1047297nding an overall lsquocounterweightrsquo to it or balancing it within lsquoa multipolar

worldrsquo as French statesmen in particular have suggested48 It is rather

to engage it What the United Kingdom has regularly done at the purelydiplomatic level in attempting to manage the United States is instructive By1047297rmly siding with the US government over the Iraq problem which came toa head in early 2003 the British government orced a measure o consultationupon it mdash at least with British leaders including Prime Minister Blair andcertain British emissaries including Britainrsquos UN Representative at the timeSir Jeremy Greenstock Procedure at least i not undamental policy was

thereby in1047298uenced49 Somewhat similarly ollowing the al-Qaeda attacks inSeptember 2001 the North Atlantic Council gained a degree o in1047298uenceover policy-making in Washington by invoking Article 5 mdash the mutual-deence pledge o the 1949 Washington reaty It was a gesture or whichthe United States had to eel and to express gratitude Tese were howeverstill essentially interventions that were external to the American political

processIn order to gain urther in1047298uence it is becoming necessary or oreign

diplomats in Washington to engage in the political processes o the UnitedStates as Ambassador Henderson sensed a generation ago Outrightlobbying mdash that is internal action within American domestic politics mdash isneeded Active public relationsrsquo efforts may also be required even with thehelp o private PR 1047297rms50 oday it is clear to most diplomats that effective

representation in Washington requires the enlistment o not just lsquoalliesrsquo inthe US government itsel but also lsquoriendlyrsquo NGOs businesses labour unionsand other players in the game Te lsquonational governmentrsquo o the United Statesnow includes a good deal more than just the institutional lsquoUS governmentrsquoand it extends well beyond Washington itsel51 However having a high

48) Closing Speech by Jacques Chirac President o the French Republic to the French Ambassadors

Conerence Paris 27 August 2004 httpwwwelyseer49) Te British ormer European Commissioner or External Relations Chris Patten has observedlsquoWhere substance is important to America the most that Britain can usually do is to affect processrsquoSee Chris Patten Not Quite the Diplomat Home ruths About World Affairs (London Allen Lane2005) p 9650) RS Zaharna and Juan Cristobal Villalobos lsquoA Public Relations our o Embassy Row TeLatin Diplomatic Experiencersquo Public Relations 983121uarterly vol 45 winter 2000 pp 33-3751) See McCormick American Foreign Policy and Process ch 11 on lsquoPolitical Parties Bipartisanshipand Interest Groupsrsquo and ch 12 on lsquoTe Media Public Opinion and the Foreign Policy Processrsquo




pro1047297le in Washington mdash a big embassy lavish entertainment budget and soon mdash still makes an impression Embassies are in a sense the lsquopalacesrsquo o ourtime Tey symbolize the domestic presence o a sponsoring oreign country

within the United StatesTe country that has probably done most in recent years to advance this

lsquointernalizationrsquo o diplomatic conduct is Canada Under Prime Minister PaulMartin the Canadian government launched an lsquoenhanced representationinitiativersquo towards its neighbour to the south Not only Washington DCitsel but also other cities states and regions throughout the United States

were targeted by Ottawa or the insertion o Canadian in1047298uence Te

Canadian governmentrsquos reasoning was that by the time that an issue oserious interest to it mdash such as sofwood lumber mdash gets to Washington andinto the halls o Congress it may be lsquotoo latersquo to effect the desired changesAs Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna explained this was being donebecause lsquowe know that it is a whole lot easier to resolve issues at the retail levelbeore they become gridlocked by Washington politicsrsquo52 Preparation orearly intervention where it counts which may be ar outside the WashingtonBeltway was thus made

Moreover open lsquoadvocacyrsquo was pursued not just quiet diplomacy Aormally designated Washington Advocacy Secretariat under a Minister(Advocacy) was set up in Canadarsquos monumental new embassy building onPennsylvania Avenue close to the Capitol Not only Canadian diplomatsbut also other Canadian offi cials and ederal and provincial legislators as

well were brought into play As appropriate they were to be brought to Washington and deployed elsewhere in the United States wherever neededto make the most pertinent points in the most telling way Te Martingovernmentrsquos initiative was expressly intended to improve the lsquomanagementand coherencersquo o Canadarsquos relations with the United States and to offer lsquoamore sophisticated approachrsquo than the one that had gone beore mdash an implicitcriticism o the style o Prime Minister Martinrsquos predecessor Jean Chreacutetien

A eature o the new approach is that it would recognize lsquothe valuable role olegislators and representatives rom various levels o governmentrsquo53

52) Frank McKenna Canadian Ambassador to the United States lsquoNotes or an Address to theCouncil o State Governmentsrsquo Wilmington DE 4 December 2005 httpwwwdait-maecigccacan-amwashingtonambassador051204-enasp53) Larry Luxner lsquoCanadian Embassy Planning Legislative Secretariat in Washingtonrsquo TeWashington Diplomat August 2004 p A-18



24 Alan K Henrikson

Te situation that Canada aces in dealing with the United States arisesundamentally rom proximity So interdependent are the two NorthAmerican countries that Canada can be more affected by US domestic

policy than by US oreign policy towards Canada One o the 1047297rst peopleto understand this well was Allan Gotlieb when he served as Canadarsquosambassador in Washington I lsquoAmerican oreign policy is largely anaggregation o domestic economic thrustsrsquo explains Gotlieb the resultis that lsquoCanadian oreign policy is the obverse side o American domestic

policy affecting Canadarsquo Tis means in practice that Canadians cannot relyon their lsquoprincipal interlocutorsrsquo in the US ederal government (including

State Department counterparts) to speak up or them and protect theirinterests Canadians had to lsquorecognize realistically that a great deal o workhas to be done ourselvesrsquo54 In order to do so Canadian diplomats had to act like Americans Tis could affect the training o diplomats the selection o

personnel and the very image o the lsquoCanadian ambassadorrsquo in Washingtonand in American society

From the Canada-US example described above the lsquoAmericanizationrsquo odiplomacy might be thought to be a lsquoragmentaryrsquo vision limited only toneighbouring countries or to wider contiguous regions Tere is some meritin this view Interdependence between societies that are close together isgenerally higher than between countries that are urther apart55 Howevereven in cases o more geographically and culturally distant relationshipssuch as that between the United States and Japan strong in1047298uences that

penetrate beneath the ormal surace o decision-making can be observedCalled gaiatsu diplomacy in the Japanese system the heavy and even intrusive pressure applied by ormer US Vice-President Walter Mondale (known aslsquoMr Gaiatsursquo) when serving as US Ambassador to Japan was at times markedlyeffective56

54) Allan E Gotlieb lsquoCanada-US Relations Some Tought about Public Diplomacyrsquo address to

Te Empire Club o Canada 10 November 1983 Te Empire Club o Canada Speeches 1983-1984 (oronto Te Empire Club Foundation 1984) pp 101-115 See also Allan Gotlieb lsquoIrsquoll Be withYou in a Minute Mr Ambassadorrsquo Te Education o a Canadian Diplomat in Washington (orontoUniversity o oronto Press 1991)55) Alan K Henrikson lsquoDistance and Foreign Policy A Political Geography Approachrsquo International

Political Science ReviewRevue internationale de science politique vol 23 no 4 October 2002 pp 439-46856) Leonard J Schoppa lsquowo-Level Games and Bargaining Outcomes Why Gaiatsu Succeeds in

Japan in Some Cases but Not Othersrsquo International Organization vol 47 no 3 summer 1993 pp 353-386




As it evidently was in Japan such pressure can be unctionally useulor both parties mdash to make a country do lsquothe right thingrsquo in its trade andother relationships in its own interest as well as in the interest o others and

even o world order Pressure rom outside has helped the lsquoin1047297ghtersrsquo orinternationalism in Japan to liberalize and urther internationalize Japanrsquos1047297nancial and other markets It has probably also contributed to Japanrsquos globaldiplomatic engagement Even the Peoplersquos Republic o China is increasinglyopen to i not actively receptive towards such targeted pressure with respectto such issues as intellectual property rights and to an extent even humanrights While undamental restrictions remain there are now in China lsquoopen

debates on sensitive issuesrsquo o oreign policy such as non-prolieration andmissile deence As or Chinese diplomacy itsel many o its current seniorand mid-level practitioners hold postgraduate degrees rom American as

well as European universities o be sure as China analysts Evan Medeirosand M aylor Fravel point out lsquoeven as China becomes more engaged it isalso growing more adept at using its oreign policy and oreign relations toserve Chinese interestsrsquo57 Although such experience is likely to oster a moreinteractive lsquoAmerican-stylersquo diplomacy encounters with the United States donot automatically produce acceptance or even understanding o Americanoreign policy views

Between societies that share value systems and have similar legal systemsas basically do those o North America and o Europe gaiatsu diplomacyshould normally be expected to have more entry points A speci1047297c example

o this easier Atlantic interpenetration is the European Union 1047297ling an amicus curiae brie with the United States Supreme Court in opposition tothe Massachusetts Burma Law a state legislative measure regarding the statersquos

purchasing policy against 1047297rms doing business with military-controlledBurma (Myanmar)58 Te basic policy positions o Europe and the UnitedStates regarding Burma were not very different so Europersquos pressure wasgenerally not taken amiss In the environmental 1047297eld European pressure rom

NGOs as well as rom national governments and rom the EU itsel canhave a morally progressive effect mdash reinorcing and encouraging Americansupporters o the Kyoto Protocol Such interaction was very much in evidence

57) Medeiros and Fravel lsquoChinarsquos New Diplomacyrsquo pp 30 and 3458) Alan K Henrikson lsquoTe Role o Metropolitan Regions in Making a New Atlantic Communityrsquoin Eacuteric Philippart and Pascaline Winand (eds) Ever Closer Partnership Policy-Making in US-EU

Relations (Brussels PIE-Peter Lang 2001) pp 202-205



26 Alan K Henrikson

on various levels during the December 1995 Montreal climate conerence59 On a proound ethical matter such as the human death penalty still activelyon the books in some American states and allowed under US ederal law

as well many Americans positively welcome European diplomatic as well aslegal NGO and popular interventions60

Some o the lsquoAmericanizationrsquo model o diplomacy such as lobbying andadvocacy may be coming to Europe itsel Te controversy over subsidies toAirbus and Boeing part o the global business competition between the twoaircraf giants is but one example Diplomats and other agents especially therespective corporate representatives are active in Brussels with the EuropeanUnion in Geneva with the World rade Organization as well as at other keydecision-making centres including oulouse the site o Airbus-France Teserepresentations are mostly not ormal-organizational Tey are inormal-

political And they are increasingly vocal and public with the practicalaim o getting things done and doing them in the lsquoNorth Americanrsquo way bysel-help

Fragments of a Future Whole

Do these projective visions add up to a single i not ully integrated overall picture o the uture o diplomacy In the sense o a larger lsquouniversersquo or whole diverse body o things perhaps they do Tey do overlap somewhat Europeanization and Americanization or example can be seen as almost

mirror images o each other mdash the ormer being distinctively a top-down process and the latter being characteristically a bottom-up process Te threato disintermediation or avoidance o institutions and bypassing o middlemen

will mean that all diplomacy must be much more attentive to the peopleboth as consumers and as citizens rather than just as abstract lsquopublic opinionrsquo

With greater transparency in markets and politics people increasingly havechoices and they may wish to exercise them Democratization is also sensitive

59) Andrew C Revkin lsquoUS Under Fire Reuses to Shif in Climate alksrsquo Te New York imes10 December 200560) lsquoAfer ookie Te Wrong Decision in Caliornia but America may be Changing its Mindrsquoand lsquoookie v Arnold A ussle where One Man Died but Neither Wonrsquo Te Economist vol377 no 8457 17 December 2005 pp 12-13 and 28-29 and Vanessa Gera lsquoEuropeans Outragedat Schwarzeneggerrsquo Associated Press 13 December 2005




to othersrsquo points o view which can be the perspectives o sovereign states whether large or small Many are situated geographically in discrete and very ofen dire circumstances Te relevant perspectives can also be those

o different social groups in various regional and subregional settings Tethematization o oreign policy and o the diplomacy that accompanies itis also people-sensitive although in this case the relationship to the publicmay be more o hierarchical guidance mdash dictation rom above mdash than odemocratic impulse mdash direction rom below Ultimate popular control ooreign policy is surely right and wise but as diplomats know the 983158ox populi is not invariably the 983158ox Dei Intermediaries are needed between past and

present between prince and president between place and people betweenculture and ideology and also between power and purpose Tese exchangesand possible transitions need to be negotiated

Te answer to Immanuel Kantrsquos 1798 question lsquois the human raceconstantly progressingrsquo is o course still not evident61 Te actual story mdashthe speci1047297c narratives mdash o uture international history including diplomatichistory cannot be dictated in advance in Kantrsquos sense o lsquopredictive historyrsquoHowever some general lines or the uture development o diplomacy canreasonably be extended orwards in time on the basis o what is known aboutthe worldrsquos processes i not about mankind lsquoWhatever concept one mayhold rom a metaphysical point o view concerning the reedom o the willcertainly its appearances which are human actions like every other naturaleventrsquo as Kant wrote lsquoare determined by universal lawsrsquo62 Globalization may

not obey universal law But like lsquouniversal historyrsquo it is inclusive mdash and a process that may unite even as it divides Although its actual history may beragmentary the lsquouniverse o discoursersquo o diplomacy is cosmopolitan It isinspired by unity Te diplomatic historian should be inspired by no less

Alan K Henrikson is Director o the Fletcher Roundtable on a New World Order at the FletcherSchool o Law and Diplomacy ufs University where he teaches American diplomatic historycontemporary US-European relations political geography and diplomacy In No983158ember 2005 he was

Visiting Proessor at the European Commission where he taught a course on the American oreign policy-making process In spring 2003 he was FulbrightDiplomatic Academy Visiting Proessor at the Diplomatic Academy o Vienna He has also served as a visiting proessor at the US Department oState in Washington the National Institute o Deence Studies in okyo and the China Foreign AffairsUniversity in Beijing

61) Kant lsquoAn Old 983121uestion Raised Againrsquo62) Immanuel Kant lsquoIdea or a Universal History rom a Cosmopolitan Point o Viewrsquo [1784] in



4 Alan K Henrikson

Introduction

What ollows will attempt with due modesty beore the Unknowable to

depict a number o possible utures o diplomacy mdash lsquoragments o uturehistoryrsquo as these plausible visions might be called A true lsquopredictive historyrsquoas the philosopher Immanuel Kant conceived it would be lsquoa divinatoryhistorical narrative o things imminent in uture timersquo mdash that is an actualstoryline o impending events2 In projecting history orward I shall nottry to oresee it in Kantrsquos sense I shall nonetheless endeavour to thinkbeyond the immediate horizon and to envision the situation and character

o diplomacy as it might appear in perhaps twenty to 50 years rom nowDiplomacy evolves and as Harold Nicolson long ago recognized it canchange quickly3

Such conscious uture-projection is more and more necessary because with history having accelerated as it has done national governments inter-national organizations and those who represent them are called to make veryrapid and precise decisions Te exigencies o political decision-making in the

world today put a premium on anticipation mdash on insight and oresight mdashas well as on re1047298ective hindsight Tese qualities are ortunately ones or which diplomats are known

Te lsquolessonsrsquo o experience mdash o past history mdash are a necessary guideo course Nineteenth-century history is studied today because manynineteenth-century problems are with us Tese include the phenomenon oterrorism resulting rom radical ideologies as well as rom nationalist eelings

against both imperial structures and modernizing orces4 In some respectsthe nineteenth century is as relevant to our situation today as is the twentiethcentury with its large-scale geostrategies as these were carried out by major

powers in two world wars and a worldwide Cold War Te nineteenth century

2) Immanuel Kant lsquoAn Old 983121uestion Raised Again Is the Human Race Constantly Progressing rsquo

[1798] in Lewis White Beck (ed) Kant On History (Upper Saddle River NJ Library o LiberalArts Prentice Hall 2001) p 1373) Harold Nicolson Te Evolution o Diplomacy Being the Chichele Lectures delivered at theUniversity o Oxord in No983158ember 1953 (New York Collier Books 1962) As Nicolson notes thedirection o change in diplomatic method is not always orward-tending lsquoTe word ldquoevolutionrdquois not intended to suggest a continuous progression rom the rudimentary to the effi cient onthe contrary I hope to show that international intercourse has always been subject to strangeretrogressionsrsquo (p 10)4) Walter Laqueur A History o errorism (New Brunswick NJ ransaction 2001)














6 Alan K Henrikson





















Disintermediation







8 Alan K Henrikson

























10 Alan K Henrikson




Europeanization


















12 Alan K Henrikson




















June 2004 pp 14-15



14 Alan K Henrikson












Democratization















16 Alan K Henrikson






















18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson



































6 Alan K Henrikson





















Disintermediation







8 Alan K Henrikson

























10 Alan K Henrikson




Europeanization


















12 Alan K Henrikson




















June 2004 pp 14-15



14 Alan K Henrikson












Democratization















16 Alan K Henrikson






















18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson
























6 Alan K Henrikson





















Disintermediation







8 Alan K Henrikson

























10 Alan K Henrikson




Europeanization


















12 Alan K Henrikson




















June 2004 pp 14-15



14 Alan K Henrikson












Democratization















16 Alan K Henrikson






















18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson
































Disintermediation







8 Alan K Henrikson

























10 Alan K Henrikson




Europeanization


















12 Alan K Henrikson




















June 2004 pp 14-15



14 Alan K Henrikson












Democratization















16 Alan K Henrikson






















18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson
























8 Alan K Henrikson

























10 Alan K Henrikson




Europeanization


















12 Alan K Henrikson




















June 2004 pp 14-15



14 Alan K Henrikson












Democratization















16 Alan K Henrikson






















18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson



































10 Alan K Henrikson




Europeanization


















12 Alan K Henrikson




















June 2004 pp 14-15



14 Alan K Henrikson












Democratization















16 Alan K Henrikson






















18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson
























10 Alan K Henrikson




Europeanization


















12 Alan K Henrikson




















June 2004 pp 14-15



14 Alan K Henrikson












Democratization















16 Alan K Henrikson






















18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson




































12 Alan K Henrikson




















June 2004 pp 14-15



14 Alan K Henrikson












Democratization















16 Alan K Henrikson






















18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson
























12 Alan K Henrikson




















June 2004 pp 14-15



14 Alan K Henrikson












Democratization















16 Alan K Henrikson






















18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson

































June 2004 pp 14-15



14 Alan K Henrikson












Democratization















16 Alan K Henrikson






















18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson
























14 Alan K Henrikson












Democratization















16 Alan K Henrikson






















18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson

























Democratization















16 Alan K Henrikson






















18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson
























16 Alan K Henrikson






















18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson




































18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson
























18 Alan K Henrikson


Tematization



point38




















20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson




































20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson
























20 Alan K Henrikson






Americanization


















pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson



































pp 123-124



22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson
























22 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson




































24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson
























24 Alan K Henrikson



























26 Alan K Henrikson





































26 Alan K Henrikson
























26 Alan K Henrikson

































Documents

HENRIKSON Alan Diplomacys Possible Futures