»DIPLOMACY AND SECURITY AFTER THE END OF THE COLD WAR: THE CHANGE OF THE PARADIGM« Special Guest Lecture at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna – An Outline October 16, 2006 at 19.00 – By Milan Jazbec1 A. From 1648 to 1989 A.1 The Peace of Westphalia The peace of Westphalia can be considered as the birth of the nation state as we have known it over the last few centuries. The Treaty confirmed that sovereignty should be ascribed not just to the sovereign but also to the particularity of his territorial holdings. Key elements of the agreements ratified in Westphalia survived hundreds of years of turbulent history, and codified some of the basic elements of the modern system:

a) Non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states, b) The concept of diplomatic immunity, c) The recognition that only states (i.e. not the Church) were able to exercise political

control. With this treaty, the Thirty Years’ War was formally ended and a state system was born, which was in use for centuries afterwards, some of its elements being recognizable even today, and an equilibrium of power among the then European powers was established. Modern Europe was born with the Peace of Westphalia. The Peace of Westphalia thus occupies a key place in the history of international relations: a) The long-lasting international and also internal war, which had been ravaging Europe, was

ended and it was therefore possible for the leading European powers to switch from mutual attrition to overseas expansion. This coincided with the development of national markets and the modern nation state, as well as with the appearance of world markets and the global international community.

b) The numerous peace treaties, which were signed by the European states, then pointed to the growing complexity of international relations. This actually represented the first recognition of the existence of an international community by these states.

c) The peace treaties determined and established territorial borders within the European, and in particular the Western European, state system. A certain mode of political behavior originated in this fact – equilibrium of power was established among the European states, particularly the most important ones: France, England, Spain, the Netherlands and Austria, and later Prussia and Russia.

This was also the time of the final birth of the nation state: The birth of the nation state is closely related to an emerging pattern of relations between states, an international system, and to the growth of commercial relations across the world – a global system. The nation state in its traditional sense from then on marks the development of international relations with one key characteristic – with sovereignty based on territory, with its internal exclusive power over the population within its territory, including the criterion of having the legitimate monopoly of the use of force.

1 Dr Milan Jazbec, Minister Plenipotentiary, Head of Policy Planning and Research Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia. Former State Secretary for Defense Policy and International Relations at the Slovene Ministry of Defense. Assistant Professor for sociology of diplomacy. Author of seven books and numerous articles on diplomacy, security and defense. The views presented at the lecture are solely of his own and do not represent those of his employer.

2

A.2 The Contemporary International Community Is marked by the following changes which have taken place over the last hundred years and which have become more pronounced in the last decade: a) The contemporary international community is a global one - geographical borders no

longer play an important role; b) Contemporary international phenomena are global phenomena, linking various

dimensions - political, military, economic and others – and within them a very important role is played by the linking and mutual dependence of the internal and the external;

c) Contemporary international relations are characterized by their heterogeneity, i.e. in the existence of states with different socio-economic systems and at varying levels of social development, which can on the one hand be seen in the discrepancies between the developed and undeveloped parts of the world, and on the other hand in the co-existence of varying degrees of intensity of international activity and in the choice of instruments (which correspond to the stage of economic development of individual subjects, particularly countries) and ways in which they make their appearance in the increasingly complex structures of the international community;

d) The contemporary international community is, for the first time in the history of international relations and the human race generally, faced with the question of survival, which is a consequence of the development of weapons technology as well as the neglect of the planet’s ecology, both of which serve as a distinct warning of the growing importance of the structural interdependence of the contemporary world, at the same time indicating the increased difficulty involved in working on the international stage.

A.3 The Post-modern World The outlines and elements have been experiencing for some time, and which started to take on an unmistakable shape after the fall of the Iron Curtain, has the following characteristics: a) The breakdown of the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs; b) Mutual interference in (traditional) domestic affairs and mutual surveillance; c) The rejection of force for resolving disputes and the consequent codification of rules of

behavior. These rules are self-enforced. No-one compels states to obey CFE limits. They keep to them because of their individual interest in maintaining the collective system. In the same way the judgments of the European Court of Justice are implemented voluntarily, even when they are disliked, because all EU states have an interest in maintaining the rule of law;

d) The growing irrelevance of borders: this has come about both through the changing role of the states but also through missiles, motor cars and satellites. Changes of borders are both necessary and less important;

e) Security is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability.

B. Topics B.1 Paradigm

- A typical example or pattern (15th century) - A theoretical framework (1960s) - The prevailing view of things

3

- An example that serves as a pattern or model for something, especially one that forms the basis of a methodology or theory

- In the philosophy of science, a generally accepted model of how ideas relate to one another, forming a conceptual framework within which a scientific research is carried out

B.2 Nation State - categories and periods Three categories (and periods) of a nation state: pre-modern, modern and post-modern. Pre-modern state is characterized by chaos, where the state as an institution has no monopoly over the use of force: the state itself is a fragile structure. People live off natural resources, which, for technologically developed states, ceased to be a source of power and wealth a long time ago (with the exception of crude oil). These states are nowadays the poorest ones, counting on various forms of aid from the rich countries, as they have no chance in the global race. (Somalia, Afghanistan, Liberia, Cambodia, Sierra Leone) The first period, ending with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648: we can talk about the pre-modern, pre-Westphalian or pre-nation state. Characteristic of this time is the formation of the basic shape of the international community and international relations, and with it of diplomacy and international law. The state as an institution did not have the features of the nation state: its function, apart from the use of force, did not as a rule extend beyond the administrative frame. Likewise, we can still not talk about a state which existed or was perceived in the minds of its population as a proper notion and institution. Borders between territories were unclear and unstable and therefore we can, in terms of international relations, talk about the war of all against all as a normal state of affairs. Modern states are typical nation states: Here the classical state system remains intact. They therefore have a strong belief in the sovereignty of the state and in non-interference. An important characteristic of the modern state is the recognition of state sovereignty and the consequent separation of domestic and foreign affairs, with a prohibition on external interference in the former. They are willing to use force to defend their interests; expansionist tendencies, great confidence and nationalism are likely to be present. Globalization can bring these states a certain development, but on the basis of the use of second-rate technologies. (India, China, Brazil; Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Near East). The second period is characterized by the appearance and flourishing of the classical nation state (modern or Westphalian) based on a defined territory, a stable population and a sovereign, exclusive authority, which allowed no interference in the sphere of its domestic jurisdiction. This period lasted from the Peace of Westphalia, i.e. the end of the Thirty Years’ War, to roughly the second half of the 20th century, when the bi-polar nature of the world becomes eroded, probably ending with the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. Sovereignty has been a key idea in the evolution of the modern world, although – like both the nation and the state – it takes its meaning from societies that have long since gone, and in particular from the problem of order in seventeenth century Europe. The nation state was at its apogee during the 18th and the 19th centuries, whilst the main lines of force and elements of the international community, which were the foundations of the later appearance of the modern, global international community of the 20th century, appeared mainly during the latter. The basic model of international relations in the period of the Westphalian state is the balance of power, which was constantly changing and the main holders of which were the Western European states, i.e. initially Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, England and France and, later on,

4

increasingly also Austria, Prussia (later Germany), Russia (or the Soviet Union for most of the 20th century) and above all the USA. Post-modern state: traditional sovereignty is no longer central to it. It places more emphasis on the system of mutual co-operation, even domestically. The possibility of inspection and even interference in the internal affairs of individual countries strengthens their mutual trust and interdependence. The European Union, for example, is a highly developed system for mutual interference in each other’s domestic affairs, right down to beer and sausages. In this group we find most of the European states, particularly EU members. The setting-up of the EU is a very important milestone in the development of the state as an institution. Post-modern Europe begins with two treaties. The first of these, the Treaty of Rome is a conscious and successful attempt to go beyond the nation state. The second foundation of the post-modern era is the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE). The legitimate monopoly on force, which is the essence of statehood, is thus subject to international – but self-imposed constraints. It is thus an extraordinary revolution, a change that points to a brand new image of the nation state, which agrees to consultation and common dealing with matters belonging to the domain of traditional state attributes. The third period has been recognizable for at least a decade now. In this period, the nation state changes its traditional image. Its conventional attributes, which developed in the previous period, start changing noticeably because of the influence of the international processes of integration and disintegration. This is why we can talk about the state as the post-modern state, post-Westphalian or post-nation state. The stress is on a pronounced and voluntary co-operation with other states, on a great interest in taking part in the processes of integration and on the openness of its domestic jurisdiction, all with a marked acceptance of jointly agreed rules of behaviour. As already shown, we can observe the co-existence of all three types of state in the modern global international community. It is probably this very simultaneity that makes it easier for us to determine the characteristics of all three individual types, their beginnings and evolution. B.3 Diplomacy Phases and Characteristics of the Development of Diplomacy Early Classical Modern Postmodern 1. Till 1648 1648 - 1920 1920 - 1989 1989 and on 2. Ancient Greek

and Medieval Italian city states

Nation state Nation state and international organizations

Nation state and integration processes

3. Individuals from emperor’s closest

vicinity

Permanent diplomatic

organization and diplomats

Permanent diplomatic

organization and diplomats (MFA)

Permanent diplomatic

organization and diplomats (MFA)

4. Ad hoc missions Permanent diplomatic missions

Permanent diplomatic missions

Permanent diplomatic

missions and proliferation of

diplomatic representatives

5

5. Instructions at the beginning of the

mission and reporting after its

closure

Permanent two-way

communication between the MFA and the mission (instructions and

reports)

Permanent two-way communication

between the MFA and the mission (instructions and

reports)

Permanent two-way

communication between the MFA and the mission (instructions and

reports) 6. Origins of

bilateral and multilateral diplomacy

Bilateral diplomacy Bilateral and multilateral diplomacy

Bilateral and multilateral diplomacy

7. Secret diplomacy Secret diplomacy Public diplomacy Public diplomacy 8. Temporary and

indirect communication

between emperors

Congresses of emperors

(direct communication)

The League of Nations and the UN

The UN, G8, the EU, NATO, various other

summit meetings Post-modern diplomacy – some characteristics:

a) Permanent diplomatic organization and diplomatic body b) Additional forms of international diplomatic communication and representation. New

topics. c) Proliferation of special diplomacies (military/defense, commercial, public,

parliamentary, cultural etc.). d) Proliferation of various forms of diplomatic representatives (personnel, special, ad hoc

etc), with an increasingly high level (status) of representatives. e) The ever-changing relations between multilateral and bilateral diplomacy. f) Demonopolisation of foreign ministries (recruitment of various experts into diplomacy

for targeted tasks for limited period of time). g) Revival of importance of heads of states and governments (they practically decide

about everything) h) Constant need for education of diplomats with non-diplomatic topics. Senior

diplomats as managers. Coordination of processes. i) Preventive diplomacy. Protection of individuals.

B.4 Security Contemporary security:

- Security is indispensable and complex. - Complementarity of key players. (states, international organizations, non-state actors,

networks) - The equation: security + development + human rights. (social origins of violence) - Who are terrorists, where do they come from and how to deal with them? - Individual and security. - Energy, environment, survival = security

Six clusters of threats (must be concerned now and in the decades ahead - UNHPReport):

- Economic and social threats, including poverty, infectious disease and environmental degradation,

- Inter-State conflict

6

- Internal conflict, including civil war, genocide and other large- scale atrocities - Nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons - Terrorism - Transnational organized crime

Today’s threats: - No national boundaries. - Connected. Combined. Unpredictable. Simplified and efficient means of threat. - Must be addressed at the global, regional and national levels with national and

international interagency approach. What is security? Absolute security is an illusion. It is a myth as well as absolute defense. Security – hard, soft, social, environmental, health, educational, employment, intellectual, emotional etc. Hard power – providing security through military means. Soft power – providing security through values. Terrorism is a global matrix. Uncertainty has become permanent. Forms of providing security through centuries. Balance of power. (Till the end of WW1) Collective security. (LN, UN) Collective defense. (NATO) C. Challenges The question of action and reaction between rigid structures and loose networks. C.1 Factors of Change: Communication technology and ability to move and commute. The century of migration – airline industry. Internet = concentration of media = interconnectedness and alienation of individual. Increased vulnerability of postmodern societies because of their complexity. Demanding maintenance and management of systems. Dependance from energy resources. Proliferation of availability of all weapons and devices.

Aggressive activities of non-state actors and individuals (terrorism) are unpredictable and combined. Horizontal and vertical inter-agency approach in countering them is a precondition. C.2 Structures and capability to react Flexibility of horizontal activities of unformal structures (neworkings). Unflexibility of vertical activities of formal structures. (bureaucracies) The capability of formal structures to react to security threats caused by unformal structures. Hierarchy = domination // horizontal networks = efficiency + interdependency

7

There is a fundamental asymmetry between today’s global reality and the existing mechanisms of global governance. = Restructuring cold war institutions to reflect the post cold war distribution of power. C.3 Paradigm:

- Integration - Disintegration = GLOBALISATION - Availability of information - = War and violence – fragmentarization + privatization - An individual

Postmodern matrix: National and modern state, wars for territories. The postmodern one: to defend values. The UN – how to adapt? The EU – an overall structural adaptation of national societies. NATO – a structural adaptation of national security & defense system & armed forces. = Denationalization of societies & armies = harmonization & international cooperation = Cooperation + consensus = new + different set of values D. Way Ahead 1989 is the turning point in the modern history that marked global, fundamental and structural change. It also portraits the increased vulnerability of postmodern societies because of their complexity. The new paradigm: the dynamic movement full of new, complicated and interdependent contradictions. Security has become the key development issue. The main change is the one in the security environment, which influences primarily the organization and functioning of social structures. This corresponds also to the wider comprehension of the modern paradigm (art, literature, science, philosophy etc.), which started with the period of renaissance and lasted throughout most of the twentieth century. (Compare: from Cervantes /Don Quixote – 1605/16/ to Eco /The Name of the Rose – 1980/83/). The expiring modern paradigm encompassed several previous centuries, when European powers controlled global relations. Globalization as the enabling framework for the new paradigm: integration and disintegration. The all-encompassing availability of information. A century of unprecedented commuting. Unlimited freedom of choice. An overall proliferation of threats (unpredictable, combined, complex, interconnected). E. References A more secure world: Our shared responsibility. Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. New York: United Nations. 2004. Cooper, Robert. 1996. The Post-Modern State and the World Order. London: Demos. Friedman, Thomas. 2005. The World is Flat: A Brief History of Twenty-first Century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Jazbec, Milan. 2005. The Fall of the Berlin Wall and the Change of the Paradigm. IFIMES Yearbook 2004. Ljubljana. Pp. 147-159. www.ifimes.org Kennedy, Paul. 1989. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. London: Fontana Press.

8

Mautner-Markhof, Frances. 2004. Order and Chaos in the 21st Century. Wien: Schriftenreihe der Landesverteidigungsakademie. Reiter, Erich. 2003. Perspektiven der globalen strategischen Entwicklung: Das Ende der Ordnung von Jalta. Hamburg, Berlin, Bonn: Mittler Verlag.