Kinds and Functions of Diplomacy

1. AssociateProfessorDr.MussawarHussain Bukhari
Department of Political Science
The Islamia University of Bahawalpur
DIPLOMACY
M. Ali Raza Naqvi (21)
M.A Political Science (2014-2016)

2. INTRODUCTION:
In this assignment I will be focusing on What Is Diplomacy with the help of definitions.
Secondly about Diplomacy and its types with special reference. In this assignment I have
tried to highlight the Basic features and Functions of Diplomacy and a short brief on its
Nature and Content.
Diplomacy plays an important role in Foreign policy because through Diplomacy the States
try to achieve its interest and apply its policies to gain from it and Diplomacy also plays a
vital role in conflict negotiations. Diplomacy has always been a keyword in International
Politics and till date it has been playing a significant role in International Relations.
And after that I will be moving towards the Attributes of Diplomats & some of the Ground
Rules of the Diplomats Relationships.
At last I end it with a Conclusion on importance of Diplomacy in today's world.

3. WHAT IS DIPLOMACY
In a broad sense diplomacy is the entire process through which states conduct their foreign
relations. It is the means for allies to cooperate and for adversaries to resolve conflicts
without force. States communicate, bargain, influence one another, and adjust their
differences through diplomacy; it is interesting to note that serious confrontations between
the great powers since 1815 have ended in force only about 10% of the time. The routine
business of international affairs is conducted through the peaceful instrument of diplomacy.
(O’Gallagham, 1981, p. 251)
In a more narrow sense diplomacy is the implementation of foreign policy, as distance from
the process of policy formation. Diplomats may influences policy, but their main task is to
negotiate with the representatives of other countries. Ambassadors, ministers, and envoys
are official spokes persons for their country abroad and the instruments through with states
maintain regular direct contact. Although messages are rapidly transmitted from one state
to another today, personal, face-to-face encounters can put a stamp of privacy and
authenticity in diplomatic exchanges. Formal diplomacy is a regularized system of official
communication between states: the exchange to ambassadors, the maintenance of
embassies in foreign capitals, the dispatch of messages through officially accredited
emissaries, participation in conference and other direct negotiations. (O’Gallagham, 1981,
p. 251)
The importance of diplomacy arise front the fact that most foreign policies are stated very
generally, without spelling out measures for implementation. A good diplomat must adapt
such policy mandates to the circumstances of the moment. Moreover, there are numerous
occasions when the demands of a particular situation might justify an exception to policy
and for this a state often relies on the wisdom of its diplomatic officers in the field. Few
governments pursue a perfectly consistent policy that is articulated with a single voice. It
falls to the diplomats to reconcile the competing voices and to give coherence, emphasis,
and interpretation to their state’s foreign policy.(O’Gallagham, 1981, p. 252)

4. Diplomacy has two faces. It is the vehicle through which a sate asserts itself and represents
its concerns to the world; it is also one of the principal means for conciliating competing
national interests. In other words, diplomacy aims to further a state’s particular goals whilst
preserving international order. It is the tool that states use to get their way without arousing
the animosity of other states. Diplomats must constantly balance the needs to protect their
stats interests and to avoid conflict with other states.
There are three main functions of diplomacy intelligence gathering, image management,
and policy implementation an embassy there information on the thinking of the local
political leadership, the state of the local economy, the nature of the political opposition all
of it critical for predicting internal problems and anticipating changes in foreign policy.
Diplomatic representatives are the eyes and ears of their government, there cables and
reports form part of the raw material from which foreign policy. Diplomacy also aims at
creating a favorable image of the state. Modern communication makes it possible to shape
perceptions and attitudes around the globe. States today have vast public relations
apparatuses whose purpose are to place their actions and polices in a favorable light.
Foreign embassies supply local news media with official interpretations and try to avoid
negative publicity or explain it away. Finally diplomats administer the overseas
programmes of the state. They negotiate basing rights, facilitate foreign investment and
trade, and supervise the distribution of economic aid, and provide information and
technical assistance. (O’Gallagham, 1981, p. 252)
Some scholars argue that over time, there has been a marked decline in the importance of
formula ambassadors. In the days when travel and communications were primitive,
ambassadors had a great deal of authority and discretion in the implementation of foreign
policy. They might be stationed abroad for many years without receiving new instructions
or returning home. Today overseas envoys receive large numbers of cables and instructions
on a daily basis. Heads of state communicate directly with one another by telephone. Top
policymakers often negotiate directly with each other (similar diplomacy) or they send
special envoys (shuttle diplomacy). Henry Kissinger. Secretary of State under Presidents

5. Nixon and hard, raised shuttle diplomacy to a high art in the 1970s. As a result, time
ambassador has become less important in the realm of high politics particularly in areas of
military security than in the past.
On the oilier hand, the growth of interdependence among states, amid time expulsion of
the old Eurocentric state system into a global international society, has brought in its wake
the emergency of an increasingly multilateral style of diplomacy Multilateral management
is essential for many issues that involves cooperative arrangement among governments is
the case in such areas as nuclear proliferation, arms control, trade regulation, and the
suppression of terrorism. The United Nations and other inter-governmental organizations
convene periodic conferences to deal with problems of food, population growth, the
environment, and other issues of global concern. Since most of the less developed counties
make the greater part of their diplomatic contacts at the United Nations, many issues of
modern diplomacy are addressed in this multilateral forum. (O’Gallagham, 1981, p. 253)
Definition of Diplomacy:
Diplomacy is the management of international relations by means of negotiation; the
method by which these relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys;
the business or art of the diplomat. It stands in contrast to war as the means by which sates
conduct relationships with each other and with international institutions. Whatever
objectives a state pursues, diplomacy is sure to be employed as a method of promoting their
achievement. The sending and receiving of diplomats is the common practice. (DYKE,
1972, p. 272)
Functions of Diplomacy:
Morgenthau provides four functions of diplomacy. These functions imply one must:
1. Determine the objectives of diplomacy in light of power actually and potentially
available for the pursuit of these objectives;
2. The objectives of other nations and the power actually and potentially available for
the pursuit of those objectives;

6. 3. Determine to what extent these different objectives are compatible with each other;
and
4. Employ the means suited to the pursuit of its objectives.
To him a diplomat fulfills three basic functions for his government: symphonic
legal and political.
Palmer and Perkins classify the functions of diplomats as:
1. Representation
2. Negotiation
3. Reporting
4. Protection of national interests and nationals abroad.
To this category another one, can he added that is the maintenance of international peace
and promotion of international cooperation.
Poullada points out that diplomacy performs tic substantive functions.
1. Conflict management
2. Problem solving
3. Cross-culture interaci0n on a wide range of issues
4. Negotiation and bargaining
5. Programme management of the foreign policy decisions of one country to another.
For the performance of these substantive functions, procedurally’ communicating the
views of one’s government and exchanging information, is involved. This is best done by
the diplomats using certain procedural arts and crafts such as the refinements of protocol,
diplomatic drafting, press relations and even gastronomy.
White has pointed out five major functions of diplomacy:
1. Information gathering
2. Policy advice
3. Representation
4. Negotiation
5. Consular services

7. Some basic functions of diplomacy are discussed below:
1. Representation:
The diplomat is the symbolic, legal and political representative of his Country and
government. His symbolic functions involve attending ceremony and social
occasions address foreign groups and be present in all events with which his country
has a Connection. In their symbolic capacity, the diplomats have to deal with the
totally of relations in all its facets between their government and their host country.
Morgethau points out, “As the foreign office is the nerve center of foreign policy,
so are the diplomatic representatives its outlying fibers maintaining the two-way
traffic between the center and the aside world”.
2. Negotiation:
This is by far the most important function of diplomacy. This involves a Varity of
activities ranging from simple consultation, exchange of views to full-fledged
negotiation of specific issues. Negotiation can he conducted through persuasion,
compromise, inducement and even pressure. It is said that the ability to persuade
other governments is central to the art of diplomacy. If persuasion fails, then other
measures are available, for example, imposing time limits on the negotiation,
seeking to isolate the other state diplomatic or, in extreme situations, the threat of
breaking off diplomatic relations. Overall, the negotiation has to take into account
the mentalities, values system, and public opinion of both domestic and foreign
political systems.
3. Obtaining information:
This is the most delicate task of the diplomat as in formation and data are the raw
materials of foreign policy. Data Concerning military potential, personalities and
economic trends or problems must be supplied to the policy makers in his Country
so that they can decide their course of action. The diplomat’s chief function is
providing information by using his skills and familiarity with the foreign society in
order to interpret the data and make reliable assessments and forecasts of responses
of the receiving government towards the policies of his own government.

8. 4. Reporting:
The data and information collected from the receiving country must be reported to
the diplomat’s own government. These reports cover every conceivable subject,
which may be important for his country. As a publication of the United States
Department of State states the American Foreign Service expects its diplomats to
observe, analyze and report on political, social and economic conditions and trends
of significance in the country in which they are assignees.
5. Protection of National Interest:
Although a diplomat is expected to be grata to the government of the state, i.e., he
must get along with the government of the country he is accredited to, yet protecting
and furthering the national interest of his country is his prime duty. This is the
bedrock of the practice of the diplomacy.
6. Protection of Nationals Abroad:
This involves protecting the lives and promotion of interests of nationals residing
or travelling abroad. This is a routine task but during catastrophes or civil disorders,
the role of diplomats becomes crucial especially when the local government fails
or is not provide the, security of the lives and property of the foreign nationals.
Though diplomacy has evolved from its traditional form to its modern form and
considerable changes have taken place in foreign relations, the essential functions
of diplomacy and those of the diplomats have remained unchanged.
As Morgenthau wrote in The Art of Diplomatic Negotiation
“that a nation which exists among other nations can deal with the outside world in
one of three ways: it can deny the importance of the links between itself and other
countries which will lead to a policy of isolation and nonparticipation; it can deny
the equality of other nations and try to Impose its will on the others by coercion -
which will lead to a policy of hegemony and imperialism: or it can attempt to pursue
interests in contact with other countries on the assumption that there are
possibilities of defining, redefining, adjusting and accommodating varying interests

9. of countries to one another and the third course of action is the function which, in
Morgenthau’s judgment, diplomacy should serve. (Ghosh, 2013, pp. 105-108)
Kinds of Diplomacy:
Diplomacy has acquired new dimensions while retaining and redefining the old or
traditional forms. Though military and economic dimensions have been eternal
features of diplomacy, new factors have contributed more varieties or kinds old
diplomacy. The struggle for economic and military dominance remains a priority
on the wish list of all developed states. The developing states, more or less
dependent on the developed ones, seek to increase their strength in these fields.
Likewise, many developments have exerted influences of varying degrees on the
growth of new branches of diplomacy. Here, we discuss some of them in brief.
(Rumki, 2012, p. 76)
Political Diplomacy:
Diplomacy is often identified with the political aspect of foreign relations. The
political dimension of diplomacy is associated with state policies towards other
states on political issues. The struggle for political power among states is the main
factor behind the significance of political diplomacy. Every nation wishes to be
stronger politically. The element of political power remains the cornerstone of
diplomacy. Therefore, statesmen, political leaders, diplomats, citizens and non-
governmental organizations (NCOs) insist on the attainment of political power by
their respective state. The political agenda of a state reflects its various interests—
military, economic and so on. Sometimes, other interests are well wrapped in a
political form by the diplomats, but implemented through the agencies of the states.
Political diplomacy sets the global actors in motion to focus on problem through
dialogue and negotiation. It encourages the states to adopt techniques of resolving
disputes through nonviolence. Thus, political diplomacy contributes towards the
stability of peace in the world; it helps promote states’ and peoples’ faith in
dialogue and not conflict or war. The positive elements of political diplomacy
characterize it as popular mode international relations. (Rumki, 2012, pp. 76-77)

10. Military Diplomacy
There is a common tendency to regard military diplomacy as an ingredient of
political diplomacy. Though both are correlated, they are distinct from each other.
The very specialized field of military information may convert any nation into a
weak or strong state. For instance, the supremacy of the US may be attributed to
its specialization in sophisticated armaments and technology used for establishing
military supremacy over the rest of the world. The Cold War era witnessed an
unending struggle for military’ supremacy between the two blocs—the Capitalist
bloc led by the United States and the Communist bloc led by the Soviet Union. As
soon as the Soviet Union disintegrated into small states, the triumph of US military
diplomacy was generally accepted.
Diplomats of militarily advanced nations have an edge over their counterparts of
less developed and developing nations. The show of military power on occasions
of national days also reflects the success story of military diplomacy. (Rumki, 2012,
p. 77)
Types of Cultural Diplomacy:
The cultural dimension of diplomacy has gradually evolved as an important area of
activity and interest for all concerned the stats, diplomats, people, institutions and
organizations. In fact, culture has always been a core subject of interaction between
the officials and people of two states. With the expansion of information technology
and its use in state affairs, revolutionary changes have occurred and continue to
influence the tasks of diplomacy. In the post-globalized world today, all sorts of
actions in the name of ‘culture’ have stabilized themselves as an international trend
favored and supported by the people and their governments. Cultural agreements
among states have taken under their umbrella a large number of activities like the
exchange of academicians, scientists, students, arts, sportspersons, journalists, child
representatives, and so on.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
is one of the best trendsetters of cultural exchanges through states and their
diplomatic activities and thus formed and evolved the - theory and practice of

11. cultural diplomacy. The Charter of UNESCO emphasizes its goal to contribute
towards international peace, security and development through state-level
collaboration in the fields of education, science and culture and ‘give fresh impulse
to popular education and the spread of culture’. “To maintain, increase and diffuse,
knowledge’ among the nations of the world”. (Rumki, 2012, pp. 79-80)
NATURE AND CONTENT OF DIPLOMACY:
Scholars of different shades of opinions have emphasized the ario1iS features of
diplomacy. Diplomacy remains a highly complex phenomenon in the field of
international relations. Since every nation seeks to preserve and promote its
existence, the techniques to achieve this target always stand complicated states fl
struggle very hard to establish and assert their identity for which they adopt many
instruments which in turn are often hidden and seldom clear. The objective of states
for their respective with, development, prosperity and power keeps them under
continuous pressure. Therefore, diplomacy is an important instrument evolves
according to various currents of change in 1ljtjcs economy, armaments and many
other factors.
The Evolutionary nature of diplomacy has changed significantly due to
revolutionary growth in the field of mass communication. Its extreme nature of
adaptability has characterized it with the 1’st and ever—growing skills of political
communication and negotiation. The massive developments n the technology of
communications have refined modern diplomacy to hitherto thinkable limits. The
print media, public opinion, the change of vies by leaders and people all have
emerged as factors in the revolution of diplomacy. Now the diplomacy is neither
exclusively ‘state’ policy, nor is it determined only by the Decision Makers in the
official circle government departments. The channel communication between the
government and governed, among the governments, the peoples of the world have
enlarged so much so as to make diplomacy more and more composite and complex
in nature. Traditional diplomacy has gradually converted to new forms, especially
after the Second World War. (Rumki, 2012, pp. 75-76)

12. FEATURES OF NEW DIPLOMACY:
The golden age of diplomacy, together with the balance of power system—which
was soon followed by the drastic changes in international politics since 1918—
came to be replaced by the So-called popular or new diplomacy. At the heart of this
transition lies the suspicion of the public about the whole system of balance of
power, which they identified as the main cause of the First World War. They were
also suspicious about the role of diplomacy with its tradition of secrecy. American
president, Woodrow Wilson, in his ‘14-point’ agenda expressed exactly this new
view of diplomacy when he said: Open Covenants of peace, openly arrived at.
Moreover, public opinion has now come to play an important role which, to a large
extent, has intruded in the conduct of foreign policy. Diplomacy has ceased to be
dynastic or- a matter involving a handful of people. It has assumed a democratic
character where the statesmen have to take the public into confidence.
Further, the structure of international society has also undergone several changes.
Europe is no longer the center of international affairs. Post—Second World War,
following massive decolonization of Asian and African countries, the number of
independent countries has increased. Therefore, the influence of non-European
powers both Asian and African has considerably increased: Indeed, today, they
have a greater say in international affairs.
Harold Nicholson (1963) has criticized open diplomacy as he says that negotiations
require ‘concessions and counter concessions’ and once the news of concessions is
divulged, the public might acquire a negative attitude and force the diplomats to
abandon e negotiations Nicholson has also raised serious shortcomings of
diplomacy by conference. Such kind of multilateral diplomacy suffers from several
defects and cannot, therefore, function properly because political statesmen are not
often competent to handle diplomatic negotiations. Further, as it involves many
people’s it fails to solve certain fundamental problems because the members tend
to take rigid positions. Still, this new kind of diplomacy is innovative and has some
basic characteristics which distinguish it from old diplomacy. (Rumki, 2012, pp.
92-93)

13. Structure:
The structure of new diplomacy almost remains the same as that of the old
diplomacy. States still remain the major actors in this diplomatic system and there
are well-established permanent embassies abroad. The only difference is that the
stage has to be shared by the state with other non-state actors such as
intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations. (Rumki,
2012, p. 93)
Process:
The changing international scenario as also the increase in the number of non-state
actors have all led to the changes in the nature of new diplomacy and its process of
negotiation. Diplomacy has become a more complicated activity involving states
and non-state actors. Alongside bilateral negotiations on a state-to-state basis,
groups of states negotiate multilaterally in inter-governmental organizations such
as the UN and other non-governmental organizations. (Rumki, 2012, p. 93)
Agenda:
The agenda of new diplomacy contain a number of new issues such as economic,
social and are issues, such as economic, social and welfare issues, commonly
identified as low politics, as well as military issues and issues of war and peace,
identified as high politics. (Rumki, 2012, p. 94)
TYPES OF NEW DIPLOMACY:
Palmer and Perkins noted the most effective forms of diplomacy that could he
received in the twentieth century till the present. The chief forms of diplomacy,
among others, are democratic diplomacy, totalitarian democracy, summit
diplomacy, personal diplomacy, diplomacy by conference, and parliamentary
diplomacy. (Ghosh, 2013, p. 111)
Democratic Diplomacy:
This had, particularly become the commonest form of diplomacy by the turn of
twentieth century. The participation of the people in the politics of a state and the
importance of public opinion led to a democratization of diplomacy where the
governments were no longer the domain of aristocrats and diplomacy the sole affair

14. of diplomats and ministers. But the experience of democratic diplomacy had not
been satisfactory and a number of shortcomings had been pointed out by Nicolson.
The most vehement criticism about democratic diplomacy is that it has come to be
associated with the diplomacy of the market place. Further. Nicolson points out that
the most potent source of danger is the Irresponsibility of the sovereign people”
which means the failure of the common people to understand foreign policy
intricacies which arise not from the absence of facts but from their ignorance
irresponsibility to apply their thoughts and intelligence to comprehend foreign
affairs. (Ghosh, 2013, pp. 111-112)
Totalitarian Diplomacy:
The rise of totalitarian states such as Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union after
First World War introduced a new but disturbing kind of diplomacy which was far
different from its predecessors. These totalitarian states used modern techniques of
military, political and psychological power to expand their spheres of influence,
gain control over other States and subvert other regimes and further their aggressive
policy of expansion. For this, they invoked doctrines of racial superiority,
mysticism, materialism and militarism to further their national interests. Diplomacy
came to be used as an instrument of national policy and, in doing so, the language
and practice of diplomacy was thoroughly degraded.
Lord Vansittart (The Decline of Diplomacy, “Foreign Affairs, XXVIII, January,
1950) remarked that the object of totalitarian diplomacy, quite contrary to the
eighteenth or nineteen century diplomacy was to create and maintain ‘bad’ relations
among states. (Ghosh, 2013, p. 112)
Summit Diplomacy:
This involves the direct participation of foreign ministers, Head of states and Heads
of Governments in diplomatic negotiations. This is nothing new and, during the
course of Second World War and even in the post-War years, a number of personal
meetings were held between Churchill and Roosevelt. The meeting of 1941
resulting in the signing of Atlantic Charter, the Teheran meeting with Stalin, the
Yalta (February, 1945) and the Potsdam Conference (July—August, 1945) arc the

15. most noteworthy. Meetings of Asian and African Prime Ministers, either through
exchange of Visits on a bilateral basis or at major international conferences, have
been quite frequent in the past and also in the present, such as the Asian—African
Conference at Bandung in 1955, Conference of Non-Aligned states in Belgrade in
1961 and in Cairo in 1964, the meet1gs of OAU, SAARC and other international
and regional organizations. (Ghosh, 2013, p. 112)
Personal Diplomacy:
Personal diplomacy also takes other forms where the normal channels of diplomacy
are used only to a limited degree. Heads of states have embarked on a practice of
using their personal agents or representatives to handle delicate problems in
international relations. They even sometimes grow a tendency to consult their
personal favourites rather than the foreign ministers. This has been a practice for
many decades as Henry Wriston pointed out in his study of Executive Agents in
American Foreign Relations that they have been employed in American diplomatic
relations from the colonial times. Wriston’s reliance on Colonel House and
Roosevelt’s on Harry Hopkins arc best known samples. (Ghosh, 2013, pp. 112-113)
Diplomacy of Conference:
In the post-War period, international conferences have proliferated in the conduct
of foreign policies and have assumed greater significance than normal channels of
diplomacy through foreign offices and diplomatic and consular establishments.
These, in most parts, involve periodic meetings of regional and international
organizations attended by a number of representatives of the member states and
sometimes the non-member states too. The stimulus to this form of diplomacy was
provided by the League of Nations after the First World War. During the Second
World War, a number of important conferences were held. The most noteworthy
among them are: the Teheran Conference (1943), the Bretton Woods Conference
(1944). The Yalta Conference (1945) and the San Francisco Conference (1935).
Contemporary international relations have witnessed a number of conferences
pertaining to disarmament, nuclear regimes, sustainable development and
environmental issues. (Ghosh, 2013, p. 113)

16. Parliamentary diplomacy:
Kenneth W. Thompson has pointed out that diplomacy. This has generally been the
result of three developments, which are quit striking:
1. Increasing incidence of public multilateral negotiations
2. Expansion of diplomatic activity into the cultural and educational fields
3. Multiplication of informal channels of contact among people and nations.
These factors have led to the growing importance of what has been called
parliamentary diplomacy Dean Rusk (Parliamentary diplomacy) Debate vs.
Negotiation, World Affair Interpreter (XXVI, Summer, 1955) suggested that this
type of multilateral negotiation involves “a continuing organization”, a “regular
public debate exposed to the media of mass communication . “Rules of procedure
which govern the process of debate” and “formal conclusions. Ordinarily expressed
resolutions”. The United Nations (General Assembly and other UN bodies are
examples of diplomacy through parliamentary procedures). (Ghosh, 2013, p. 113)
Economic Diplomacy:
Economic diplomacy as a concept is not new. In fact, trade diplomacy has a long
history. But trade and aid have been widely in use since the Second World War to
obtain a favorable outcome in negotiations. Hence, trade and aid are continuo usly
being used as a part of ‘carrot and stick’ policy in the sense that either can he offered
or withheld. During the Cold War, economic trade and aid were used as instruments
to win over allies and to maintain respective spheres of influence by both the United
States and the Soviet Union. The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan are
prominent examples of such aid to European countries aiming at containing the
spread of communism. The Soviet response to Marshall Plan was the Molotov Plan
which was a series of bilateral agreements with the East European countries to help
them tide over their economic crises and, thereby, preserve communism. Post- Cold
War trade and aid, along with transfer of technology, capital and information, are
still used while conducting economic diplomacy.
As human rights violations in Myanmar surpassed all limits in September, 2O07,
ASEAN member states—India, China. Russia and Japan—did little more than issue

17. bland statements calling for restraint after the September protests followed by
severe repressions by the junta. This is primarily due to the economic interests,
alongside strategic interests, that these states have in Myanmar. (Ghosh, 2013, p.
114)
Nuclear diplomacy:
Nuclear diplomacy takes different forms and meanings depending on whether the
negotiating states are nuclear haves or nuclear have nots. Under these
circumstances there can be either deterrence or compliance or coercive diplomacy.
Deterrence comes into being if the parties involved in the negotiation are all nuclear
haves. Then possession of nuclear arsenal will deter them from using the nukes. On
the other hand if the other party does not possess nukes then that party may the
compelled into doing certain things which the nuclear-haves might desire. But there
is an unprecedented risk attached to this type of nuclear diplomacy and a crisis
situation might escalate and reach the threshold of nuclear war as manifested during
the Cuban Missile Crisis. (Ghosh, 2013, p. 114)
Public Diplomacy:
This form of diplomacy which became popular in the US in 1990s signifies
engagement with the foreign public in the context of realizing foreign policy
objective. This assumes the form of people-to-people contact which involves the
inclusion of academicians, NGOs, cultural groups, tourism, films, theatres, internet
and Hogging. The chief aim is to increase people-to-people contact and improve
the image of a country abroad alongside the traditional mechanisms of diplomacy.
This public-private partnership has immensely increased due to the improvement
in communications, information exchanges and media and internet revolution. The
USA aptly uses public diplomacy to improve public relations and its image in other
countries through the Voice of America organization of academic exchanges
(students and teachers). Seminars, film shows and host of other activities. These
activities are conducted by USIS in several countries. Educational exchange
programmes in India are conducted through USIEF (United States-India
Educational Foundation). However, for long, public diplomacy was seen as a

18. euphemism for propaganda. Nevertheless, scholars and practitioners of public
diplomacy have tried to overcome this parochial interpretation of the term and have
embarked on policies that aim at enhancing people-to-people contact. (Ghosh, 2013,
pp. 114-115)
ATTRIBUTES OF DIPLOMATS:
World history records the image of diplomats and ambassadors as messengers of
peace. The ‘elders’ as ambassadors in Greek city states, the ‘orators’ in the Roman
Empire, the diplomatic norms of the Byzantine Empire and the Quranic system of
war and peace all share in common a regard and respect for ambassadors. The
intellectual sincerity behind diplomacy for a human cause was documented as a
historical event when Prophet Mohammad called for respect to ambassadors, in his
last message to humankind from his death bed.
The former US ambassador, Carol C. Laise, provided a definition of a diplomat.
For a diplomat, the required attributes are ‘the personal qualities of tolerance and
the ability to inspire trust and confidence experience judgment in relating [one’s
own] interest to the nuances realities of other countries, and the ability to
communicate effectively’ (as quoted in Rana [2002: 30]). In other words, the
Japanese tradition of a diplomat having ‘ears not mouth requires the diplomatic
community to exercise tolerance and judge matters with farsightedness A diplomat
has to portray his state’s culture. He must possess first-hand knowledge of
economics and able to protect the-political, social, commercial and military of the
home state. The modern era is an era of the finest communication skills. Therefore,
he must be communicative and conversant with his counterparts, and at the same
time, he is opposed to be techno savvy. Training and refresher courses for diplomats
widen their horizons of mind and enrich them with the interpretations of
international relations. ( (Rumki, 2012, pp. 82-83)

19. DIPLOMATIC METHODS:
The problems and issues confronted by a state’s diplomatic corps may differ from
time to time. The nature of different matters of bilateral and multilateral relations
always differs and the situations are peculiar in content and nature. Therefore, no
definite method can he adopted and practiced by the diplomats of a state to achieve
their goals. It is the peculiarity of goals and situations that determine the methods
to he adopted by state officials. The most amicable methods are political in nature
and, therefore, commonly used. (Rumki, 2012, p. 87)
Negotiations:
The dialogue method had always been one of the most favored methods of settling
issues between or among states. Holding negotiations may be an issue of
management, but in itself, it is an art that seeks refinement and perfection at the
hands of its practitioners: Negotiations undoubtedly require best skills, knowledge
and techniques by the diplomats to convince the opposite party of their own point
of view and get the problems solved according to a desired standard. The
negotiation method is not used in every situation. Sometimes, other methods are
put to action.
Negotiations cannot be held straight away. Instead, there are pre-negotiations,
which imply setting the stage for holding negotiations talks before talks. Pre-
negotiations also imply the acceptance of recognition of some crises or statements
existing between two states or among several states. Therefore, taking a stand to
talk what to talk, how to talk, who to talk to, where to talk, the agenda to discuss
and other details are determined at the pre-negotiation level of exchanges. Most
important is the agenda of the negotiation which often proves to be time-consuming
undergoing many upheavals and breakdowns.
At the stage of pre-negotiations, vital points raised by the parties involved are taken
care of. Then, the level of talks is decided, talks between diplomats, ambassadors,
or between the ministers or between the heads of state are agreed in advance.
Discussions at the pre-negotiation stage clarify the status, views and options of the
parties concerned. Thus, clash of opinions or conflict of interests is avoided and a

20. peaceful and amicable environment cultivated for the success of the talks. In brief,
pre-negotiations” are equally important for official negotiations to start. (Rumki,
2012, p. 88)
Conduct of Negotiations
Treaties and alliances are managed through negotiations, for; which talks are
conducted at different stages sometimes, these negotiations may last for years and
end in no agreements or final draft of pacts. Negotiations do not take place
immediately; diplomats conduct pre-negotiations talk the agenda and other details
are discussed at the pre-negotiation level. Protection and revelation of national
interests is well looked after and the respective parties make sure to safeguard their
interests. Diplomats play a significant role in negotiations and, thus, streamline the
foreign policy of their home state.
The economic groups G-8, G-7, G-11, SAARC, ASEAN, and EU and so on are the
products of diplomacy. Certainly, economic coordination for the welfare of nations
has gained new momentum in diplomatic circles.
Against the backdrop of mounting pressures of globalization, 1w backstage
diplomatic maneuvering gets increasingly intricate and complicated. Sometimes,
diplomats on the opposite side offer compromise’ packages to finalize a more
value-added economic deal. In doing so, diplomats may keep the home interests of
economic organizations in mind. (Rumki, 2012, pp. 88-89)
Conference Method
Multilateral diplomacy and diplomacy by conference are usually used
interchangeably, though they differ slightly in actual meaning and nature.
Multilateral diplomacy involves more than two state parties for diplomatic
negotiations, whereas conference method is also utilized to conduct bilateral
negotiations. Thus, the conference method remains an important channel of
negotiation bilateral and multilateral levels of diplomacy.
A long chain of conferences among big powers of the world later on called the
victorious Allied Powers—during the Second World War, led to the birth of the

21. UNO. This international nongovernmental organization came into existence and
gradually developed into the highest centre of multilateral diplomacy.
Now multilateral diplomacy is practiced by a number of group of states to achieve
the goals of their foreign policies -for example, by the G-8, G-77, G-7, the
Commonwealth Heads of States, the ASEAN member states, the SAARC, the
European Union, the Arab League, the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries), and so on. The Success story of multilateral and conference’
diplomacy today is like rewriting its own grand history. Politic experts expect a
more positive future for conference diplomacy. (Rumki, 2012, pp. 89-90)
SOME GROUND RULES OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONSHIPS:
The current formulation of law governing diplomatic relationships is in i.e. Vienna
Convention, which came into force in 1964. According to it, heads of missions are
divided into three categories and ranked as follows: ambassadors and nuncios;
envoys, ministers, and internuncios; and charges affaires. A diplomatic post headed
by an ambassador is called an embassy, and a post headed by a person of lower
rank is called a legation. A trend developed after World ‘War I to classify more and
more diplomatic posts as embassies, and the trend was much accelerated after
World War II.
The individual diplomat must be persona grata in the eyes of the receiving
government, that he must be personally acceptable. The practice of aggregation has
thus developed: the sending state asks for assurance in advance that the diplomat
whom it proposes to send will be received. Once received, a diplomat who becomes
persona non grata may be dismissed, or his recall may be requested. It might be
mentioned neither in this connection that diplomats are nor to interfere in any way
in the domestic affairs of the country to which they are accredited, and it is up to
the receiving government to determine what kinds of actions constitute interference.
The general principle is accepted that states receiving diplomatic missions will
permit them to exercise their duties free from local interference and will assure

22. them safety and respect. The implications of this principle are numerous. For
example, diplomats are to be free to communicate with their home governments;
diplomatic personnel cannot be sued or prosecuted, nor can diplomatic premises be
invaded by the police; protection must be accorded to diplomatic personnel and
property in proportion both to the needs of the situation and the means at the
disposal of the receiving state. Questions persistently arise over the meaning of
such rules in particular circumstances; still, the existence of the rules clearly serves
to facilitate diplomatic intercourse.
Consuls likewise have s me immunity from local jurisdiction, but a much less
extensive scale. (DYKE, 1972, pp. 277-278)

23. Conclusion
Looking back to my first impression on what was my understanding of the title
“Diplomacy”, I had a little to say because my knowledge of the subject was very
narrow and limited to the general idea of the official representation between
countries or the government face of one country in another country. However,
going through the module topics I started to have a bigger view on the role of
diplomacy in world politics and the changes that occurred to this practice over the
time. My knowledge of the subject started to develop from the first topic we tackled
and with it my understanding of the difference between old and new ways of
conducting Diplomacy, from the old Bilateral residential representation which was
conducted in absolute secrecy to the new practices like the Multilateral and the
Conference diplomacy which they started to be an important practice of Diplomacy
only after the World War One with the creation of the League of Nations. Trade
and environmental diplomacy also became vital to the security and stability of the
nations. The Public diplomacy is another new practice of Diplomacy, there is
different views on this practice as some groups claim that public diplomacy is a
‘propaganda campaign’ by states, they spread lies in order to obtain beneficial gains
like the promotion of the state image abroad. other groups disagree with the
‘conspiracy theory’ behind the propaganda claim and have a different view on how
public diplomacy is conducted and what is aiming to achieve, moreover, this group
see the practice as publicizing cultural, economic, historical, and political gains of
one state abroad.
I learnt how the methods in the practice are highly controversial, like the secrecy
around the negotiations, the lobbying in the corridors, and the propaganda view on
some of the practice, but also I learnt how positively Diplomacy evolved in many
ways. The amazing speed of technological advances and the breakthrough in the
different fields especially of transportation, communications, the media, and many
others led to big changes in the conduct of Diplomacy. Although all the changes in
the conduct of Diplomacy from the ‘Old’ to the ‘New’ were important, however,

24. Diplomacy was affected also by the international political developments. Another
important political development occurred and is growing within the Diplomacy
practice. It is the rise of number and importance of non- state actors in the
international relations field. Not only their interaction with governments and world
organizations led to many changes in the international political and economic
system and laid the platforms to solve many issues like environmental summits, but
also they forced rich countries to look and poorer countries and help to elevate
world poverty with the economically support.
To conclude, I must say that my knowledge of the subject has broaden and became
wider, also I could see and read clearer than before in the foreign political approach
of states and what aspects of Diplomatic are used during conflicts or negotiations.

25. References
Basu Rumki, (2012), International Politics Concepts, Theories and issues, New Dehli.
Ghosh Peu, (2013), International Relations, Third Edition, New Delhi.
N.J, Princeton, April (2008), A Diplomat’s Handbook for Democracy Development
Support.
Newsom, David D, (1990-1991), The Diplomatic Record, West view press, Oxford,
London
Terry O’Gallagham, Martin Griffiths and Roach Steven C, (1981) International Relations,
Thrid Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Van Dyke Vernon, (1972), International Politics, Third Edition
Vella George, (1998), Modern Diplomacy.J. Kurbalija publisher,