Diplomatic Representation in the 21St Century1

Home , Diplomacy

Working Paper Project “Diplomacy in the 21st Century” Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP)/ German Institute for International and Security Affairs

Christer Jönsson Diplomatic Representation in the 21st Century1

Working Paper Project “Diplomacy in the 21st Century” No 14 September 2017

1 The working paper was produced in the framework of the project “Diplomacy in the 21st Century”, which is funded by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Zeit-Stiftung. Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 3

From immunity to vulnerability ...... 4

Mirroring society ...... 4

Differing principal-agent interests ...... 5

Democratic vs. authoritarian states as principals ...... 5

Representing divided societies ...... 6

Representing populist regimes ...... 6

Conclusion ...... 7

SWP Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs

Ludwigkirchplatz 3•4 10719 Berlin Phone +49 30 880 07-0 Fax +49 30 880 07-100 www.swp-berlin.org [email protected]

SWP Working Papers are online publications of SWP's research divisions which have not been formally reviewed by the Institute. Please do not cite them without the permission of the authors or editors.

Introduction issue is whether agents have an “imperative mandate,” being strictly accountable to Representation, in terms of standing and their principals, or a “free mandate,” being acting for others, is a core function of di- authorized to act on behalf of their princi- plomacy. Representation is no simple or pals.2 It implies an appraisal whether ac- unequivocal concept, but can be understood countability or authorization is the key term in broad, general terms as “a relation be- to characterize the relationship between tween two persons, the representative and representatives and principals. Diplomacy the represented or constituent, with the has experienced both extremes. Medieval representative holding the authority to per- diplomatic emissaries, nuncii, were prime form various actions that incorporate the examples of “imperative” mandates, deviat- agreement of the represented.” As such, it is ing at their peril from the most literal inter- a concept that links diplomacy to repre- pretation of their prince’s instructions. A sentative democracy. nuncius was described by a medieval com- From Antiquity to the Middle Ages, dip- mentator as “he who takes the place of a lomats represented sovereign rulers in the letter” and “recites the words of the princi- sense that they were perceived to embody pal.” Pressures of distance and time – nego- their sovereigns when they presented them- tiations required nuncii to go constantly selves at foreign courts. While such a view is back-and-forth between their principals and alien to modern thought, today’s principle their foreign counterparts – eventually led of diplomatic immunity has deep roots in to the emergence of procurators, agents who notions of personal representation. The rea- could speak in their own person and not son that early envoys were inviolable was only in the person of the principal and who that they were to be treated “as though the could negotiate and conclude treaties. The sovereign himself were there.” Today, the procurator, in turn, was the forerunner of status of diplomatic representatives, stand- the ambassador plenipotentiary. Instead of ing for other, is understood as symbolic rep- explicit instructions, thirteenth-century resentation. The diplomat is then a repre- procurators were often provided with blanks sentative in the same way that a flag repre- sealed in advance by the principal and left to sents a nation. Diplomats “personify both be filled out by themselves, giving them their nation’s traditions and its contempo- immense freedom and power of discretion.3 rary culture to the officials and people In short, standing and acting for others where they are assigned.” entail perennial dilemmas and issues con- Representation implies not only status cerning diplomats’ symbolic role and the (standing for others) but also behavior (act- balancing act between the imperative and ing for others). Economists and political free mandate extremes. Are there, then, spe- scientists analyze such relationships be- cific issues of diplomatic representation in tween representatives and those represented the 21st century? In this paper I will make an in terms of principals and agents. Principal- attempt to identify some changes and agent relations arise whenever one party trends, and raise questions concerning their (principal) delegates certain tasks to another implications. As for symbolic representa- party (agent). Diplomats and elected politi- tion, I will discuss the change from immuni- cians are obvious examples of agents, who ty to vulnerability and the question whether have been entrusted with certain tasks from diplomats ought to mirror the society they their principals (governments/voters). Be- represent. In addition, I will identify four cause of conflicting preferences and infor- interrelated issues concerning principal- mation asymmetry, agents may pursue oth- agent relations and diplomatic behavior: er interests than those of the principal. Del- What if principals and agents have differing egation is therefore usually combined with interests? What are the significant differ- control mechanisms.

The proper behavior of a representative is 2 Sobolewski, »Electors and Representatives: A Contri- a matter of intense debate, especially in the bution to the Theory of Representation«, p. 96. literature on representative democracy. At 3 Queller, The Office of the Ambassador in the Middle Ages, pp. 7, 26-30, 130, 135.

3 ences in representing a democratic or an tion is also reflected in the fact that embas- authoritarian state? How can diplomats sies and diplomats representing govern- represent divided societies? And what prob- ments with ongoing military operations are lems are associated with representing a particularly vulnerable. populist regime? This raises the question whether there are non-militarized ways of restoring the protec- tion and security of diplomats that have From immunity to vulnerability been a hallmark of diplomacy throughout centuries. The tendency toward increasing Any claim to symbolic representation has to insecurity and vulnerability not only im- be accepted by the significant audience.4 For pedes diplomatic tasks but also threatens to centuries, the fact that diplomats represent- render the recruitment of qualified person- ed venerable principals – from powerful nel more difficult. monarchs to established states – guaranteed their protected and privileged status. Whereas long-standing rules of diplomatic Mirroring society immunity and privileges by and large con- tinue to be upheld in interstate relations, Standing for others can be understood in popular perceptions of diplomats have another, more literal sense. To what extent changed in recent decades. To the extent do diplomats need to mirror the social and that diplomats are perceived as symbols of ethnic composition of the societies they disliked countries, religions or “-isms,” the represent? For most of recorded history, quality of standing for others has been diplomatic envoys have represented indi- transformed from a rationale for diplomatic vidual rulers rather than whole communi- immunity to a rationale for political vio- ties and have not necessarily come from the lence. No longer inviolable symbols, diplo- same country as their rulers. Well into the matic representatives have increasingly be- nineteenth century diplomats were aristo- come highly vulnerable symbols. crats, who could easily change from one In a polarized world diplomats and dip- monarchical employer to another. The idea lomatic facilities have become soft targets that diplomats should be an accurate reflec- for terrorist attacks. For instance, out of all tion or typical of the society they represent terrorist attacks targeting the United States is quite recent. The first paragraph of the US between 1969 and 2009, 28 percent were Foreign Service Act of 1980, for example, directly against US diplomatic officers. In states that the service must be “representa- 2012 alone various diplomatic institutions tive of the American people.”7 With increas- were attacked 95 times, of which more than ing migration, many – if not most – states one-third targeted UN personnel.5 As a con- will have a multiethnic and multicultural sequence, embassy security has become an character in the 21st century. In countries overriding concern. Some embassies today with substantial immigration, such as Swe- have the appearance of fortresses or peni- den, governments have recently made ef- tentiaries, with barbed wire atop and along- forts to influence recruitment policies in side high walls without windows. CCTV sur- order that the diplomatic corps better mir- veillance, turnstiles, metal detectors and ror the multiethnic character of these socie- crash proof barriers are but a few examples ties. of security devices at embassies and consu- The standard objection to taking lates. One veteran US diplomat speaks of measures to safeguard representativeness in “creeping militarization,” as embassy securi- this sense is that diplomats are supposed to ty has become influenced by military priori- represent national policies and values rather ties and requirements.6 The military connec- than the social and ethnic composition of the society they come from. However, the

4 Redner, A New Science of Representation, pp. 33-4. question needs to be raised how important 5 Ismail, Islamic Law and Transnational Diplomatic Law, p. the symbolic value of accurately reflecting 139. 6 Bullock, »Keeping Embassy Security in Perspective«. 7 Stearns, Talking to Strangers, p. 88.

4 their society might be in the perceptions of Diplomats represent not only their prin- relevant audiences. Another consideration cipals, but also certain ideas. They are com- concerns the potential value of individuals mitted not only to their primary roles as with multiple cultural background and un- representatives of states, but also have an derstanding in diplomatic negotiations with obligation to uphold the diplomatic system. relevant counterparts. For instance, could Diplomat-cum-scholar Adam Watson, for diplomats recruited from the Muslim popu- example, argues that diplomats throughout lation in Germany or Sweden play a con- history have been guided not only by raison structive role in negotiations with Arab d’état, but also by raison de système.9 Com- countries? monly described as representing peace or international order, diplomats are said to be “conscious of world interests superior to Differing principal-agent interests immediate national interests.”10 Today, with a plethora of unsolved global issues, the Whereas the two previous issues relate to need to “strike a balance between diplomacy symbolic representation (standing for oth- as a means of identifying and fostering ‘us’ ers), the following concern behavior (acting and diplomacy as a means of fostering the for others). In the world of diplomacy, the latent community of mankind”11 will be dynamics of principal-agent relations rest on more important than ever. The resurgence two-way communication and influence at- of nationalism in large parts of the world in tempts. Receiving instructions of varying the 21st century raises the question as to precision, diplomats rarely represent prin- what means are available to strengthen di- cipals whose interests are fixed and static. plomacy’s raison de système. Instead, “interests are constructed in interactions between representatives and those they represent, interactions informed by the Democratic vs. authoritarian states as representatives’ superior knowledge of ex- principals ternal realities.”8 Thus the reports diplomats send to their foreign ministries and the pol- The nature of the principal is one important icies they propose or imply can have a deci- factor determining the nature of diplomatic sive influence on government foreign policy. representation. Specifically, it matters “Shirking” is a key concept in principal- whether the diplomatic agent has a single agent theory. It refers to the fact that agents principal or receives instructions from a may have interests that do not coincide with collective body. Principal-agent theory pays their principals and act accordingly. As far attention to the problems of collective or as diplomats are concerned, two considera- multiple principals, especially the increased tions have received attention: “going native” autonomy agents may enjoy as a result of and raison de système. competing preferences among principals. It is a well-known fact that diplomats The unequivocal instructions from a single posted at embassies abroad have a tendency sovereign in earlier times left less leeway for to “go native” or catch localitis – that is, to diplomats than the frequently vague in- become attached to, and assume the per- structions resulting from negotiations spective of, their host country. Foreign min- among different actors and agencies in istries around the world preempt this dan- modern democracies. And whereas demo- ger by regularly circulating their diplomatic cratic states place diplomats at the end of personnel, letting them serve limited terms multiple chains of principals and agents, in foreign countries. However, the increas- diplomats representing contemporary au- ing need for specialized knowledge may thoritarian states, with one clearly identifi- entail longer terms in individual diplomats’ geographic area of specialty.

9 Watson, Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States, passim. 10 Nicolson, »Foreword«, in: Thawyer, Diplomat, New 8 Cutcher-Gershenfeld and Watikins, »Toward a Theory York 1959, p. xi. of Representation in Negotiation«, p. 24. 11 Hill, »Diplomacy and the Modern State«, p. 99.

5 able principal, have more restrictive man- dent. These countries are virtually split into dates. two halves of similar strength, with oppos- The conventional wisdom has been that ing views on issues diplomats have to deal this asymmetry places diplomats of demo- with. On the one hand, this would seem to cratic states at a disadvantage in negotia- grant diplomats more leeway. But, on the tions with counterparts from authoritarian other hand, the lack of firm and consistent states, as they often find themselves policies, standpoints and instructions com- “stranded between different constituen- plicates life for diplomats significantly. cies.”12 Representatives of autocracies, by The lack of a firm consensus can be a seri- contrast, typically act with consistency and ous liability in international negotiations, as continuity. However, Robert Putnam’s no- the other side may try to exploit internal tion of “two-level games” questions this log- divisions and opposing standpoints. One ic.13 Internal bargaining concerning “ratifi- common dynamic, well-known from repeat- cation,” broadly understood, parallels inter- ed Cold War occurrences, is that hard-liners state negotiations. The “win-set” in any in- of both sides tend to reinforce each other’s ternational negotiation is thus determined position. The Brexit negotiations will be a not only by diplomacy at the interstate level, significant test case to see whether old pat- but by preferences and coalitions as well as terns hold in the new 21st-century environ- institutions at the national level. A narrow ment. Their unique character of an encoun- win-set internally (due, for example, to vary- ter between a deeply divided society and a ing interests and opposing views in a vital coalition of a large number of dissimilar democracy) may be an asset externally, states makes for interesting observations whereas a broad win-set internally (due, for concerning representation in the contempo- example, to lack of opposition in an authori- rary world. tarian state) may be a liability. The side that can credibly point to domestic conditions that limit its bargaining range – such as the Representing populist regimes parliamentary situation, strong interests groups or public opinion − has an advantage Another specific problematique concerns over the side that cannot in the same way the rise of populist regimes. Populism repre- narrow down the win-set. sents a democratic representation problem. The changing balance between democrat- Populists claim to represent “the real peo- ic and authoritarian states in the 21st cen- ple” or “the silent majority.” By implication, tury constitutes quite a change from the those who do not share the populists’ views optimistic predictions of the final victory of and notion of “the people” are no legitimate liberal democracies after the end of the Cold members of society. Populism is essentially War. This ought to make us think harder anti-pluralist, which is in contradiction to about differing parameters of diplomatic the norm of coexistence − of “live and let representation between democracies and live” – on which both democracy and di- autocracies, and what consequences these plomacy rest. might have. The controversial conception of democratic representation domestically translates into a diplomatic representation problem Representing divided societies externally. Exploiting growing mistrust and suspicion among voters, populist leaders A specific case of representation dilemmas target diffuse and undefined forces, such as in the 21st century occur in divided societies. “the establishment” or “experts” who have Two prominent examples are Britain after ostensibly undermined the democratic sys- the Brexit referendum and the United States tem. Along with journalists, diplomats are after the election of Donald Trump as presi- typically included in these categories. The fact that xenophobia often is a component

12 Ibid., p. 97. of populism does not make the situation 13 Putnam, »Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic easier for diplomats. This raises the question of Two-Level Games«.

6 of how to represent a principal who dis- to describe the relation between two inter- trusts you. The United States under Trump is acting and indeterminate systems, may help a case in point. The president has openly us to understand this mutual relationship, declared his lack of confidence in the State at the same time as it points to the difficul- Department and proposes to cut its budget. ties in defining representation in more pre- A number of important ambassadorial ap- cise terms.15 pointments have been postponed. Among US diplomats there is widespread distress, and some have chosen to leave the service. As this current example illustrates, the problem of representing populist regimes is interrelated to the issue of differing principal-agent interests as well as the difficulty of representing divided societies.

Conclusion References

Representation is no simple and static con- Bullock, J. L., »Keeping Embassy Security in Per- cept, but a complex and dynamic one. spective«, in: The Foreign Service Journal, May Changes in the parameters of diplomatic 2015 /available at www.afsa.org/ representation in the 21st century warrant Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J./Watkins, M., »Toward a reflection among practitioners and students Theory of Representation in Negotiation«, in: alike. In this brief paper I have pointed to Mnookin, R. H. and Susskind, L. E. (eds), Negoti- some, but by no means all, contemporary ating on Behalf of Others, London: Sage, 1999 issues of representation. I have raised ques- Freeman, C. W., Jr., Arts of Power: Statecraft and tions, but have not provided any answers. Diplomacy, Washington, DC: United States In- My point is that subtle shifts in the non- stitute of Peace Press, 1997 technological foundations of diplomacy de Grazia, A., »Representation: Theory«, in: Sills, need to be noted along with the more dra- D. L. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social matic changes in information technology in Sciences, Vol. 13, New York: Macmillan and Free a discussion of the evolution of diplomacy in Press, 1986 the 21st century. Hill, C., »Diplomacy and the Modern State«, in: As symbolic representatives, standing for Navari, C. (ed.), The Condition of States. Milton others, diplomatic agents face challenges in Keynes and Philadelphia: Open University terms of increased vulnerability and de- Press, 1991 mands for reflecting multiethnic societies. Ismail, M.-B. A., Islamic Law and Transnational Dip- The problems of acting for others, discussed lomatic Law. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, here, pertain to the changing nature of 2016 principals: reduced attention to raison de McClanahan, G. V., Diplomatic Immunity: Principles, système as a result of rising nationalism; the Practices, Problems, London: Hurst & Co, 1989 difference between democratic and authori- Nicolson, H., »Foreword« in: Thayer, C. W., Diplo- tarian states; and the specific complications mat. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959 associated with divided states and populist Pennock, J. R./Chapman, J. W., »Preface« in: Pen- regimes. nock, J. R./Chapman, J. W. (eds), Representation, Representation, in sum, is best under- New York: Atherton Press, 1968 stood as a process rather than a static rela- Pitkin, H. F., The Concept of Representation, Berkeley, tionship. It is a process of mutual interac- Ca: University of California Press, 1972 14 tion between principals and agents. Some Putnam, R. D., »Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: authors have suggested that the notion of The Logic of Two-Level Games«, in: International “plastic control,” introduced by Karl Popper Organization, 42 (1988) 3, pp. 428-60

14 Sobolewski, »Electors and Representatives: A Contri- bution to the Theory of Representation«, pp. 106-7. 15 Pennock/Chapman, Representation, p. viii.

Queller, D. E., The Office of Ambassador in the Middle Ages, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967 Redner, H., A New Science of Representation: Towards an Integrated Theory of Representation in Science, Politics, and Art, Boulder, Col: Westview, 1994 Sobolewski, M., »Electors and Representatives: A Contribution to the Theory of Representation« in: Pennock, J. R. and Chapman, J. W. (eds), Representation, New York: Atherton Press, 1968 Stearn, M., Talking to Strangers: Improving American Diplomacy at Home and Abroad, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996 Watson, A., Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States, London: Eyre Methuen, 1982