Theories of Diplomacy

IR 503 THEORIES OF DIPLOMACY FALL 2012

W 2.00 – 4.50 p.m. Professor Geoffrey Wiseman Room: SOS B40 E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: (213) 740 2126; Office: VKC 319) Office Hours: T 1.30 –3.00 p.m. Th. 1.00–2.30 (plus after class Wed. and by appointment)

Course Learning Goals: In the context of growing global interest in diplomacy, this course provides a broad understanding of the ways in which international relations and diplomatic theories can illuminate diplomatic practice in the real world. The course will enable students from a range of disciplines and professions to reflect on their experiences, and, by deepening their knowledge of theories and concepts, facilitate their understanding of international relations, in general, and diplomacy, in particular. The course analyzes both the limits and potential of diplomacy. It examines how thinking about diplomacy has evolved, from the classical period through to the beginning of the twenty-first century and how it might develop in the future in response to changing issues and actors in world society and to the competing pressures of world order and justice. The course has been created in response to growing scholarly and public interest in diplomacy in the United States but in many other countries as well, such as China. It is designed to meet the interdisciplinary needs and interests of students in such fields as International Relations, Political Science, History, Journalism, and Public Diplomacy. Theories of Diplomacy will help students understand the practical policy and ethical dimensions of state-to-state bilateral and multilateral diplomacy as well as to facilitate their understanding of the limits and potential of the emerging diplomatic transnational, or polylateral, relationships between states, international organizations (IGOs), and non-state entities. On successful completion of the course, students will be able to apply their new knowledge (historical, theoretical, and practical) to academic, governmental, private sector, public diplomacy, journalistic, and non-governmental organization (NGO) professional career settings. The class will be conducted on graduate seminar norms and conventions with a premium placed on readings and critical class discussion of the readings. It is a personalized and interactive course in which desktop and handheld computers will not be used in the classroom itself, but outside. Students will do the assigned essential readings in advance of each class, preparing brief summary notes, and opening class discussion with short presentations that address specific questions linked to the readings as well as to current crises and controversies. 2

Grading:

 Class participation (10%). Students are expected to attend all class sessions, and to participate in class discussions. Participation will be graded on several criteria: evidence of careful reading of weekly course materials; willingness to volunteer for presentations and to answer questions; appropriateness, enthusiasm, and civility of comments; eagerness to contribute to the process of discussion; listening skills; a capacity for building on and encouraging the ideas of others; and posing constructive and thoughtful questions.

 Presentations and written summaries (20%). There is a written and an oral component. Each week, several students will make a brief, 4-5-minute presentation answering a specific question. Presenters will distribute electronically to the class a one-page (maximum) summary or their “answer” to the question. The presenter will speak to the question, summarizing the main argument and suggesting areas for wider class discussion.

 Mid-term short papers (30%). Students will write two short take-home papers on questions drawing on course materials up that point of the class. (Maximum 1,000 words for each essay, including footnotes/endnotes, but not the bibliography which will in any case be dominated by the course readings).

 Final research paper (40%). This research paper will be written based on an agreed topic that combines course themes and the student’s targeted individual interests. Alternatively, students can write up their research as a policy memo. (Maximum 3,000 words, including footnotes/endnotes, but not bibliography)

Required Course Texts (purchase recommended): (available at the USC bookstore)

Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman (eds), Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices, New York, Oxford University Press, 2013. Companion website: www.oup.com/us/Kerr

G. R. Berridge, Maurice Keens-Soper, and T. G. Otte, Diplomatic Theory from Machiavelli to Kissinger, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001.

** Note on electronic devices: Since this a seminar-based, interactive discussion course designed inter alia to strengthen verbal and personal communication skills, laptop computers and similar electronic devices are not required, nor permitted. However, you are strongly encouraged to use your computers outside class to complement the readings and class discussion, and to take full advantage of the companion website for the course text: www.oup.com/us/Kerr 3

COURSE OUTLINE

1. Course Scope, Content, and Themes (8/29)

Essential: Christer Jönsson and Martin Hall, “The Study of Diplomacy,” ch. 1 in Jönsson and Hall (eds), Essence of Diplomacy, Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 7-23. Stuart Murray, Paul Sharp, David Criekmans, Geoffrey Wiseman and Jan Melissen (eds.), Forum on “The Present and Future of Diplomacy and Diplomatic Studies,” in International Studies Review, vol. 13 (December 2011), pp. 709–728.

Recommended: Paul Sharp, “For Diplomacy: Representation and the Study of International Relations,” International Studies Review, Vol.1, No.1 (1999), pp. 33–57. Geoffrey Wiseman, “Pax Americana: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture,” International Studies Perspectives, vol. 6, no. 4 (November 2005), pp. 409–430.

PART I: INVENTING DIPLOMACY

2. Historical and Westphalian Diplomacy (9/5)

Essential: Raymond Cohen, “Diplomacy Through the Ages” ch. 1 in Pauline Kerr and Geoffrey Wiseman (eds), Diplomacy in a Globalizing World: Theories and Practices (hereafter DGW), New York, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 15-30. Brian Campbell, “Diplomacy in the Roman World (c.500 BC–AD 235),” Diplomacy and Statecraft, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2001, pp. 1-22. G. R. Berridge, “The Origins of the Diplomatic Corps: Rome to Constantinople,” in Paul Sharp and Geoffrey Wiseman, The Diplomatic Corps as an Institution of International Society (hereafter DCIIS], Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, December 2007, pp.15–30. . Garrett Mattingly, “The First Resident Embassies: Mediaeval Italian Origins of Modern Diplomacy,” Speculum, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1937, pp. 423-39.

Recommended: Raymond Cohen, “The Great Tradition: The Spread of Diplomacy in the Ancient World,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2001, pp. 23-38. Raymond Cohen, “Reflections on the New Global Diplomacy: Statecraft 2500 BC to 2000 AD,” in Jan Melissen (ed.), Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, London: Macmillan, 1999, pp.1-18. Geoffrey Wiseman and Paul Sharp, “Diplomacy,” in Richard Devetak, Anthony Burke, and Jim George (eds.), An Introduction to International Relations, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 258-263 [Uncorrected proofs, Blackboard]. 4

3. From Old (Bilateral) to New (Multilateral) Diplomacy (9/12)

Essential: Harold Nicolson, “The Ideal Diplomatist,” Diplomacy (first published in 1939), Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, 1988, pp.55-67. Harold Nicolson, “The Transition Between the Old Diplomacy and the New,” The Evolution of Diplomacy (1954), New York: Collier, 1966, pp.99-125. T. G. Otte, “Nicolson,” in Diplomatic Theory, pp.151–80. Thomas Wright, “Bilateral and Multilateral Diplomacy in Normal Times and in Crises,” ch. 10 in DGW, pp. 175–191.

Recommended: Sasson Sofer, “Old and New Diplomacy” A Debate Revisited,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1988, pp. 195-211. Geoffrey Wiseman,“ Norms and Diplomacy: The Diplomatic Underpinnings of Multilateralism,” in James P. Muldoon, Jr. et al., (eds.), The New Dynamics of Multilateralism: Diplomacy, International Organizations, and Global Governance, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2010, pp. 5-22.

4. Cold War Diplomacy, Summit Diplomacy, the United Nations (9/19)

Essential: The Kennan and Novikov “Long Telegrams,” in Kenneth M. Jensen (ed.), Origins of the Cold War: The Novikov, Kennan, and Roberts ‘Long Telegrams” of 1946, rev. ed., Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace, 1993, preface, 3-31, 73-95 [Blackboard]. Berridge, “Summits,” ch. 10 in Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, pp. 161-178 [Blackboard]. Geoffrey Wiseman and Soumita Basu, “The United Nations,” in DGW, pp. 319-335. David Bosco, “Course Corrections: The Obama Administration at the United Nations,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 6, nos. 3-4, December 2012, pp. 335-349 (USC libraries Online).

Recommended: X [George Kennan], “The Sources of Soviet Conduct.” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 25, No. 4 (July 1947), pp. 566–82. 5

PART II: THEORIZING DIPLOMACY

5. Realist Views of Diplomacy: The state system (9/26)

Essential: Tim Dunne and Brian C. Schmidt, “Realism,” in Baylis, Smith and Owens, The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 91– 106 [BB]. G. R. Berridge, “Machiavelli,” in Berridge et al., Diplomatic Theory. pp.7–32; T.G. Otte, “Kissinger, in Berridge et al., Diplomatic Theory, pp.181–203. Paul Sharp, “Diplomacy and Diplomats in the Realist Tradition,” in Diplomatic Theory of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009, pp.53 – 71. Paul Sharp, “Diplomacy in International Relations Theory and Other Disciplinary Perspectives,” ch. 3 in DGW, esp. pp. 51-58.

Recommended: Hans J. Morgenthau, “Diplomacy,” ch. 31 in Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 7th edition, 2005, pp. 539-550; 551-568 [BB].

6. Pluralist Views of Diplomacy: International society (10/3) (* Midterm take-home exam questions will be handed out)

Essential: G. R. Berridge, “Grotius,” in Berridge et al., Diplomatic Theory, pp.50–70; Hedley Bull, “Diplomacy and International Order,”in Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 2002, pp.156-177. Paul Sharp, “Diplomacy and Diplomats in the Rational Tradition,” in Diplomatic Theory of International Relations, pp.39 – 52. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984, Introduction, pp.1–9. Paul Sharp, “Diplomacy in International Relations Theory,” ch. 3 in DGW, esp. pp. 56- 57.

Recommended: Iver B. Neumann, “The English School on Diplomacy,” Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, No. 79, (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, 2002). Adam Watson, “Diplomatic Need of New and Less Developed States,” in Adam Watson,. Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States. Rev. ed., London: Routledge, 2004, pp.158–75 (USC on-line library).

Based on student interest, selected chapters in Sharp and Wiseman, DCIIS. e.g., Alan Henrikson, The Washington Diplomatic Corps,” pp. 41– 74. Kishan S. Rana, “Representing India in the Diplomatic Corps,” pp.125–141. M. Humayun Kabir, “The Kathmandu Diplomatic Corps,” pp. 145– 167. Joyce E. Leader, “Genocide in Rwanda and the Kigali Diplomatic Corps,” pp. 168–196.

7. Solidarist Views of Diplomacy: World society (10/10) (** Midterm due, in hard copy, 3 p.m. on T. October 9 in GW mailbox in VKC 330).

Essential: David Armstrong, “Revolutionary Diplomacy,” in Diplomacy, vol. 2, pp.381–94. Costas M. Constantinou, “Diplomatic Representations … or Who Framed the Ambassadors?,” Millennium, Vol.23, No.1, 1994, pp.1-24.. James Der Derian, “Mediating Estrangement: A Theory for Diplomacy,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2., 1987, pp. 91-110. Paul Sharp, “Diplomacy in International Relations Theory and Other Disciplinary Perspectives,” ch. 3 in DGW, esp. pp. 63-67 (For comparison, see also Geoffrey Allen Pigman, ch. 4 in DGW). Paul Sharp, “Diplomacy and Diplomats in the Radical Tradition,” in Diplomatic Theory of International Relations, pp. 17–38.

Recommended: Paul Sharp, “Revolutionary States, Outlaw Regimes and the Techniques of Public Diplomacy,” in Jan Melissen (ed.), The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, pp. 106– 123.

8. American Theories of Diplomacy (10/17)

Essential: Geoffrey Wiseman “Distinctive Characteristics of American Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 6, nos. 3-4, December 2012, pp. 235–259 [Blackboard]. Joseph Nye, Soft Power, New York: Public Affairs, 2004, pp.1–32, 127-47. Peter van Ham, “Power, Public Diplomacy, and the Pax Americana,” in Melissen (ed.), The New Public Diplomacy, ch. 3, pp. 47–66. Alan Henrikson, United States Contemporary Diplomacy: Implementing a Foreign Policy of ‘Engagement’”, ch. 15, in DGW, pp. 265-281. Geoffrey Wiseman, “Engaging the Enemy: An Essential Norm for Sustainable U.S. Diplomacy,” in Costas Constantinou and James Der Derian (eds) Sustainable Diplomacies, Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, pp. 213-234. 7

Recommended: J. Anthony Holmes, “Where are the Civilians? How to Rebuild the U.S. Foreign Service,” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb. 2009, pp. 148-60 [Blackboard]. Paul Sharp, “Obama, Clinton and the Diplomacy of Change, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 6, nos. 3-4, December 2012, pp. 393-411.

Recent memoirs by US diplomats: Jeffrey Davidow, US ambassador to Mexico (1998-2002), author of The US and Mexico: The Bear and the Porcupine (2004). James Lilley, US ambassador to South Korea and China, author of China Hand: Nine Decades of Adventure, Espionage, and Diplomacy in Asia (2004). Thomas Pickering, US ambassador to the UN during the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, author of Iraq: The Day After (2003). Joseph Wilson, former US career diplomat and ambassador to Gabon. Author of The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies the Led to War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity (2004).

9. Small and Middle Power Theories of Diplomacy (10/24) South Africa, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, Norway; UN Security Council

Essential: Andrew F. Cooper (ed.), Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers after the Cold War, London: Macmillan, 1997, ch. 1 “Niche Diplomacy: A Conceptual Overview,” pp. 1–24. Peter Vale, “Revealing All? The Troubled Times of South Africa’s Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 2 (2012), pp. 337-349. James Hamill and Donna Lee, “South African Diplomacy in the Post-Apartheid Era: An Emergent Middle Power?”, International Relations, Vol.15, No.4, 2001, pp. 33- 60. Kim Richard Nossal and Richard Stubbs, “Mahathir’s Malaysia: An Emerging Middle Power?”, in Cooper, Niche Diplomacy, pp. 147–163. Alan Chong, “Singapore and the Soft Power Experience,” in Andrew F. Cooper and Timothy M. Shaw (eds), The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and Resilience, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, pp. 65–80. Baldur Thorhallsson, “Small States in the UN Security Council: Means of Influence,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 7, no. 2 (2012), pp. 135–160 (USC libraries Online).

Recommended: Lyn Boyd Judson, “Strategic Moral Diplomacy: Mandela, Qaddafi, and the Lockerbie Negotiations,” Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol.1 No.1 (March 2005), pp.73–97. Alan Henrikson, “Niche Diplomacy in the World Public Arena: the Global ‘Corners of Canada and Norway,” in Melissen (ed.), The New Public Diplomacy, pp. 67–87. 8

PART III: DEBATING THE FUTURE OF DIPLOMACY

10 Decline, Reform, New Technology (10/31)

Essential: Jan Melissen, “Introduction,” in Jan Melissen (ed.), Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, London: Macmillan, 1999, pp. xiv-xxiii. See also individual chapters. Brian Urquhart, “Are Diplomats Necessary?”, The New York Review of Books, vol. 54, no. 15 (October 11, 2007). Brian Hocking, “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Diplomatic System,” in DGW, pp. 128-130. Shaun Riordan, “Reforming Foreign Services for the Twenty-First Century,” in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2 (2007), pp. 161–173 (USC libraries Online). Jovan Kurbalija, “The Impact of the Internet and ICT on Contemporary Diplomacy,” ch, 8 in DGW, pp. 141-159. Alec Ross, “Digital Diplomacy and US Foreign Policy,” in The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 6, Nos 3–4 (2011), pp. 451–455 (USC libraries Online).

Recommended: Robert Wolfe, “Still Lying Abroad? On the Institution of the Resident Ambassador,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, Vol.9, No.2 (July 1998), pp.23-54. Brian Hocking, “Catalytic Diplomacy: Beyond ‘Newness’ and ‘Decline’,” in Melissen, Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, pp.21–42.

11. Emerging Regional Diplomacies: Europe, Asia/China, Africa, South America, Other Regions (11/7)

Essential: Jozef Batora and Alan Hardacre, “Regional institutional Diplomacies: Europe, Asia, Africa, South America and Other Regions,” in ch. 17 in DGW, pp. 300-318. Ye Zicheng and Zhang Qingmin, “China’s Contemporary Diplomacy,” ch. 16 in DGW, pp. 282-299.

Recommended: Pauline Kerr, Stuart Harris, and Qin Yaqing (eds), China’s ‘New’ Diplomacy: Tactical or Fundamental Change?, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan, 2008. Selected chapter(s). Mai’a Davis Cross, “A European Epistemic Community of Diplomats,” in Sharp and Wiseman, DCIIS, pp. 223–245. Brian Hocking and Jozef Batora (eds), “Diplomacy and the European Union,” Special Issue, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 4, no. 2 (2009). Entire issue is available through USC libraries Online. 9

Kishan S. Rana, Asian Diplomacy: The Foreign Ministries of China, India, Japan, Singapore and Thailand, Malta: DiploFoundation.

12.Transforming and Enlarging Diplomacy (11/14)

Essential:

Richard Langhorne, “The Diplomacy of Non-State Actors”, Diplomacy and Statecraft, vol.16, no.2, pp.331-339. Pauline Kerr and Brendan Taylor, “Track-Two Diplomacy in East Asia,” in DGW, pp. 226-243. Halvard Leira and Iver B. Neumann, “Consular Diplomacy” ch. 9 in DGW, pp. 160-174. Daniel Hernandez Joseph, “Mexico’s Concentration on Consular Services in the United States,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 7, no. 2 (2012), pp. 227–236 (USC libraries Online). Geoffrey Wiseman, “Polylateralism: Diplomacy’s Third Dimension,” Public Diplomacy Magazine, Issue 4 (Summer 2010), 24–39.

Recommended: Bertrand Badie, “Transnationalizing Diplomacy and Global Governance,” ch. 5 in DGW, pp. 85–102. Andrew F. Cooper and Brian Hocking, “Governments, Non-governmental Organizations and the Re-calibration of Diplomacy,” Global Society Vol. 14, No. 3, 2000, pp. 361-367. Rik Coolsaet, “The Transformation of Diplomacy at the Threshold of the New Millennium,” in Diplomacy, vol.3, pp.1–24. Richard Langhorne, “Current Developments in Diplomacy: Who are the Diplomats Now?,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1997, pp. 1-15.

November 21-24: Thanksgiving holiday

13. The New Public Diplomacy (11/28)

Essential: Mark Leonard, “Diplomacy by Other Means,” Foreign Policy, Vol. 132, 2002, pp. 48-56. Bruce Gregory, “Public Diplomacy: Sunrise of an Academic Field,” in Geoffrey Cowan and Nicholas J. Cull, Public Diplomacy in a Changing World, The Annals (2008), pp. 274–90. Jan Melissen, “Public Diplomacy,” ch. 11 in DGW, pp. 192-208. G. R. Berridge, “Public Diplomacy,” ch. 11 in Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, pp. 179-191 [BB].

Recommended: 10

Daryl Copeland, “Public Diplomacy and Foreign Service,” in Guerilla Diplomacy: Rethinking International Relations, Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner, 2009, pp. 161– 84. Jan Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice,” in Melissen (ed.), The New Public Diplomacy, ch. 1, pp. 3–27. Brian Hocking, “Rethinking the “New” Public Diplomacy”, in Melissen (ed.), The New Public Diplomacy, ch. 2, pp. 28–43.

14. Diplomacy’s Theoretical and Practical Future/Review and Presentations of Draft Final Papers (12/5) Essential: Geoffrey Allen Pigman, “Debates about Contemporary and Future Diplomacy,” ch. 4 in DGW, pp. 68–84. Geoffrey Wiseman and Pauline Kerr, “Conclusion,” in DGW, pp. 336–343. Alan K. Henrikson, “Diplomacy’s Possible Futures,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 1 no. 1 (2006), pp. 3–27 (USC libraries Online). Kishan Rana, The 21st century ambassador: plenipotentiary to chief executive, DiploFoundation, 2005; ch. 8 “The Future,” pp. 190–204.

Recommended: Stuart Murray, “Consolidating the Gains Made in Diplomacy Studies: A Taxonomy,” International Studies Perspectives vol. 9, no. 1 (2008), 22–39. Thomas Risse, “’Let’s Argue!’: Communicative Action in World Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 54, No.1 (Winter 2000), pp.1–39. Lars G. Løse, “Communicative Action and the World of Diplomacy,” in Karin M. Fierke and Knud Erik Joergensen (eds.), Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2001, pp.179–201.

Final paper due: Friday December 14 at 4 p.m.

Statement on Academic Integrity: USC seeks to maintain an optimal learning environment. General principles of academic honesty include the concept of respect for the intellectual property of others, the expectation that individual work will be submitted unless otherwise allowed by an instructor, and the obligations both to protect one's own academic work from misuse by others as well as to avoid using another's work as one's own. All students are expected to understand and abide by these principles. Scampus, the Student Guidebook, contains the Student Conduct Code in Section 11.00, while the recommended sanctions are located in Appendix A: http//www.usc.edu/dept/publications/SCAMPUS/gov/. Students will be referred to the Office of Student Judicial Affairs and Community Standards for further review, should there be any suspicion of academic dishonesty.

Disability Note: Any student requesting academic accommodations based on a disability is required to register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved accommodations can be obtained from DSP. This letter must be delivered to me by the end of the third week. The student is also responsible for consulting the professor before relevant in-class tests/exams to make sure that all arrangements have been made. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday – Friday. The DSP phone # is (213) 740-0776.

Oct 5, 2012 rev.