SOVEREIGNTY, DIPLOMACY AND DEMOCRACY: THE CHANGING CHARACTER OF “INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION” — FROM STATE TO SELF* Alan K. Henrikson A “nation,” as distinct from a state, “Representing the sending State in the re- is a composite entity. It has unity, but al- ceiving State.”2 In the past, it was the sov- so multiplicity. Can diplomacy, tradition- ereign who was represented by diplomat- ally understood as the process by which ic mission. Although Louis XIV of France, sovereign states deal with each other, ac- the Sun King, probably never actually said, commodate the participation of masses— “L’État, c’estmoi,” French ambassadors in a nation’s people themselves? An essential his time were very much his personal emis- element and characteristic of diploma- saries. Today, kingdoms are rare, and “roy- cy is its representativeness, which philo- al” embassies, too, are few: the Royal Nor- sophically is a very complicated problem. wegian Embassy, the Royal Embassy of It is not easy to explain how a person, or Saudi Arabia, and the Royal Embassy of thing, can “stand for” someone, or some- Cambodia being among them. Sovereign thing, else—or to know what, exactly, the representation today encompasses all kinds entity being re-presented (made “pres- of states. In a republic, such as the United ent again”) is. In diplomacy, representa- States of America, diplomacy is assumed tion, though a concept rarely analyzed, is to be “democratic,” in substance as well as fundamental. As Paul Sharp, an especially in style. The American innovation, “pub- thoughtful academic student of the subject lic diplomacy,” a concept that The Fletch- has stated, diplomacy “is built upon the no- er School of Law and Diplomacy helped to tion of representation.”1 originate, might even be understood to de- The very first “function” of a diplo- rive from the theory of popular sovereignty.3 matic mission, as listed in the Vienna Con- In public diplomacy, even ordinary citizens vention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), is believe they can legitimately participate. declared to be, as it historically had been: In the diplomacy of any nation, irre- spective of its form of government, it is, in * This article, an updated and edited version of a the final analysis, the individual who par- text published originally in The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs (Special Edition 2013), is based ticipates, whether in an official capacity or on the lecture Alan Henrikson gave in honor of completely unofficially. Especially when Dean Stephen W. Bosworth on June 1, 2013, at the Fletcher School’s Talloires Symposium participation is not formally authorized, it on “The New Diplomacy: the 21st Century may not be clear whose interest or policy Imperatives in an Age Old Craft.” is being represented. Partly with this gen- 1 Sharp P. Who needs diplomats? The problem of diplomatic representation. / Modern Dip- lomacy / ed. Jovan Kurbalija. 1998. URL: 2 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/general/ 1961, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 500. who-needs-diplomats-problem-diplomatic- New York: United Nations, 2005. Article 3, 1(a). representation. См. также: Sharp P. Diplomatic 3 The Edward R. Murrow Center for Public Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Diplomacy. URL: http://fletcher.tufts.edu/ Cambridge University Press, 2009. Murrow. 4 СРАВНИТЕЛЬНАЯ ПОЛИТИКА • 2 (15) / 2014 СРАВНИТЕЛЬНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ КОНЦЕПЦИЙ И ИНСТИТУТОВ eral problem in mind, the United States to Niccolò Machiavelli, to Cardinal Riche- Congress in 1799 passed the Logan Act, lieu and François de Callières, to Harold which made it illegal for any citizen, with- Nicolson, to Henry Kissinger, to Jorge He- out authorization, to engage in a negotia- ine, and, finally, to Manuel Castells, a soci- tion whose purpose was to influence the ac- ologist rather than diplomatist. The writings tion of a foreign government relating to a of all illuminate the problem of how a soci- controversy with the United States.4 Private ety, not just its leaders but its other mem- “diplomacy” thus was not allowed. bers as well, can interact “internationally.” The increasing variety of available There have been profound changes in means of communication today increas- the way participants in diplomacy, today not es the scope and complexity of the “inter- only representatives of governments, “pres- national” process. Communication across ent” themselves abroad. There has been a national lines can be physical and immedi- shift, gradual but increasingly noticeable, ate—“face to face”—or distant and techno- from the sovereign State as the sole repre- logically mediated —“virtual.” Anyone can sentative of the “nation” to the individual, participate. Control of the process is diffi- personal Self—the irreducible unit of which cult. The WikiLeaks story and the odyssey societies are made. Although this develop- of Edward Snowden, the National Security ment may seem radically new, it was latent Agency contractor who released informa- in the thinking of the seventeenth century tion worrisome to other governments as well with the formation of the theory of the social as of concern to the United States, are pres- contract, and later with the development of ent-day cases in point. It nearly always is an the philosophy of liberalism. Less and less individual person—authorized or not—who was the State thought of as a single, integrat- conveys a message internationally, and who ed, corporate entity—a “body.” Rather, it is may be the original source of the political composed of bodies—millions of increasing- information and policy ideas it contains. ly independent decision centers. In what follows, I shall review how, over Sovereignty, once considered to be all- the centuries, the character of internation- encompassing conceptually and also geo- al representation has changed, with a focus graphically confining, is breaking up. It is on the interplay between the States and the becoming fractionated and de-territorial- Self as actor. Following brief commentaries ized. Just as society is becoming atomized on the concepts of Sovereignty, Diploma- internally, the populations of most nations cy, Democracy, and the nature of diplomat- today, no longer limited in their physical ic representation, I shall explore the evolu- movements or their access to information, tion of international diplomacy by making are becoming globalized. In this new con- reference to a selection of thinkers—start- text, individuals are able to represent them- ing with Thomas Hobbes, and proceeding selves, and, more and more, they are doing so. With the aid of the Internet and the use 4 Congress was prompted by the action of a of social media, they enter into the blogo- Pennsylvania Quaker, Dr. George Logan, who met in Paris with Talleyrand and other Directory sphere, and “re-present” themselves to oth- officials during the Quasi-War with France. The ers, known and unknown, in other parts of Logan Act has never actually been enforced, although it has been used informally to dissuade the world. Physically too, they go abroad, in private peacemakers. their own capacities or as agents for others. COMPARATIVE POLITICS • 2 (15) / 2014 5 СРАВНИТЕЛЬНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ КОНЦЕПЦИЙ И ИНСТИТУТОВ Such global “individuals,” it should be mission; a Representative is the represen- noted, also include those involved profes- tative of the head of state. Much of Ambas- sionally in formal diplomacy. As represen- sador Bosworth’s diplomatic experience tatives of governments, especially those of involved dealing with authoritarian lead- large and powerful countries, these individ- ers, including Habib Bourguiba in Tunisia uals may speak weightily, with authority and and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. often with considerable effect. I have par- In this respect, his role was tradition- ticularly in mind following his recent retire- al, reminiscent of the days of monarchi- ment after twelve years of distinguished ser- cal rulers. vice as Dean of The Fletcher School of Law Democratic diplomacy was anoth- and Diplomacy, the American diplomat, er matter. In words that reminded me of Ambassador Stephen W. Bosworth. Be- George Kennan, the venerated American ing aware as a historian of his long experi- diplomat who also dealt with authoritarian ence in the diplomatic field and interested, regimes and who, being strict in his views, as a colleague, in his views on the subject, favored “a real career corps,”5 Dean Bos- I have recollected a number of his com- worth observed in remarks during his final ments, characteristically lapidary ones, that Fletcher Class Day Ceremony: “Diploma- I thought noteworthy at the time and that cy does not come naturally to democracies, have a bearing, both direct and indirect, on at least to this democracy.” As a profes- my present theme—the State-to-Self shift sional he, like Kennan, valued rationality, in the sphere of diplomatic representation. consistency and continuity, and, perhaps Dean Bosworth, in his welcoming ad- especially in dealing with autocratic and se- dress at the 39th Meeting of the Interna- cretive regimes, confidentiality. “I don’t re- tional Forum on Diplomatic Training—the ally know what ‘public diplomacy’ is,” I re- annual gathering of the world’s diplomat- call his once saying. Indeed, that term does ic academies—that was held at the Fletch- seem oxymoronic to many, not only to pro- er School in September 2011 offered this fessional diplomats, who consider that what definition of the group’s subject: “Diplo- they regularly do as diplomats has a pub- macy is the use of reasoned discourse com- lic aspect to it. At the same time, possibly bined with incentives and disincentives.” thinking about the role he played as Am- No doubt this definition reflected Ambas- bassador of the United States during the sador Bosworth’s experience as a represen- “People Power Revolution” in the Philip- tative of a major power, indeed the world’s pines and the central role of public opinion leading superpower.