Table of Contents Introduction Theoretical Background, Methodology & Case Studies 1 Pioneers of the Alliance: Konrad Adenauer & John Foster Dulles 10 The ‘Old Boys’: Helmut Schmidt, Gerald Ford & Henry Kissinger 21 The Other Special Relationship: Helmut Kohl, Ronald Reagan & George H.W. Bush 32 From Friends to Foes: Gerhard Schröder & George W. Bush 43 At Arm’s Length: Angela Merkel & Barack Obama 53 Conclusion Personal Diplomacy: A considerable factor in German-American Relations? 61 The Role of Personal Relationships in German-American Relations The history of international relations is fraught with encounters and correspondences between individuals to discuss the state of affairs within and between their respective countries. First accounts of what would only be defined as ‘diplomacy’ thousands of years later, can be found from as early on as the 14th century BC in Egypt. Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, written in the 8th century BC, bear traces of Greek diplomacy. In the 12th century, Byzantium sent out first professional diplomats and in the 15th century the first embassies were set up by Italian city-states during the Renaissance.1 Evidently diplomacy has been applied consistently and in all corners of the world through the ages and thereby become an essential component of international politics. In the process, much like the countries that practiced it, diplomacy has been in flux. Whilst it was often the prerogative of those educated to exercise it, modern diplomats, politicians have not shied away from using it as a means to their ends. That is not to say that foreign policy was once, or ever, made solely by diplomats, but rather that politicians have discovered diplomacy as an effective strategy for themselves. There has emerged a trend of heads of states forging personal relationships with those of other nations, both of enmity and of amity. The friendships between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, as well as the consultations between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan - though arguably more tense - for example, have spurred the title of a Special Relationship between their nations. Though perhaps most prominent in the British- American alliance, these personal contacts were by no means limited to their bilateral ties. John F. Kennedy won African support during the Cold War, amongst other things by having unusually cordial meetings and inviting leaders like Guinea’s Ahmed Sékou Touré to spend time with his family.2 His successor Lyndon Johnson met repeatedly with Mexican President Adolfo Lopez Mateos in order to successfully put an end to the Chamizal dispute.3 All of these were instances of what can be called ‘personal diplomacy’. 1 Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. “Diplomacy.” Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2009. 2 Philip Muehlenbeck, “Kennedy and Touré: A Success in Personal Diplomacy,” Diplomacy and Statecraft 19 (2008). 3 Eberhardt Victor Niemeyer, Personal Diplomacy: Lyndon B. Johnson and Mexico, 1963-1968 (Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, 1988). 1 Theoretical Background Personal diplomacy is defined as a type of diplomacy conducted largely in private “by means of direct human contact … by those who are not diplomatic agents … but whose personal standing ensures that they will be heard. A head of state … may engage in such activity”.4 The motivation behind its use is to avoid involving the public in foreign policy- making, as “engaging the public raises the stakes, creating public demand that may be unpredictable over time, and may have small payoffs in terms of national security or electoral favor”.5 Personal diplomacy is therefore different from ‘public diplomacy’, which as its name suggests takes place in the open and is aimed at foreign publics, rather than one’s own national population, and has therefore been likened to propaganda (though there exist various, and at times, contradictory definitions of the term).6 Of course, though the two types differ in their nature and stand in opposition, one does not exclude the other. A president may choose to apply whichever he considers more fitting case by case. To appeal to a public may at times not be feasible, while personal contact may have the desired effect, and vice versa. Alternatively, it is possible to use both types of diplomacy simultaneously. Indeed, historically presidents have typically used a combination to achieve their goals. While the occurrence of personal diplomacy has been acknowledged by academia, it has thus far been treated foremost in singular cases, rather than as a perpetual theme. Thus, there exist scattered historical works on instances in which especially American presidents are believed to have used personal diplomacy, as mentioned above, but not a single one devoted to the phenomenon itself. It has not been conceptualized or been treated as a deliberate strategy. However, as the circumstances and manners in which personal diplomacy can be said to have taken place indicate that it is not incidental, the aim of this thesis shall be to demonstrate that it is in fact a foreign policy method that has been applied fairly consistently in transatlantic relations and thereby become a standard practice. 4 Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Diplomacy, s.v. “Personal Diplomacy,” Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. 5 Lynda Lee Kaid and Christina Holtz-Bacha, Encyclopedia of Political Communication (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2008): 633. 6 Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Diplomacy, s.v. “Public Diplomacy,” Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. 2 As indicated, few have treated personal diplomacy as a recurring, or ongoing, phenomenon. In the field of diplomatic studies, professor at the University of Maryland Elmer Plischke does acknowledge its existence as such, though he devotes far more attention to ‘summit diplomacy’. As its title implies, summit diplomacy regards only the encounter of politicians in the scope of a conference and is therefore limited to a few, predominantly public, meetings between individuals. As Plischke remarks about its longevity however, “it is erroneous to maintain that personal diplomacy at the summit and ministerial levels is a new phenomenon … (there is a) remarkable resurgence since the 1930s”.7 Furthermore, he considers personal diplomacy somewhat of an extension of summit diplomacy, in arguing that the former “has been broadened in scope and currently encompasses … personal presidential communications, the use of presidential personal representatives or special agents, visits of world leaders to the United States, presidential visits and tours abroad”.8 The question of which came first deserves an entire debate of its own, but what transpires from Plischke’s analysis is that the two are closely interlinked and that summit diplomacy is essentially a form of personal diplomacy. Having said that, there is an argument to be made that summit diplomacy may also be linked to public diplomacy due to its publicity. Jan Melissen of the Clingendael Institute characterizes the ambiguous nature of summit diplomacy, by pointing out that “focusing on the physical meeting without much reference to the wider diplomatic context does tend to reinforce the cliché of the summit as an example of improvised diplomacy,”9 when in reality there are text writers, rehearsals and many other preparations involved. He also specifies that the reporting media impacts on the event as “diplomacy at the highest level thrives in the limelight (and) involves an important element of drama”.10 This suggests that meetings at the summit, as they are essentially staged, may be less indicative of personal relationships than could be assumed. 7 Elmer Plischke, “American Ambassadors – An Obsolete Species? Some Alternatives to Traditional Diplomatic Representation,” World Affairs 147 (1984): 5. 8 Elmer Plischke, Modern Diplomacy: The Art and the Artisans (Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1979): 69. 9 Jan Melissen, Summit Diplomacy Coming of Age: Discussion Papers in Diplomacy (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, 2003): 7. 10 Idem, 13. 3 Academic literature on summit diplomacy will certainly be taken into consideration, though it will be treated with caution and as one element of its encompassing superior, personal diplomacy. To focus only on summit diplomacy would be to magnify what is in most interpersonal relations a minor factor, meetings during conferences, and to overlook personal correspondences and one-on-one visits, which are arguably more important in the making of a personal relationship. Oddly enough, there exists more literature on summit diplomacy than on the broader phenomenon of personal diplomacy, perhaps due to its visibility and prominence in the news (see the G8 summits). As it sheds light on specific events, it will be contemplated where individuals’ meetings in the setting of a conference were instrumental in their friendship or possibly, enmity. Whereas personal diplomacy is largely overlooked in the fields of study in which you would expect to find references to it, namely political science, international relations and diplomatic studies, some attention has been devoted to this topic in the field of political psychology (though it draws on some of the other fields). As the name suggests, political psychology analyses political behavior (both of politicians and the people in general) from a psychological point of view, with the main goal of understanding the motivations behind individual and group decision-making. Political scientists Margaret