Diplomacy in the 21St Century” Stiftung Wissenschaft Und Politik (SWP)/ German Institute for International and Security Affairs

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

Volker Stanzel Diplomacy in the 21st Century1

Working Paper Project “Diplomacy in the 21st Century” No 01 October 2016

1 The working paper was produced in the framework of the project “Diplomacy in the 21st century”, which is funded by the Zeit-Stiftung.

Table of Contents

1. Individual level: The Diplomat ...... 2

2. Instrumental level: Digitalized communication ..... 3

3. Institutional level: State-to-state diplomacy and transnational others ...... 5

4. Global level: “Successful” diplomacy in an environment of competing governances ...... 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 Please do not cite them without the permission of the authors or editors.

Research on diplomacy in the 21st century macy recognized by the parties concerned requires an interdisciplinary approach: His- obviously remains intact as instruments and torians will focus on the evolution of di- government institutions involved adapt. plomacy, communication experts on the Today, diplomacy faces the challenges of impact of new media, sociologists on dip- modern phenomena such as greater public lomatic character traits, cultural scientists attention and involvement, new means of on competing notions of governance, and communication, and a greater number of practitioners from Foreign Offices, IOs, international state and non-state actors, all NGOs etc. will direct their attention to as- necessary for the shaping of foreign policy. pects of everyday work. As a consequence, Against this backdrop, efforts to define questions of theory as much as of practicali- diplomacy adequately vary depending on ty, efficiency, efficacy, and future legitimacy the individual focus or theoretical perspec- of governance make for a suite of inquiries tive of the observer. “Mediation of es- into a wide range of aspects of diplomacy as trangement” is one such definition. Others it is shaped and practiced in today’s rapidly refer to diplomacy as a “translation of cul- changing inner-state and international en- tures.” Laswell classifies diplomacy as vironment. This working paper tries to re- “deeds,” on par with “words,” “money,” and flect on some of the major ones of these “weapons” as major policy instruments.2 aspects. It aims to look into global develop- Diplomacy may be seen as a “toolbox” of ments of diplomacy on the individual, in- policy, or an “instrument of knowledge and strumental, institutional, and international information production.” It may be regard- level of analysis, focusing on the post- ed as the “formative principle,” or identified millennial era; it hopes to tread an argu- as “essence of decision.”3 For the sake of this mentatively persuasive path between the first working paper, and as a point of depar- conflicting priorities of preserving and ture into more specified explorations, this modernizing diplomatic practice in the 21st study confines itself to regarding diplomacy century. as a characteristically pragmatic approach In the past, once governments of states or to handling relations between states and heads of tribes acknowledged that there other subjects acting in the international were other governments or tribes of at least sphere, always (echoing the introductory comparable strength pursuing common or observation of diplomacy’s origins) with the conflicting agendas, they needed agents to aim of finding ways to arrive at peaceful mediate interests, prepare for or avoid con- dispute resolution. flicts or wars, and negotiate the terms of The following four theme clusters are in- peace afterwards. Such a description may tended to give structure to the project and still suffice to describe the core of what a to introduce some trains of thought for diplomat’s role is about today, and will as conceptual clarification and theoretical long as a plurality of state-like entities shape embedding which might be pursued fur- international society. Beyond that rough ther: (1) Individual level: The Diplomat; (2) approximation, a wide range of qualities Instrumental level: Digitalized communica- characterize “diplomacy.” All the same, tion; (3) Institutional level: State-to-state changes in the structures of international diplomacy and transnational others; (4) society have continuously necessitated ad- Global level: “Successful” diplomacy in an aptation of various elements of diplomacy; environment of competing governances. such has historically been the case and still is today. From the status of sanctity a mes- senger enjoyed to the two Vienna Conven- tions on diplomatic and consular relations, a fundamental necessity has remained the same: protect an emissary on his mission 2 Harold D. Laswell, Politics. Who Gets What, abroad from the wrath of possible enemies When, How, Cleveland/New York: Whittlesey house, McGraw-Hill book company 1936/1958. (most of the time his hosts). The need to 3 Graham T. Allison/Philip Zelikow, Essence of safeguard a degree of legitimacy of diplo- Decision. Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, New York: Longman 1999.

1. Individual level: The Diplomat the focus of the profession. The help of experts is increasingly sought in the selection While diplomats were originally persons process. However, techniques of selection close to and within the same social class as have to integrate the specific personality the rulers, nowadays they are bureaucrats traits needed for a modern diplomat. who share certain qualifications with “rul- In addition, the particular biography of a ers” but not necessarily similar upbringing. person influences how they behave once Yet, personality continues to play an indis- they become a diplomat in a variety of ways. pensable role in certain aspects of the pro- Linguistic challenges, for example, increase fession of a diplomat, mainly in the way with a wider variety of personnel. “Digital they present themselves in communication natives” have ways of information gather- and negotiation. These personal qualifica- ing, information processing, and communi- tions a diplomat needs in present-day and cation that derive from the adaptation of future international environments trans- technologies that demand, in turn, the ad- cend what used to come with the training aptation of the individual in ways that im- formerly acquired through class-bound edu- pact their professional behavior. New pre- cation. “Charme”, “persuasiveness”, or “self- sent-day understandings of gender roles and effacement”, which may sound cliché yet family life have at least a double impact. are indispensable, are more a matter of in- They shape the individual’s way of com- dividual character traits, at best presumably municating with their environment—when as a result of class-independent family edu- for example modern roles of men and wom- cation. Although the social inheritance of en are concerned—and they reflect their educational opportunities is an ever-present society’s values, such as with the case of issue, moral standards and ethical orienta- equal gender partnerships. They thus them- tion in today’s secular societies are almost selves constitute “messages” to the outside as much a matter of character and individ- world that may influence the view of a ualized upbringing as they are a matter of country elsewhere and influence communi- training. Thus, recruiting diplomats in the cation with it. 21st century relies on carefully thought-out While communication from government methods. to government attains weight and im- Also, conflicts may arise more easily over portance through its official qualities, in- how the instructions given to a civil servant formal communication between individuals might override their ethic understanding of even on a high level may nevertheless be their society’s values. Questions of con- more efficient. Circumstances that lead to science may affect carriers of knowledge the decision to preference personal com- inside bureaucracies or politics who are munication may include the intricacy and aware of the public’s critical gaze. They may complexity of negotiations, the need for pertain to the right to “resist” a government confidentiality, and/or the speed with which (as it is possible, for example, under Article bureaucratic or political decisions may be 20 of the German Basic Law) and may lead arrived at. The discretion and informality to individual diplomats turning into “whis- diplomatic communication has acquired tleblowers” (or also, as in the past, spies). may have a strong influence on the direc- The selection of personnel possessing the tions they take and outcomes they reach. necessary qualifications of a diplomat can The development of modern communica- no longer rely on the results of social up- tion technologies, from air traffic to inter- bringing in a more or less defined, confined, net, has enabled top diplomats, politicians, and suitable environment. It has to look and heads of government and state to beyond knowledge and cognitive and lin- communicate personally and directly. Its guistic capabilities. It has to make an effort value lying in informal, conversation-type to screen candidates according to compli- personal exchange, it does not provide the cated criteria judging a candidate’s person- same level of reliability as formal, written ality: the difference from the selection of and documented communication, but it is corporate executives or managers reflects

an aspect of diplomacy that depends greatly 2. Instrumental level: Digitalized on the diplomatic individual. communication Challenged by the new circumstances, in- cluding a wider range of personnel with The advances of modern communication varying qualifications, it is less certain that technologies have an almost direct impact bureaucratic hierarchies are adequate for on the way diplomacy is conducted in at the task of assuring a rational selection of least three major ways: (1) The increasing information, knowledge, and opinion from time burden on decision-making, (2) The the bottom and bringing it to the level of need to distill rapidly incoming information powerful political decision-making. The responsibly, and (3) Integration of social other way around, decisions on their way media into diplomatic work. from the top down will be adapted by the individuals involved to be practical on the (1) The speed of transmission of infor- operational level. Power, however, may at mation from missions abroad to head- least partially or temporarily today reside quarters and vice versa as well as be- outside of traditional hierarchies, and may tween foreign ministries and other gov- even be distributed over many, often non- ernment agencies (beginning with that state actors; this tendency towards “network of the head of government), of foreign diplomacy” might even be regarded as a ministries and the agencies of other counter-reaction to “autocratization” and states allows governments and their hierarchization, both of which curb power agencies only minimal time lag for con- accumulation. Formulation of bottom- sidering a course of action between an generated information or proposals and the event and the reaction it triggers. The method by which instructions are given to consequence is an increasingly heavy the operational diplomatic levels today take burden on the actors at the top of hierar- into account influences from outside di- chies as well as where proposals for plomacy, government, or even the state. courses of action are formulated, both in They lead to greater and faster coordination the bureaucracy and in politics. This and polylateral4 negotiating and decision- burden is quantifiable in terms of time making but they also circumvent individu- consumed for consultation, electronical- als and their influence and thus threaten ly and by travel, level of responsibility for the democratic principle of accountability a widening range of issues reaching the of governmental action. top, and demand by the public. It also creates tension between the need to act Topics for further studies and case studies: (1) Role speedily and the need to act responsibly and “personal qualifications” of the individual on the basis of thought-through infor- diplomat, (2) new types of diplomats (celebrity mation, a tension enhanced by physical diplomats, digital diplomats, diplomatic after- factors such as late-night conferences, lives), (3) impact of changed gender roles, family, long-distance plane rides, and simple (4) individually applied work techniques (notes, overloaded agendas. A remedy to lighten demarches, treaties, agreements, reports, consular the time burden on decision-making work, protocol, confidentiality), (5) hierarchies and processes has not been found so far. The working structures, (6) accountability, ethics, whis- risk of wrong decisions taken not be- tleblowing/spying. cause of false interpretation of known facts, a risk that always comes with being human, but because of insufficient time to consider thoroughly facts and options, thus increases constantly.

(2) Secondly, information travels as fast, or faster, on routes other than diplomatic 4 A term persuasively introduced in diploma- channels, enabling competing forces to cy research by Geoffrey Wiseman; see act on their own, possibly faster than a (accessed 30 April, 2016). government. Much less than in the past,

therefore, does diplomacy entail simply duction” therefore might be a better de- the gathering of information. Instead, scription of such diplomatic work. The the quality of diplomacy as a method of risk of shallowness in the course of pro- providing information increasingly cor- cessing knowledge undermines the abil- responds to the sophistication with ity to produce such trust. which crucial information is discerned and selected. The more this is handled by (3) Today the public’s constant gaze upon what formerly were information gather- matters of government and thus also on ers, mainly in the missions or on mis- foreign policy and diplomacy results in sions abroad, the easier it is for head- comments, observations, demands, and quarters to edit information into rea- conversations; social media may not ini- soned arguments that support proposals tiate these, but it does transport them. for courses of action for the policy- Conversely, social media has in many makers. At the same time, control over ways become tools of diplomatic work as where information originates or ends up well. It does not, like government “prop- is not guaranteed—which might mean aganda” in the past, monologously func- the end of discreteness. In effect, there is tion in one direction only, but rather “in a danger that technological change is a dialogue with foreign audiences”6 as submitted to without sufficient scrutiny much as with national ones. Modern dip- to determine how to harness the results lomats are unavoidably under pressure that come with it in terms of greater to make use of social media, and similar- amounts of—seemingly vital— ly are forced to make themselves accessi- information. Speed may seem to be of ble, and thus vulnerable, to the public the essence, but the quality of infor- (“naming and shaming”). This inter- mation is too, and out of information course with traditional interlocutors and asymmetry necessarily arises a conflict. If the public, or only interested parties, diplomacy is considered to be, among creates a vast network of linkages with other things, “knowledge production,”5 known or unknown, influential or pow- in reality it is more like the most simple erless actors, “celebrity diplomats (with knowledge distillation—in real time, be- their own observant and attentive pub- cause even here time is limited. This car- lic),” and spectators, subject to linguistic ries the risk of superficiality. The aim of and formal constraints of the new media knowledge distillation needs to be the (e.g. short text messaging). Independent rational and effective processing of in- of its true added value for the conduct of formation for policy proposals that ena- modern diplomacy, social media impacts ble the maker of foreign policy to take it in general and in very specific ways well-informed decisions. Modern digital- depending on issues concerned. Through ized diplomatic communication occurs its influence on the public, and instigat- with the desire to increase flexibility in ed by sensationalism—often for commer- order to respond to real time effects but cial reasons—not different from tradi- in fact needs to balance between the tional media but with greater impact, practicality of speed and the importance social media may even create pseudo- of dependability and reliability. The ob- crises which, despite the short time- jective needs to be dependability and re- spans they occur over, still gobble up liability that enables those diplomats or significant resources. This is one risk the politicians acting on the basis of infor- employment of social media in diploma- mation received, to trust in it—because cy carries. Another, more profound one they will not be able to scrutinize is the change it unavoidable forces upon sources and examine the reliability of in- the way, diplomats and the public think formation provided to them. “Trust pro- 6 Jan Melissen, “The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice”, in: Jan Melissen 5 Iver B. Neumann, At Home with the Diplomats. (ed.), The New Public Diplomacy. Soft Power in Inter- Inside a European Foreign Ministry, Ithaca/ Lon- national Relations, Basingstoke/N New York: don: Cornell University Press 2012, p. 7. Palgrave Macmillan 2005, p. 14.

about their work, and foreign policy in 3. Institutional level: State-to-state general. For one thing, it needs to be pre- diplomacy and transnational others sentable, understandable. As it exists in a world where social media are an instru- One might hypothesize that diplomacy in ment of competition for the public's at- the increasingly de-limited world acts with- tention, foreign policy risks being formu- in a confining framework of an internation- lated so that it is comprehensible— al society made up of sovereign nation-states possibly to the detriment of its complexi- in name only. As a result of the effort to deal ty, and possibly decision may be taken in with the reality of fraying sovereignty on certain ways precisely because that is the one hand and the need to solve globally how they may be comprehensible, and originated problems, many more or less ”sellable." This risk may affect various ar- “traditional” fora for conference diplomacy eas of foreign policy but may be most in and more international and supranational cases such as crisis management. Here, organizations have been created; but many after all, foreign policy measures may di- are institutions sui generis. The European rectly and quickly affect people’s very Union is a prime example. It partially com- lives. mands means usually available to nation states only, yet it is steered in all matters The example of crisis management may be deemed of essential importance by its most starkly illustrating the risks that come member states’ intergovernmentally work- with all three major areas of digitalized ing institutions. This influences diplomacy communication. The others, however, i.e. among EU member states. With an EU “Eu- the impact of social media on the formula- ropean External Action Service“—essentially tion and thinking of diplomacy and foreign another term for foreign service—working policy, the danger to the trust deciders have side by side with national foreign services in information provided to them, and the and constituting a collective reserve of dangers inherent in the necessity to take knowledge for foreign ministries, especially decisions quickly and possibly with suffi- of smaller foreign services, member states cient time for reflection, weigh at least as cooperate, or resolve conflicts, in signifi- much. The diplomacy of the future will cantly different ways. This becomes clear if therefore have to work out ways to manage compared to, for example, methods em- these risks well enough to make it possible ployed between the USA and China. Eventu- to benefit from the advantages of digitaliza- ally, the ultimately unfulfilled political and tion without falling victim to its risks too societal need for global governance has cre- easily. ated diplomacy and diplomats that are hy- brids of nation-state-oriented and suprana- Topics for further studies and case studies: (1) Use tionally-focused diplomacy and its agents, of communication technologies by diplomats and with the major task of integrating various diplomatic institutions, (2) problems in public “diplomacies”. communications due to particular character of Diplomacy today might be the agency of new media, (3) digitalization, the gaze of the pub- an extensive inter-societal discourse7 (with lic, social media, (4) specific social media platforms the emphasis on “extensive”) but that does such as Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia e.a. (5) public not mean that it is an amicable conversa- diplomacy, cultural work, (6) information protection.8 Be it hard power, coercion, soft power, tion, (7) selected examples of crisis management, institutional power, or symbolic power, (8) risk management. governments or other actors interacting

7 Adapting a thought by Michael Koch, „Wozu noch Diplomaten?“ in: Enrico Brandt/Christian Buck (Hg.), Auswärtiges Amt: Diplomatie als Beruf, Opladen: Lecke + Budrich, 2002, p. 357. 8 The statement “Diplomacy without war is like music without instruments” is attributed to King Friedrich II the Great of Prussia.

internationally find themselves obligated to fact their policy-making depends on flows of justify their doings not only to their inter- activities that are hardly government- locutors or victims of their actions, but of- controlled and transcend their traditional ten also to their own public. Multiple pub- limits. Their policies are reduced to admin- lics might be reflected in “polarised domes- istration of situations originating some- tic landscapes”, moved by fear, ethical con- where outside their sphere of influence. siderations, nationalist emotions, or other Political participation, which used to be motives. Diplomacy is today an interlocutor limited to people of a given state, now oc- to governments and their agencies in a curs across borders, and not only in times of much wider sense than in the past. It is also crisis or war. The discourse on foreign policy an interlocutor not only of its own govern- among elites and the public becomes de- ment but observes and “acts” beyond the limited as well. This creates grey areas relat- borders of its nation state. ed in different degrees to foreign policy Going further, however, many large seg- where foreign ministries can at best try to ments of modern societies might hope that moderate and coordinate activities. They traditional nation states regain their former may become more responsive, but not nec- supreme status as sovereign actors, in reali- essarily more accountable. This has an im- ty the process of the de-limitation of the pact on how diplomatic institutions are world, i.e. the dissolution of borders in the organized and structured; many more “fac- widest sense9 continues at great speed. es” representing “diplomacy” to the outside While states retain their formal status as the world become necessary—special envoys, for ultimate providers of legitimacy of interna- example, from the traditional service, or tional governance and security, its guard- internationally active “celebrity diplomats.” rails are breaking and open to actors such as In embassies, and increasingly in headquar- other transnationally active government ters as well, a very practical problem of co- agencies, parliaments, transnational corpo- herence of diplomatic work appears along rations, media, NGOs, civil societies, or or- with the increasing number of “attaches” ganized crime striving to participate in un- from other agencies or non-governmental organized ways in influencing or even shap- institutions (universities, think tanks, cor- ing international society and nations. The porations) with inherently different priori- interest that corporations (and not just tra- ties from diplomacy. Here, flexibility, neces- ditional large enterprises but SMEs as much) sary as it is, tends to become the enemy of have in shaping conditions in other states expertise. Diplomatic institutions, con- gives them influence on governments that fronted with such hardly controllable chal- want to attract investment and taxes and lenges, may on the other hand be tempted, provide employment. It also allows them to instead of developing qualities of political influence governments (mostly their own) involvement, to withdraw into technocratic who may in turn bring other states to pro- operational modes producing results that vide or prevent opportunities for interna- are just “good enough.” This risk of strip- tionally active corporations. ping away responsibility may drain the States may seem still to be separate enti- sources of diplomatic power—and may even ties and to pursue sovereign policies.10 In become a “new normal” phenomenon. Civil society may rarely be aware of the 9 “Borders” consisting of anything that impede full dimension of the effects of globalization or used to impede intercourse between societies in different states, such as transmission of on markets and societies. In many cases information, travel, trade, and transnational though, its attention is drawn to phenome- threats such as crime or climate change. na arising out of globalization. These may 10 The misunderstanding that basically states are still what they used to be, is one of the offer attractive additions or threats to one’s reasons for today's movements of "anger" in quality of life and affluence. Civil society many democracies where people demand to "take back control" from unidentifiable globally active forces and to return to a world „we (accessed 10 2016, see July 2016).

then formulates demands on foreign policy adapting to this new reality, needs to medi- that put pressure on politicians to act in ate between pursuing its own objectives as situations beyond their reach and com- part of a larger political framework and mand. It also forces diplomats to devise following and cooperating with, or imped- courses of action that promise solutions ing, civil society’s particularistic concerns responding satisfactorily to civil society. and activities. Therefore, coalition building Modern conference diplomacy is one out- becomes more and more essential to diplo- come which puts to good use an ancient macy, both at the internal and the external diplomatic strategy for avoiding conflict as level and with it the ability to discern who long as possible--in the best case until a so- in the vast world of non-state actors makes lution is found: Keep talking. At the same an appropriate partner. In the course of time, civil society, like corporations, in- such efforts, confronted with more complex creasingly tries to take things in its own operational tasks and higher public expec- hands, not (only) in the traditional way of tations than ever before, diplomacy seems voting or demonstrating, but by creating to come closer to “politics,” and will corre- internationally active associations and spondingly be treated by distrustful publics transnationally organized publics - NGOs, with resentment. NPOs - of which there are many more than there are conference formats or diplomatic Topics for further studies and case studies: (1) international institutions. Created and Modern conference diplomacy, (2) United Nations, working mono-thematically and often pat- EU, globalized interdependence of diplomacy, terned after the way internationally active selected international organizations, (3) diffusion corporations work, with pressure achieved of power as a threat to diplomatic coherence, di- through modern media, these organizations plomacy and agenda setting, (4) business and sometimes manage to achieve objectives trade, civil society and NGOs, (5) international that traditional diplomacy fails to, at least organized crime, terrorism, non-traditional chal- over a short period of time. The success of lenges, (5) tourism, (6) specific actors such as the the Paris conference on climate change in International Crisis Group (ICG), Greenpeace, Am- 2015 for example would not have been nesty International e.a. achieved (and the conference itself possibly would not have been held) without some NGOs adamantly lobbying governments and 4. Global level: “Successful” diplomacy in working with politicians and diplomats an environment of competing over time. governances Yet, civil society also produces organizations and movements which do not pursue In the end, like all tools to governance, di- objectives that would help solve global plomacy seeks to be “successful.” This suc- problems, but which to the contrary, com- cess is derived from a given foreign policy pound them. Presently the anti-Islamic and is measured by the significance of the movement "Pegida" in Germany is an exam- objects achieved (or not). It may be imagi- ple, but in most cases the question of nable that a foreign policy is successful de- whether a civil society movement is a posi- spite diplomatic failures; the other way tive or negative influence depends on the around however is hardly possible. Defining political point of view of the observer, as for the criteria for diplomatic “success” in the example the dispute over the role of NGOs future therefore also has to take into ac- in China demonstrates. Even at the best of count what the success of future foreign times demands of multiple and interna- policy depends on. While it is global gov- tional publics often conflict, and obvious ernance that is theoretically needed to deal drawbacks, for example, the shortcomings with the foreign policy challenges in a of international communication in lan- world where “order” is continuously rede- guages, are often not sufficiently mastered, fined and established (or not) in novel ways, or are impacted negatively by misunder- part of the public is still with tradition: it standings based in culture. Diplomacy, identifies with the nation-state and seeks its

protection. It expects successful foreign “management of expectations” which calls policy from its national governments, rep- thinking in centralized and national terms resentation of its interests, and it takes it for into question. Diplomacy will have to juggle granted that such representation of its in- demands caused by inescapable interna- terests might entail conflict with other national requirements and others put forward tion-states. Foreign policy has to balance by a watchful public, which in itself is active that paradox: the nation-state-oriented pub- beyond its country’s borders. Bound by be- lic’s expectations and the necessities of ing part of a state’s policy and the will of its safeguarding a nation’s interests through its makers, diplomacy will also have to manage polylateral policy and diplomacy. Accord- activities by non-state actors which some- ingly, questions arise about to what degree times may afflict the very roots of a state’s diplomacy is a “soft power” tool, which kind policy. Finally it will have to manage the use of “hard power” it needs at its back in the of modern technologies in ways that en- modernization process, and whether that is hance the basis for rational decisions by an essential factor in making the diplomacy policy-makers. Even with their lesser role in of nation-states “successful.” the world of the 21st century, and possibly This new environment for diplomacy has lesser impact on the shaping of the interna- led to both matching and diverging efforts tional order, nation-states’ diplomacy must, to deal with it. Thus, the question of wheth- similar to foreign policy itself, pursue effec- er modernization serves as a catalyst for tive, efficient, and (legally as well as moral- either diplomatic homogenization or het- ly) legitimate strategies in the international erogenization remains unanswered. States environment. The question of whether a learn from one another, most of the time in normative frame for diplomacy is even pos- cooperation with the new international sible remains open. institutions. Their way of coping has been impacted by their own traditions as well. In Topics for further studies and case studies: (1) the case of the USA its superpower role in- Delineation of foreign policy and diplomacy, defin- fluences the conduct of its diplomacy differ- ing "success" of diplomacy, (2) the use of ently than Europe. In Russia and China, hard/soft/symbolic power, war, (3) selected exam- party-led governance has given these coun- ples of effective/ineffective, efficient/inefficient, tries’ diplomacy their own specificities, for legitimate/illegitimate diplomatic measures, (4) example through the primacy of ideology pursuit of diplomatic long-term goals against the over pragmatism demanded by authoritari- backdrop of day-to-day management efforts, (5) an party influence. This is not without ef- non-Western diplomacy (Russia, China, Japan, fect: In many ways, diplomatic “moderniza- India). tion” is impeded by non-pluralistic polities. Other countries may have found ways to be efficient that are derived from their own cultural mindsets, and these would not be just “icing on the cake,”11 but may make for successful diplomatic courses of action too. Generally, the “pragmatic rationalism”12 characterizing diplomacy in the past will also be a principle in the future. Nonethe- less, modern diplomacy has to deal with conflicting demands from within. At the same time, the social, cultural, and political changes of the 21st century require a flexible

11 Merje Kuus, “Symbolic power in diplomatic practice: Matters of style in Brussels”, in: Coop- eration and Conflict, Vol. 50 (3) 2015, p. 368/9. 12 John Robert Kelley, “The New Diplomacy: Evolution of a Revolution”, in: Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol. 21 (2010), p. 286.