diplomatica 1 (2019) 46-55 brill.com/dipl Rethinking the Geographies of Diplomacy Fiona McConnell University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom [email protected] Abstract Space and place matter to diplomacy, yet surpris ingly little analytical attention has been paid to geographical approaches and questions. This intervention sketches out the potentially productive lens that a geographical approach to diplomacy can offer in terms of diversify ing conceptual framings, widen ing the empirical lens so that a broader range of practices, actors and objects come into view when we consider “di- plomacy,” and embracing an open and integrative approach to interdisciplinary think- ing about diplomacy. Keywords space – place – diplomatic setting – interdisciplinarity – human geography ... The foyer of “Building E” at the un’s Palais des Nations in Geneva is as drab as its 1969 modernist exterior but entering Room xx on the third floor is like entering another world. Cream leather chairs are arranged in concentric arcs in the expansive conference room which is brightly lit and able to seat over 700. And then there is the ceiling: a dazzling sculp- ture by Spanish artist Miquel Barceló consisting of brightly coloured sta- lactites made from pigments symbolically sourced from all continents. Representatives of minority communities – particularly those for whom this is their first time at the un – are awestruck by the space. They pause at the doorway, taking in the ceiling, and then reach for their phone to take photographs which they immediately post on social media.1 1 Author’s fieldnotes from 8th un Forum on Minority Issues, Geneva, November 24, 2015. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/25891774-00101008Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 07:20:04PM via free access <UN> Rethinking The Geographies Of Diplomacy 47 ∵ Space and place matter to diplomacy. If diplomacy is understood as the pro- cess of negotiating and mediating estrangement between groups,2 while retaining separateness,3 then spatiality emerges as integral to this practice. In essence state-based diplomacy can be imagined both as a network of bilateral and multilateral relations, and as materialized in a series of nodes. The latter are designated sites that are choreographed to produce particular affective at- mospheres, be that symbolic sites of international neutrality such as un build- ings, conference venues and ministerial offices that are associated with highly ritualized behavior,4 or spaces like Room xx that have a sublime aesthetic de- signed to create a sense of awe.5 Beyond these relational spaces and tangible places are the increasingly important digital domains of diplomacy in which social media connections and the proliferation of digital data are transform- ing the speed and tone of diplomatic communications and generating new diplomatic agendas around cyber security, privacy and internet governance.6 Yet despite the centrality of spatiality to the practice of diplomacy, surpris- ingly little analytical attention has been paid to geographical approaches and questions. It is only in recent years that a select group of scholars in diplomacy studies have started to focus on the spatial dimensions of diplomacy and even then the theorization of concepts such as space, place and scale remains some- what underdeveloped.7 For example, whilst Iver Neumann usefully sets out the evolution of traditional sites of diplomacy – negotiation tables, ministerial of- fices, press conferences – and hyperspatial sites where diplomacy appears out of place, his 2013 book Diplomatic Sites is surprisingly devoid of a theoretical 2 Der Derian, J. On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987). 3 Sharp, P. Diplomatic Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 4 Constantinou, C. M. “Before the Summit: Representations of Sovereignty on the Himalayas.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 27 (1) (1998), 23–53; Craggs, R. “Postcolonial Ge- ographies, Decolonization, and the Performance of Geopolitics at Commonwealth Confer- ences.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 35 (1) (2014), 39–55. 5 On the role of the sublime in diplomacy see Neumann, I. B. “Sublime Diplomacy: Byzan- tine, Early Modern, Contemporary.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 34 (3) (2006), 865–88. 6 Bjola, C., and M. Holmes. Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (London: Routledge, 2015). 7 For example see Shimazu, N. “Diplomacy as Theatre: Staging the Bandung Conference of 1955.” Modern Asian Studies 48 (1) (2014), 225–52; Shimazu, N. “Places in Diplomacy.” Political Geography 31 (2012), 335–36. diplomatica 1 (2019) 46-55 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 07:20:04PM via free access <UN> 48 McConnell engagement with the concepts of space and place.8 Meanwhile in the field of human geography, though there has been a long tradition of interrogating spatial practices in various (geo)political domains, as a discipline geographers have been surprisingly slow to turn critical attention to the field of diplomacy. My aim in this short intervention is to sketch out the potentially productive lens that a geographical approach to diplomacy can offer in terms of diversify- ing the conceptual framings that can be brought to bear on diplomacy, widen- ing the empirical lens so that a broader range of practices, actors and objects come into view when we consider “diplomacy,” and embracing an open and integrative approach to interdisciplinary thinking about diplomacy. Across human geography the topic of diplomacy has received very little attention. A handful of historical geographers and the occasional diplomatic historian have turned attention to connections between geography, diplomacy and colonial knowledge, particularly in relation to cartographic practices,9 but a distinct historical geography approach to the study of diplomacy has yet to emerge. Meanwhile work within critical geopolitics may have been pioneering in deconstructing the discourses of foreign policy,10 and examining the agency of geopolitical elites,11 but the practices, sites and actors of diplomacy have rarely featured center stage in political geography scholarship. As Herman van der Wusten and Virginie Mamadouh note, “political geography textbooks, the repositories of the ordered stock of knowledge of the relevant sub-discipline, treat the subject of diplomacy sparingly, if at all.”12 Illustrative of this is the strikingly scant attention paid by geographers to one of the most quintessen- tial sites of diplomacy, the United Nations. The only dedicated work on politi- cal geography and the un is a special issue of that title published in Political 8 Neumann, I. B. Diplomatic Sites: A Critical Enquiry (London: Hurst, 2013). 9 For example, Withers, C. W. J. “On Enlightenment’s Margins: Geography, Imperialism and Mapping in Central Asia, C.1798-C.1838.” Journal of Historical Geography 39 (2013), 3–18; Legg, S. “An International Anomaly? Sovereignty, the League of Nations and India’s Princely Geographies.” Journal of Historical Geography 43 (2014), 96–110; Henrikson, A.K. “The Map as an ‘Idea’: the Role of Cartographic Imagery during the Second World War.” American Cartographer 2 (1975), 19–53. 10 For example Dodds, K. “Geo-Politics, Experts and the Making of Foreign Policy.” Area 25 (1) (1993), 70–74; Ó Tuathail, G., and J. Agnew. “Geopolitics and Discourse: Practical Geo- political Reasoning in American Foreign Policy.” Political Geography 11 (2) (1992), 190–204. 11 For example Kuus, M. “Professionals of Geopolitics: Agency in International Politics.” Geography Compass 2 (6) (2008), 2062–79; Müller, M. “Situating Identities: Enacting and Studying Europe at a Russian Elite University.” Millennium: Journal of International Stud- ies 37 (1) (2008), 3–25. 12 van der Wusten, H., and V. Mamadouh. “The Geography of Diplomacy.” In The Internation- al Studies Encyclopedia, ed. R. A. Denemark (Oxford: Blackwell, 2010), 2884–2902: 2284. diplomaticaDownloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 1 (2019) 46-55 07:20:04PM via free access <UN> Rethinking The Geographies Of Diplomacy 49 Geography in 1996. The agenda behind the issue was to make the case for “ge- ographers of all persuasions” to contribute to “the education of the people of the world about the un”13 and it was notable that the articles “were not to be theoretical […] but rather were to describe, explain and analyze practical, day- to-day un activities,”14 from peacekeeping to mediating boundary disputes and environmental protection.15 What attention had been paid to diplomacy within geography was, until relatively recently, either topographical or was focused on case studies of par- ticular diplomatic negotiations. The latter has ranged from detailed analysis of how the international diplomacy of the Dayton Accords brought into being a particularly ethnicized construction of Bosnia,16 to the diplomacy of peace- building in Israel-Palestine,17 and how the eu’s projection of “civilian power” underpins its positioning as a global actor.18 Meanwhile topographical work has largely focused on analyzing the shifting locations of diplomacy. This in- cludes studies on the factors determining the selection of sites of diplomatic exchange,19 quantitative examinations of diplomatic connections, networks 13 Glassner, M. “Political Geography and the United Nations.” Political Geography 15 (3–4) (1996), 227–30. 14 Ibid., 227, emphasis in the original. 15 See Chopra, J. “The Space of Peace-Maintenance.” Political Geography