Withthe greatest respect, may I suggest that it’s time for a lighter note? Serious fun, that is, so my editor does not throw the article out before it has a chance to team up with the printing press. Does that animal still exist? I must find out and not allow myself to be submerged by ‘digital inkjet’.
I was reflecting recently on how diplomacy continues with its intangible, but real, place in world politics. With ample evidence of Mainland China being intent on economic dominance of the world, we may not be convinced by the over-smiling, diplomatic style of interaction between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump in the Chinese leader’s recent State visit to the USA. Both out to make an impression.
There was none of the aggression of the visit of Ukrainian President Volodymy Zelenskyy when he and Trump nearly came to blows. Well, that actually happened, of course, in the video-shopped version, with Zelenskyy exhibiting top-class technique, though sub-standard diplomacy.
What in fact is diplomacy? One of the best informal and humorous quotations must be that of Sidney Brody (who?) when he said: “A diplomat is a person who can be disarming when his country is not.” Only perhaps outclassed by that of Caskie Stinnett (how many times did her school get that name wrong?) who said: “A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip.”
Those two comments are ample evidence that you don’t have to be world famous to launch a top-class piece of humour. Ironic humour, of course; a style of humour that is not shared by all cultures of the world and leaves many scratching their heads in confusion. Since this is a Comment page, which might also be called an Opinion page, one should start by taking a view of the role and significance of diplomacy in our world today. The Collins Dictionary defines diplomacy as ‘the practice of managing relationships, communication and negotiations between nations or groups through peaceful means’. The rough and ready outcome of that elegantly described concept might easily be, ‘While you’re talking, you won’t be fighting’.
And the delivery of diplomacy can be at any level, whether going right to the top in discussions between heads of State or in the routinely formal way through the diplomatic section of a country’s public service. This invariably includes, for the major countries of the world, having diplomatic missions in foreign countries, enabling a more detailed, ongoing and peaceful relationship.
One that generally provides support for commercial, humanitarian and other programmes. It’s a serious business. China has the highest number of diplomatic missions around the world. Can you believe the number 274? The USA has 271 and, believe it or not, Turkey has 254. Given Turkey’s status in world politics, you can be forgiven for thinking that perhaps there is one digit too many in that last number.
A broadly publicised and highly unpopular reduction in humanitarian aid for the less developed countries of the world was introduced by the USA Government earlier this year. There was also reduced spending on diplomatic activities. There will no doubt have been excesses displayed within both areas of international activity by the Americans, though the somewhat brutal reduction in humanitarian expenditure could have been handled differently. In the case of diplomatic presence, what has attracted a degree of scepticism in the past is the somewhat lavish living, working and travel conditions. The extent to which top diplomatic staff are often seen publicly in an entertainment or banqueting context gives rise to the remark that a top diplomat or ambassador is someone who is sent abroad to eat for their country.
Under international law, diplomatic staff get numerous immunities and special privileges. Us ordinary mortals only see diplomats importing tonnes of goods and equipment without paying customs duties or being allowed to just laugh away the parking fines.
But the exemptions go wider than that. A diplomat cannot be prosecuted for a criminal offence. There are, of course, compensating measures. Under a Vienna Convention, a host country can ask a diplomat’s country to recall that person or request the same country to waive the diplomatic immunity. Or simply encourage that country to conduct a prosecution on its own turf.
Every bit of fun must carry a conspicuously serious message. Today that lies within a suggestion, already made, but perhaps worth repeating. Instead of allowing financial and other support for militant and destructive behaviour in other countries – just like Iran’s financing trouble groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis – a powerful form of productive diplomacy should have mobilised itself. It could have been China, the USA, India, Brazil and South Africa collectively imposing diplomatic pressure on countries or groups to search more energetically for a peaceful coexistence.
Very sadly, we see that unfortunate German word ‘schadenfreude’ too much in world politics – meaning happiness at the misfortune of others. Then some take advantage of it. One can leave out the names for today, though I would hasten to single out the USA for a shining not-guilty award in that regard.
