Polaris  

Diplomacy is a low-cost and low-risk—albeit frequently low-return—means of state-state engagement, especially when compared with military or economic alternatives.

Are diplomats necessary? So asks Carne Ross, himself a former representative of Her Majesty’s Government. His argument, in a nutshell, is that state representation in the form of embassies is ineffective in dealing with increasingly relevant and influential non-state actors. Moreover, diplomats are increasingly out of touch with reality, particularly in their home countries. (On a side-note, he also gives a good boost to public diplomacy: “diplomats and governments have believed that somehow the message about the role of governments can be separated in the public’s mind from what they actually do.” Hear, hear.)

While his cynicism is partly justified, I don’t think the answer is to scrap traditional diplomacy altogether—something Ross doesn’t actually recommend. Even “a more fundamental reappraisal of the means of diplomacy,” which he does advocate, is perhaps unnecessary. Diplomacy—like politics and espionage—is sometimes said to be the second-oldest profession. All three, to lift Ronald Reagan, are bound to occasionally bear some resemblance to the first. 

But to paint a complete picture, it’s important to look at the advantages offered by diplomacy. In effect, diplomacy is a low-cost and low-risk (albeit frequently low-return) means of state-state engagement, especially when compared with military or economic alternatives. The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) boasts 15,000 employees worldwide, about the same number as a single army infantry division. India’s IFS has less than 700 officers total, about one-third the number inducted into the Indian army each year. Diplomats’ lives are rarely lost performing their duties (V.V. Rao’s tragic death last year in the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul was only the second such diplomatic fatality for India), so the human costs are also considerably lower.

But back to Ross’s points. Let’s acknowledge the role played by non-state actors. States still have a monopoly on representative government, and as such foreign policy. Even die-hard libertarians acknowledge foreign policy as one of the few realms best left to government. Certainly, nimble and effective diplomacy must take the role of non-state actors into account, which is why a successful diplomat ought to be able to consult, when necessary, with elements of the private and non-profit sectors (and consider the wider implications of his or her activities) before taking action, and inform and engage the media after. However, much of the protocol that dominates diplomatic activity is absolutely unnecessary in this day and age.

That diplomats are occasionally out of touch with reality is another fair point. I’m less familiar with the intricacies of the British and European systems which inform much of Ross’s argument, but the Indian system has mechanisms in place to counteract this. Diplomats are expected to do stints in Delhi, where they are subject to the same trials and tribulations as other civil servants (try bringing up housing or schools to an Indian diplomat based in Delhi, and you’ll see what I mean). As part of their training, budding diplomats are sent off to provincial India to gain exactly the kind of exposure Ross believes is lacking. Later in their careers, Indian diplomats are provided incentives to travel around the country before taking up a posting abroad. 

So while Ross rightly warns about some of the downsides of diplomacy, it’s perhaps a bit too early to take it out of the hands of national governments. I can’t help but end with a quote from my favourite television show: “Foreign policy must be made in the Foreign office. It cannot be left to fools like Fleet Street editors, back-bench MPs and Cabinet Ministers.”

Update: Speaking of my favourite television show, do watch the clip below if you haven’t already, starting at 3:50. It explains, possibly, the roots of Ross’s frustration with the “European External Action Service.”