In the world of today, everything has to be measured, weighed and assessed. Businesses are judged by their profit; armies are judged by their success deterring or defeating enemies; development projects by their learning and contribution to poverty reduction. But what of diplomacy? How to measure diplomacy and the work of diplomats?
Former British Foreign Secretary (and himself a former ‘professional’) Douglas Hurd once spoke of the need for the UK to ‘punch above its weight’. But in a world of measurement, the analyst is compelled to ask: Punch who? With what? How hard? To what end?
Diplomacy – and the work of diplomats – is an art not a science. Arguably, diplomacy is the employment of a number of assets either to persuade another to a course of action; or to dissuade them from one. As such, diplomatic effect must be a function of a number of environmental factors: soft power (a persuasive approach); hard power (a coercive approach); and economic power (potentially both persuasive and coercive depending on audience and context).
Diplomats, then, sell credible stories to incredulous people. They allude to carrots whilst playing on a fear of concomitant sticks. It is not the diplomats themselves who create the incentives or define the threats – it is the perceptions of their counterparts that matters. So, diplomacy is the art of credibly maintaining the façade – often based on facts and truths but sometimes also on the beliefs of others. (Fiction’s James Bond, for example, plays a significant role in the perceptions of others about the reach and capability of the UK without London having to lift a finger. Of course, no-one believes that James and M exist, but who knows for sure where the boundary between fact and fiction lies?)
To measure the effect of diplomacy and diplomats then, we need to know to whom and to what we are applying our tape measure. Are we looking at the work that diplomats do (and if so, who are they?); or are we trying to judge the wider effect of diplomacy, including the access and influence wielded by diplomats?
This raises questions.
Who are the diplomats? Perhaps they are the professionals who stalk the corridors of their Ministries and Embassies. But where to draw the dividing line? Clearly, the UK Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs is the chief British diplomat as is the US Secretary of State for the Americans. But is the British Prime Minister or the US President also a diplomat in these terms?
Are the High Priests of soft power also diplomats? The programmes funded by taxpayers but implemented by charities and businesses that generate and use good will; the thought leadership of think tanks; the vibrancy (or otherwise) of the media, formal and informal; the influence of art, culture, media and sport.
What of ‘envoys’? Are the likes of Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland, or The Elders, Senator George Mitchell or the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu diplomats? Or are they just engaged in channelling and focussing diplomacy?
And how about influencers? Is Bono a diplomat? Or Bill Gates through the work of his foundation?
What about events? It was striking during the Paris 2024 Olympics that comparisons were sought and made with London 2012, but not Rio or Tokyo – both more recent. So, culture counts, perhaps because – in the best spirit of Entente Cordiale – the UK and France are both friends and rivals for diplomatic effect.
Measuring the effect of diplomacy, then, is hard because it is not just practiced by diplomats. It is a feel not a measure and will be subjective for all that.
A working definition of diplomacy for a poly-polar world where allegiance is almost always available for rent and in which victory and defeat are extremes of a relatively unhelpful spectrum is probably necessary. A starter for ten: Diplomacy is about bringing to bear a country’s access and influence (in all its forms) in order strategically and purposefully to advance a national agenda (as opposed to a self-interest, a commercial interest or an advocacy goal) in such a way as to strengthen and extend alliances and to dissipate rivalries. And a measure of that, then, is a combination of the potential access and influence which a country has and the skill of its diplomats in translating it into actual change.
Hi Jeremey – a thought provoking piece. I’d expect nothing less. A couple of questions & comments in response:
– measurement is necessary in all sorts of fields nowadays, but it might be worth remembering that you can count everything, but not everything counts. So what counts when it comes to Diplomacy?
– over what timeframe should the impact of diplomacy be measured? Some would argue that it’s a long term endeavor. Short term impacts, or quick wins, might be more opportunistic or responding to a current priority. Longer term influence and access is surely the bigger prize.
– while your article makes reference to arts, culture and sport. It also touches on ‘soft power’. You stop short of mentioning the work of the British Council, the UK’s principal agency for cultural relations, currently marking its 90th year – an organisation I would argue that has the potential to utilise diplomatic influence for the benefit of the UK. Some would argue the British Council plays a major part in enabling the UK to punch above its weight.