TEDx
Talk by T.P.Sreenivasan
Diplomacy
in Uncharted Realms
The
whole world is an uncharted realm today. On January 20, 2017, the world changed
beyond recognition, on account of Donald Trump, the new President of the United
States. The world was already volatile, but there was predictability about
friends and foes. Global issues were also well defined, even if there were no
agreed solutions. But today, many uncharted realms have emerged in the
diplomatic world. US and Russia seem to be moving towards a cordial
relationship. The value and relevance of the UN are being challenged. The whole
concept of climate change is considered a Chinese hoax. A new war has been
declared on “Islamic terrorism”. A 2000-mile wall is going up between the US
and Mexico. These constitute a fundamental disruption of the comfort zones of
diplomats around the globe. But this is not the first time that diplomacy is
required to operate in uncharted realms. The end of the second World War, the
collapse of the Berlin Wall and the advent of the Internet and Wikileaks had
posed such challenges. Diplomacy has proved itself capable of not only
adjusting itself to the changes, but also of helping to establish the new norm
and dealing with post-truth.
Diplomacy
is the oldest profession. Doctors may contest this by saying that their
profession is as old as the surgery done on Adam to remove one of his ribs to
create Eve. Engineers may say that God had used his engineering skills to
create the universe out of the chaos. But surely, diplomats were needed to
create the chaos.
Many
have tried to define diplomacy. A diplomat is an honest person sent abroad to
lie for his country. Diplomacy is meant to tell someone to go to hell in such a
way to make him look forward to the trip. Diplomacy is walking on thin ice
without getting into deep water. The difference between a diplomat and a lady
is that when a diplomat says yes, he means may be, when he says may be he means
no, if he says no, he is not a diplomat. When a lady says no, she means maybe,
when she says may be she means no and if she says yes, she is no lady!
Like
everything else in the world, diplomats find a mention in the Indian epics, Hanuman
in Ramayana and Krishna in Mahabnarata. It was only their superhuman qualities
and fighting capability that saved them from disaster. Hanuman flew into Lanka
with a message of peace. But shooting the messenger was in vogue then as now.
His tail, which was set ablaze by the enemy became a potent weapon, which
destroyed the whole capital and Hanuman returned home triumphant and war began
when diplomacy ended. Lord Krishna had a similar experience when he tried to
negotiate a fair deal for the Pandavas. He retreated and the Kurukshetra war
ensued.
More
recently, with the emergence of sovereign states, the days of the
plenipotentiaries began. Heads of states dispatched their eminent citizens
across the seas to make war and peace at will and occasionally reported their
exploits by diplomatic bags. They had the power to sign treaties, threaten use
of force or declare war to secure their needs. A diplomatic assignment to a
cannibal country was risky, particularly if the head of state characterized your
predecessor as delicious! Some returned triumphant, others wounded or dead. But
they were the golden days of diplomacy. Diplomats were men and women of
leisure, who spent time on golf courses or at bridge tables. Many worked only
on days when the diplomatic bags arrived with good or bad tidings. Odd phone
hotlines with some countries gave access to political leaders to their
counterparts, but they were cumbersome to use and not very reliable.
Then
came faster transportation, which made travel easier, better communications
like telex and fax. Diplomatic bags became less important and the pace of
diplomacy picked up speed. But the work consisted of reporting on the host
country and projecting the image of your country. A bit of imagination and language
skills were helpful in diplomacy. We gave up trying to reach the news home
ahead of the wires and began more analytical reporting. Mere news was of no
value. Diplomats were relieved of the responsibility to report news, but began conveying
more insights and analyses.
The
advent of CNN in the eighties was a big blow to traditional diplomacy. Actual
scenes from around the globe began to stream into the foreign office and
questions began to come from there for local analysis. The pace of work became
faster and without cell phones, it was difficult to stay away from office. But
the bigger blow was the realization that CNN images were often doctored to
influence public opinion. The eyes and ears of the diplomats became crucial to
find out the truth. If anything, the role of the diplomats became more crucial.
There was a demand for a counter channel to tell the truth. Till then, it was
all the more necessary for diplomats to go in search of the truth. Correcting
the impressions by cable channels became a major preoccupation of diplomacy and
the diplomats rose to the occasion.
The
internet, with its multiple sources of information at lightning speed turned
the diplomatic world upside down. At one point it appeared that diplomacy had
become redundant. But the internet came, as observed by writer Pico Iyer, without
an owner’s manual. Consequently, the internet is different things to different
people. Diplomacy did not end, but the internet became a tool of diplomacy. The
Wikipedia and other open sources of information, subject to correction from
outside, provided basic authentic information. But the opportunity the internet
offered to manipulate the truth also dawned on us. The emergence of post-truth
in 2016, impressions rather than facts determining public opinion owes its
origin to the internet.
The
Internet, however, undermined confidentiality, a fundamental ingredient of
diplomacy for centuries. Of course, spying went on side by side with diplomacy
even before, but today, diplomats have to presume that all that they say or do
will be public sooner or later. Julian Assange founded Wikileaks in 2006 with
the purpose of hacking confidential diplomatic documents and managed to release
10 million documents by 2015. The consequence was the loss of credibility of
many Governments, particularly the US. Today, for every diplomat, the elephant
in the room is the hacker, who is likely to reveal all that is said and done in
the world of diplomacy. In the case of Snowden, who was an employee of the CIA,
he deliberately leaked documents to show that the US had global surveillance
programmes.
The
revelations by Assange and Snowden embarrassed many, but they also showed that
many countries, particularly India, were principled and transparent in their diplomatic
pursuits. Not a single Indian diplomat had said anything in private, which he
would not have done in public. It is possible that Assange and Snowden disciplined
US diplomats into being truthful in their diplomatic discourse. So while the
internet has weakened the confidentiality of diplomacy, it has strengthened the
integrity of diplomacy. Diplomats have to compete with hackers like Assange and
Snowden to establish credibility. The channels provided by monitored cables and
services of Wikileaks give governments an advantage, but diplomats still hold
sway over international relations.
As
a diplomatic tool, the internet has been very beneficial. Heads of states and
Governments today can speak to each other at will, but the limitations and
pitfalls of such direct communications are only too evident. They would rather
have their ideas conveyed through professional diplomats, rather than risk
misunderstanding. They communicate their views on twitter and a time may come
when they befriend each other on facebook!
Public
diplomacy is a product of the communications revolution. The involvement of the
citizens in formulating and implementing foreign policy is a gift from the
internet. Many Governments around the globe have begun to inform their public
about diplomatic alternatives, decisions and initiatives. Technology has
brought diplomacy, which was confined to the elite, to the people.
Diplomacy
is a conservative profession, which does not embrace change very easily. But it
has been transformed beyond recognition in a relatively short period. Though it
has remained elitist and its sartorial elegance is still preserved, its
methodology has adjusted itself to the needs and dictates of the times.
Diplomacy has proved itself capable of operating in uncharted realms. It began
with a sedate and plenipotentiary track, picked up speed to match the
communications revolution, exposed inaccuracies of cable channels, used the
internet as a tool of diplomacy. It survived the machinations of Assange and
Snowden. Diplomacy remains relevant and indispensable as no machine can replace
the human brain and ingenuity. Diplomats have learnt to use technology for
their advantage rather than retreat in the face of the onslaught of technology.
The
question today is whether professional diplomacy will outlast the doings of an
individual, however powerful he may be. History shows that diplomacy will prove
its relevance in any uncharted realm.
Thank
you.
