Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
KHOIRUL HUDA
C1D5 16 038
International Relations
Modern Diplomacy
The general characteristics of the diplomatic style of some newer states contrat with
more established regimes. The latter tend to have a plurality of bureucratic interests,
greater degrees of functional decentralisation and conventional feddback
mechanisms. A further difference is that the main elements in the operating style of
established states have become stabilised, and, to some extent, built in as standard
operating procedures. Thus number of features of the overall operating styles of the
united states and soviet union, apart from variability in personal style at the
executive level, have not greatly changed.
Here are some examples of United State and Soviet Union (Russia)’s Diplomatic
Style:
Even if the new nation’s democratic ideology had not mandated republican
simplicity, the meager salaries paid to American ministers would have produced the
same effect. In 1817, President James Monroe, a former Minister to France and a
former Secretary of State, complained to a congressional committee about the
nation's failure to provide sufficient salaries and allowances for members of the
Diplomatic Service. Monroe insisted that American diplomats had to gain access to
the most important social circles before they could do their jobs. “By taking the
proper [social] ground,” Monroe wrote, “He will become acquainted with all that
passes and from the highest and most authentic sources... Deprive him of the
necessary means to sustain this ground, separate him from the circle to which he
belongs and he is reduced to a cipher.”
Congress turned a deaf ear to these arguments, and ministers at important posts
such as London or Paris were forced to spend their own private fortunes. As a result,
only those with wealth could aspire to a diplomatic career. Lack of adequate funding
also meant that little or no interchange took place between those serving in
Washington and those overseas. The diplomatic service and the consular service
remained strictly separate. Ultimately, these circumstances limited flexibility and
interfered with the development of professionalism.
While in the other hand, the image of the Russian diplomats and its reflection on
social media allows us to see the wide critique towards the diplomats from the
general public. It is an interesting issue to discuss: why do the Russians actually care
about the image of their diplomats? The perceptions about diplomatic culture and
stereotypes about diplomacy in general have deep roots.
The relatively recent rooting of those stereotypes in the culture comes from the
Soviet times. In a situation of the existence of the dense and immovable Iron Curtain,
when visiting any foreign country was an almost unattainable wish for most Soviet
people, Soviet diplomats were always portrayed as gods from Olympus due to their
extreme privilege of not only visiting foreign countries but also living abroad.
Everything related to the diplomats was covered by a mysterious aura. The privilege
started from their graduating from one of the top Moscow universities, MGIMO
(Moscow State Institute of International Relations). “Ordinary” people had almost no
chance to attend such an institution, while belonging to the “nomenklatura” opened
many doors and opportunities.
To make the image of diplomats more grandiose and solid, classical literature and
history contributed a lot, emphasizing the consistency of Soviet diplomatic traditions
inherited from the Russian Empire’s diplomatic practices of the 19th century. For
instance, born in princely or noble families, such diplomats as Alexander
Griboyedov, an ambassador to Iran; Fyodor Tyutchev, a trainee diplomat and a
statesman at the Russian legation to Munich; and Alexander Gorchakov, the minister
of foreign affairs, to name a few, became the stuff of legend. They were ideal
representatives of the diplomatic profession: diplomats who acquired almost sacral
knowledge of managing interstate relations. Distinctive personal qualities and
attributes, appropriate manners, proficiency in one or more foreign languages, and a
number of written works in literature, history, geography, economics, theology,
foreign affairs, international law, and travel portrayed those diplomats as the best
career diplomats. A feature of the diplomatic corps of the 19th century was its
selection of refined and well-educated individuals who usually graduated from the
Imperial Lyceum in Tsarskoye Selo, Saint Petersburg, and who were sincerely
engaged to act accordingly in order to benefit their country. Diplomatic culture of
imperial Russia of the 19th century was a reflection of the Russian culture as a whole.
Finally, The representational aspects of diplomacy have also been affected by the
growth of multilateral diplomacy. Many newer actors find it impossible to cope with
the plethora of committees, regional groups and coordinating meetings at large-scale
conferences. Given the range and complexity of issues, not all foreign ministries are
able to provide sufficient instructions to their representatives. As a result, abstention
or non-participation in voting has become an everyday feature of the diplomatic
styles of some new states under these conditions.