I would not normally write a review of a book that is not reasonably current. This one was released two years ago, but I only read it recently and I thought it was so good I wanted to review it anyway.
Carne Ross entered the British Civil Service's Diplomatic Faststream in 1989 and went on to become a career diplomat. This book is, in part, a memoir of some of his more notable experiences in that role, and some of the most interesting sections recount his part in negotiations at the UN Security Council in the run-up to the 2003 war in Iraq. But, far more importantly, it is a thorough critique of the practice of diplomacy in the modern world, which takes apart some of the most basic assumptions upon which the very concept of diplomacy rests, and questions whether this age-old profession is fit for the 21st century.
The book centres upon 8 observations about modern diplomacy:
1. "Diplomacy is not democratic, even in democracies." Most of us don't know who are the diplomats who claim to speak in our name, and we have no ability to influence them.
2. The "we" that diplomats speak for (as in "we, the British, believe x or want y") bears little relation to the people on whose behalf they actually claim to speak.
3. Most of us, as citizens, are quite happy to accept this situation. Our lack of influence is convenient for us as it allows us to abdicate responsibility. "A pact between the unaccountable and the irresponsible."
4. The prevailing realist conception of world politics, which views nation-states as self-serving entities which compete with each other to secure their own interests, is flawed and produces bad outcomes.
5. Many of today's most prescient concerns - global warming, resource shortages, epidemic diseases, migration - are problems we all share, but supranational institutions (such as the UN) do not deal with them effectively because they treat them as matters which require bargaining between states' competing interests.
6. Information which is presented as "objective" is routinely favoured above all other information, glossing over the fact that every presentation of fact is oartial, reflecting subjective choices about what information is important to include. Vital information is often missed out, especially that which cannot be measured, and the practice of diplomacy does not acknowledge this deficit.
7. Governments, states and diplomats have an interest in presenting the world as simple and comprehensible, as though it can be explained with a single theory. The world is actually extremely complex, and such simplifications are at best wrong, and at worst dangerous.
8. The practice of diplomacy is "deeply unbalanced and unfair", advantaging the rich and powerful over the poor and marginalised.
None of these observations are new. Ross' arguments about the nature of information derive largely from post-structuralist thought, which has been applied now quite extensively in academic circles to the study of international relations. What is new and truly refreshing about the book is that it is written by a diplomat, based upon extensive experience in the field - that is, this is an insider concurring with the theories which have come largely from people who are very much outsiders. What's more, Ross hasn't just written a book about it, he's actually gone and done something about it, setting up his own organisation, Independent Diplomat, which aims to develop a new model of diplomacy.
I was struck by the similarities which some of Ross' observations bear to some feminist thought on international politics, in particular the work of Carol Cohn and others. Ross makes no mention of the concept of gender, but his descriptions of trying to code the messy, emotional realities of morally vexing situations into the kind of cold, technical language which is acceptable in diplomatic discourse bears great resemblance to Cohn's writings on weapons of mass destruction, which brilliantly analyse how masculinist values can make moral considerations irrelevant at the negotiating table.
Ross' central argument is that we need to be much more critical of what goes on in the world of diplomacy, and much more intrusive. International relations is not different and separate from other forms of politics, and it should not be left to diplomats, immune from democratic control. In the case of the Iraq war, we can only hope that the forthcoming inquiry will shed some light on what went on in the corridors of power and how so many bad decisions were reached. Radical change does not look a likely outcome, however, as already 'security' is being cited as a reason for giving special status to the hearings which justifies keeping some of them behind closed doors. So it is that some of the most important decisions made in our names are the ones in which we have no say.
0 comments:
Post a Comment