The craft of diplomacy: John Wood reflects on the role of New Zealand's overseas representatives in the modern world.

• Author: Wood, John

There is something about the concept of diplomacy that makes New Zealanders feel queasy. To them, 'diplomacy' sounds Old World, not New World. As befits members of the world's second oldest profession, diplomats are regarded askance. We expect them to be worldly-wise, if not cynical and corrupt, probably from Europe, and dubious in their behaviour. Diplomacy does not seem like the sort of thing we would be good at, nor indeed would want have anything to do with. Perhaps best just not to get involved in it at all?

When we look at a dictionary definition of what diplomacy is all about we find that the word means:

* the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations;

* the art or science of conducting such negotiations;

* skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no in will; tact.

And a diplomat is defined as:

* a person appointed by a national government to conduct official negotiations and maintain political, economic, and social relations with another country or countries;

* a person who is tactful and skilful in managing delicate situations, handling people, etc.

Not a hint of deviousness or the necessity of deceit there. In fact the whole business sounds both clear in its purpose, important and necessary, going as it does directly to the heart of a country's ability to defend and promote its interests, and in so doing, its values internationally. Diplomacy would seem something not to be avoided, but on the contrary to be taken up with enthusiasm. As for diplomats, it would also seem a good idea to put aside another squeamishness we New Zealanders have, and that is a constant worry that elitism may become an element of our national life, in favour of ensuring that the best brains we have are engaging on our behalf with the rest of the world, are good at what they do, and are constantly striving to get better. As my Embassy boss cautioned me when I turned up bursting with enthusiasm and feeling indestructible many years ago on nay first posting, as it happened in Tokyo but his words would also have been true of any one of the world's major capitals:

Just remember there's a very good chance that this chap in the Gaimusho you're going to call on is more intelligent than you are; he is likely to be a specialist on the subject Wellington has instructed you to go and talk to him about, whereas you like the rest of us are a generalist; and he will undoubtedly have access to better sources of information than we do. Good luck anyway. Its not my principal purpose, but I hope to demonstrate below that, although late starters in the game of diplomacy, really only getting seriously involved on our own behalf as an independent nation during and after the Second World War, New Zealand has subsequently been well served by its diplomats. It is an area of international activity where we can point to sustained commitment, and real achievements, including in specialised and highly technical domains such as the law and trade policy, in excess of what might reasonably be expected of a country of our size, significance and geographical location. This record is all the more remarkable when you consider that, however tightly they are held to the chest, New Zealand negotiators are almost always playing with few cards, and from a weak hand.

Actual practice

So much for what diplomacy is. Let me begin the discussion of the craft of diplomacy and how one might practice it by describing the sort of things diplomats actually do. Ignoring what I have come to recognise as standard academic practice, I do not have a conceptual framework within which to discuss the quotidian round of diplomatic activity. There are two reasons. First, I was never taught diplomacy as an intellectual discipline. Nobody in New Zealand was when I went to university or for many years after. (That may seem a real failing on the part of the country's tertiary education system during an era when, as noted, we were seeking for the first time in our history to engage diplomatically in our own right with the rest of the world, and when there were crises looming. So it was, but an even more glaring omission was the lack of any teaching of the art, craft or science of negotiating, the principal tool and most important activity of diplomacy.)

In consequence everything I learned about being a diplomat was taught on the job, working in the foreign ministry at home and our embassies abroad, learning by emulation and by doing. I can really only write authoritatively about the subject from that basis of nearly 40 years personal experience, much of the time spent as a trade policy adviser and negotiator, and illustrate points by anecdote rather than paradigm.

The second reason has to do with the New Zealand experience of diplomacy, as of so much else, being sui generis. Any profession can only be pursued on the basis of a certain shared understanding and acceptance of the rules and norms of the discipline, a degree of collegiality reflective of similar training and career development, and recognition of each others' right to be members of the club. Beyond this necessary degree of commonality, however, the attitudes that the representatives of different countries bring to the negotiating table, for example, vary so widely as to make further generalisation about diplomacy difficult if not impossible.

Behaviour analysis

I have recently been involved in an international project that has for many years been analysing the distinctive international negotiating behaviours of various countries, determined by factors ranging from the cultural and institutional to differing concepts of time and history. The object of our current analysis has been American negotiating behaviour, and I have noted elsewhere how the United States as superpower looks at the world differently from a small country and conducts itself differently. Thus the United States and other great powers only work through multilateral bodies to the extent that in their judgment it is in their interests to do so.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

New Zealand, of course, is that other, small country, and also conducts itself differently. I have already noted our lack of critical mass as a factor to contend with in diplomacy, as in other spheres. In regard to the example I have just given of great power unilateralism, New Zealand is by contrast a committed multilateralist, having made the judgment that it is along that track that our national interests are best served, especially when it comes to influencing the conduct of larger players. My conclusion is that lessons drawn from New Zealand's diplomatic experience are likely to have limited general applicability beyond a fairly small group of like-minded and similarly placed countries.

What then are the major tasks of ambassadors, and in fact of all our diplomats, of whom ambassadors are in one sense simply the most senior in rank, although they do also possess powers and responsibilities that those working to them do not...