The evolution of diplomats

Different sources give different accounts of the birth of diplomacy. Among others, the hypothesis include the Middle East in 1340 BC (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/unearthed-the-humble-origins-of-world-diplomacy-602173.html), Egypt about 60 years later (http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S1995R/Szykman/History.html), and Greek and Phoenician city-states in the 5^th to 4^th Century B.C. (http://www.ediplomat.com/nd/history.htm) but, as you can see in the following timeline, interpretations of the history of diplomacy are well wider than this (http://www.diplomacy.edu/Knowledge/evolution/org%20website/buttons/homepage.htm).

Whatever its real origins, the concept of diplomacy has existed since the start of human history, and consistently developed during the centuries. As a Northern Italian, I like to think of myself as a countrywoman of the so-called “modern diplomacy” which, some believe, started in the early years of the Renaissance – i.e. in the 13^th Century – with the establishment of the first official embassies in the area around Milan. At that time, however, ambassadors radically differed from nowadays’ diplomats, as the title was usually held by noblemen whose energies were conveyed in all kinds of striking displays of wealth and power, rather than being actually employed in an effective management of international relations. Nonetheless, there is no doubt they had to be naturally patient people, who well tolerated lengthy negotiations and were never prone to threaten their counterparts. After all, they aim was to keep a watchful eye on what happened in their neighbouring countries, in order for their homeland to hold on to its power.

Dr Joseph Siracusa, Professor in Human Security and International Diplomacy at RMIT University, Melbourne, believes that this is exactly what constitutes the greatest change in diplomacy from past to present. As he states in the first page of his ‘Diplomacy: A Very Short Introduction’,

“Traditional diplomacy has been most importantly concerned with the transition from a state of peace to a state of war, and vice versa; in other words, dealing with the interface of conflict and peace-making...today...(d)iplomacy has become something very much more than the diplomacy of states and governments.”

His point is that, although states are the only legal diplomatic actors according to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, nowadays it is unthinkable not to consider transnational corporations (TNCs), intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as equally significant co-actors in the international system. These interrelate not only with states, but among themselves, and in the last century they have come to constitute a whole world web of urgent delicate communications handling a brand-new set of topics, unfamiliar to yesterday’s diplomats. In fact, it is their goal to address contemporary issues such as international terrorism, sustainable development, civil wars, human rights and environmental emergencies, which go well beyond the control of one or few single states. Betsill and Corell support this view with vim:

“We contend that the increased participation of NGOs in...political processes reflects broader changes in the nature of diplomacy in world politics...(D)iplomats are actors who act on the behalf of a clearly identified constituency. International...negotiations cannot be understood in terms of inter-state diplomacy”

(NGO diplomacy, 2008, 2).

To sum up, if History is made by men and women, the History of diplomacy is necessarily made by diplomats. Consequently, it is believable that there cannot be most significant change in diplomacy than the change of diplomatic figures. On this ground, a question could be raised: what future for diplomacy?

(http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/61/future_of_diplomacy_project.html : apparently, I'm not the only one who's wondering...)