Diplomacy Dersi 2. Ünite Özet

As Hamilton mentions, the first forms of diplomacy emerged when a human being decided to benefit messengers to provide peace. With the invention of writing primitive systems transformed into sophisticated systems which is a transition from pre-historic to ancient times and still key technology of diplomacy. These first state-like polities with government, law, taxation, education systems and literature which were formed in Mesopotamia and the Eastern Mediterranean provide the great tradition of diplomacy in the ancient world (Cohen, 2001). Although Greece is accepted as the birthplace of Western civilization, diplomacy was not born in Greece in contrast to what is widely thought. Diplomacy was born thousands of years before ancient Greece committed to diplomacy as a civilization. Nevertheless, the word “diplomacy” is itself borrowed from ancient Greek. It is derived from the word “diploma” meaning two fold. In the Roman Empire, the word was used to describe the passes, comparable to the modern day passport, which were stamped on metal plates. This word was later extended to cover other metallic documents, especially those embodying arrangements with foreign communities (Roberts, 2009)

Ancient Diplomacy

The Beginning of Institutional Diplomatic Practice: Mesopotamian Diplomacy

The first system of city-states occurred in Mesopotamia between the 4th and the first millennium. The system was mainly based on that of the Sumerians in the south, Babylonian and Akadian in the center and Assyrians in the north. Within this system, which shows some general patterns of early international relations, Mesopotamia was characterized by steady interaction basing on both trade and security issues (Bloom, 2014). It looked like a system of balance of power since no single entity enjoyed significant superiority.

Sumerians were the earliest practitioners of diplomacy (3000-2370 BCE). The diplomatic tradition emerged from this site mainly because the Sumerians were the civilization which invented writing sometime in the 4th millennium BCE.

Diplomacy was used by Sumerians with a motivation to end conflicts through the conventional method of sending messengers with the messages written on clay tablets in cuneiform. Sumerian was used as the lingua franca of diplomacy until the Akhadian hegemony was established in the region. The first known diplomatic letter was a message sent by the King of Ebla (in northern Syria) to the kingdom of Hamazi (north of Iran today), which shows a similar style of language and contend of modern diplomacy.

After the conquest of Sumer by the Akkadian, the Akkadian language supplanted Sumerian as the language of diplomacy in conformity with the political situation.

Babylon, established around 1894 BCE, was another polity which had used diplomacy intensively and effectively in the ancient Near East. Diplomacy as a means of foreign relationswas intensified particularly under the rule of Babylon’s sixth and most known King Hammurabi. Hammurabi, best known in the modern day for his law code, made skillful use of diplomacy to increase his power.

One of the earliest and most informative resources regarding our knowledge on Near East diplomacy is the Mari cuneiform archives, which consist of more than 20 thousand letters, legal documents, diplomatic correspondences, and treaties written on clay tablets.

Some examples of diplomatic conduct in the ancient near east: - touching the throat meant the agreement was accepted - seizing the hem of the garment meant an alliance was concluded - letting the hem of the garment meant the breach of an allience or a treaty.

Another set of documents which are directly concerned with diplomacy includes the Amarna letters, dating back to the second half of the second millennium (15th to 13th centuries BCE). Amarna letters which contain information about:

• Strategic-military cooperation,
• Treaty negotiations,
• Dynastic marriages,
• Trade regulations
• Strengthening friendly relations
• Negotiating alliances

Despite the intense diplomatic relationship between the political entities of the Near East during the Late Bronze Age fixed embassies never existed. This relationship is characterized rather by an itinerant diplomacy as Lafont stated. Envoys were sent for ad hoc purposes; however, some diplomatic missions could be extended to more than twenty years (Lafont, 2001: 50).

It should also be noted that the political order of the whole area during this period was structured on divine principles; hence diplomatic relations were thought to be a part of the divine, in other words relations between gods. Agreements concluded between parties were deemed as oaths of gods (Hamilton, 1995: 10). Therefore, oaths had a profound place in diplomatic conduct; and the highest place was given to the swearing moment during the ceremonies.

A few centuries after Amarna diplomacy, another diplomatic system emerged between Hittite and Egypt. Hittite diplomacy was also a well-developed system, embracing all preceding diplomatic tools and rules of conduct. The nuance of the Hittite system was its different formulization which based mainly on treaties.

Hittite diplomacy is best known for the first peace treaty signed in 1270 BCE between Egyptian King Ramses II and Hittite King Hattusili III after the battle of Kadesh in Syria. The Kadesh treaty was signed to end the long war between the Hittites and the Egyptians, which lasted for nearly two centuries for the domination over Syrian region.

As the Egyptian and Hittite Empires weakened, the Assyrian state emerged and reached its zenith during the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. In order to manage their relations with the powers they were surrounded by, the Assyrians were dependent on diplomacy since their early stages. The Assyrian diplomatic correspondence showed that the main focus of their diplomatic relations involved military affairs. Therefore, it can be said that Assyrians had shifted the emphasis away from the general tendency of greeting toward more pragmatic aspects of politics (Feldman, 2006: 132). Assyrians used both war and diplomacy in order to achieve their goals. The most interesting point regarding Assyrian diplomacy involved the intelligence gathering activities.

In the final analysis, it can be said that the beginning of diplomacy as a system traces back to the traditions of the ancient Near East. Great Tradition of diplomacy which would be transferred from Mesopotamia to the ancient Greece and Rome, and later from Rome to the Byzantine Empire, and then to the West from them, forming the modern and permanent Westphalian system of diplomacy.

Ancient China

Ancient China is another civilization where we could look for the origins of diplomacy as a system. The first records of Chinese diplomacy date from the 1st millennium BCE. Ancient China can be categorized under two different periods regarding the political structure of the time. The first is the Warring States Era between 656-221 BCE, characterized by the emergence of sovereign states. It was a period of a balance of a power system, so international relations was based on great power rivalry and ephemeral alliances (Hamilton, 1995: 12) Diplomacy was based on bilateral relations and missions related to fleeting alliances including maneuvers, secrecy and bribery Chinese states had no permanent friends and enemies; therefore, their strategies were ruthless but still in an equilibrium. It is not surprising that Sun-Tzu, one of the best known military strategists, and his thoughts were influential at this period. The core of the strategy for Sun Tzu is not to defeat the enemy in battle, but to repress him without fighting. Another strategy Sun-Tzu suggests is to be flexible in strategy in regard to changing circumstances (Szykman, 1995).

The tradition of equal diplomacy ended with Qin dynasty’s unification of China in 221 BCE. With the new coercive universal empire, China’s diplomatic dealing with the foreign world lessened to level of defense and trade issues. Trade issues were the most important focus of the relationship with the distant world. The immediate neighborhood relations centered on border issues or exchange of technology.

In sum, although in the imperial period Chinese diplomacy was grasped differently from the balance of power perspective, diplomatic dealing at this period embraced the entire range of diplomatic relations. Diplomacy was used to offer good-will, to discuss a protocol, to form alliances, to make peace, to delineate borders, to spy, to arrange marriages, to negotiate trade issues (Bielenstein, 2005: 7-8).

Ancient India

Diplomatic practices were quite systematically designed in Ancient India but they were also quite different from the coexistent systems in other parts of the world. India had very little political connection to the outside world until Alexander the Great conquered its northern regions in 326 BCE. Subsequently, with the establishment of the Mauryan Empire, which dominated ancient India until 187 BCE, had changed the course of diplomacy in India. The Mauryan Empire was particularly active in diplomacy in order to extend its influence both in politics and in religious situation. This active diplomacy practice continued for centuries until the Rajput Kingdoms gained control and dominated the region by the 8th century. After this time, India began to be isolated from the rest of the world. The general pattern of diplomacy in ancient India can best be inferred from the work of the famous ancient philosopher and statesman Kautilya. While Kautilya’s book Arthshastra is a systematic account of the significance, types and patterns of diplomacy on one hand, it is a great treatise of realism on the other. Kautilya is widely accepted as the first great political realist in history. Kautilya defined the state system as a ruthless realistic system which was determined by selfinterest, compatible with the structure of the existing state system of India in that time. Kautilya defined six forms of foreign policy (from Arthshastra 7.1.13 – 18).

• Peace: entering into a treaty; when the state is weaker than the enemy, it should make peace.
• War: attacking and doing injury; when the state is stronger than the enemy, it should make war.
• Non alignment: staying quiet; when the state is equal with the enemy and neither is capable of harming the other, the state should stay quiet.
• Seeking shelter: When threatened by a stronger enemy the state should seek protection from another stronger state, somewhat forming an alliance.
• Shows of force: When the state is increasing in capabilities, it should augment and mobilize resources to prepare for war.
• Double-dealing: When a state seeks help for attacking another state, it resorts to peace and war at the same time with different states.

Kautilya classified diplomats in three categories as plenipotentiary envoys; envoys, for specific missions and messengers. In Ancient India, the functions of diplomats, or envoys as was named at this time, were threefold (Kumar, 2014: 3).

• Declaration of war and peace
• Forging alliances
• Gathering intelligence overtly, and also spying

Alliances as a Means of Diplomacy: Diplomacy in Ancient Greece

The principles and methods of Greek diplomacy had been developed by the 5th century. However, from Homeric records, we learn that before the 5th century, Greeks had used embassies as a means of foreign affairs. Regardless of its being the cradle of the Western civilization, ancient Greece can not be considered as the golden era of diplomacy. The structure of the interstate system caused another diplomatic formation as a means of foreign policy, forming alliances. In this line, considerable attention was given to the winning of allies and making of treaties during the 5th and especially 4th centuries.

The main source for ancient Greek diplomacy has been the writings of Thucydides. It is widely accepted that the first account of diplomacy at this period was a diplomatic conference held in 432 BCE.

Thucydides (460 BCE– 400 BCE) The Greek historian Thucydides chronicled the struggle between Sparta and Athens which was reported to have lasted 30 years in his book “History of the Peloponnesian War”. This book was the first recorded political analysis of a nation’s war policies. The scope and approach of the book was and still is accepted as the origin of political realist thought and Thucydides as the forefather of the realist international relations account.

The Amphycthonyc League (league of neighbors), formed in 6th century BCE, was mainly an religious association and it was composed of tribes not city-states. The amphictyonic league maintained interstate assemblies with permanent secretariats. Sparta formed alliances in the mid6th century BCE, and by 500 BCE it had created the Peloponnesian League. The Peloponnesian League was formed for decisions on questions of war, peace, or alliance; and each member had one vote. In the 5th century BCE, Athens led the Delian League during the Greco-Persian Wars. The league was formed to liberate eastern Greek cities from Persian rule and as a defense to possible attacks from Persia. The Delian League consisted of more than 200 members.

Another peculiarity of the ancient Greek diplomacy was that they preferred oral messages to written notes; therefore, there is not a large archive of diplomatic correspondence of ancient Greece. There were three kinds of representatives:

• angelos: a messenger used for brief and specific missions
• keryx: a herald
• proxenos: a resident consul but the proxenos were citizens of the city in which they resided, not of the city-state that employed them. If a resident representative was needed in another state, then resident was given then title of proxenos by the state which he represented. In other words, the proxenos looked after the interests of a foreign state while residing in the state of which he was a citizen.

One of the distinctive features of Greek diplomacy was its open and public nature. Decisions were taken and treaties were approved by public debate. This open nature of diplomacy deferred the development of an administrative structure and record keeping.

The Roman World and The Use of Diplomacy

Considering its longevity and organization, the Roman Empire contributed little to the development of diplomacy. This may be explained by their will to impose their policies on others instead of negotiating.

However, as it is widely accepted that the contribution of Romans to diplomacy is much more related to the international law and is represented in the theory, not the practice, of diplomacy.

It is also important to mention that Romans used diplomacy brutally, as a method. They forced people to conclude a treaty; and the conditions of these treaties were determined on the basis of the community’s power to resist Rome’s demands. In this vein, the stronger the resistance was, the more advantageous the conditions of the treaty were.

Romans inherited the diplomacy pattern from Greece, but they developed a distinctive method to suit their own needs. Envoys were chosen not for their qualification, as in the ancient Greece. Since envoys were given strict instructions prepared by the Senate, there was no need to seek the skills for negotiating. On their return, envoys were subject to report to the Senate, and the final decision on the issues which the envoy reported was given by the Senate. Diplomatic representatives could be impeached if they exceeded their authority. However, envoys from Rome to the external world were rarely initiated by the Senate; rather, they were sent to places which sent their own envoy to ask for assistance previously. The function of diplomacy was simple and similar to those of other ancient civilizations: making peace, regulating trade and establishing a treaty. The right to be inviolate was not only accorded to foreign envoys but also extended to include their staff.

They also developed the practice of taking hostages for the guarantee of the terms. This practice was implemented unilaterally, the Romans never sent hostages.

Taking hostages as guarantors of a treaty persisted long time in European politics. An interesting example is the Treaty of Aix La- Chapelle of 1748, which ended the War on Austrian Succession. Following the terms of the treaty, two British peers, Lord Suffolk and Lord Cathcart, were sent to Paris.

Diplomatic processes were a tool not only for interactions with independent foreign powers, but also for the internal communication between all actors ranging from personal to corporate to civic, provincial, and imperial (Eilers, 2009: 13).

Medivial Diplomacy

Masters of Diplomacy: The Byzantine Empire

The Byzantine Empire originally was the eastern part of the Roman Empire; and it was one of the longest lasting political entities in history, from 330 CE until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. One of the most important reasons for the empire’ slongevity was its use of diplomacy. Diplomacy was a necessity for the Byzantine Empire because it had enemies on all of its borders and there was always a threat of invasion while for a certain time it had limited military power. Since the rulers of the empire were aware of their military weakness, they first adapted the practices of former civilizations and developed their own way of diplomacy with their political and cultural contributions.

Divide and Rule –Divide et Imperia It was an important strategy for the Roman imperial system. Romans divided the newly conquered peoples into their component units such as tribes; or city-states made separate alliances and treaties with each to control and make them contribute to the defense of the empire in common. The Byzantine Empire adopted this method in its external affairs with divide its enemies and embroil them to each other.

The Bureau of Barbarians as a department of government was responsible for foreign relations, primarily with the barbarians living on the Balkan Peninsula. Founded in 740, the Bureau is the first sample of a permanent office dealing with foreign affairs. The official in charge was the logothete, responsible for the imperial post, the supervision of diplomatic officers, and the reception of foreign envoys; and he eventually became the emperor’s chief adviser on foreign affairs. The logothete was also responsible for the internal security of the empire until the 11th century. The Bureau sent envoys on diplomatic missions to barbarian lands in order to gather information from every possible source. This was the main function of it.

Aside from the valuable gifts extended to diplomats, Byzantine emperors granted lands to peoples with whom they wanted to be allied. Forming alliances was a very important aspect of Byzantium diplomacy and one of the methods used for this aim involved marriages of Byzantium princesses to foreign potentates. Byzantine princesses were sent abroad in diplomatic alliances designed to sustain the empires policy towards foreign powers.

The use of surrogates was also a method used by the empire to benefit from the weaknesses of their enemies.

Religion was also a method of diplomacy in the Byzantine Empire, and it conducted a missionary operation. Byzantine priests were often spreading faith in front of military authority. This led not only to the spread of the religious doctrine but also to an assumption that the Empire was the source of all religious and political authority.

In fact, the main motive in the use of diplomacy for the Byzantine Empire was to avoid war, and all diplomatic practice was devoted to this aim. Therefore, the empire used diplomacy as a means of foreign policy continuously, employing more emphasis on it than military means.

Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Diplomacy in the Islamic world began with the establishment of the first Islamic state in 622; and it was not founded through military means but by a social contract, the Medina Charter. (Khan, 2006). The Charter was an agreement settling the inter-tribal conflict between Muslims, Jews and pagans; and it constituted a free state of a pluralistic community. It is a constitution which provided for dispute resolution, a tax system, rights and responsibilities to both Muslims and non-Muslims. During this time of the Prophet, diplomatic representatives were received, and they were accepted through ceremonies. Gift exchanging was a common conduct of diplomacy as in the previous civilizations and cultures. Between 630 and 631, many delegations came to Medina; and therefore, this period is named as the Year of Delegation. Most of them were representatives of Arab tribes coming to declare their acceptance of Islam; however, as in the Najran case, there were also Christians without an intention to accept the religion, but to conclude an agreement. The case of Najran delegates was common in Islamic diplomacy; in other words, diplomatic representatives enjoyed immunity in the Islamic State. They were free to practice their religion as it was with the Najran delegates. Exemption from duties for the personnel properties of a diplomatic delegation were given on a reciprocal basis (Salmi, 1998: 134).

The function of diplomats was to communicate with other states, to conclude an agreement or alliance which was decided previously, to arrange the exchange of prisoners and the truce, and to announce war. Most certainly, another function of envoys was to gather information about the weaknesses and/or strengths of the host country. The function of diplomacy in these early years was at the most basic level since the strength of the state in the absence of at least an equal power did not raise the need to a more complex function for diplomacy.

The Aman entitled the holder to enter Islamic lands and to obtain the protection of the authorities for his person, his household and his property (Hamilton, 1995: 27). Diplomatic contact between Islamic or Arab, Byzantine and also Latin rulers were frequent in the Middle Ages.

The motives for diplomatic practice were similar to other ages and civilizations: political concern regarding peace and war, economic or commercial motives and definitely information gathering. Emissaries played the most important role in this vein; and it can be said that diplomatic envoys were great travelers in the Middle Ages.