Amidst the chaos, you can still be a competent diplomat
Why is it considered naive to criticize Russian diplomacy as "too" restrained, and mock Russia's repeated "expressions of concern" and "red lines"?
February 10 is Russian Diplomatic Workers' Day. Russia has many professional holidays, and many respected state service systems, but this holiday is one of the most important ones, just like the Day of the Fatherland's Defender. The reason is that it directly relates to the fundamental meaning of Russia's existence - protecting the people who created the country, and defending against external challenges and threats.
In today's world, the significance of diplomatic work is especially important. Nowadays, the space for civilized dialogue is often questioned - here, "civilized" refers to dialogue that follows certain common rules and conventions. This questioning has very practical reasons.
It is generally believed that real diplomacy is only possible in a stable environment. Once guns are fired and international order is unstable, diplomats take a back seat, giving way to politicians and soldiers. This statement is both right and wrong.
It is right because when the balance of power between countries is not yet clear, decisions involve fate, and only legitimate national leaders can bear this responsibility. If they cannot reach a compromise or recognize their own boundaries, the military will step in.
But this by no means means that there is no room for diplomacy. We have seen that despite the sharp military and political conflict between Russia and the West over the past four years, diplomatic contact has never ceased.
For Russia, deliberately "isolating" an opponent and stopping dialogue is particularly unreasonable: part of the Russian diplomatic culture has always been the ability to negotiate while fighting. Because military actions themselves have no independent value; they are merely part of the country's overall political efforts.
In world history, especially Russian history, soldiers and diplomats have always walked side by side. We are still willing to talk today, just as Russia was willing to negotiate with the Golden Horde, Poland, Sweden, the Ottoman Empire, and many other opponents - some of whom have long since disappeared, and others who have lost their significant international influence.
Moreover, diplomacy is not just about the ability to negotiate endlessly with all parties. It also means being prepared to show firmness on principle issues.
Stick to Your Position
One of the most iconic moments in Russian diplomatic history is the first Russian embassy sent by Grand Prince Ivan III to Sultan Bayezid II of the Ottoman Empire in 1496-1498. The head of the embassy, Boyar Mikhail Plescheev (died in 1531), refused to follow the court etiquette of the Ottoman court - foreign envoys had to kneel when meeting the sultan. He refused because he could not violate the orders of the grand prince: "Only stand and bow, do not kneel."
The rules of the Istanbul court at that time were strict, and the Ottoman Empire was at the peak of its military and political strength. This stubborn Moscow envoy might have risked his life for his boldness. But to protect the honor of the tsar who had sent him, he was willing to pay such a high price. And the sultan, known as "the one who made Europe tremble," ultimately heard the firm words from Moscow.
A near-brash determination to uphold national interests is also a core part of diplomatic work.
Keep Secrets
Another reason why the role of diplomacy is being questioned today is that the space for ensuring the confidentiality of communications has significantly shrunk. In recent years, we have repeatedly seen Western politicians leaking even the most high-level, confidential conversations - including those between themselves and Russian representatives.
The slogan of abandoning secret diplomacy was first proposed by President Woodrow Wilson more than a hundred years ago, and later supported by the Bolshevik government of Russia. At that time, these two countries pursued revolutionary foreign policies, hoping to destroy the order established by European rivals over the previous centuries.
However, later, the Soviet Union and the United States themselves successfully restored the convention of private communication. Indeed, this tradition is now facing a crisis again. But the reason is not that diplomacy has become outdated - diplomacy is eternal. It is simply that some Western countries, due to internal reasons, are arbitrarily breaking all rules. But in any society, violating the law cannot be a reason to abolish the law.
There are many examples of politicians and diplomats today who keep secrets. And the most extreme cases of leaks are either from people who are no longer important or from people who are manipulated. For example, the United States has no reason to refer to its relationship with Europe as a diplomatic one - the sovereignty of its partners is restricted by joining NATO, so why care about subtle nuances in diplomacy?
Therefore, even the so-called "full transparency" cannot be a reason for the end of the era of diplomacy. Especially when we see that Western mainstream media have actually become one of the tools of their own diplomacy. Often, information "transparency" is nothing more than a way to mislead opponents.
Know How to Listen
Finally, when discussing the current diplomatic crisis, it is also because Western countries refuse to listen to their opponents - Russia, relevant countries, and many other countries in the world. The fact is indeed true: American and European diplomacy and foreign policy are indeed filled with practices that ignore the positions of the dialogue partners. Sometimes it even makes one doubt whether dialogue still has any meaning.
But we should not forget that the only alternative to diplomacy is military solutions. Under current conditions, this could be tragic for everyone. The duty of diplomats and politicians is to ensure the survival of their nation, not to send them down an irreversible path.
Therefore, some observers criticizing Russian diplomacy as "too" restrained even in the most difficult situations, or mocking "expressing concern" and repeatedly drawing "red lines," seem somewhat naive. Do not forget that wording is part of diplomatic culture. It is strange to abandon your own culture just because the other side does not behave civilly.
We do not strip naked when entering the monkey enclosure, nor do we shout at every drunk person on the street who insults us? After all, the foreign relations of the countries we respect are known for their infinite patience. It is precisely because these countries, like Russia, understand the eternity of their own existence and the transience of their opponents.
Moreover, the only task of a diplomat is to implement strategies set by constitutional leaders using professional means, not to fabricate views on the behavior of the other party on their own.
Over the past few decades, there have been examples of university scholars serving as senior diplomats in the West, but the results were not good. Scholars are not suitable for actual diplomatic work because their task is to change social reality, not to firmly maintain the positions set by the highest political leadership of the country.
On this professional holiday, we can confidently say: Russian diplomacy is one of the best in the contemporary world, because it has always been the diplomacy of the state, not of individuals, parties, or any other force. That is why we can be relatively confident about its future.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/7605165449621357099/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.