The Diplomacy of Revolutionary States

Abstract

There is an immediate sense of incompatibility when the terms ‘revolution’ and ‘diplomacy’ are juxtaposed.¹ Even a cursory comparison of some of the standard definitions of these terms brings out starkly the contrast between the underlying assumptions and outlooks embodied in the two concepts. Satow, for example, famously defines diplomacy as ‘the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations … or, more briefly still, the conduct of business between states by peaceful means’.² Nicolson’s ideal diplomat possessed an enviable list of personal qualities: ‘truth, accuracy, calm, patience, good temper, modesty, loyalty’.³ For Berridge, diplomacy is ‘the conduct of international relations by negotiation rather than force, propaganda or recourse to law, and by other peaceful means (such as gathering information or engendering goodwill) which are either directly or indirectly designed to promote negotiation’.⁴ De Callières’ classic work relates the practice of diplomacy to the existence of a community of states in Europe, a usage followed more recently by Watson, who talks of diplomacy as involving the adjustment of the differing interests of states through bargaining and compromise and through an awareness not merely of reason of state but of ‘raison de système’ or of the interests of international society as a whole.⁵ Similarly Bull situates diplomacy firmly within his overall framework of a society of states, in the sense that it is an institution, with related norms, rules and practices, in whose continuance all states have a stake.⁶