Secrecy in Diplomacy

The Old Diplomacy is defined (following Richelieu) as the maintenance of constant bilateral negotiation (with the establishment of Embassies) on high political issues, such as war and peace, based on the following values; secrecy, honesty, integrity, trustworthiness and equality (Jean-Robert Leguey, 2009, Chap2). Therefore, professionalism is required (from the “diplomatic corps”) and the establishment and respect of the protocol, developed in the aim to assure equality and avoid cultural clash between nations.

The relevance of the old diplomatic principle and practice in the 21^th Century stand still. Constant collaboration and cooperation (negotiations) between nations on a bilateral (and multilateral) level is indispensable in a globalized world. “High politics” dialogues between the US with the USSR and China were what had permitted to keep the “Cold War” cold. Kissinger uses of “back channels” (secretive negotiations) had successfully led to the detente period in the 1970s (G.R. Berridge,2010 , 68). Until today, the “Cold War Diplomacy” is use during crisis like the recent confrontation between North and South Korea (bbc news, 21/07/10; Korea war game, sign of growing tensions, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10712664). Without our diplomats’ professionalism, cooperation and assistance between states would be replaced by direct confrontation and constant cultural clash between our nations, and the cold war could have turn “hot”.

Nevertheless, the value of secrecy in the old diplomacy is challenged by democratic principles, the new technologies in telecommunication and the Media (Richard Grant, (2005);Democratization of Diplomacy).

Indeed, in a democratic society, the people, who elect their political representatives, may claim a transparent and open policy from the politics towards the public. Moreover, as Richard Grant says, the rapid evolution of the new technologies in telecommunication has made available a cheap and easy access to information. Therefore, the population considered granted the right to know (R. Grant, 2005, 12). On the top of that, nowadays the media can report instantly the major event in the world. So, the diplomats are not as useful as before to know what is going on abroad. So, what is the legitimacy for a secretive diplomacy?

Some argues that the public pressure during an open debate can undermine the negotiation. Secondly, external actors can compromise to the success of the negotiations, if they consider it as a threat to their own interest (G.R. Berridge, 105, 2010). To add, open negotiation can jeopardize the national security of the parties involved if confidential information is revealed to the public.

From my view, these are reasonable justifications to conduct secretive negotiations between two parties. The pacts and treaties resulting from these negotiations can be public, as long as it doesn’t jeopardize the national security. Concerning the “Old Diplomacy” in the 20^th and 21^thcenturies, it is clear that we need the experiences and principles of the old to build up the “New diplomacy”, which finally seems to be the natural evolution of the former.