First published in 1939 at the start of World War 2, Sir Harold Nicolson’s seminal work, Diplomacy, now reads as if it came from an entirely different age. For all intents and purposes, it probably does. Diplomacy “in practice” is now different to what Nicolson felt would best be left to career diplomats. Not politicians. He saw this “practice” of politicians leading diplomatic efforts as a “dangerous innovation”.
“Diplomacy is not the art of conversation,” said Nicolson. “It is the art of negotiating agreements in precise and ratifiable form.”
Nicolson, himself the son of a diplomat, had experienced the pre-1920s diplomacy as a particular “practice” that had resulted in the messy ceasefire that ended World War 1. He published his book as the “second” war loomed. By that stage, the words of Rudyard Kipling (the iimbongi of Empire) rang ominously true — “our world has passed away, in wantonness o’erthrown”.
Wanton brinkmanship suggests that the new age of diplomacy is now about the “art of the deal”. Whatever that deal might be. Harold Laski’s tome on US democracy complicated this institutional question even further by suggesting, “There is wisdom in the privacy of negotiation.” He, however, felt that “the results” of negotiation ought to be made public and “submitted to an examination that is more than formality”. As we consider the “public” kom hierso type of diplomacy we saw on display between Pretoria and Washington last week, the public may ask in hindsight: what might we submit to an examination beyond mere formalities? Further, what “form” might the precise and ratifiable “deal” take?
While Pretoria’s man held a cordial and at times jocular dispossession, he knew that his own assertions of the truth would never at best “assure” US President Donald Trump of the facts. A “common” appreciation of immutable facts is an indispensable part of diplomacy. However, it seems in the new age, it is substituted for “no law except (that of) the sword”, as Kipling wrote. In this age of “come duze”, or should I say “fairway” diplomacy by the presence of the golfers, the “ceremony” with projected footage and stapled printouts of news reports is as important as the haggling over the minutiae of the “text” of ratifiable agreements. It is this that we may wish to ready ourselves for.
Rather than the “did we win” or “lose” account many are dabbling in. What matters is that there are other terrains of negotiation that are important for us beyond the pageantry of the “informational” battle for sympathy, being pursued by a narrow section of the white right-wing here at home.
If we accept this, then the framing of a non-existent “white genocide” as a rural safety challenge is fundamentally correct. Furthermore, resetting the qualms about the US goods trade surplus as a debate secondary to balanced “goods” and services trade (globally), alongside participation in multilateral efforts to confront chronic over-capacity in goods markets and the regulatory challenges of “new” services such as AI and satellite technology, are all important tactical manoeuvres.
Lastly, the moral high ground of “truth” is seemingly not durable under such conditions. The “internet”, much like the telegram and steam engine before it, has as Nicolson suggested recast diplomacy. It is a “game” of alternate contending facts and truths, rather than calculated “statecraft” underpinned by reason. And somewhere in between trade and aid may feature. If we’re lucky. As Kipling wrote, during the nadir of the Empire’s reign over the world:
“Once more the nations go
To meet and break and bind...
The ages’ slow-bought gain
They shrivelled in a night.”
If we had some hope that we could “bind” the old diplomacy into the unpredictable “new”, last week’s showdown put paid to that. We may, however, by the sheer force and civility of SA’s example at the Oval Office, have space and a blank canvas to foment something in its place. We better get to it then.
• Cawe is chief commissioner at the International Trade Administration Commission. He writes in his personal capacity.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.