„Diplomatic Processes and Cultural Variations“-

The relevance of culture in diplomacy

Wilfried Bolewski1

(to be published in the February 2008 issue of “The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations”)

Abstract: Today’s issue- and outcome-related diplomacy risks to underestimate the relationship factor and cultural pluralism in globalized relations: Any diplomatic interaction is influenced by cultural variations of the participants.As a practitioner the author categorizes some regional and national cultures and their peculiarities with regard to diplomatic processes.The integrating process of socialization within the European Union could become a precursor to a common culture of diplomacy. Thus, the interdependency between diplomacy and culture underlines the impact of intercultural competence and the urgency for cross-cultural training for which some practical guidelines are suggested.

“Let us not be blind to our differences – but let us also direct attention to our common

interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot now

end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity” –

John F. Kennedy, American University, June 10, 1963.

I. Introduction:

The relationship between diplomacy and culture has been somewhat neglected in recent

academic research and practical considerations2, although intercultural competence is what

holds the globalized society together. Today’s transnational agenda is as much driven by

power (hard power) as by culturalism (soft or smart power). Unfortunately, current public

1 Ambassador Dr. Wilfried Bolewski is the German Foreign Office`s Special Representative for Universities and Foundations at the Foreign Service Academy, and teaches Diplomacy at the Free University Berlin and at the Hertie School of Governance, Berlin. For this article he has been assisted by Melanie Svenja Haubrich and Sebastian Kruse during their internship at the German Foreign Office. The author expresses his personal opinion. (wilfried.bolewski@diplo.de). Recent publication: “Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations” (Berlin, Heidelberg, NewYork: Springer 2007).2 Some hopeful ideas can be found in Armitage, Richard L./Nye, Joseph S., CSIS Commission Report on Smart Power, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington November 2007, p. 49: „…improving the effectiveness of U.S. government public diplomacy efforts in the field will require a higher degree of cultural understanding and awareness on the part of American officials.“

1

discussions concentrate exclusively on the existence of cultural commonalities and universal

values all cultures share3. However, the search for communalities can only be the second step

after the awareness of cultural differences as the logical starting point for the evaluation of

intercultural commonalities. Intercultural sensibility and understanding pave the way for the

acceptance of and tolerance towards other cultures and open ones mind for universal values

such as law and justice all cultures share and on which a globalized society should be built.

Facing the challenges of an increasingly complex world, the question of interdependency

between diplomatic processes and cultural variations becomes relevant: Is there a shared

professional culture in diplomacy apart from national ones? Do different global cultures

influence diplomacy? To what extent can research into national cultures help diplomacy and

governments to understand international interactions? How do diplomatic processes and

cultural variations influence each other?

II. Definition of “culture” 4 :

1. General definition :

Before analysing the interdependency between culture and diplomacy, it is necessary to state

what culture implies.

According to Hofstede, culture is defined as “the collective programming of the mind that

distinguishes the members of one category of people from another”5. In contrast to personality

culture is not individual, but collective. Furthermore, programming of the mind means that it

is a program set inside the person with the result that one cannot judge a person from the

outside of how he or she is programmed. This categorization makes it possible to distinguish

the members of one group from another. Hofstede applies the same definition of culture to

professional cultures such as the diplomatic one6.

Another approach to define culture is to state its key aspects: First, culture is a quality of

society and nothing individualistic, secondly, it is acquired through the process of individual

acculturation or socialization and third, each culture is a unique complex of characteristics

combining every area of social life7. Culture is the social identity individuals start to develop

3 Höffe, Otfried, Globalisierung? Ja bitte!, Warum universale Werte nicht nur westliche Werte sind, in: Die Literarische Welt – Eine Beilage der Welt, Saturday, 21st of July 2007, p. 1.4 For a US-military perspective see Chandler, Jennifer V., Why culture matters: an empirically-based pre-deployment training program, MA-thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California 20055 Hofstede, Geert, Diplomats as Cultural Bridge-Builders, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malta, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 26. 6 Hofstede, in: Slavik, p. 26. 7 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, International Communication in an Interdependent World (Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace 2004), p. 11.

2

when they become aware of belonging to a social group8. National culture as well as political,

economic, social and historical elements form the national identity.

According to these classifications, culture can be compared to a program containing

information about the society in which individuals find themselves. It provides information

about social roles, the structure of relationships, etiquette and how every day life should be

arranged9. Culture is a guideline through social life, but only valid in the social area in which

this program is internalised. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the other members of the

global society and their program as well as to be perceived as a member of its own program.

A way to experience another group is to understand and accept the way their minds work. A

by-product of such acceptance is a glimpse of the strengths and weaknesses of one’s own

system.10 Diplomacy happens basically by means of interactions and negotiations. The

negotiation style of each participant is formed by ones own cultural “program”. As different

cultural groups communicate differently, the culture of a negotiation party influences its

negotiation style. Therefore, the probability of mistakes and misunderstandings increases

when the interaction is cross-national11.

While sovereignty and equality are the rational backbones of international relations, culture is

its distinctive emotional differential, the hidden dimension which projects as much impact as

political or economic power.

2. Categorizing cultures:

In order to cope with cultural differences and to train cultural awareness and intercultural

competence, it is useful to distinguish different cultures.

Hofstede12 categorizes cultures in four dimensions: He differentiates between collectivistic

and individualistic, feminine13 and masculine cultures and between their levels of power

distance, uncertainty avoidance and long- or short- term orientation. The ground-breaking

ethnologist Edward T. Hall14 distinguishes between cultures of high or low context. In high

context societies, people have close connections over a long period of time, decisions and

8 Gudykunst, Cultural Variability in Ethno linguistic Identity, in: Ting-Toomey, Stella/Korzenny, Felipe, Language, Communication and Culture, (Newbury Park: Sage 1989), p. 223. 9 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 12. 10 Hall, Edward T., Beyond Culture (New York: Anchor Books, 1976), p.213,21411 Sunshine, Russell B., Negotiating for International Development, A Practitioner’s Handbook (Dordrecht: Nartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1990), pp. 27/29. 12 Hofstede, in: Slavik, p. 31. 13 Svedberg, Erika, Feminist Theory and International Negotiations, in: International Studies Perspectives (2002), pp. 153-173. 14 Hall, Edward T., Beyond Culture (New York: Anchor Books, 1976), pp. 39, 53, 105-113.; Hall, Edward T./Reed Hall, Mildred, Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French, and Americans (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press 1983); Hall, Edward T./Reed Hall, Mildred, Hidden Differences, Studies in International Communication: How to Communicate with the Germans (Hamburg: Stern Magazine/Gruner & Jahr 1987).

3

activities are focused on relationships and communication is less verbally explicit,

information is rather transferred by means of unspoken meaning. On the contrary, in low

context societies people usually have more connections of shorter duration or for a specific

reason. People are rule- and task- orientated and information is communicated explicitly.

Whereas low context cultures pursue an individualistic negotiation style, the one of high-

context cultures is relationship orientated15. Low context negotiators are interested in the

outcome of negotiations; they want to find solutions to a problem, high- context negotiators in

contrast are more interested in attending to relationships by means of negotiations16. Although

the overall structure of every negotiation is regulated by protocol, it is as well determined by

different negotiation styles like circular, linear, functional, task-centred or personal17.

Developing Hofstede`s definition of culture, it is possible to classify cultures in the following

categories: multi-active, linear-active and reactive cultural groups: Multi-active groups are

characterized by a high level of flexibility and disinterest in schedules and punctuality.

Reality is more important to them than appointments and they are willing to invest time in

human transactions18. On the contrary, linear-active groups do one thing at one time while

concentrating on a fixed schedule. They stick to plans and facts and separate social from

professional aspects. In contrast to multi-active and linear-active groups, reactive cultures

listen and try to see the whole picture before they become active. They are introverted and

prefer monologue to dialogue19.

In order to handle concrete intercultural negotiation situations, it is useful to classify cultures

not only according to dimensions or groups, but also according to regions.

3. Regional and national cultures in the diplomatic process

Each region of the globe has its own cultural peculiarities, whether it is Asia, the Arab world

or Latin America.20 On the basis that the cultural background matters for diplomacy, cultural

specifics have to be taken into account. The way of thinking, speaking and behaving is deeply

rooted in one’s particular culture and hence also influences noticeable the conduct of

diplomacy.21 Although diplomacy is shaped by normative rules, practices and procedures of

the international society and depends, too, on the unique qualities of individuals, diverse 15 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 36. 16 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 69. 17 Korshuk, Alena, On Intercultural Training of Diplomats, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malte, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 408. 18 Lewis, p. 30. 19 Lewis, p. 34 f. 20 See for a comprehensive overview about national and cultural peculiarities and their influence on the intercultural communication- and negotiation-process: Lewis, pp. 179 et seq.

4

patterns of cultural and national groups are identifiable.22 The process of globalization

bringing people together, as for example politicians, business people or lobbyists, who are

deeply steeped in their own cultures does not mean that professional cultures or instructions

received from their respective authorities are negligible.23 But for an effective and successful

diplomacy at all levels the influences of regional and national cultures should also be taken

into consideration.

a) The Americas 24

aa) United States of America 25

The preponderance of American power in international relations and the American history are

essentials for the self-image of the nation and its representatives and influence

correspondingly its culture. It not only leads Americans to a feeling of pride but also gives

them a distinct impetus to act with self-assurance. Whether pioneers conquering the vast

prairie or astronauts landing on the moon; the American society is dominated by a pervasive

emphasis on achievement. The American culture is characterised by a strong optimistic

tendency: It is possible to solve nearly every problem through active effort and hard work

leads to happy endings.26

American negotiators are characterized through their “can-do” approach. There exists a strong

belief that the environment can be manipulated for someone’s own purposes. In an approach

where the main features are to set an objective, to develop a plan and then to act to change the

environment in accordance with that plan exists moreover not much space for cultivating

personal ties.27 Against the background of a low-context culture the American negotiators are

used to set out their opening positions as clearly as possible. Once a negotiation has started

they put their cards on the table right from the beginning and prefer a yes in principle. They

21 Sharp, Paul: Talking to Americans: Problems of Language and Diplomacy, in: Kurbalija, Jovan/Slavik, Hannah: Language and Diplomacy (Malta: DiploProjects 2001), pp. 93-106, here p. 93.22 Jong-hwan, Song: North Korean Negotiating Behaviour: A cultural approach, in: East Asian Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2003, pp. 87 – 104, here pp. 88-89.23 Lang, Winfried: A Professional’s View, in: Faure/Rubin (Ed.), Culture and Negotiation (London: Sage 1983), pp. 38 et seq., here 118; Sharp, Talking to Americans, p. 94.24 See for further information: Crouch, Ned: Mexicans & Americans: Cracking the Culture Code (London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing 2004); Stephenson, Skye: Understanding Spanish-Speaking South Americans: Bridging Hemispheres (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 2003).25 See for further information: Stewart, Edward C./Bennett, Milton J.: American Cultural Patterns : A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Yarmouth, Intercultural Press 1991).26 Fisher, Glen: Mindsets. The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations (Intercultural Press: Yarmouth 1988), p. 52.27 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 37.

5

are interested in getting as soon as possible to discuss the details and proceed on an offer and

counter-offer basis.28

The volatility of life which prevailed in the early days of the U.S. is reflected in the low-

context society. People have more connections of a shorter duration and for a specific reason

than longstanding relationships. Therefore, important transactions are based rather on

contracts than ties of sentiment, so that all obligations have to be spelled out and ambiguities

resolved.29

The American society is also a linear-active one. The historical experience of the days of land

grab and gold rush, when time was essential for the future success, is still present in the

American mindset. Schedules and deadlines seem to loom over everything (“Time is

money”). Changing schedules or appointments or to deviate from the agenda is difficult to

accept. Americans prefer dealing with one thing and one person at a time rather than handling

several tasks in parallel.30

The worldwide prominence of the English language is further shaping the American culture.

With 375 million native speakers and suggested 1.1 billion people knowing English as a

second language, no other language seems to be more popular.31 It is widely used as the

dominant language in international organizations and fora. Hence, being a native-speaker

means inevitable an advantage and strengthens the self-confidence. Moreover, native speakers

are also able to express nuances in a way foreigners are rarely able to.

American diplomats appear to be direct both with their preference for straight talking and in

their whole approach.32 But this can lead to disgruntlement if the negotiation partner has no

understanding for this culture-based-behaviour: In the negotiations over reforms in Japan’s

financial markets in 1984 for example, the abrupt manner of some U.S. diplomats affronted

their Japanese counterparts. They complained for instance that Treasury Secretary Donald

Regan behaved more as a business man making a deal on Wall Street than a diplomat engaged

in a delicate negotiation with a foreign government.33

bb) Mexico34

28 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, pp. 83-84.29 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, pp. 190-191.30 Lewis, pp. 179-180.31 Bolewski, Wilfried: Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer 2007), p. 79.32 Sharp, Talking to Americans, p. 100.33 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, pp. 70-71.34 See for further information: Condon, John C.: Communicating with the Mexicans (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 1985).

6

Mexico provides a good example for a high-context and multi-active society. Managing

affiliations with other people is of high importance. Therefore, first of all human relationships

have to be established.35 In addition, life in Mexico is not organized around a clock, which

means that punctuality is not a top priority for Mexicans. In Mexico’s hierarchical society it is

widely accepted that persons in a position of power make others wait.36 Furthermore, in the

Latin tradition Mexicans address problems in broad general principles.37

In a typical negotiation process with Mexicans it is usual to start with friendly small talk and

to approach the substance only when time seems appropriate. They do not follow agendas

rigidly and prefer to discuss any point when it seems to be opportune.38 However, the issues

can then be discussed at length. As conversation is regarded as an art, they are seeking the

approval or conversion of their counterpart. Therefore, passion and eloquence are central to

their style of discourse, and feelings are more important than facts. Coming to an end of the

negotiation process, symbols of success are important. For a Mexican diplomat any public

sign of surrender would mean a serious threat for any arrangement.

In the 1982 debt talks with the U.S. Mexican diplomats preferred for example an actually

materially inferior agreement avoiding a misleading appearance of a greater Mexican

concession.39

b) Europe: United in diversity?

Diversity within Europe is too broad and historically deep-rooted to speak of one regional

culture. Different cultural backgrounds prevail while looking from Spain to Estonia, from

Finland40 to Greece, Germany, France41 or Great Britain. This has repercussions also for their

national diplomacies.42

For more than 50 years an increasing number of European states with their different cultures

work together in the context of the European Union (EU). Do these individual national

cultures influence the diplomatic process within the EU? And if yes: In which way and to

what extent?

35 Fisher, p. 54.36 Lewis, pp. 535-537.37 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 104.38 Lewis, pp. 535-537.39 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 188.40 See for further information: Lewis, Richard D.: Finland. Cultural Lone Wolf (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 2005).41 See for further information: Asselin, Gilles/Mastron, Ruth: Au Contraire! Figuring out the French (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 2001).42 See for further information: Hocking, Brian/Spence, David (eds.): Foreign Ministries in the European Union: Integrating Diplomats (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian 2002).

7

Looking at the EU as a global actor, one has also to raise the question if and how the

aforementioned national cultural differences will be reflected in the future EU’s diplomacy or

if their influence will be minimized due to the ongoing process of socialisation and an

emerging “European esprit de corps”.43

Two concurring empirical analyses apply to this question:

First of all, cultural peculiarities and differences belong to a “domaine réservé” within the

European context. Originally, this term refers to specific issues “that cannot be submitted to

discussion and interference from the other member states”44 within the EU, such as security

issues or special interstate relationships. Similarly, also cultural backgrounds and their

influence on the diplomatic process are not being reflected upon or openly discussed within

the EU-context due to an implicit silent acceptance among all participants.

Secondly, due to the continuity of positive social interaction and information exchanges

between the partners, a practical process of bureaucratic socialization45 and cross-national

collegial solidarity is setting in, overlapping the cultural peculiarities. As a result of the

continuous interaction and the prolonged experience of cooperation (including co-ordinated

démarches - policy initiatives- and common reporting abroad), the national representatives are

subject to a mutual understanding, which forms part of a certain Community code that could

develop into an “esprit de corps”.46 These culturally determined norms of behaviour are the

culture of mutual respect, tolerance and compromise as well as other informal rules and

facilitations of communication such as Eurospeak (the mixed use of different working

languages, especially French and English).

On the other hand, there still remains the danger of the illusion of cultural familiarity among

EU partners.47 The influence of cultural differences in the behaviour of multinational teams

43 Lieb, Julia/Maurer, Andreas: Making EU Foreign Policy more effective, consistent and democratic: The options and variables for the European External Action Service (Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2007 http://www.swp-berlin.org/en/common/get_document.php?asset_id=4203&PHPSESSID=2078dfb5988e 654848da6a22f7828063), p. 1244 Juncos, Ana E./Pomorska, Karolina: Playing the Brussels game: Strategic socialisation in the CFSP Council Working Groups (European Integration online Papers, Vol. 10, No. 11, 2006, eiop.or.at/eiop/index.php/eiop/ article/viewPDFInterstitial/2006_011a/33 -), p. 8.45 Glarbo, Kenneth, Wide-awake diplomacy: reconstructing the common foreign and security policy of the European Union, in: Journal of European Public Policy 1999, p.634 (646), Wong, Reuben, The Europeanization of Foreign Policy, in: Hill, Christopher/Smith, Michael (Ed.), International Relations and the European Union (Oxford: University Press 2005), p. 134 (138)46 Juncos/Pomorska, pp. 5-6., Beyers, Jan, Multiple embeddedness and socialization in Europe: The case of Council officials, in: International Organization, Vol. 59, No. 4, 2005, p. 899 (908), Batora, Josef, Does the European Union transform the institution of Diplomacy?, Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy No. 87 (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael” 2003), p. 14, Trondal, Jarle, Is there any social constructivist-institutionalist divide? Unpacking social mechanisms affecting representational roles among EU decision-makers, in: Journal of European Public Policy 2001, p. 1 (14)47 Henrikson, Alan K., Diplomacy’s Possible Futures, in: The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 1(2006), p. 3 (12)

8

can best be exemplified along the North-South divide of European countries. At least two

patterns stand out which adversely influence the multinational team performance:

- working style: While the northern countries are more goal-orientated and therefore

prefer to come straight to the point, southern countries are more process-orientated and

rely on personal relationship in their communication.

- differing styles of criticizing (direct, diplomatic or indirect).48

The future EU is in need of a coherent diplomatic service for a common EU foreign policy.

This is the reason why already the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe envisaged to

establish a European External Action Service (EEAS). With an estimated staff between 600

and 7.000 employees, coming from the respective departments of the Council Secretariat, the

Commission and also the national diplomatic services of the EU member states, there will be

a diversity of respective cultural as well as professional backgrounds.49

While the EEAS will have to accommodate with national foreign ministries and diplomatic

services to recruit its employees, it remains an open question whether and how the original

cultural peculiarities will be reflected in the conduct of the EU’s diplomacy.

4. Common culture of diplomacy?

To examine the question whether a global common culture of diplomacy exists, it is important

to define diplomacy. The aim of diplomacy then is twofold: to protect and guide the

individual interests of states and to promote global norms and values characterizing the

growing sense of a community of states and an international unity. Modern diplomacy as a

rule-governed activity contains procedures of communication, negotiation and representatives

between states, international organizations and transnational participants. Diplomatic

interactions are usually supposed to avoid or settle conflicts50, for which these rules are an

efficient instrument. In the 21st century, diplomacy is ubiquitous and increasing in practice.

Also non state actors are more willing to engage in diplomatic methods and practice a distinct

type of diplomacy.

The definitions of culture and diplomacy raise the question of the existence of a common

culture of diplomacy shared by all participants involved in the interactive process of

diplomacy: Beyond the diversity of state-based diplomatic cultures, is there a common culture

of diplomacy? 48 Neyer, Anne-Katrin, Multinational Teams in the European Commission and the European Parliament (Frankfurt am Main: Lang 2005), p. 5549 Heuser, Annette: Diplomats for Europe - Key Elements for a European External Action Service (Zentrum für angewandte Politikforschung, 2005, http://www.cap.lmu.de/download/spotlight/Reformspotlight_02-05_en.pdf), p. 4.50 Lang, Winfried, Negotiation as Diplomatic Rule-Making, in: International Negotiations, No. 1, 1996, p. 130.

9

Indeed, a range of similarities can be found in the diplomatic profession. Due to many

behavioural similarities they create an “esprit de corps”51: Diplomats reap the benefits of a

similar professional education and diplomatic training. Therefore, they share the same social

rules such as restraint, politeness, tolerance, patience, empathy and mutual confidence52.

Furthermore, they have similar professional experiences, are used to the same procedures,

follow the same rules and display the same behaviour which point in the direction of a

common diplomatic culture. Hence, diplomatic culture is also called “third culture”53. This

diplomatic culture could be defined as “the accumulated communicative and representational

norms, rules, and institutions devised to improve relations and avoid war between interacting

and mutually recognizing political entities54.

In spite of these similarities, some original cultural differences remain which make it difficult

to speak of a common culture of diplomacy. First of all, every person is formed by his or her

own cultural background which one can never completely escape. Nobody can totally erase

his or her own “programming of the mind”. The social identity which has been achieved by a

long lasting socialization process cannot be abandoned by means of professional training, no

matter how intense this training might be55. Moreover, abandoning their own national culture

would also cause problems in such a way that diplomats could not identify with their own

cultural background anymore which would make it almost impossible to fulfil their job as

“servants of national interests” 56 of their states.

Diplomacy as a language spoken by state officials will inevitably differ from diplomacy

whose principal agents are persons other than states. Due to globalization, the diversity of

actors on the international stage has been growing continuously57. As a result, the culture

among those diplomatic participants becomes more open, diversity is more common.

However, not all of the new actors in diplomacy are experienced in dealing with foreigners

and intercultural situations58. Their acculturation stays in many cases only task-related and 51 Bolewski, p. 76. 52 Kappeler, Dietrich, The Birth and Evolution of a Diplomatic Culture, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malte, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 359; Rana, Kishan S., Diplomatic Culture and its Domestic Context, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malte, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 381. 53 Carstarphen, Nike, Making the “Other” Human: The Role of Personal Stories to Bridge Deep Differences, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malte, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 177. 54 Wiseman, Geoffrey, Pax Americana: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture, in: International Studies Perspective 6, 2005, pp. 409 et.seq. 55 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 22. 56 Sharp, Paul, The Idea of Diplomatic Culture and its Sources, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malte, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 369. 57 Rana, Kishan S., Diplomatic Culture and its Domestic Context, in: Slavik, pp. 381/382; Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 23. 58 Cohen, Raymond, p. 23.

10

rarely becomes adapted in the negotiator’s private life. Therefore, they seldom find real access

to their host culture59. Just like governmental diplomats, they never lose their own

programming of the mind as their internalized culture. So even under the presumption that

there exists a common culture among diplomats in the sense of sharing a certain basic

understanding, this does not conclusively prove the existence of a unique common diplomatic

culture.

III. The components of diplomacy:

1. Participants:

Today, not only diplomats are involved in the diplomatic process. Many non-traditional actors

such as NGOs, trans-national organisations and even individuals can be said to practice

diplomacy which has “become a growth sector”60 and the “engine room of international

relations”61. Especially due to the process of globalization the group of diplomatic participants

has been expanded to representatives from international organisation, non-governmental

organisation, the private sector, the media, academia, foundations and political parties,

pressure groups and mass movements62.

Governments are and will remain the principal participants in diplomacy. Especially the

ministry of foreign affairs as national state actor has had the role of the main coordinator of

diplomatic interactions for a long period of time63. In times of globalization governments have

to operate in a different context than before; governmental diplomacy has to fulfil an

additional function: Integrating other participants of diplomacy in its own decision-making

processes64. To meet the challenges of globalization, governments have been focusing on new

strategies: Involving ministries and non-state actors and institutions, providing greater

transparency and acting collectively as far as possible65.

Due to globalization, the number of nongovernmental participants in diplomatic interactions

is increasing steadily. Especially in the field of economic diplomacy, the amount of non-state

59 Hofstede, Geert/Hofstede, Gert Jan, Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind (New York: McGraw-Hill 2005), pp. 341 et seq. 60 Hocking, Brian, The End(s) of Diplomacy, in: International Journal 1997, p. 169. 61 Cohen, Raymond, Putting Diplomatic Studies on the Map, in: Diplomatic Studies Program Newsletter, Leicester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy 1998, p. 1. 62 Bolewski, p. 17; Kremenyuk, Victor A./Lang, Winfried, The Political, Diplomatic, and Legal Background, in: G. Sjöstadt (Ed.), International Environmental Negotiation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage 1993). p. 3. 63 Rana, in: Slavik, p. 385. 64 Bayne, Nicholas/Woolcock, Stephen, The New Economic Diplomacy (Hampshire: Ashgate 2003), p. 6. 65 Bayne/Woolcock, p. 94.

11

actors is increasing66. In 2005/2006 the international society counted 20.928 NGOs, 2476 of

them have a consultation status at the ECOSOL67. The NGOs as part of the international civil

society can deploy their populist and indirect rule towards the privatization of public authority

and responsibility and become a partial surrogate of the state68. With the rise of these Non-

State Organizations and new social movements, the diplomatic function is being exercised by

a wider circle of citizens. As active participants of civil society they have become symbolic

and complementary diplomatic actors filling a niche in the environment of globalized

relations and bringing in a diplomatic culture of their own; more relaxed, direct and

audacious69. A new diplomatic practice is emerging. The diplomatic discourse becomes

democratized, detached from the state and more prominent. The symbolic relationship

between the state and societal actors carries the potential for creative statecraft and valuable

diplomatic practices.

The number of International Organizations (IOs) has risen in 2005/06 to 1.96370. They can be

seen as autonomous political actors, practising a form of diplomacy distinct from the

traditional practice. As a result, they have created an own cultural and diplomatic identity

formed not only by their organization culture, but also by the culture area in which they are

domiciled. They are involved in a diplomatic network which goes beyond the national

interests and concerns and represents common interests of the IOs. Prerequisite for the

development of this cultural identity is the ability to maintain diplomatic communication

channels, to integrate the organisation’s sub-units, loyalty among its members and the

capability to create self-knowledge to be able to set goals concerning preferred values71.

At the beginning of the 21st century there are more than 53.000 transnational companies72, half

of the top 100 economies in the world were not national states but transnational companies

(TNC). Since the TNC`s financial potency reveals or exceeds the GNP of many countries they

wield increasing potential as well as economic power. He who has power conducts diplomacy

66 Bayne/Woolcock, p. 4. 67 Part A: Statistical Data Graphics, Figure 1.1.1. (a): Overview of number of international organisations by type of the Yearbook of International Organisations, Edition 42, 2005/2006, evaluated by the union of International Association, Lausanne68 Bolewski, p. 55. 69 Devin, Guillaume, La diplomatie d`État vue par les ONG, in: Cohen, Samy, Les diplomates. Négocier dans un monde chaotique (Paris 2002), p. 105. Reynolds, David, Culture, Diplomacy and Language: Some further thoughts, in: Cultural and Social History vol. 3, no. 4, October 2006, p. 490 70 Part A: Statistical Data Graphics, Figure 1.1.1. (a): Overview of number of international organisations by type of the Yearbook of International Organisations, Edition 42, 2005/2006, evaluated by the union of International Association, Lausanne. 71 Hofstede/Hofstede, pp. 341 et seq. 72 Kegley Jr, Charles W./Wittkopf, Eugene R., World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 9th ed., (Thomson Wadsworth, California 2004), p. 173.

12

and any development in diplomacy must be analysed from an evaluation of the power factor

in globalized relations73.

More and more international agreements are carried out by experts who play an increasingly

important role in diplomacy. They bring their cultural particularities in diplomatic interactions

and represent their own professional culture74. Their professional cultures include special

habits, basic beliefs, norms and customs which distinguish those experts from other

participants in diplomatic interactions75.

2. Processes/Practices

a) Readiness for compromise as diplomacy’s quest for the middle ground:

Any diplomatic process must include the participants` readiness for compromise. Without this

attitude, diplomatic efforts are determined to fail. The actors must be willing and flexible

enough to work on finding a compromise acceptable to the others, thus guaranteeing

consensus. If diplomacy is to be given a chance, it is self-defeating to make the desired result

of negotiations their precondition. The ability to accept a compromise is inevitable to achieve

this aim76. For that purpose, it is important to be aware of one’s own liabilities and assets

while recognizing the authority of international consensus. The result of negotiations must

always be to identify common interests and work out acceptable solutions to a wide scope of

common concern77.

b) Language

Language is more than just a means of communication; language as speech act78 is a tool for

empowerment. Since communication and culture are acquired simultaneously79, language can

be considered a key to culture. Every language deeply rooted in a particular culture conveys a

unique representation of the world. Good argumentative points and diplomatic techniques are

useless without the ability to communicate them. As there are strong differences in verbal and

73 Coolsaet, Rik, The Transformation of Diplomacy at the Threshold of the New Millennium, Diplomatic Studies Program, No 48 (Levester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy 1998), p. 1; Bolewski, pp. 53 et seq. 74 Lang, Winfried, A Professional’s View, in: Fauvre/Rubin (Ed.), Culture and Negotiation (London: Sage 1983), p. 118. 75 Lang, A Professional’s View, p. 113. 76 Lewis, p. 168. 77 Kremenyuk/Lang, p. 4. 78 Reynolds, David, Culture, Diplomacy and Language: Some further thoughts, in: Cultural and Social History vol. 3, no. 4, October 2006, pp. 490 et seq. (495)79 Haslett, Communication and Language Acquisition Within a Cultural Context, in: Ting-Toomey, Stella/Korzenny, Felipe (Ed.), Language, Communication, and Culture, Current Directions (Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage 1989), p. 20.

13

nonverbal communication across cultures and subcultures80 as well as the possibility of

misinterpretations, language can also be an obstacle on the way to a successful diplomatic

process. As a result, language skills are one of the most important tools for every diplomat.

The only possibility to communicate and negotiate without proper (foreign) language skills is

third party interpretation. However, involving an interpreter can lead to a loss of behavioural

nuances and confidence81 and can therefore be considered as second choice only. One obstacle

in the way to a successful diplomatic interaction is the different use of language among

different cultural groups. In this respect, Edward T. Hall differentiates between high and low

context cultures. Whereas high-context communication implies the transfer of much unspoken

meaning within communication, low-context communication contains all information in the

utterances and there is not much or even nothing implied apart from what is explicitly said.

High context cultures communicate more allusively than directly, so that the context of what

is said is as important as the content82.

Even if the negotiation partners use the same language, for example English, it is sometimes

difficult or even impossible to imply the identical meaning and relevance of a certain word.

Some words have a completely different meaning depending on the origin of the culture in

which they are used, so that it is often not sufficient just to translate them from English into

the specific language or vice-versa. This different use of language can cause

misunderstandings and therefore lead to a communication gap. One example of such a

communication gap is the different interpretation of “human rights”.83 It shows how difficult it

can be to find a consensus in diplomatic interactions without the same values and ideas behind

fundamental terms which are in the focus of these interactions. Especially in diplomatic

negotiations, the knowledge of such linguistic and cultural nuances and differences helps to

avoid the communication gap.

IV. Other factors determining the negotiation process:

1. Nature of the decision:

One of the most important determinants of the negotiation process is the nature of the decision

to be taken84. The nature of the decision influences the type of the negotiation which can vary 80 Haslett, in: Ting-Toomey, p. 26. 81 Bolewski, p. 81. 82 Hall, Beyond Culture, pp. 39, 53, 105-11383 Mingst, Karen A. / Warkentin. Craig P., What difference does culture make in multilateral negotiations?, in: Global Governance 2, 1996, p. 17484 Lang, Winfried, Multilaterale Entscheidungsprozesse, in: Köck, Heribert Franz (Ed.), Völkerrecht in Zeitverantwortung, Ausgewählte Schriften zu Diplomatie, Umweltschutz, internationalen Organisationen und Integration (Wien: Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag 2006), p. 77; Lang, Winfried, Multilateral Negotiations, The

14

between the traditional bilateral or multilateral diplomacy, parliamentary diplomacy,

summitry diplomacy or conference diplomacy by means of ad hoc meetings85. Especially

sensitive topics might necessitate secret instead of open diplomacy and thereby influence the

atmosphere of the negotiation.

Furthermore, there is interdependency between the importance of the decision to be taken and

the public interest in it and, in consequence, the behaviour of the actors. The more important

the decision and the higher the level of public interest, the higher the pressure the decision-

makers put on their diplomats wich can influence their negotiation behaviour.

2. Behaviour of the actors:

Since diplomats act as servants for their decision-makers, their behaviour depends first and

foremost on their instructions. Moreover, the behaviour of the actor is influenced by factors of

authority of his country, such as the gross domestic product, the military power, the level of

international integration and the dependency on aid and energy supplies86.

The number of negotiating parties and individual participants involved in the negotiation

process is another factor which influences their behaviour. In the case of multilateral

negotiations, the amount of parties increases the amount of possible coalition partners and

makes the negotiation strategically more complex. A high number of participants decreases

the secrecy of the negotiation87 and has a strong influence on the amount of talking time per

participant. The more participants are taking part, the more parties each participant has to deal

with in an inversely proportional amount of time88.

3. Time and place:

Time is an important factor in diplomacy. However, the perceptions of time, of the future and

the importance of punctuality89 varies among different cultures and can therefore be an

obstacle in negotiations. Edward T. Hall subdivides cultures into mono- and polychronic

cultures. Whereas monochronic people do one thing at one time, take time commitments such

Role of Presiding Officers, in: Köck, Heribert Franz (Ed.), Völkerrecht in Zeitverantwortung, Ausgewählte Schriften zu Diplomatie, Umweltschutz, internationalen Organisationen und Integration (Wien: Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag 2006), pp. 86 et seq. 85 Sawyer, Jack/Guetzkow, Harold, Bargaining and Negotiations in International Relations, in: Kelman, Herbert C. (Ed.), International Behavior, A Social-Psychological Analysis (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1965), pp. 490 et. seq. 86 Lang, Multilaterale Entscheidungsprozesse, p. 74. 87 Sawyer/Guetzkow, p. 492. 88 Sawyer/Guetzkow, p. 492. 89 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 34

15

as deadlines and schedules seriously, stick to plans and concentrate on their job and are

usually low-context, polychromic people, on the other hand, do many things at once, consider

time commitments an objective to be achieved only if possible and are usually high-context.

They change plans often and easily and are highly distractible. Considering these differences,

it becomes clear that time can be an obstacle in negotiations which can only be overcome with

intercultural awareness.

Especially in diplomacy with its tight schedules and deadlines advanced time planning

becomes important. Nevertheless, it can happen that a negotiation takes longer than expected.

In this case, time might evoke stress and become a relevant factor as well.

The place of the interaction is another factor which should not be underestimated. The

diplomatic setting of interaction has to be chosen deliberately to avoid diplomatic blunders.

As far as location is concerned, it is important that there is on the one hand enough space for

all participants, but on the other hand not too much space so that a familiar atmosphere can

develop and informal meetings among the participants are possible to pave the way for a

successful ending of the interactive process90.

V. Interdependency between diplomacy and culture?

Having examined the cultural differences among diplomatic participants and their impact on

the outcome of diplomatic interactions, interdependency between diplomacy and culture can

hardly be denied since negotiation styles are strongly influenced by the cultural background of

the negotiation parties as well as the perception of time and the setting of priorities within

interactions.

Somehow a competition is taking place between national and professional culture in

international interactions, especially concerning the different negotiation styles91.

Diplomats can only be successful if they can cope with the simultaneous challenge of living in

or with foreign cultures, and – at the same time - representing the interests of their national

states. Moreover, intercultural competence is essential to understand participants with other

cultural background. Once this cultural awareness exists, it influences the culture of

diplomacy in such a way, that diplomats at least try to respond to the cultural particularities of

their interaction partners. It leads to a better relationship among the participants in diplomatic

interactions and is the appropriate instrument to pave the way for diplomatic success.

Therefore, intercultural communication competence is the imperative quality for a successful

90 Lang, Multilaterale Entscheidungsprozesse, p. 79. 91 Lang, A Professional’s View, p. 114.

16

diplomatic process. Concerning the aims of diplomacy of protection and guidance of interests

on the one and avoiding or settling conflicts on the other hand, diplomacy influences the

negotiation culture because of the need for successful diplomatic solutions. Due to the need

for challenging intercultural differences, a professional or “third” culture of diplomacy

emerges.

The question is if this impact also works vice-versa, to say if culture also influences

diplomacy.

As every participant involved in diplomatic negotiations has his or her own “programming of

the mind” which cannot be abandoned, a cultural impact on diplomacy is inevitable. Culture

does not only influence negotiation style, time perception and the significance of

relationships, it has also an impact on social roles and etiquette. As all these aspects play

some role within diplomatic interactions, they are in principle suited to influence diplomacy.

In practice, diplomacy is as much about cultural relations as it is about political relations. It is

culture, even more than politics, that provides structuring principles in the understanding of

diplomatic practices and processes.92 With reference to the new interest in the cultural

dimension of international relations the diplomatic historian David Reynolds formulates: “The

diplomatic twitch must take full account of the cultural turn”.93

VI. Cross-cultural training:

Having examined the high impact of cultural variations on diplomatic processes it has to be

determined how diplomats and other actors involved in diplomatic processes can successfully

be prepared to meet the challenges of the interdependency of diplomacy and culture.

Diplomats must be aware of the fact that there are cultural differences, which kind of

differences exist and how to deal with them. Without the awareness of cultural differences

diplomats might tend to look only for similarities rather than first acknowledge the differences

as a defence against alienation. Once they are in a different cultural area, their perception of

culture might become selective; filtering out what is inconsistent with their own culture94. The

need for such preparedness is especially relevant in the context of globalization.95

92 Lee, Donna/Hudson, David, The old and new significance of political economy in diplomacy, in: Review of International Studies 2004, 30, p. 343 (356), see Bozemann, Adda B., Politics and Culture in International History: From the Ancient Near East to the Opening of the Modern Age, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1994)93 Reynolds, David, International History, the Cultural Turn and the Diplomatic Twitch, in: Cultural and Social History 2006, pp. 75 ss. (91)94 Sunshine, pp. 26 et.seq. 95 Former U.S. Ambassador Henry E. Catto, Jr., talking about “Diplomacy in 2015”, suggested: “Finally, the Foreign Service will need more than ever the guidance and help of that corps of unsung and knowledgeable heroes, national employees, who can educate our diplomats on host-country mores and oddities. Every country (definitely including us) has its peculiarities, and it takes a native of the country to interpret them to the visitor”

17

The best way to evoke cultural awareness and guarantee the required intercultural competence

is international training. Only in this way can they cultivate cultural intelligence and learn

how to communicate cross-culturally96.

Such an intercultural training should include a theoretical, practical and personal component97:

Transfer of cultural theories could be the starting point for this learning process, connected

with analysis of cultural similarities and differences in different cultures. To be efficient,

intercultural training should be initiated at an early stage of the diplomatic education and be

followed by knowledge, skills and practice98.

Since there are more participants in diplomacy than the employees of Foreign Offices, it is

therefore not sufficient to offer intercultural training only within the classical diplomatic

education, but also to TNC, NGOs, media and among experts and members of the parliament.

In the future, the need for competent intercultural preparation will increase proportionally

with the amount of participants involved in diplomatic interactions. Though international

training can only lay the foundation for successful diplomatic interactions, it is the basis on

which diplomats can develop their intercultural skills by means of their own experiences.

Cultural sensitivity thus is the highway which leads to diplomatic success, it can make or

brake any international career.

VII. Conclusions:

In view of diplomatic cultural relativism and in the quest for intercultural accords, only when

each of the disparate cultural systems in our world is fully recognized in its intrinsic substance

will it be possible to understand the various patterns of globalized relations.

Thus, cross-cultural preparation for diplomatic negotiations is even more important than

thorough consideration for its context. To make such a preparation work in practice and

demonstrate how diplomatic interactions can lead to a successful result, it is useful to proceed

along the following guidelines99 which this author has experienced in more than 30 years of

diplomatic practice:

(Catto, Henry E., Jr., The End of Diplomacy?, in: Fulton, Barry (ed.), Net Diplomacy I, Beyond Foreign Ministries (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace http://www.usip.org/virtualdiplomacy/publications/ reports/14.html 2002). 96 Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malte, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 20. 97 Korshuk, in: Slavik, p. 410. 98 Hofstede/Hofstede, p. 359. 99 Fisher, Glen, Mindsets, The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations (Intercultural Press: Yarmouth 1988), p. 75; Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, pp. 225-226; Sunshine, Russell B., Negotiating for International Development, A Practitioner’s Handbook (Dordrecht: Nartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1990), p. 77, Lewis, Richard D., When Cultures Collide (Boston, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing 2006), p. 174.

18

- a) Building confidence is the first step to diplomatic success.

Confidence, respect and empathy are what make honest interactions possible. As one

usually feels uncomfortable in interactions lacking confidence, only those built on

confidence can end with a positive and sustainable result.

- b) Cultural awareness is the starting point for intercultural competence.

Culture is like a lens through which one looks at the world and its cultures. Only the

awareness of the existence of this lens opens the mind for different cultures. This cultural

awareness instead of the displacement of one culture over another is what enables one to

deal with cultural differences.

- c) Every culture as an expression of identity demands equal respect and

tolerance.

Being aware of intercultural differences means to consider each culture equal to others

and especially to the own cultural background. Culture is an expression of identity and

must be treated respectfully and sensitively. As far as cultural particularities are

concerned, there is no right or wrong, something like the “correct” culture does not exist.

- d) Be prepared to meet the demands different cultures make.

Diplomatic success depends on cultural awareness and the right feeling for cultural

particularities. A profound cultural preparation is even more important than a preparation

in respect of contents. The easiest way to achieve this is to study the countries`

particularities such as climate, history, geography, economy, social structures and

international connections and relate them to cultural consequences. Additionally,

intercultural training can be seen as the best preparation.

- e) Be aware of the fundamentals of a culture.

Apart from cultural differences there are deeply rooted cultural fundamentals such as

religion, philosophy and ideology which form a cultural identity and which must be taken

into account. In this context it is important to face the possibility that there might be issues

that can evoke strong emotional reactions and therefore be a threat to diplomatic success.

The more emotional a cultural identity is, the more rigid it becomes.

- f) Take into account the images of the other side.

19

Understanding the images of each other is indispensable to understand other parties`

negotiation behaviour. Question like “How do the others see themselves”, “How do they

see us” and “How do the others think we see them” should be asked. National self-images

can explain reactions to issues or events. In this context, national pride is important as it

mirror images its position in history or popular beliefs about ones role in the world.

- g) Lack of tolerance is a destructive recipe for effective diplomacy.

Especially in the context of images, lack of tolerance and of sensibility or even any

demonisation are destructive recipes for effective diplomacy. They are signs of a lack of

cultural respect and contrary to the principles of diplomacy. Cultural variations are

nothing inherently good or bad; they simply exist and have to be recognized as such.

- h) Nonverbal communication is at least as important as the verbal one.

Also nonverbal communication plays an important role in diplomatic interactions and

therefore requires subtle attention since it will always be interpreted in the light of the

others` cultural background.

- i) Your needs and interests are not necessarily those of other’s.

Before entering a diplomatic interaction one should be aware of the fact that all

participants might have different needs and interests. Especially hidden ones and

unanticipated priorities can influence diplomatic interactions more than the official ones.

Sometimes the subconscious influences a negotiation more than the actual subject being

discussed. Understanding of gaps between points of view requires not only a profound

knowledge about factual issues, but also about different cultural programs and currents.

- j) Take others seriously in their claims.

Diplomatic interactions require respect for the others claims to lead to a result which is

satisfactory to and lasting for all participants. Moreover, the underestimation of other

participants can lead to unexpected and negative surprises during the interaction.

- ..k) Stay flexible.

In intercultural interactions even the best preparation might not be sufficient in practice.

As it is not possible to be prepared for all eventualities, one must be flexible enough to

react with the required degree of alertness, respect and professionalism to limit any

20

damages. Nevertheless, flexibility may not be the appropriate instrument to deal with

intransigent negotiating parties.

- l) Step out of your own culture to broaden your mind.

The best way to evoke cultural awareness is to experience cultural differences in practice

and to acknowledge cultural pluralism. Even intercultural training, as good as it might be,

cannot fully replace personal experiences. Cultural variations should not be seen as a

threat to ones own cultural background, but as the possibility to broaden ones mind.

21