Comments on: Do Ethics Trump Foreign Policy Goals in Public Diplomacy? http://intermap.org/2009/02/26/do-ethics-trump-foreign-policy-goals-in-public-diplomacy/ International Media Argument Project : Political Communication, Rhetoric and Public Diplomacy Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:04:33 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Jason P. Rancatore http://intermap.org/2009/02/26/do-ethics-trump-foreign-policy-goals-in-public-diplomacy/comment-page-1/#comment-39892 Jason P. Rancatore Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:56:59 +0000 http://intermap.org/?p=109#comment-39892 (Arguing about 'authenticity' aside.) This moves Nicolson's passages (1939) about the 'moral qualities' (or was it constitution?) of the diplomat and Satow's handbook (1st ed. 1919) that defines appropriate diplomatic behavior into the light again (and see Feltham's editions of Diplomatic Handbook). One might argue that these are 'rules for the diplomat' in order to 'manage' credibility. As Der Derian (1987) has noted, this is diplomatic action as cultural and normative, and these texts illustrate his argument. In Der Derian's discussion of diplomatic culture, as the stock of resources to express the (fuzzy) boundaries of diplomatic propriety--ethical action--I am relatively convinced that all action can be interpreted as a cultural reinforcement or challenge; accommodation or resistance. As a consequence, there is no escaping the ethical dimension. Because all action deploys cultural resources (language and practices), it instantiates an ethical position--"this is how we do PD" for example. What those ethics entail, which you lay out, is analyzed from the speaker-audience dynamic. So, to your question "can we have both an instrumental and ethical public diplomacy?", I would respond that it is already both, and is always both. I think this position is in agreement with the last few paragraphs you write. But, my sense is that this is not what primarily concerns you. I sense that you take 'ethical' to also mean 'consistent' and 'honest' (and in face of thinking that policy objectives can be easily achieved if we aren't). Can the execution of FP goals keep to a consistency and an honesty? Of course that is possible. But I'm not sure how important that question is. Take the dialogical diplomacy you describe. This practice dissolves the distinction between diplomat and public (speaker and audience)--at least, it moves in that direction. This could be seen as inconsistent and/or dishonest regardless of the method. I think, more importantly, that it as an ethical (or normative) move to re-define what is appropriate in activity we call PD. This is an ethical position both in terms of appropriate action, but also social relations. Noting that, I think, is the key point. Rather than "does ethics trump foreign policy"--"how does the execution of foreign policy (which includes PD activity) express (and reproduce) an ethical position?" Should the practice of dialogical diplomacy deteriorate (or be marginalized), that constitutes a different ethical position, which can be traced and analyzed. (Arguing about ‘authenticity’ aside.) This moves Nicolson’s passages (1939) about the ‘moral qualities’ (or was it constitution?) of the diplomat and Satow’s handbook (1st ed. 1919) that defines appropriate diplomatic behavior into the light again (and see Feltham’s editions of Diplomatic Handbook). One might argue that these are ‘rules for the diplomat’ in order to ‘manage’ credibility. As Der Derian (1987) has noted, this is diplomatic action as cultural and normative, and these texts illustrate his argument. In Der Derian’s discussion of diplomatic culture, as the stock of resources to express the (fuzzy) boundaries of diplomatic propriety–ethical action–I am relatively convinced that all action can be interpreted as a cultural reinforcement or challenge; accommodation or resistance. As a consequence, there is no escaping the ethical dimension. Because all action deploys cultural resources (language and practices), it instantiates an ethical position–”this is how we do PD” for example. What those ethics entail, which you lay out, is analyzed from the speaker-audience dynamic. So, to your question “can we have both an instrumental and ethical public diplomacy?”, I would respond that it is already both, and is always both. I think this position is in agreement with the last few paragraphs you write.

But, my sense is that this is not what primarily concerns you. I sense that you take ‘ethical’ to also mean ‘consistent’ and ‘honest’ (and in face of thinking that policy objectives can be easily achieved if we aren’t). Can the execution of FP goals keep to a consistency and an honesty? Of course that is possible. But I’m not sure how important that question is.

Take the dialogical diplomacy you describe. This practice dissolves the distinction between diplomat and public (speaker and audience)–at least, it moves in that direction. This could be seen as inconsistent and/or dishonest regardless of the method. I think, more importantly, that it as an ethical (or normative) move to re-define what is appropriate in activity we call PD. This is an ethical position both in terms of appropriate action, but also social relations. Noting that, I think, is the key point. Rather than “does ethics trump foreign policy”–”how does the execution of foreign policy (which includes PD activity) express (and reproduce) an ethical position?” Should the practice of dialogical diplomacy deteriorate (or be marginalized), that constitutes a different ethical position, which can be traced and analyzed.

]]>