[MUSIC] Hello, I'm here with Michele Acuto from University College London. Michele, what do you understand diplomacy to be? >> Right, big question, you can definitely go historical, we won't go historical. I'd say I tend to stick with, I said I wouldn't go historical, but I'll go historical. A Harold Nicholson type cut, of sort of the mediated or negotiated relations between representatives, but I wouldn't get stuck at representatives of states. So in a sense, easiest definition, the one that I use to teach generally tends to be mediated or negotiated relations between representatives of polities in this political communities. So you can speak of a diplomacy of the European Union, or diplomacy of the United States, but you can also speak of a diplomacy of a city, a region. Like the diplomacy of Quebec for instance, and so forth. >> Okay, what would think constitutes successful diplomacy? >> Interesting. I think there I would have to definitely differentiate where they were talking about diplomacy in a strict sense. So in a sense basically what we just said in terms of sort of the role of representing a political community, which would then be tied, would tie success to the success for representation of that political community's interests and role in a specific context. But there are modes of diplomacy, say, like simply mediation, where the mediators role remaining more tied to a successful negotiation rather than an outcome of the negotiation. In that case they'll be a bit trickier but it'll be a successful connection between whatever parties they're representing. >> And conversely, how do you sort of contend with failure in diplomacy? What constitutes failure? When does diplomacy not work? >> I would say that you would see spectacular failures, clearly, but not that often. Spectacular failure's a complete breakdown of relationships. A complete breakdown of some form of regulated or basic order, I think one interesting question is whether you assess the failure of diplomacy at the end of the diplomatic act if you wish. So the establishment of a treaty, or if you assess diplomacy post facto, say a few years down the line, or a little bit of time down the line. So the argument of the diplomacy of the Kimberley Process on certifying diamonds established a global process to make sure that there wouldn't be any masses of blood diamonds floating about. But a few years down the line, the process has fallen apart. It's not complying with itself. And if you look at, for instance, the diplomacy of the land mine treaty in 1997, you can argue that more than ten years down the line, more than 20 years down the line, it still is being implemented, it prevents certain states from using land mines, it helps victims. So I would argue that there's an argument for successful of the diplomatic act, versus successful of the diplomatic negotiation and it's outcomes. >> Let me press you a little bit further on that in this sort of time line. And you said you weren't going to get too historical but, there's clearly a temple dimension of diplomacy and how do you see that playing out? >> There is, yeah, I would say I wouldn't get too historical on terminology itself because you could go literally back forever, as long as there's been political relations in humanity there probably has been diplomacy. I think there's a temporal dimension, A, as to the single case or diplomatic instance that we're looking at, so for instance as I was saying, processes where there's multiple negotiations. They sort of drag through time. But there is also a temporal dimension in the diplomatic practice itself. So if you go and teach diplomacy, you probably teach about time management, since it's a multi-scalar temporal, it's getting a bit meta, if you know what I mean. In a sense, it's really about management of time, is about post and pre-diplomacy and sort of, what happens years down the line. >> And you know what I'm taking from that, is the complexity of diplomacy requires something of the sort of understanding of both the long jouer and the immediacy of the act that you [INAUDIBLE] discussing. >> Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. I mean, good schools of diplomacy would possibly separate that in a sense that it would give you a course of cases of diplomacy. Where you would be forced to think about, I don't know, the diplomacy of the League of Nation and how it relates to the diplomacy of the United Nations, and how it relates to the diplomacy of the European Union. It's different instantiation of the same type of diplomacy. To those courses that teach you sort of more, I would argue there's a difference between diplomacy and time, and diplomacy and time management. Which is more sort of a, in the act itself, a skill of the diplomat. >> I'm thinking about, diplomats you've come across maybe personally or studied. Who are the diplomats who've you sort of looked to as being particularly skillful proprietors? >> Thought about it when you mentioned the question, and I thought, potentially if I stick to my basic line, the best diplomats, I wouldn't be able to see them, simply because they would be doing such a good job of maintaining a functional and peaceful order. That the answer wouldn't be the classics like Kissinger, or wouldn't go to the Cuban Missile Crisis. If you Google best example of diplomacy, you'd probably get the Cuban Missile Crisis. But then I will then of, what about whoever worked on the Treaty of Jaffa in the crusades and the fact that, that maintained peace for x amounts of years. It's just, it's an old example but it worked, and the name of the diplomat itself subsides the act of creating or maintaining stability in a sense. >> So Mikhaile, where else have you seen diplomacy in action? >> So you know I'm going to say something about cities are part of diplomacy. I guess that a particular interest of mine is the fact that if we don't limit ourselves to diplomacy being proprietary to states, then you see a vast amount of diplomatic activity all over the place. Below or above potentially a state. So, throwing a number, diplomacy of cities, there's at least 180 200 city networks globally. That means that there's at least 200 cases in which cities relate to other cities internationally. For instance, you have the mayor of Rio negotiating join cycling scheme with London and Sydney. Now clearly there they're representing the interest of their political community, the citizens. And clearly there that seems diplomatic enough to me, just seems like it doesn't get on the headlines of diplomacy very often. >> Thank you very much. >> A pleasure. [MUSIC]
