Diplomatic Studies and Visualising Peace
In this presentation, Visualising Peace student Jakub Lewandowki discusses some of the research he has been doing on the role of diplomacy in peacebuilding. In particular, he compares the merits of ‘public diplomacy’ relative to political diplomacy; and, through a series of contrasting case studies, he also underlines the importance of involving diverse voices in diplomatic practice. Below the video, you can find a summary of the publications he discusses. These are also available in our Visualising Peace Library.
Handelman, Sapir. 2012. “Two Complementary Settings of Peace-Making Diplomacy: Political Elite Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 23 (1): 162–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2012.651970.
In this enlightening article, Handelman questions the assumption within diplomatic studies that peace results from political-elite peacebuilding interactions. These peacebuilding interactions, such as the Oslo Accords in the context of Israel-Palestine, fail to bring systematic change at the grassroots level and are easily resisted by radical elements on both sides of an ethno-political divide. According to Handelman, successful peacebuilding must consist of both political-elite diplomacy and public diplomacy methods that facilitate citizen-to-citizen contact, illustrated by the end of both apartheid in South Africa and ‘the troubles’ in Northern Ireland. While political-elites are integral to creating top-down peace, public diplomacy has the potential to transform conflict into a dialogue inclusive of diverse voices and based upon democratic principles and even create citizen-led pressure for a political solution.
This would be a good article for those wishing to further expand their knowledge of how grassroots peacebuilding efforts can develop and look through the lens of diplomatic studies, specifically due to a nuanced understanding of public diplomacy in relations to traditional political-elite practice. Handelman narrates his own experiences of staging public diplomacy practice, as part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process through small-scale Minds of Peace Experiments which showcase the practical benefits of public diplomacy for conflict resolution such as garnering agreement on divisive issues and moderating the opinions of hardliners. At the same time, Handelman acknowledges the need for a local congress, paired with supporting institutions and political-elites, able to facilitate public diplomacy efforts in Israel and Palestine.
Matlary, Janne Haaland. 2001. “The Just Peace: The Public and Classical Diplomacy of the Holy See.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 14 (2): 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570108400358.
Focusing on the Holy See’s capacity to promote peace as a diplomatic actor, this article offers a new perspective on peace and religion to the Visualising Peace Library tied to diplomatic and international relations theory. To be more specific, Matlary situates the papacy as a unique actor in international diplomacy, more concerned with moral principles rather than perceived national interests which frequently lead to conflict. These moral principles invoke a broad understanding of peace, going far beyond merely the absence of conflict. Catholic social teaching conceptualises peace as based on human rights, dignity, and the equitable distribution of resources within society. Contrastingly, this article can also be helpful in raise intriguing questions on what just peace entails and who it benefits, for example, relating to the Church’s firm anti-abortion stance which directly relate to more critical understandings of peace.
Nevertheless, the Holy See has significant expectations of moral leadership in the international system based on its neutral status favouring the pursuit of peace above condemnation of aggression and the use of force. At the private and often secret levels of diplomatic practice, the Holy See’s neutrality has often allowed the institution to step in as an independent mediator during times of conflict. Meanwhile, the fame and media attention of the Holy See allows the Pope to champion human rights publicly most famously in relation to communist rule in Poland by Pope John Paull II. I would highlight that while the manner of peacebuilding and conflict resolution by the Holy See could theoretically be classified as top-down, much of the organisation’s goals are more aligned with the more cosmopolitan nature of bottom-up approaches due to the moral factors noted by Matlary in contrast to typical state interest in diplomacy. Ultimately, this article reveals the Holy See as an interesting anomaly to the dichotomy of bottom-up and top-down approaches to peace.
Cárdenas, Magda Lorena. 2019. “Women-To-Women Diplomacy in Georgia: A Peacebuilding Strategy in Frozen Conflict.” Civil Wars 21 (3): 385–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698249.2019.1667713.
In this article, Cardenas identifies the need for grassroots peacebuilding efforts in situations of frozen conflict where conventional and top-down conflict resolution has failed to achieve a formal peace even though there is no active conflict. While frozen conflicts are often seen as sources of stability by international relations scholars, Cardenas identifies significant negative impacts on human security and economic well-being which necessitates viable peacebuilding efforts.
Drawing on the case of frozen conflict between Georgians and Abkhazians, Cardenas identifies women-to-women public diplomacy as a key approach for grassroots peacebuilding efforts. As a result, I would recommend this article for those interested in the overlap between feminism and grassroots diplomacy. Emphasizing the role of women in conflict resolution actively challenges the characterisation of women as passive victims in conflict zones. Rather, Cardenas focuses on how female-led peacebuilding efforts have empowered women to seek a peace inclusive of gender equality through interethnic and cross-border dialogue and humanisation. Cardenas also focuses on the ability of this women-to-women diplomacy as being able to promote an official dialogue at formal levels, in particular, how women-to-women diplomacy can better inform officials of ongoing social dynamics in conflict areas, linking women’s social issues to concerns such as forced migration and economic recovery. The author’s connection between the grassroots diplomacy of women in Georgia and an official peace process parallels another entry in the library worth reading by Handelman (2012), which more broadly focuses on forms of diplomatic engagement during periods of conflict.