Defence Diplomacy - An
Defence Diplomacy - An
Defence Diplomacy - An
Abstract
“Defence diplomacy” is a relatively new term, created in response to post-Cold War needs
to name new tasks and international functions completed by the armed forces and the
leadership of the Ministries of National Defence. However, it should not be understood as a
kind of traditional “military plus diplomacy”. The lack of a universally recognised definition
of “defence diplomacy” means that states try to adapt its content to the needs of their own
security policy. In Poland, the term “defence diplomacy” appears in journalism, but there is
no precise reference to it in the documents concerning foreign and security policy. The main
goal of defence diplomacy is the co-formation and implementation of the state security
policy, and its task - to create stable, long-term international relations in the field of defence.
Conceptualisation of the concept is a starting point for understanding its role as one of the
most important instruments of foreign policy and the security of contemporary states.
Introduction
Contemporary diplomacy surveys are notable for the complexity of the definitional
approaches and the width of the analytical field. Beata Surmacz, a Polish researcher,
aptly notices that the concept of “diplomacy” in the public discourse is generally
The genesis of the term “defence diplomacy” is closely related to the post-Cold
War change in understanding international security and related national security
policies. The demilitarisation of this sphere of international relations on the one
hand was characteristic of it, and on the other, a broader perception of the roles of
the armed forces, going beyond their offensive, defensive or deterrent roles (See
58
Security and Defence Quarterly 2018; 20(3) Lech Drab
more: Kupiecki 2017). In the British reality1 (Labor’s Strategic Defence Review
1998, p. 823) from the end of the twentieth century, military strength guaranteed
the achievement of immediate military goals, or “winning battles”. However, it
showed weakness as a policy tool. After the end of the Cold War, its role had to
be extended to secure peace, using various instruments related to the operation
of the army, its command structures, or the civilian political factor that could
oversee them. This was also connected with the prospect of strengthening the role
of diplomacy and its specialisation as a mechanism of international prevention
and shaping international security. Within this framework, defence diplomacy
was recognised as an effective crisis prevention instrument.
“Defence diplomacy” is a relatively new term with its roots strongly associated
with the needs of a new political language describing the cooperation of states
and international organisations after the end of the Cold War. Although it is
quite widely used in political debate and science, it lacks a universally-recognised
definition. Different countries try to give it content, usually strictly adapted to
the needs of their own security policy. The growing role of defence diplomacy,
as a tool for the implementation of the foreign policy of the state, also results in
displacing and replacing the hitherto widely used term “military diplomacy” as
a term inherently narrow in meaning and in no way either in the objectives or the
potential of the former.
British political scientists, Andrew Cottey and Anthony Forster, rightly believe,
however, that sources of defence diplomacy should be sought in military diplomacy
(Cottey and Forstey 2004, pp.7-15). Following the definition of Berndt von Staden,
the former foreign minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, the military
1 After the victorious parliamentary elections in 1997 in Great Britain, the Labor Party
wrote a Strategic Defence Review. The review, initiated on May 28, 1997 by then defence
minister George Robertson, ended with the publication in July 1998 of a White Paper (The
Strategic Defense Review - White Paper). The purpose of the review was to be found in the
answer to the question of how the foreign policy assumptions affect defence in the context
of the mission and structure of the armed forces.
59
Lech Drab Security and Defence Quarterly 2018; 20(3)
60
Security and Defence Quarterly 2018; 20(3) Lech Drab
Martin Edmonds and Greg Mills, researchers from South Africa, described it very
broadly as “any use of armed forces (except warfare) to achieve national goals”
(Edmonds and Mills 1998, p. 106). This characteristic corresponds to a narrower
definition of defence diplomacy, proposed by Anton du Plessis (director of the
South African Institute for Security Research) pointing to “peaceful use of military
personnel, including military attachés, to prevent conflicts” (Plessis 2008, p. 75).
The South African “school of defence diplomacy” narrows the meaning of this
concept in its deliberations. Edmonds and Mills consider the role of armed forces
as their “centre of gravity”, while du Plessis points to the involvement of military
personnel, including military attachés. These differences may indicate a strictly
utilitarian approach to defence diplomacy or the lack of a broader view of its role
and importance as an instrument of state security policy. The latter could provide
a general character of the definition.
61
Lech Drab Security and Defence Quarterly 2018; 20(3)
opinion, defence diplomacy should be conducted on many levels (Singh and Seng
Tan 2011, p. 2). The first one is the involvement and personal actions of political
leaders, ministers, heads of defence / heads of general staffs, and headquarters
and strategic staffs. The second level is military academies, educational, analytical
and R & D centres as well as those associated with the Ministry of Defence think
tank. Level three is representatives of civil non-governmental organisations (civil
society) (Seng Tan 2005, p. 41-55). The Singaporean authors, in contrast to the
South African and Irish researchers cited above, focused on the role of the head
staff of the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces, without indicating tasks for
the armed forces, international organisations and defence attachés in this area.
One of the latest proposals for the definition of defence diplomacy can be found
in the Spanish Ministry of Defence’s documents, which describes it as “a diverse
international activity based on dialogue and cooperation, implemented bilaterally
by the defence ministry with allies, partners and other friendly countries to
support the achievement of goals of defence policy and Spanish foreign policy”
(Ministerio de Defensa, Madrid 2012, p. 18). This understanding of the role and
function of defence diplomacy, however, excludes the importance of multilateral
relations or the joint implementation of tasks within international organisations.
Thus, it eliminates an important area of international cooperation, limiting itself
only to the efforts made by its own defence department.
62
Security and Defence Quarterly 2018; 20(3) Lech Drab
2 There are no references to this kind of activities in the definition of defense diplomacy
presented by researchers from South Africa.
3 This area of cooperation was neglected by the Spaniards in their definition.
63
Lech Drab Security and Defence Quarterly 2018; 20(3)
diplomacy, but also the necessity to maintain openness, taking into account the
matter of continually expanding and updating potentially half of the impacts of
defence diplomacy.
The term “defence diplomacy”, shaped after the end of the Cold War, was motivated
by the political need to name the expanding roles of structures subject to the
jurisdiction of the ministries of national defence and to point out their goals in
the new “demilitarised” international environment. Its pedigree comes from the
world of politics, not science. However, there have been attempts to scientifically
recognise this terminology proposal, which, however, did not bring a universally
recognised definition of defence diplomacy, although the concept is quite
commonly used in the “scientific circuit” and diplomatic practice. Researchers from
the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Indonesia, South Africa and other countries
are trying to define defence diplomacy considering the specific conditions or
the security situation of their countries. Such definitions - they directly reflect
national needs - do not cover all areas of defence diplomacy, or even without such
ambitions. Therefore, excessive utilitarianism and the emergence of new areas of
cooperation within defence diplomacy, a complicated and diverse security situation
in different regions, implementation of tasks within regional organisations and
cultural considerations are just some of the problems that further complicate the
development and reconciliation of the general definition of defence diplomacy. In
literature on the subject, there is also no attempt to agree such a definition. On
the other hand, there is a general understanding that defence diplomacy directly
contributes to strengthening confidence and understanding in international
relations. There is, however, far-reaching agreement on the general objective
of defence diplomacy4 as an instrument of support for the implementation of
national interests and for its foreign and security policy. It is generally accepted
that defence diplomacy:
4 More on the goals of defense diplomacy see: Winger (2014), Fris (2013).
64
Security and Defence Quarterly 2018; 20(3) Lech Drab
• is focused on minimising hostility and building trust between states (in this
sense, it is "anchored" in the general tasks of diplomacy);
• in the context of regional and global involvement of states, with the help of
"peaceful use of military personnel to prevent conflicts" it is to create stable and
long-lasting cooperation and to promote transparency in the field of defence;
• can serve the implementation of common supranational goals;
• is designed to influence the change of the position of partners;
• should support the implementation of legal regulations on broad security
issues;
• maintains a dialogue with partners, which may be the goal of state actions, as
well as an instrument leading to the implementation of its specific interests.
As a result, it directly contributes to strengthening trust and understanding in
international relations.
5 The basic act of international law regulating this area of law is the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. It covers the issues of establishing diplomatic relations,
diplomatic functions, the rank of heads of diplomatic missions, as well as diplomatic privileges
and immunities. Apart from the Vienna Convention, which is a multilateral international
agreement, states sometimes contain bilateral diplomatic conventions that develop, supplement
or modify the legal norms contained in the Vienna Convention of 1961.
65
Lech Drab Security and Defence Quarterly 2018; 20(3)
66
Security and Defence Quarterly 2018; 20(3) Lech Drab
67
Lech Drab Security and Defence Quarterly 2018; 20(3)
These are currently the main areas of bilateral and multilateral cooperation
implemented as part of defence diplomacy. Some of them, depending on the
security situation and the development of the international situation, take on
special importance in crisis situations (e.g. ad hoc organised disarmament
conferences), missions and military operations and assistance in liquidating the
consequences of disasters. Areas of cooperation within the framework of defence
diplomacy are not a closed collection; new initiatives are constantly emerging, in
which the role and tasks of diplomats in uniform are constantly growing.
One of the most important instruments of defence diplomacy is the armed forces
as a policy instrument with broad applications that go beyond their fighting and
deterrent roles. They play an important role in direct international cooperation
carried out between countries, as part of international alliances and specialist
organizations operating in the field of security. Diplomacy has taken on growing
significance for the personal commanders at the strategic level. The changing
security situation in the world as well as the multiplicity and dynamics of
threats additionally reinforces the role and importance of the armed forces as an
instrument of defence diplomacy. A. Cottey and A. Forster (2004, p. 27), as cited
earlier, believe that apart from the armed forces, the most important instruments
of defence diplomacy include:
• bilateral and multilateral contacts between the highest civilian and military
representatives of defence ministries;
• appointing and maintaining defence attachés in other countries;
• developing and agreeing bilateral international agreements in the field of
military cooperation;
• training and education of soldiers and civilian employees of the Ministry of
Defence;
• transfer of expertise and consultancy in the field of democratic and civilian
control over the armed forces;
68
Security and Defence Quarterly 2018; 20(3) Lech Drab
The effective defence system in the sense of the system, which functionally
serves to strengthen the international position of the state, is an instrument
of its foreign and security policy and an element of the anti-crisis system. It
stabilises international relations, increases their transparency, and thus reduces
the risk of an armed conflict. The contemporary "diplomat in uniform" is not
only a contractor of tasks. The essence of his contemporary mission is to expand
the state's knowledge of the international situation, as well as to participate in the
creation of its security policy. There is, however, no contradiction between these
roles - that is, the executive and co-creator of this policy. The importance of the
latter is also growing systematically.
Conclusions
Contemporary defence diplomacy is art and craft shaped by tradition and the current
needs of foreign and security policy. It is described as a practice of conducting
negotiations, requiring the use of such means, methods and instruments that do
not increase hostility and, at the same time, is implemented under international
law. The main task of defence diplomacy is to shape military relations between
states. Contemporary defence diplomacy is undergoing a continuous adaptive
69
Lech Drab Security and Defence Quarterly 2018; 20(3)
References
70
Security and Defence Quarterly 2018; 20(3) Lech Drab
Seng Tan, S., 2005. NGOs in Conflict Management in Southeast Asia, International
Peacekeeping, 12(1).
Seng Tan, S. and Singh, B., 2012. Asian Security. Routledge Taylor&Francis Group,
London.
Singh, B. and Seng Tan, S., 2011. From “Boots” to “Brouges”. The Rise of Defence Diplomacy
in Southeast Asia. S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore.
Surmacz B., 2015. Ewolucja współczesnej dyplomacji, Aktorzy, struktura, funkcje. Maria
Skłodowska-Curie University Publishing House, Lublin.
Sutor, J., 2005. Leksykon dyplomatyczny, LexisNexis, Warsaw.
Plessis, A., 2008. Defence Diplomacy Conceptual and Practical Dimension with Specific
Reference to South Africa. Department of Political Sciences, University of Pretoria,
Pretoria.
Winger G., 2014. The Velvet Gauntlet: A Theory of Defense Diplomacy. Vienna.
71