Emotional Diplomacy: Oxymoron or Reality?
It was former US President, John F. Kennedy, who once said, “let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate.” This powerful yet poetic sentiment reflects the core role that emotions continue to play in diplomatic interactions between sovereign states. Despite this, in the complex world of international relations, scholarship has traditionally portrayed diplomacy and rationality as synonymous. As such, the role of emotions in diplomacy has been largely ignored. If we ever hope to understand the complexities and subtle nuances of diplomatic decision making, it is crucial we engage with the role of emotions in diplomacy.
Emotion and reason are often viewed as antithetical. Despite this generalisation, an increasing number of academics are beginning to acknowledge the idea that emotions not only have an impact on rational decision-making but are necessary to facilitate it. The case of Phineas Gage is a primary example of this. In September, 1848, Gage was working laying explosives to clear a railway line, when an accident occured. The explosives detonated while he was distracted, rocketing a 1.1 metre long iron pole through his brain and out his skull.
Miraculously, Gage survived, but the part of his brain responsible for processing emotions was damaged. Paradoxically, although he was still able to rationalise, Gage was left unable to make many decisions, especially in social contexts. This account provides us with a critical insight into the role of emotions in decision making. Modern neuroscience has since confirmed this, with a 2015 review article on the matter stating that the idea that emotion and rationality are mutually exclusive concepts is “inconsistent with the highly social nature of the brain.”
Historically, international relations scholars have equated rationality and reason, perpetuating that emotion has no place in diplomatic negotiations. Diplomacy, defined broadly as the “processes and institutions by which the interest and identities of sovereign states are represented to one another,” has long suffered from this requirement. Diplomatic actors tend to be positioned as cold, calculated beings, making decisions purely in the rational interest of their nation-state.
“…what becomes clear is that the complexity of diplomacy requires a recognition of humanity…”
However, this is an unrealistic portrayal. If political actors were to approach diplomatic exchanges with the demanding utilitarian calculus expected by pure rationality, then they would not have time to act upon the conclusions of their calculations before disaster struck, as all their time would be devoted to the calculus itself. This absolute rationality has no place in diplomacy, given that diplomatic negotiations must incorporate values, beliefs, and traditions — often across language barriers.
Australia’s recent focus on building relations throughout the Pacific region is a prime example of this. Although deriving minimal utility from the far-reaching assistance provided to Pacific neighbours, Australia continues with this seemingly irrational diplomatic decision. According to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, this is due to a recognition of “shared history, common values and our cultural affinity for family, religion, sports and more”. In looking at real diplomatic partnerships like this, what becomes clear is that the complexity of diplomacy requires a recognition of humanity and the shared values of the international community, rather than a reliance on rationality or utility. To fully understand the conduct of diplomacy, scholarship must focus on this emotional influence, given it is a key driver of diplomatic negotiations.
Just as Australia’s foreign policy is influenced by cultural values, individual diplomatic decision-making is also influenced by personal values, and, more importantly, by emotions. There has been significant study into how state-based actors utilise emotion at an individual level — between diplomats — to influence the outcome of specific negotiations. Through engagement of certain emotions, for example trauma, humiliation, or revenge, diplomats are able to alter the dynamics of strategic games, which can affect the opposing party’s basis for beliefs, perceptions, and motivations.
Some argue that this form of emotional diplomacy cannot exist, as diplomatic actors are taught not to respond to such individual attacks. However, it is near impossible to assume that during high-stakes negotiations, which often involve strong personal relationships, individually embodied feelings have no impact on outcomes. Behavioural theorists agree that emotions can “enable an observer to “reverse engineer” their displayer’s cognitive process to tap into [their] underlying intentions.” With this in mind, it is difficult to understand how diplomatic actors can be trained not to respond to individual level attacks, as this is in direct conflict with basic human behaviour.
Personal memoirs from top US diplomat Henry Kissinger have revealed that during negotiations on the Indo-Pakistani conflict, a deeply felt personal urge to impress colleagues led to a distortion in assessing US interests. It is said that this distortion led to decisions that may not have necessarily been in the interests of the US, or its allies. Being just one example of individual emotions shaping the negotiations of an entire state, it would be safe to assume that this is a common occurrence within the practice of diplomacy, which further confirms the need for scholarship which assesses the role of emotions in diplomacy.
“At the end of the day, diplomacy occurs between people. Truly acknowledging this fact means recognising the importance of emotions in diplomacy...”
The separation of individual and state-based emotion is another topic that influences the conduct of diplomacy and the rationality of decisions made through negotiation. Study into this separation is extensive, as scholars have long questioned how an individual can represent or reflect the emotion of an entire state. The organisation of states confirms that they are not ‘gigantic calculating machines’ as some may suggest, but rather hierarchically organised groups of free thinking, emotional agents. Thus, for a state to endorse a specific emotional response, it must be ordained by those at the pinnacle of the hierarchy. Understanding this reality is necessary to gain a more holistic insight into the conduct of diplomacy.
This is as true for emotional responses as it is for any other type of response, as is reflected in the Russian response to the crash of Polish Air Force Flight 101 in 2010. Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, personally consoled the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk after the fatal crash. Putin’s actions displayed empathy, which was the official emotive response adopted by Russian forces and media when covering the incident. In recognition of the historically hostile relationship Poland and Russia have shared, it is clear to see how Putin’s response may not have aligned directly with those of top Russian diplomats. Even the most basic understanding of human emotions and behaviour confirms that this kind of internal conflict would have some impact on individual level decision making, demonstrating the relevance of emotion in the conduct of international negotiations.
Emotions also play a central role in diplomatic actors’ ability to assess the truthfulness or sincerity of their counterparts, highlighting the communicative functions of emotions in diplomacy. This is exemplified in the case of the 1898 Fashoda Crisis, where the French Foreign Minister sensed that his British counterpart was going to force France to war through an ultimatum. In assessing the sincerity of the British, the French minister was able to save France the international embarrassment of seeming subservient to the British government, by declaring that France would fight, rather than being forced into the same outcome. Political optics, fear and guilt all played a role in France’s decision to go to war in this instance, again demonstrating the historical role of emotions in international affairs. This anecdote is particularly relevant for the study of diplomacy as it confirms the critical need for the ‘back and forth’ of emotions and the impact of emotional cues on negotiations.
At the end of the day, diplomacy occurs between people. Truly acknowledging this fact means recognising the importance of emotions in diplomacy and the importance they carry for the human experience. They are an integral component of decision-making, fulfilling a vital communicative function. As such, it should be no surprise that emotions are central to the conduct of diplomacy too.
Emotion has always been a necessary aspect of diplomacy, and will continue to be, even if only the outwardly rationalised final decisions are conveyed to the public. Engaging with this human complexity may well make diplomatic studies more difficult, and it certainly requires more nuance on behalf of scholars than the rationalist alternative. Nevertheless, it must be done if we ever wish to gain a true understanding of diplomatic affairs and international negotiation.
