Without redefining itself and adopting new missions suited to contemporary and future needs, the decline of diplomacy will likely accelerate. This trend is not unique to Turkey but is evident in many other countries.
Artificial intelligence technology, the escalating severity of climate change, new types of hybrid warfare, the rollback of globalization, the mobilization of culture, art, and civil society, international terrorism, and the re-division of the world into new poles are driving us toward a vastly different world.
In such a world, just as war is too important to be left to soldiers alone, diplomacy is becoming too complex, expanding, and acquiring new functions to be left to diplomats alone. We must redefine traditional diplomacy and diplomat roles and share the stage with new actors.
Historically, international relations have often featured polite interactions between state diplomats, even amid harsh speeches, mutual threats, and sanctions. Even during wars, diplomats would continue to meet behind closed doors, often addressing each other with “mon cher” (a term translated to Turkish as “monşer”).
No harm to the envoy
Today, the ruthless nature of a globally dominant market economy, the more aggressive stances of countries, and the role of intelligence services and cyberattacks have disrupted and eroded this classic diplomatic order. The behavior of statesmen and diplomats has shifted toward harshness, sometimes even to the point of vulgarity, indicating the end of the era of diplomacy based on politeness and compromise.
In Turkey, the term “monşer” is widely misunderstood, even defined by the Turkish Language Institution as “those who exhibit Western affectations.” However, originally a term of endearment equivalent to “my dear” in English, it was used among Turkish diplomats as a sign of politeness. Today, “monşer” is often used pejoratively to describe diplomats who adhere to traditional, “old-fashioned” diplomatic practices.
It wasn’t all rosy back then
I’m not nostalgically attached to the past, nor do I claim that old diplomacy was flawless. Criticizing old Turkish foreign policy by attacking “monşers” feels outdated to me. Our generation studied in the Political Branch of the Mülkiye School, later renamed the International Relations Department, to become idealistic members of the “monşer” army. Looking back, our education was insufficient to produce world-class diplomats. We skipped learning about the Soviet Union because of the Cold War, and other important regions like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the Fergana Valley were largely unknown to us.
Despite the shortcomings, I graduated in 1983, traveled the world as a young diplomat, and worked with leaders and managers in various sectors. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was crucial in shaping my understanding of classical, multilateral, business, energy, and public diplomacy.
Not living in luxury
From the outside, diplomats may seem like they lead a bohemian life, shuttling between international locations and attending cocktail parties. In reality, it’s not an easy or enjoyable profession. Most diplomats come from modest backgrounds and work hard to rise in their careers. Unfortunately, Turkish politicians have often portrayed diplomats as disconnected, luxurious creatures, fostering a mix of jealousy and resentment.
Despite what is said, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must remain the strategic brain and executive body of our country’s foreign policy, international economic relations, and security in a complex world. It must transform into a creative and dynamic institution capable of foreseeing crises and shaping alliances. However, the transition to a presidential system has reduced the ministry’s influence and capabilities, leading to a decline in institutional and diplomatic quality.
A new understanding of diplomacy
In the post-Cold War era, especially after the 9/11 attacks, international relations have been reshaped, with rising powers like China, India, Brazil, and Russia, and increasing importance of economic diplomacy, energy security, and new security architectures. Ministries of foreign affairs worldwide need urgent and comprehensive reforms, including organizational restructuring, rethinking priorities, professional training, technology, and public diplomacy.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice outlined the transformational diplomacy process in a 2006 speech, emphasizing the importance of engaging with non-state actors and shifting resources to critical regions. This approach aimed to adapt diplomatic efforts to modern challenges and threats, recognizing that security threats now often come from within states rather than between them.
Stopping the bleeding in the age of fast communication
Diplomacy is not as exclusive as it once was. Rapid communication and transportation have eroded many traditional diplomatic functions, and new satisfying career paths have emerged. Consequently, attracting and retaining new talent in diplomacy has become challenging.
If two people can communicate via the internet anytime and at almost no cost, it’s time to question the role of traditional diplomacy. Without redefining itself and adopting new missions suited to contemporary and future needs, the decline of diplomacy will likely accelerate. This trend is not unique to Turkey but is evident in many other countries.
The future of diplomacy
Diplomats’ functions and privileges from 1648 or 1945 are no longer relevant today. The number of actors has multiplied, and diplomats are now just one of many players in the international arena. Issues like climate change, terrorism, and cyberattacks are slipping out of diplomats’ control and into the hands of other bureaucratic organs, private sector players, and multinational organizations.
Some argue that the shrinking role of diplomacy is due to several reasons:
* Diplomats confirm the notion that diplomacy and international relations are distinct from other policy areas.
* Diplomats remain “generalists” amidst the complexity of global issues.
* It is unrealistic to expect one diplomat or embassy to address all a country’s needs.
* Diplomats often maintain secrecy to preserve their status, which hinders information sharing and collaboration.
* Realist thinking in diplomacy often replaces idealistic and humane approaches, hiding behind vaguely defined national interests.
Who are in the big picture?
Most of the telegrams and cryptograms sent by diplomats to their centers are filled with simple yet ‘big’ declarations about how to solve this or that world problem or foreign policy challenge. Seeing themselves at the top of the pyramid cuts off the rising actors, forcing them out of the game. However, their need for the other actors in the ‘big picture’ is growing with each passing day. They must realize that they will only survive if they cooperate with them and create new synergies.
We have reached a point where every individual, organization, and company has become a diplomat in their own right. Still, there is a much greater need for diplomacy than before. The traditional role of diplomats, ‘managing relations between two countries,’ has now evolved into ‘foreseeing the future of two-country relations, ensuring strategic management, and engaging numerous actors.’ It can still be said that those who will best perform these tasks are the diplomats trained specifically for this job.
Diplomacy no longer under public monopoly
Of course, diplomacy is no longer entirely under public monopoly. Non-governmental organizations, academics, journalists, scientists, intelligence officers, military personnel, and business people have taken their places among the main actors of diplomacy.
The ‘earthquake diplomacy’ process initiated with Greece after the 1999 earthquake largely developed outside the control of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The late Jak Kamhi managed relations with the Jewish lobby in the USA. Similarly, cross-border relationships established and maintained over the years by business people like Şarık Tara, Rahmi Koç, Aldo Kaslowski, Cavit Çağlar, and Ahmet Çalık have significantly impacted relations with the European Union, USA, Russia, Central Asia, and the Middle East.
In recent times, the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TİKA) have significantly played roles in diplomacy, especially in matters weighted with ‘give and take.’ From another perspective, all these developments could be seen as making the job of today’s diplomats easier.
In this sense, numerous organizations such as the Ministries of Defense, Economy and Treasury, Trade, Energy and Natural Resources, Agriculture, Environment and Urban Planning, Industry and Technology, TÜBİTAK, TÜSİAD, MÜSİAD, TOBB, and AFAD are joining the ranks of the diplomatic army as equal members, bringing with them conflicts and coordination challenges.
Where are we headed?
Regardless of what is said about new diplomacy, the foreign policies of states are still largely determined at a strategic level by the country’s geopolitical position and national interests. This has been the case for thousands of years and seems likely to continue as long as the nation-state exists.
Therefore, in our age, diplomats must gradually transform from being merely individuals who manage traditional relations with other states into state officials who foresee future trends, derive results from these for the country’s interests, protect their citizens, facilitate exports and technology transfers, and bring prestige to their country in the international arena.
Hence, I say: O world diplomats, unite before it is too late, come together and redefine yourselves and your functions proactively according to changing conditions to avoid becoming representatives of an endangered profession. Equip yourselves with new technologies, develop policies, instruments, and quality human capital that will be the voice of every sector of society, not just the state. Reflect on how you can maximize your added value to your country, the international system, and most importantly, to your people.
Otherwise, the direction we are heading towards does not promise good news for you
