The return of feudal diplomacy

In recent years, the landscape of international relations has undergone a significant transformation, with statecraft increasingly hinging on personal relationships between leaders. This shift towards a more personalized form of diplomacy, reminiscent of feudal times, has been marked by a renewed focus on direct negotiations and the reevaluation of traditional diplomatic norms.

Historically, diplomacy has been defined as the art of navigating the transition between peace and war, as captured by Sir Henry Wotton's witty remark in 1604: "an ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country." This statement, which annoyed Wotton's royal master, underscored the inherent duplicity of diplomatic engagements. However, it was François de Callières, a diplomat and adviser to Louis XIV, who offered a more nuanced perspective in his treatise on negotiation. He argued that "open dealing is the basis of confidence" and that deceit "is the measure of the smallness of mind of him who uses it."

Today, the headlines suggest that neither Wotton's irony nor Callières' restraint has survived the new diplomacy. For instance, Washington has described talks with Tehran as "going very well" while simultaneously continuing military preparations. Meanwhile, Iran denounces the terms as one-sided, yet keeps the diplomatic door ajar. European ministers warn that the conflict cannot be separated from wider confrontations with Russia. In an era of "policy by tweet," the realism that presents itself on the surface appears, upon closer inspection, to be something older and less stable: a return to personalized statecraft, part feudal pageant, part mafia-style armed bargaining.

At the center of this shift is Donald Trump, whose transactional approach to international affairs has had some success in the Western Hemisphere. Trump's postponement of threatened attacks, while amassing troops and marines for a possible ground invasion, reflects a businessman's mentality. However, this approach risks producing not leverage but escalation, particularly in regions like Iran, where the same method may not yield the same results as in Venezuela. Here, the same tactics could harden positions into what increasingly resembles a religiously charged confrontation.

This return to feudal diplomacy is not limited to the United States. Other nations are also adopting a more personalized approach to statecraft, relying on direct negotiations and personal relationships between leaders. This trend has been fueled by a growing distrust in traditional diplomatic institutions and a belief that personal connections can bypass bureaucratic hurdles and foster greater cooperation.

One example of this shift can be seen in the ongoing negotiations between North Korea and the United States. Despite the lack of concrete progress, both sides have maintained open channels of communication, with Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump engaging in unprecedented direct exchanges. This personalized approach has been criticized by some as a mere facade, masking underlying tensions and a lack of genuine commitment to resolving the nuclear issue.

Similarly, in Europe, the Brexit negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union have been marked by a series of personal meetings between Theresa May and various EU leaders. While these meetings have not yet resulted in a resolution, they have been seen as a necessary step in building trust and understanding between the two sides.

The return of feudal diplomacy is not without its challenges. The reliance on personal relationships can lead to unpredictability and instability, as the fortunes of individual leaders can have a significant impact on international relations. Additionally, the absence of clear, transparent diplomatic processes can result in a lack of accountability and increased opportunities for manipulation.

Despite these challenges, proponents of this approach argue that it offers a more flexible and adaptable framework for addressing complex global issues. By focusing on personal relationships, leaders can bypass bureaucratic barriers and foster a sense of mutual understanding that can lead to more effective problem-solving.

In conclusion, the return of feudal diplomacy represents a significant shift in the way international relations are conducted. While this personalized approach has its detractors, it undeniably reflects a growing distrust in traditional diplomatic norms and a desire for more direct engagement between leaders. As the world continues to grapple with complex challenges, the effectiveness of this new form of statecraft will be closely watched and closely scrutinized.