„Diplomatic Processes and Cultural Variations“-

The relevance of culture in diplomacy

Wilfried Bolewski1

Abstract: Today’s issue- and outcome-related diplomacy risks to underestimate the relationship factor and cultural pluralism in globalized relations: Any diplomatic interaction is influenced by cultural variations of the participants.As a practitioner the author categorizes the regional and national cultures and their peculiarities with regard to diplomatic processes.The integrating process of socialization within the European Union could become a precursor to a common culture of diplomacy. Thus, the interdependency between diplomacy and culture underlines the impact of intercultural competence and the urgency for cross-cultural training for which some practical guidelines are suggested.

Table of Contents:

I. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………......3

II. Definition of “culture”

1. General definition…………………………………………………............................4

2. Categorizing cultures………………………………………………………………...5

3. Regional and national cultures in the diplomatic process…………………………...6

a) The Asian diversity

aa) Japan……………………………………………………..…………7

bb) China……………………………………………………………….9

cc) India……………………………………………………………….10

b) The Americas

aa) United States of America………………………………………….11

bb) Mexico…………………………………………………………….12

1 Ambassador Dr. Wilfried Bolewski is the German Foreign Office`s Special Representative for Universities and Foundations at the Foreign Service Academy, and teaches Diplomacy at the Free University Berlinand at the Hertie School of Governance, Berlin.. For this article he has been assisted by Melanie Svenja Haubrich and Sebastian Kruse during their internship at the German Foreign Office. The author expresses his personal opinion. (wilfried.bolewski@diplo.de). Recent publication: “Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations” (Berlin, Heidelberg, NewYork: Springer 2007).

1

c) The Arab world

aa) Egypt………………………………………………………………13

bb) Iran………………………………………………………………...14

d) Sub-Saharan Africa………………………………………………………...14

e) Europe: United in diversity?..........................................................................15

4. Common culture of diplomacy?................................................................................18

III. The components of diplomacy

1. Participants…………………………………………………………………………20

a) Governmental diplomacy…………………………………………………..20

b) Parliamentary Diplomacy…………………………………………………..21

c) Nongovernmental diplomacy………………………………………………21

d) International Organisations (IO)…………………………………………...22

e) Corporate Diplomacy………………………………………………………23

f) Experts……………………………………………………………………...23

2. Processes/Practices

a) Readiness for compromise as diplomacy’s quest for the middle ground…..23

b) Language…………………………………………………………………...24

IV. Other factors determining the negotiation process

1. Nature of the decision……………………………………………………………...25

2. Behaviour of the actors…………………………………………………………….26

3. Time and place……………………………………………………………………..26

V. Interdependency between diplomacy and culture?..............................................................27

VI. Cross-cultural training……………………………………………………………………28

VII. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………….…..30

A. Bibliography…………………...…………………………………………………………..33

B. Additional Reading…………………………………...……………………………….…...37

2

„Diplomatic Processes and Cultural Variations“-

The relevance of culture in diplomacy

“Let us not be blind to our differences – but let us also direct attention to our common

interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot now

end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity” –

John F. Kennedy, American University, June 10, 1963.

I. Introduction:

The relationship between diplomacy and culture has been somewhat neglected in recent

academic research and practical considerations although intercultural competence is what

holds an intercultural and globalized society together. Current public discussions concentrate

exclusively on the existence of cultural commonalities and universal values all cultures share2.

However, the search for communalities can only be the second step after the awareness of

cultural differences or the logical starting point for the evaluation of intercultural

commonalities. Intercultural sensibility and understanding paves the way for the acceptance

of and tolerance towards other cultures and opens ones mind for universal values such as law

and justice all cultures share and on which a globalized society should be built on.

Facing the challenges of a globalized and complex world, the question of interdependency

between diplomatic processes and cultural variations becomes relevant: Is there a shared

professional culture in diplomacy apart from national ones? Do different global cultures

influence diplomacy? To what extent can research into national cultures help diplomacy and

governments to understand international interactions? How do diplomatic processes and

cultural variations influence each other?

The following article suggests some answers to these questions. It propeses a general

introduction to the field of diplomacy, gives an overview over culture and the possibilities to

categorize it and shows which components and processes influence diplomatic interactions.

Furthermore, guidelines will be given to support a successful handling of intercultural

differences in diplomacy. For the understanding of the relevance of these differences one

2 Höffe, Otfried, Globalisierung? Ja bitte!, Warum universale Werte nicht nur westliche Werte sind, in: Die Literarische Welt – Eine Beilage der Welt, Saturday, 21st of July 2007, p. 1.

3

should first acknowledge, accept and tolerate cultural pluralism before acceding to the search

for common values.

II. Definition of “culture”:

1. General definition :

Before analysing the interdependency between culture and diplomacy, it is necessary to state

what culture implies.

According to Hofstede, culture is defined as “the collective programming of the mind that

distinguishes the members of one category of people from another”3. In contrast to personality

culture is not individual, but collective. Furthermore, programming of the mind means that it

is a program saved inside the person with the result that one cannot judge a person from the

outside of how he or she is programmed. This categorization makes it possible to distinguish

the members of one group from the other. Hofstede applies the same definition of culture to

professional cultures such as the diplomatic one4.

Another approach to define culture is to state its key aspects: First, culture is a quality of

society and nothing individualistic, secondly, it is acquired through the process of individual

acculturation or socialization and third, each culture is a unique complex of characteristics

combining every area of social life5. Culture is the social identity individuals start to develop

when they become aware of belonging to a social group6. National culture as well as political,

economic, social and historical elements forms the national identity.

According to these classifications, culture can be compared to a program containing

information about the society in which individuals find themselves. It provides information

about social roles, the structure of relationships, etiquette and how every day life should be

arranged7. This content shows the importance of culture: It is a guideline through social life,

but only valid in the social area in which this program is internalised. It is necessary to

understand the other members of society and their program as well as to be perceived as a

member of its own program. A way to experience another group is to understand and accept

the way their minds work. A by-product of such acceptance is a glimpse of the strengths and

3 Hofstede, Geert, Diplomats as Cultural Bridge-Builders, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malta, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 26. 4 Hofstede, in: Slavik, p. 26. 5 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, International Communication in an Interdependent World (Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace 2004), p. 11. 6 Gudykunst, Cultural Variability in Ethno linguistic Identity, in: Ting-Toomey, Stella/Korzenny, Felipe, Language, Communication and Culture, (Newbury Park: Sage 1989), p. 223. 7 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 12.

4

weaknesses of one’s own system.8 Knowing the correct cultural “program” is indispensable to

deal with cultural particularities of others. Without it, individuals can never become a part of

society, and without the awareness that there exist different kinds of programs, it is

impossible to understand those differing from the own.

Diplomacy happens basically by means of interactions and other negotiations. The negotiation

style of each participant is formed by ones own cultural “program”. As different cultural

groups communicate differently, the culture of a negotiation party influences its negotiation

style. Therefore, the probability of mistakes and misunderstandings increases when the

interaction is cross-national9.

While sovereignty and equality are the rational backbones of international relations, culture is

its distinctive emotional differential the hidden dimensions of which project as much impact

as political or economic power.

2. Categorizing cultures:

There is a need for a clearly arranged categorization of different cultures which makes them

easier to understand and deal with. Especially in order to cope with cultural differences and to

train cultural awareness and intercultural competence, it is useful to distinguish different

cultures.

Hofstede10 categorizes cultures in four dimensions: He differentiates between collectivistic

and individualistic, feminine11 and masculine cultures and between their levels of power

distance, uncertainty avoidance and long- or short- term orientation. The ground-breaking

ethnologist Edward T. Hall12 distinguishes between cultures of high or low context. In high

context societies, people have close connections over a long period of time, decisions and

activities are focused on relationships and communication is less verbally explicit,

information is rather transferred by means of unspoken meaning. On the contrary, in low

context societies people usually have more connections of shorter duration or for a specific

reason. People are rule- and task- orientated and information is communicated explicitly.

8 Hall, Edward T., Beyond Culture (New York: Anchor Books, 1976), p.213,2149 Sunshine, Russell B., Negotiating for International Development, A Practitioner’s Handbook (Dordrecht: Nartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1990), pp. 27/29. 10 Hofstede, in: Slavik, p. 31. 11 Svedberg, Erika, Feminist Theory and International Negotiations, in: International Studies Perspectives (2002), pp. 153-173. 12 Hall, Edward T., Beyond Culture (New York: Anchor Books, 1976), pp. 39, 53, 105-113.; Hall, Edward T./Reed Hall, Mildred, Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French, and Americans (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press 1983); Hall, Edward T./Reed Hall, Mildred, Hidden Differences, Studies in International Communication: How to Communicate with the Germans (Hamburg: Stern Magazine/Gruner & Jahr 1987).

5

Whereas low- context cultures pursue an individualistic negotiation style, the one of high-

context cultures is relationship- orientated13. Low- context negotiators are interested in the

outcome of negotiations; they want to find solutions to a problem, high- context negotiators in

contrast are more interested in attending to relationships by means of negotiations14. Although

the overall structure of every negotiation is regulated by protocol, it is as well determined by

different negotiation styles like circular, linear, functional, task-centred or personal15.

Developing Hofstede`s definition of culture, it is possible to classify cultures in the following

categories: multi-active, linear-active and reactive cultural groups: Multi-active groups are

characterized by a high level of flexibility and disinterest in schedules and punctuality.

Reality is more important to them than appointments and they are willing to invest time in

human transactions16. On the contrary, linear-active groups do one thing at one time while

concentrating on a fixed schedule. They stick to plans and facts and separate social from

professional aspects. In contrast to multi-active and linear-active groups, reactive cultures

listen and try to see the whole picture before they become active. They are introverted and

prefer monologue to dialogue17.

This categorization of cultures makes it also easier to handle their particularities in the

specific diplomatic context. Especially for handling concrete intercultural negotiation

situations, it is useful to classify cultures not only according to dimensions or groups, but also

according to regions.

3. Regional and national cultures in the diplomatic process

Each region of the globe has its own cultural peculiarities, whether it is Asia, the Arab world

or Latin America. But in spite of the regional characters one cannot speak of one Asian

culture keeping in mind the differences between China, India or Japan.18 On the basis that the

cultural background matters for diplomacy, cultural specifics have to be taken into account.

Any way of thinking, speaking and behaving is deeply rooted in one’s particular culture and

hence also influences noticeable the conduct of diplomacy.19 Although diplomacy is shaped

13 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 36. 14 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 69. 15 Korshuk, Alena, On Intercultural Training of Diplomats, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malte, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 408. 16 Lewis, p. 30. 17 Lewis, p. 34 f. 18 See for a comprehensive overview about national and cultural peculiarities and their influence on the intercultural communication- and negotiation-process: Lewis, pp. 179 et seq.19 Sharp, Paul: Talking to Americans: Problems of Language and Diplomacy, in: Kurbalija, Jovan/Slavik, Hannah: Language and Diplomacy (Malta: DiploProjects 2001), pp. 93-106, here p. 93.

6

by normative rules and procedures of the international society and depends, too, on the unique

qualities of individuals, diverse patterns of cultural and national groups are identifiable.20 The

process of globalization bringing people together, as for example politicians, business people

or lobbyists, who are deeply steeped in their own cultures does not mean that professional

cultures or instructions received from their respective authorities are negligible.21 But for an

effective and successful diplomacy at all levels the influences of regional and national

cultures should be taken into consideration.

Some generalizations may be unavoidable to highlight the differences between cultures and

their diplomatic behaviour. Selecting some states and examining their cultural base lines and

the effect these have on diplomacy, especially on the negotiation process, will therefore

illuminate the interdependency between culture and diplomacy.22 At this stage it may be noted

that cultural effects on the diplomatic process, respectively on negotiations, are more salient

when emotive and public issues are at stake than technical ones.

a) The Asian diversity23

aa) Japan24

Japan’s long history of isolation, its geographical positioning leading to generally crowded

conditions as well as the language itself distinguish the Japanese culture explicitly from other

Asian cultures.25

The Japanese use language in a completely different way from everyone else on the globe. In

addition to their high-context culture this leads to a unique way of communication with a vast

amount of non-verbal, implicit messages. Although Japanese use their language as a tool for

communicating, the words and sentences give only very little indication of what they are

actually saying. Instead, the way of addressing their collocutor is significant for them: Eye

movements, grunts or pauses are revealing.26 Moreover, linguistic vagueness and ambiguity

can be used on purpose to absolve anyone of possible blame and to demonstrate politeness.

20 Jong-hwan, Song: North Korean Negotiating Behaviour: A cultural approach, in: East Asian Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2003, pp. 87 – 104, here pp. 88-89.21 Lang, Winfried: A Professional’s View, in: Faure/Rubin (Ed.), Culture and Negotiation (London: Sage 1983), pp. 38 et seq., here 118; Sharp, Talking to Americans, p. 94.22 See for further information: Binnendijk, Hans: National Negotiating Styles (Washington, DC: Centre for the Study of Foreign Affairs/U.S. Department of State 1987).23 See for further information: Nakamura, Hajime: Ways of thinking of Eastern Peoples: India, China, Tibet, Japan (London, Kegan Paul 1964; revised English edition 1997).24 See for further information: Blaker, Michael: Japanese International Negotiating Style (New York: Columbia 1977); Goldman, Alan: Doing Business With the Japanese (New York: New York State University 1994).25 Lewis, p. 509.26 Lewis, p. 65.

7

Furthermore, Japanese use long indirect clauses which precede the main statement.27 Against

such a background, the danger of translation is to fail to communicate the main message of

the conversation if only looking at the content and not on the mood of the speaker.

The Japanese culture is also viewed as an archetype of the reactive culture.28 Listening first

and trying to see the whole picture before getting active and making only slight changes to

fixed plans are characteristic for the Japanese culture.

This is reflected distinctly in the Japanese diplomatic negotiation style. First of all, for

Japanese diplomats the so called “Nemawashi” is a precondition for negotiations. Through

these informal consultations they prepare the negotiation and take into account the positions

of the negotiating sides. In addition, during negotiations Japanese are not always articulating

their views explicitly. They place much more emphasis on attentiveness rather than on

talkativeness and it can even happen that they sit in meetings with their eyes closed.29 This

can lead to misjudgements, as the example of the U.S. trade representative Mickey Kantor

shows. After speaking with the Japanese Foreign Minister Tsutomu Hata about some trade

themes during a visit to Tokyo in 1994 he stated that Hata was silent on that issue and had the

feeling that this was a positive sign. But, quite to the contrary, the Minister just tried to avoid

an unpleasant confrontation.30

Japanese diplomats dislike pressure and aim to achieve a high degree of consensus. This can

lead to an overall relatively slow negotiation process.31 In their long term oriented society

with an ancient history, also diplomatic events are usually not a finite episode but rather

scenes in a continuum. Negotiations are not an end in itself, but rather one episode in an

ongoing relationship.32

In the diplomatic negotiation process Japanese negotiators also project onto their diplomacy

the typical psychological orientation of dependency grounded in their society and usually take

on the role of a suppliant when negotiating with a powerful state. In this manner, Japanese

officials countered for example in the 1971 monetary crisis pressure to revalue the yen by

searching for U.S. benevolence. They argued that Japan “is a small nation, poor in natural

resources, and therefore dependent upon foreign trade”33.

27 Lewis, p. 511.28 Rana, Kishan S.: Asian Diplomacy. The Foreign Ministries of China, India, Japan, Singapore & Thailand (Malta and Geneva: DiploFoundation 2007), here pp. 166-177.29 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 159.30 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, pp. 159-160.31 Rana, Asian Diplomacy, p. 102.32 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 37.33 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 89.

8

bb) China34

The old and traditional Chinese culture is a high-context and reactive one. A central concept

in the Chinese society is “Guanxi”, which is about a personal connection between two people.

Decisions and activities are therefore focused on relationship.35

This cultural background finds it’s manifestation in the diplomatic negotiation process. In the

Chinese view personal relationships are vital in negotiations.36 Negotiations should lead to a

partnership characterized by such features as trust and permanence. Therefore, they are

important social occasions and establish a relationship not only for the time being but also for

the time to come. Chinese negotiators usually try in a subtle manner to appeal to the ego of

the individual and project the inference that friends should be accommodating. Bette Bao

Lord describes this behaviour in the following way: “At the first meeting the Chinese would

be politely warm; at the second meeting you would be an ‘old friend’; then the Chinese would

start to ‘reel you in’, because in China an old friend could be expected to make

concessions.”37 Due to China’s long history of imperial rule embedded in its culture, Chinese

negotiators have at their command a vast amount of status-appealing signals which they use

frequently.38

As the emphasis of the Chinese is usually more focused on the long-term possibilities of a

partnership, their negotiation approach is oriented correspondingly.39 Chinese diplomats are

first seeking agreement over the basic principles and are initially avoiding discussions over

specifics.40 Such agreements are seen rather as a benchmark which over-generalizes the issue

than as an unimpeachable document. Therefore, when negotiating over a complex issue such

an agreement may represent a phase in a process rather than a final point.41

The Chinese emphasis on basic principles can lead to serious disturbances in diplomatic

processes if these negotiating-base-lines are not known to and accepted by the counterpart as

the example of the Chinese-U.S.-relations in the 1950s and 1960s show. The U.S. strategy to

propose limited agreements on concrete issues, as for example the exchange of journalists,

34 See for further information: Liu, Xiaohong: Chinese Ambassadors: The Rise of Diplomatic Professionalism Since 1949 (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press 2001); Robinson, Thomas W./Shambaugh, David: China’s Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Claredon 1994); Solomon, Richard H.: China’s Negotiating Behaviour (Washington DC: US Institute of Peace 1999).35 Wenzhong, Hu/Grove, Cornelius L.: Encountering the Chinese. A Guide for Americans (Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press 1991), p. 61.36 Rana, Asian Diplomacy, pp. 40-41.37 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 71.38 Rana, Asian Diplomacy, p. 40.39 Wenzhong/Grove, pp. 97-99.40 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 101.41 Rana, Asian Diplomacy, pp. 40-41.

9

collided with the Chinese persistence on some general principles implying the abandonment

of Taiwan. Therefore, all attempts to improve the relations were doomed to failure.42

cc) India43

The Indian culture varies considerably from other cultures in East Asia. Being more a multi-

active and high-context culture, feelings like satisfaction or disappointment are expressed

without disguise. Moreover, the Indian concept of time is cyclical, and therefore opportunities

may reoccur and need not always be seized immediately. Hence, a high level of flexibility

prevails.44

But although Indian society has a long-term time orientation, in the foreign affairs community

an absence of a long-range thinking can be detected, due to the dominance of short-term

goals.45 Beyond that, Indian diplomats need visible gains from negotiations to demonstrate

their success and therefore work very hard during negotiations to come to immediate results,

sometimes even in a confrontational manner. They are cautious to establish the moral and

political equality of their own side and are quite sensitive over the question of “status”.

Therefore, any sign of superiority or arrogance may lead to a crisis in the negotiation

process.46

These features can lead to problems in negotiations with its neighbouring countries with

different cultural base lines. Due to these circumstances for example, over 50 years of

negotiations with Nepal have not resulted in any agreement how to use the potential of the

India-Nepal rivers for some hydro-projects.47

Despite these features, and typical for a high-context culture, personal relationships are of a

high importance when dealing with Indian officials. Already the former U.S. President

Dwight D. Eisenhower came to the conclusion that the Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal

Nehru was “often more swayed by personality than logical argument. He seems to be

intensely personal in his whole approach.”48

b) The Americas 49

42 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, pp. 101-102.43 See for further information: Mehta, Jagat S.: Negotiating for India: Resolving Problems Through Diplomacy (New Delhi: Manohar 2006); Rana, Kishan S.: Inside Diplomacy (New Delhi: Manas 2002); Rao, S. N.: History of Organization, Procedure and Personnel of the Indian Foreign Service (Mumbai: Strand 2002).44 Lewis, pp. 435-436.45 Rana, Asian Diplomacy, pp. 166-177.46 Rana, Asian Diplomacy, pp. 73-74.47 Rana, Asian Diplomacy, p. 171.48 Eisenhower, Dwight D., cited in: Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 142.49 See for further information: Crouch, Ned: Mexicans & Americans: Cracking the Culture Code (London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing 2004); Stephenson, Skye: Understanding Spanish-Speaking South Americans:

10

aa) United States of America 50

The preponderance of American power in international relations and the American history are

essentials for the self-image of the nation and its representatives and influence

correspondingly its culture. It not only leads Americans to a feeling of pride but also gives

them a distinct impetus to act with self-assurance. Whether pioneers conquering the vast

prairie or astronauts landing on the moon; the American society is dominated by a pervasive

emphasis on achievement. The American culture is characterised by a strong optimistic

tendency: It is possible to solve nearly every problem through active effort and hard work

leads to happy endings.51

American negotiators are characterized through their “can-do” approach. It is a guideline for

the American pioneer spirit to address immediately current issues and to move on to new

challenges rather than looking for too long into history. There exists a strong belief that the

environment can be manipulated for someone’s own purposes. In an approach where the main

features are to set an objective, to develop a plan and then to act to change the environment in

accordance with that plan exists moreover not much space for cultivating personal ties.52

Against the background of a low-context culture the American negotiators are used to set out

their opening positions as clearly as possible. Once a negotiation has started they put their

cards on the table right from the beginning and prefer a yes in principle. They are interested in

getting as soon as possible to discuss the details and proceed then on an offer and counteroffer

basis.53

The volatility of life which prevailed in the early days of the U.S. is reflected in the low-

context society. People have more connections of a shorter duration and for a specific reason

than longstanding relationships. Therefore, important transactions are based rather on

contracts than ties of sentiment, so that all obligations have to be spelled out and ambiguities

resolved.54

The American society is also a linear-active one. The historical experience of the days of land

grab and gold rush, when time was essential for the future success, is still present in the

American mindset. Schedules and deadlines seem to loom over everything (“Time is

money”). Changing schedules or appointments or to deviate from the agenda is difficult to

Bridging Hemispheres (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 2003).50 See for further information: Stewart, Edward C./Bennett, Milton J.: American Cultural Patterns : A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Yarmouth, Intercultural Press 1991).51 Fisher, Glen: Mindsets. The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations (Intercultural Press: Yarmouth 1988), p. 52.52 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 37.53 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, pp. 83-84.54 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, pp. 190-191.

11

accept. Americans prefer dealing with one thing and one person at a time rather than handling

several tasks in parallel.55

The worldwide prominence of the English language is further shaping the American culture.

With 375 million native speakers and suggested 1.1 billion people knowing English as a

second language, no other language seems to be more popular.56 It is widely used as the

dominant language in international organizations and fora. Hence, being a native-speaker

means inevitable an advantage and strengthens the self-confidence. Moreover, native speakers

are also able to express nuances in a way foreigners are rarely able to.

American diplomats appear to be direct both with their preference for straight talking and in

their whole approach.57 But this can lead to disgruntlement if the negotiation partner has no

understanding for this culture-based-behaviour: In the negotiations over reforms in Japan’s

financial markets in 1984 for example, the abrupt manner of some U.S. diplomats affronted

their Japanese counterparts. They complained for instance that Treasury Secretary Donald

Regan behaved more as a business man making a deal on Wall Street than a diplomat engaged

in a delicate negotiation with a foreign government.58

bb) Mexico59

Mexico provides a good example for a high-context and multi-active society. Managing

affiliations with other people is of high importance. Therefore, first of all human relationships

have to be established.60 In addition, life in Mexico is not organized around a clock, which

means that punctuality is not a top priority for Mexicans. In Mexico’s hierarchical society it is

widely accepted that persons in a powerful position make others wait. To the contrary, it

would question the status of this person if an easy access would be granted.61 Furthermore, in

the Latin tradition Mexicans address problems in broad general principles.62

In a typical negotiation process with Mexicans it is usual to start with friendly small talk and

to approach the substance only when time seems appropriate. They do not follow agendas

rigidly and prefer to discuss any point when it seems to be opportune.63 However, the issues

55 Lewis, pp. 179-180.56 Bolewski, Wilfried: Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer 2007), p. 79.57 Sharp, Talking to Americans, p. 100.58 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, pp. 70-71.59 See for further information: Condon, John C.: Communicating with the Mexicans (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 1985).60 Fisher, p. 54.61 Lewis, pp. 535-537.62 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 104.63 Lewis, pp. 535-537.

12

can then be discussed at length. As conversation is regarded as an art, they are seeking the

approval or conversion of their counterpart. Therefore, passion and eloquence are central to

their style of discourse, and feelings are more important than facts. Coming to an end of the

negotiation process, symbols of success are important. For a Mexican diplomat any public

sign of surrender would mean a serious threat for any arrangement.

In the 1982 debt talks with the U.S. Mexican diplomats preferred for example an actually

materially inferior agreement avoiding a misleading appearance of a greater Mexican

concession.64

c) The Arab world65

aa) Egypt

The Egyptian society can be characterized as a high-context and multi-active one. Egyptians

have no inhibitions about exhibiting emotion publicly. Restraint to any expression of grief or

joy does usually not exist.66 Like in other Arab countries loudness of voice, rising pitch and

tone and even shouting all denote sincerity. Therefore, speech is used in a rhetorical manner

to make a point clear. The ability to speak eloquently is seen as a sign of education and

refinement. Hence, exaggerations, promises or nationalistic slogans are usually not meant as

statements of policy but are rather used for demonstrative effects: How you say something is

as important as what you say.67 Furthermore, for the Egyptian culture an outward appearance

is as relevant as the substance itself. As a popular Egyptian proverb says: “Make your harvest

look big, lest your enemies rejoice.” It seems in the Egyptian culture more appropriate to

starve and have others think being satisfied than to reveal a humiliating weakness. For an

outcome to be acceptable it must not only be good, it must also look good.68

Therefore, to save the Egyptian face in the negotiations for a binding cease-fire agreement

after the Yom Kippur War in 1973 it was vital to veil the status of the Egyptian army as well

as other related arrangements. Too many public concessions would have undermined the

future possibilities for a political settlement.69

64 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 188.65 See for further information: Khuri, Fuad I.: The Etiquette of Bargaining in the Middle East, in: American Anthropologist, Vol. 70, No. 4, 1968, pp. 698-706; Nydell, Margaret Kleffner: Understanding Arabs. A Guide for Westerners (Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press 2002); Stein, Kenneth W./Lewis, Samuel W.: Making Peace among Arabs and Israelis : Lessons from Fifty Years of Negotiating Experience (Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace 1991).66 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 154.67 Nydell, p. 119.68 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 183.69 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, pp. 187-188.

13

bb) Iran

Although the Iranian cultural classification is multi-active, it seems that punctuality is more

important than in the neighbouring Arab states. Their body language is also reserved and

limited in comparison to that of Arabs. Being dialogue oriented they can be loquacious, but

have a strong sense of what is appropriate and courteous within the context. They are not

averse to small talk, but prefer to turn soon to the heart of the matter. While Iranians are very

persuasive, they expect from their counterparts to persuade them in return. Moreover, as they

have an immensely strong faith in their ideas, they expect that their counterpart’s faith in his

own ideas is also very strong.70

d) Sub-Saharan Africa 71

Although Sub-Saharan Africa as a regional culture is divided into the Francophone and

Anglophone Africans, nevertheless similarities prevail. First of all, the culture in all states of

this region can be described as a multi-active and high-context. For Sub-Saharan Africans

communication is a vital process. As storytelling is an old African tradition, they like to use

their oratorical skills. Hence, they use frequently various expressions such as proverbs, poetry

and parables. Moreover, for Sub-Saharan Africans punctuality is not on their top priority and

there exists no real sense of urgency.

When initiating the negotiation process, Africans prefer some friendly small talk before

coming to the substantial issue. As the topics are then discussed in the order of their

importance, they do not adhere strictly to agendas. Hence, vital themes can be discussed at

length and revisited many times. Sub-Saharan Africans are also more short-term oriented due

to their long cultural mindset that survival is usually the first consideration. After all, initial

proposals in negotiations have often little resemblance to the final outcomes.72

e) Europe: United in diversity?

Diversity within Europe is too broad and historically deep-rooted to speak of one regional

culture. Different cultural backgrounds prevail while looking from Spain to Estonia, from

70 Lewis, pp. 397-398.71 See for further information: Richmond, Yale/Gestrin, Phyllis: Into Africa: Intercultural Insights (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 1998). 72 Lewis, pp. 571-572.

14

Finland73 to Greece, Germany, France74 or Great Britain. This has repercussions also for their

national diplomacies.75

Looking at three major groupings and their cultural base lines offers already a comprehensive

view of the widespread diversity within European diplomacy:

In the Germanic tradition of a low-context and linear-active culture facts are more important

than personal ties. Plans are made in advance and methodically, and timetables and schedules

dominate the proceedings.

To a certain extent the Anglo-Saxon culture is similarly linear-active and also low-context.

Against this background debates and discourses are formulated in elegant language. However,

although their tone may be accommodative, Anglo-Saxon negotiators adhere at the end to the

substance of a topic.

In contrast to these cultural groupings the Roman culture is a multi-active and high context

one. Diplomats with this cultural background are considered to be expressive and theory-

oriented, while being focussed on the establishment of personal relationships. These personal

contacts are of such importance that it would be unusual for a conversation to finish just

because time ran out.76

All these aforementioned cultures and several others, including for example the Eastern or

Northern European cultures, influence the traditional bilateral or multilateral diplomacy of

these states. But, for more than 50 years an increasing number of European states with their

different cultures work together in the context of the European Community respectively the

European Union (EU). Do these individual national cultures influence the diplomatic process

within the EU? And if yes: In which way and to what extent?

Looking at the EU as a global actor, one has to raise the question if and how the

aforementioned national cultural differences will be reflected in the future EU’s diplomacy or

if their influence will be minimized due to the ongoing process of socialisation and an

emerging “European esprit de corps”.77

Two concurring empirical analyses apply for this question:

73 See for further information: Lewis, Richard D.: Finland. Cultural Lone Wolf (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 2005).74 See for further information: Asselin, Gilles/Mastron, Ruth: Au Contraire! Figuring out the French (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 2001).75 See for further information: Hocking, Brian/Spence, David (eds.): Foreign Ministries in the European Union: Integrating Diplomats (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian 2002).76 Lewis, p. 33; Mühlen, Alexander: Internationales Verhandeln. Konfrontation, Wettbewerb, Zusammenarbeit mit zahlreichen interkulturellen Fakten und Fallbeispielen (Münster: LIT 2005), pp. 188-190.77 Lieb, Julia/Maurer, Andreas: Making EU Foreign Policy more effective, consistent and democratic: The options and variables for the European External Action Service (Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2007 http://www.swp-berlin.org/en/common/get_document.php?asset_id=4203&PHPSESSID=2078dfb5988e 654848da6a22f7828063), p. 12

15

First of all, cultural peculiarities and differences belong to a “domaine réservé” within the

European context. Originally, this term refers to specific issues “that cannot be submitted to

discussion and interference from the other member states”78 within the EU, such as security

issues or special interstate relationships. Similarly, also cultural backgrounds and their

influence on the diplomatic process are not being reflected upon or openly discussed within

the EU-context due to an implicit silent acceptance among all participants.

Secondly, due to the continuity of positive social interaction and information exchanges

between the partners, a practical process of bureaucratic socialization79 and cross-national

collegial solidarity is setting in, overlapping the cultural peculiarities. As a result of the

continuous interaction and the prolonged experience of cooperation (including co-ordinated

démarches - policy initiatives- and common reporting abroad), the national representatives are

subject to a mutual understanding, which forms part of a certain Community code that could

develop into an “esprit de corps”.80 These culturally determined norms of behaviour are the

culture of mutual respect, tolerance and compromise as well as other informal rules and

facilitations of communication such as Eurospeak (the mixed use of different working

languages, especially French and English).

Hence, in such a specialized institutional environment the impact of original cultural

differences in diplomatic processes could be waning into an institutional culture that

encompasses core beliefs, values and practices and the typical cultural peculiarities could lose

their importance. In the context of the EU as a global actor, a common diplomacy could be

added as a (6th) structural concept to the common normative self-understanding concepts81 of

human rights (rule of law, human dignity), democracy (participatory representation, freedom,

equality), diversity (non-discrimination, cultural autonomy), security (stability, governance)

and prosperity (welfare, global solidarity). This integrative process of socialization is to a

certain degree already visible within the different institutions of the EU, as the examples of

78 Juncos, Ana E./Pomorska, Karolina: Playing the Brussels game: Strategic socialisation in the CFSP Council Working Groups (European Integration online Papers, Vol. 10, No. 11, 2006, eiop.or.at/eiop/index.php/eiop/ article/viewPDFInterstitial/2006_011a/33 -), p. 8.79 Glarbo, Kenneth, Wide-awake diplomacy: reconstructing the common foreign and security policy of the European Union, in: Journal of European Public Policy 1999, p.634 (646), Wong, Reuben, The Europeanization of Foreign Policy, in: Hill, Christopher/Smith, Michael (Ed.), International Relations and the European Union (Oxford: University Press 2005), p. 134 (138)80 Juncos/Pomorska, pp. 5-6., Beyers, Jan, Multiple embeddedness and socialization in Europe: The case of Council officials, in: International Organization, Vol. 59, No. 4, 2005, p. 899 (908), Batora, Josef, Does the European Union transform the institution of Diplomacy?, Clingendael Discussion Paper in Diplomacy No. 87 (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael” 2003), p. 14, Trondal, Jarle, Is there any social constructivist-institutionalist divide? Unpacking social mechanisms affecting representational roles among EU decision-makers, in: Journal of European Public Policy 2001, p. 1 (14)81 Balli, Volker, An EU Self-Understanding of the European Union Revealed Through Justification of Political Action, in: Bain, Jessica / Holland, Martin (ed.), European Union Identity. Perceptions from Asia and Europe (Baden-Baden 2007), pp. 5-29

16

the multinational teams of the European Commission82, the European Parliament83 and the

Council84 show.

On the other hand, there still remains the danger of the illusion of cultural familiarity among

EU partners.85 The influence of cultural differences in the behaviour of multinational teams

can best be exemplified along the North-South divide of European countries. At least two

patterns stand out which diversely influence the multinational team performance:

- working style: While the northern countries are more goal-orientated and therefore

prefer to come straight to the point, southern countries are more process-orientated and

rely on personal relationship in their communication.

- differing styles of criticizing (direct, diplomatic or indirect).86

The future EU is in need of a coherent diplomatic service for a common EU foreign policy.

This is the reason why already the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe envisaged to

establish a European External Action Service (EEAS). With an estimated staff between 600

and 7.000 employees, coming from the respective departments of the Council Secretariat, the

Commission and also the national diplomatic services of the EU member states, there will be

a varying diversity in view of the respective cultural as well as professional backgrounds.87

Therefore, due to the new structures, the various cultural backgrounds of the staff and

persisting national priorities, certain changes will be necessary. First of all, a European

dimension of diplomacy is in need of adequate institutional structures for a common training

at a supranational level. Although existing international exchange programmes between

national Diplomatic Academies or new initiatives might in the short-term perspective be

sufficient, there should be in the long-term perspective an integrated concept elaborated. But

until now a (complementary) European Diplomatic Academy (Ecole Diplomatique

Communautaire)88 has not received the necessary approval of all the member states. If this

Diplomatic Academy should be in the upcoming years established, it can be expected that

such an institution will lead to a professional community with a shared culture of diplomacy,

82 Neyer, Anne-Katrin, Multinational Teams in the European Commission and the European Parliament (Frankfurt am Main: Lang 2005).83 Scully, Roger, Becoming Europeans? Attitudes, Behaviour, and Socialization in the European Parliament (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005).84 Beyers, Jan, Multiple embeddedness and socialization in Europe: The case of Council officials, in:International Organization, Vol. 59, No. 4, 2005, pp. 899-936.85 Henrikson, Alan K., Diplomacy’s Possible Futures, in: The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 1(2006), p. 3 (12)86 Neyer, p. 5587 Heuser, Annette: Diplomats for Europe - Key Elements for a European External Action Service (Zentrum für angewandte Politikforschung, 2005, http://www.cap.lmu.de/download/spotlight/Reformspotlight_02-05_en.pdf), p. 4.88 Monar, Jörg, The case for a Diplomatic Academy of the European Union, in: European Foreign Affairs Review, 5/3 (2000), pp.281-286, Duke, Simon W. Preparing for European Diplomacy?, in: Journal of Common Market Studies, 2002, 40/5, p. 849 (862).

17

shared values, behavioural patterns and also some kind of a European identity among its

graduates.89

But while the EEAS will have to accommodate with national foreign ministries and

diplomatic services to recruit its employees, it remains an open question whether and how the

original cultural peculiarities will be reflected in the conduct of the EU’s diplomacy.

4. Common culture of diplomacy?

To examine the question whether a global common culture of diplomacy exists, it is important

to define diplomacy. Traditionally, diplomacy is an international institution which can

influence the individual state by reminding it that, as a part of international society it is

required to restrain its interests so that it does not undermine the common weal. The aim of

diplomacy then is twofold: to protect and guide the individual interests of states and to

promote global norms and values characterizing the growing sense of a community of states

and an international unity. Modern diplomacy as a rule-governed activity contains procedures

of communication, negotiation and representatives between states, international organizations

and transnational participants. Diplomatic interactions are usually supposed to avoid or settle

conflicts90, for which rules are an efficient instrument. In the 21st century, diplomacy is

ubiquitous and increasing in practice. Also non state actors are more willing to engage in

diplomatic methods and practice a distinct type of diplomacy.

The definitions of culture and diplomacy raise the question of the existence of a common

culture of diplomacy shared by all participants involved in the interactive process of

diplomacy: Beyond the diversity of state-based diplomatic cultures, is there a common culture

of diplomacy?

Indeed, a range of similarities can be found in the diplomatic profession. Due to many

behavioural similarities they create an “esprit de corps”91: Diplomats reap the benefits of a

similar professional education and diplomatic training. Therefore, they share the same social

rules such as restraint, politeness, tolerance, patience, empathy and mutual confidence92.

Furthermore, they have similar professional experiences, are used to the same procedures,

follow the same rules and display the same behaviour which point in the direction of a

89 Lieb/Maurer, p. 12; Metz, Andreas: Europäische Union nach dem Vertrag über eine Verfassung für Europa. Eine Untersuchung aus kompetenzrechtlicher Sicht – mit Erläuterungen zu den Außenkompetenzen nach dem Vertrag von Nizza (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 2007), p. 327, Duke, p. 866.90 Lang, Winfried, Negotiation as Diplomatic Rule-Making, in: International Negotiations, No. 1, 1996, p. 130. 91 Bolewski, p. 76. 92 Kappeler, Dietrich, The Birth and Evolution of a Diplomatic Culture, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malte, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 359; Rana, Kishan S., Diplomatic Culture and its Domestic Context, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malte, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 381.

18

common diplomatic culture. Hence, diplomatic culture is also called “third culture”93. This

diplomatic culture could be defined as “the accumulated communicative and representational

norms, rules, and institutions devised to improve relations and avoid war between interacting

and mutually recognizing political entities94.

In spite of these similarities, some cultural differences remain which make it difficult to speak

of a common culture of diplomacy. First of all, every person is formed by his or her own

cultural background which one can never completely escape. Nobody can totally erase his or

her own “programming of the mind”. The social identity which has been achieved by a long

lasting socialization process cannot be abandoned by means of professional training, no

matter how intense this training might be95. Moreover, abandoning their own national culture

would also cause problems in such a way that diplomats could not identify with their own

cultural background anymore which would make it almost impossible to fulfil their job as

“servants of national interests” 96 of their states. As representatives of the interests of their

states or organizations they never negotiate totally independent, but are dependent on their

states` foreign policy and appropriate national instructions. A cultural basement is essential

for the development of an own cultural identity which is in turn necessary for a constructive

participation in international relations97.

Another factor which makes it difficult to speak of a common diplomatic culture is that

diplomats are not the only participants involved in diplomatic interaction. Diplomacy as a

language spoken by state officials will inevitably differ from diplomacy whose principal

agents are persons other than states. Due to globalization, the diversity of actors on the

international stage has been growing continuously98. As a result, the culture among those

diplomatic participants becomes more open, diversity is more common. However, not all of

the new actors in diplomacy are experienced in dealing with foreigners and intercultural

situations99. Especially in organizations which are not related to the state such as NGOs, IOs

and enterprises, negotiators are often formed by a culture of biculturality and bilingualism.

93 Carstarphen, Nike, Making the “Other” Human: The Role of Personal Stories to Bridge Deep Differences, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malte, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 177. 94 Wiseman, Geoffrey, Pax Americana: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture, in: International Studies Perspective 6, 2005, pp. 409 et.seq. 95 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 22. 96 Sharp, Paul, The Idea of Diplomatic Culture and its Sources, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malte, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 369. 97 Falk, Richard A., Culture, Modernism, Postmodernism: a Challenge to International Relations, in: Chay, Jongsuk (Ed.), Culture and International Relations (New York, Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger 1990), p. 276. 98 Rana, Kishan S., Diplomatic Culture and its Domestic Context, in: Slavik, pp. 381/382; Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 23. 99 Cohen, Raymond, p. 23.

19

Their acculturation stays in many cases only task-related and becomes adapted in the

negotiator’s private life only seldom. Therefore, they never find real access to their host

culture100. Just like governmental diplomats, they never lose their own programming of the

mind as their internalized culture. So even under the presumption that there exists a common

culture among diplomats in the sense of sharing a certain basic understanding, this does not

automatically prove the existence of a common diplomatic culture.

III. The components of diplomacy:

1. Participants:

Today, not only diplomats are involved in the diplomatic process. Many non-traditional actors

such as NGOs, trans-national organisations and even individuals can be said to practice

diplomacy which has “become a growth sector”101 and the “engine room of international

relations”102. Especially due to the process of globalization the group of diplomatic

participants has been expanded to representatives from international organisation, non-

governmental organisation, the private sector, the media, academia, foundations and political

parties, pressure groups and mass movements103.

One factor connecting the different national cultures is the fact that, traditionally, lawyers are

key representatives of the participants in diplomatic interactions104. They dominate the

diplomatic environment and form their own professional culture which is determined by a

high respect of authority, precedent and rules105. As well as other experts, they share a

common language which is usually difficult to understand for non-lawyers.

a) Governmental diplomacy:

Governments are and will remain the principal participants in diplomacy. Especially the

ministry of foreign affairs as national state actor has had the role of the main coordinator of

diplomatic interactions for a long period of time106. In times of globalization governments

have to operate in a different context than before; governmental diplomacy has to fulfil an

additional function: Integrating other participants of diplomacy in its own decision-making

100 Hofstede, Geert/Hofstede, Gert Jan, Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind (New York: McGraw-Hill 2005), pp. 341 et seq. 101 Hocking, Brian, The End(s) of Diplomacy, in: International Journal 1997, p. 169. 102 Cohen, Raymond, Putting Diplomatic Studies on the Map, in: Diplomatic Studies Program Newsletter, Leicester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy 1998, p. 1. 103 Bolewski, p. 17; Kremenyuk, Victor A./Lang, Winfried, The Political, Diplomatic, and Legal Background, in: G. Sjöstadt (Ed.), International Environmental Negotiation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage 1993). p. 3. 104 Kremenyuk/Lang, p. 10. 105 Lang, Negotiation as Diplomatic Rule-Making, p. 132. 106 Rana, in: Slavik, p. 385.

20

processes107. To meet the challenges of globalization, governments have been focusing on

new strategies: Involving ministries and non-state actors and institutions, providing greater

transparency and acting collectively as far as possible108.

b) Parliamentary Diplomacy:

Parliamentary diplomacy can be defined as “the full range of international activities

undertaken by parliamentarians in order to increase mutual understanding between countries,

to assist each other in improving the control of governments and the representation of a

people and to increase the democratic legitimacy of inter-governmental institutions”109. As a

reaction to the blurring boundaries between national and international affairs, diplomacy is

not only an executive matter anymore, but also a parliamentarian one. On account of its

increasing importance due to the high impact of European guidelines on national

legislation110, it is called the “new” diplomacy111. Parliaments can act constructively in the

fields of conflict prevention, state building and democratization112. As it covers a new field of

diplomatic activity, parliamentary diplomacy still faces several problems: Compared to

governments and NGOs, parliaments are relatively weak actors, their organizations lack

finances, resources and power and conclusions and declarations are often vague and

noncommittal113. However, despite these problems and because of the high level of

democratic legitimation of parliaments, parliamentary diplomacy is a precious contribution to

diplomacy.

c) Nongovernmental diplomacy:

107 Bayne, Nicholas/Woolcock, Stephen, The New Economic Diplomacy (Hampshire: Ashgate 2003), p. 6. 108 Bayne/Woolcock, p. 94. 109 Weisglas, Frans W./de Boer, Gonnie, Parliamentary Diplomacy, in : The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 2 (2007), pp. 93/94, Petrovsky, Wladimir, Diplomacy as an instrument of good governance, p. 2 http://www.diplomacy.edu/Books/mdiplomacy_book/petrovski/petrovski,htm110 In the context of the updated EU treaty, the role of the German parliament has been strengthened. The

German parliament and government have signed an agreement about cooperation concerning affairs of the

European Union. According to this agreement, the government is obligated to inform parliament, continuously

and extensively about EU matters. One outcome of this agreement is the establishment of a contact office of the

German parliament in Brussels. 111 Sawyer, Jack/Guetzkow, Harold, Bargaining and Negotiations in international Relations, in: Kelman, Herbert C. (Ed.), International Behavior, A Social-Psychological Analysis (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1965), p. 491. 112 Weisglas/de Boer, p. 96. 113 Weisglas/de Boer, p. 97.

21

Due to globalization, the number of nongovernmental participants in diplomatic interactions

is increasing steadily. Especially in the field of economic diplomacy, the amount of non-state

actors is increasing114. In 2005/2006 the international society counted 20.928 NGOs, 2476 of

them have a consultation status at the ECOSOL115. The NGOs as part of the international civil

society can deploy their populist and indirect rule towards the privatization of public authority

and responsibility and become a partial surrogate of the state116. With the rise of these Non-

State Organizations and new social movements, the diplomatic function is being exercised by

a wider circle of citizens. As active participants of civil society they have become symbolic

and complementary diplomatic actors filling a niche in the environment of globalized

relations and bringing in a diplomatic culture of their own; more relaxed, direct and

audacious117. A new diplomatic practice is emerging. The diplomatic discourse becomes

democratized, detached from the state and more prominent. The symbolic relationship

between the state and societal actors carries the potential for creative statecraft and valuable

diplomatic practices. Concerning the fact that diplomacy becomes more focused on economic

and social issues, the development of a NGO-culture can be seen as a logical and necessary

process118.

d) International Organisations (IO):

IOs are actually created by states to represent their interests. The number of IOs has risen in

2005/06 to 1.963119. Due to this multiplication, IOs cooperate meanwhile in an overlapping

field of interest with one another. Therefore, they can be seen as autonomous political actors,

practising a form of diplomacy distinct from the traditional practice. As a result, they have

created an own cultural and diplomatic identity formed not only by their organization culture,

but also by the culture area in which they are domiciled. They are involved in a diplomatic

network which goes beyond the national interests and concerns and represents common

interests of the IOs. Prerequisite for the development of this cultural identity is the ability to

maintain diplomatic communication channels, to integrate the organisation’s sub-units,

114 Bayne/Woolcock, p. 4. 115 Part A: Statistical Data Graphics, Figure 1.1.1. (a): Overview of number of international organisations by type of the Yearbook of International Organisations, Edition 42, 2005/2006, evaluated by the union of International Association, Lausanne116 Bolewski, p. 55. 117 Devin, Guillaume, La diplomatie d`État vue par les ONG, in: Cohen, Samy, Les diplomates. Négocier dans un monde chaotique (Paris 2002), p. 105. 118 Cooper, Andrew F./Hocking, Brian, Governments, Non-governmental Organisations and the Re-calibration of Diplomacy, in: Global Society, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2000, p. 366. 119 Part A: Statistical Data Graphics, Figure 1.1.1. (a): Overview of number of international organisations by type of the Yearbook of International Organisations, Edition 42, 2005/2006, evaluated by the union of International Association, Lausanne.

22

loyalty among its members and the capability to create self-knowledge to be able to set goals

concerning preferred values120.

e) Corporate Diplomacy:

At the beginning of the 21st century there are more than 53.000 transnational companies121,

half of the top 100 economies in the world were not national states but transnational

companies (TNC). Since the TNC`s financial potency reveals or exceeds the GNP of many

countries they wield increasing potential as well as economic power. He who has power

conducts diplomacy and any development in diplomacy must be analysed from an evaluation

of the power factor in globalized relations122.

f) Experts:

More and more international agreements are carried out by experts who play an increasingly

important role in diplomacy. They bring their cultural particularities in diplomatic interactions

and represent their own professional culture123. Their professional cultures develop while

those experts run through a certain education and make their professional experiences. Their

professional cultures include special habits, basic beliefs, norms and customs which

distinguish those experts from other participants in diplomatic interactions124.

2. Processes/Practices

a) Readiness for compromise as diplomacy’s quest for the middle ground:

Diplomatic activity is based on an expectation that national interests will be subject to

compromise, and on a desire to avoid war. Any diplomatic process must include the

participants` readiness for compromise. Without this attitude, diplomatic efforts are

determined to fail. The actors must be willing and flexible enough to work on finding a 120 Hofstede/Hofstede, pp. 341 et seq. 121 Kegley Jr, Charles W./Wittkopf, Eugene R., World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 9th ed., (Thomson Wadsworth, California 2004), p. 173. 122 Coolsaet, Rik, The Transformation of Diplomacy at the Threshold of the New Millennium, Diplomatic Studies Program, No 48 (Levester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy 1998), p. 1; Bolewski, pp. 53 et seq. 123 Lang, Winfried, A Professional’s View, in: Fauvre/Rubin (Ed.), Culture and Negotiation (London: Sage 1983), p. 118. 124 Lang, A Professional’s View, p. 113.

23

compromise acceptable to the others, thus guaranteeing consensus. If diplomacy is to be given

a chance it is self-defeating to make the desired result of negotiations their precondition. The

ability to accept a compromise is inevitable to achieve this aim125. For that purpose, it is

important to be aware of one’s own liabilities and assets while recognizing the authority of

international consensus. The result of negotiations must always be to identify common

interests and work out acceptable solutions to a wide scope of common concern126. Flexible

behaviour is especially important and existing among lawyers as the main representatives of

participants in diplomatic interactions. According to their education and professional

experience, they are used to represent and defend the interests of a varying group of clients

which makes it easier for them to negotiate flexibly127.

b) Language

Language is more than just a means of communication; language is a tool for empowerment.

Since communication and culture are acquired simultaneously128, language can be considered

a key to culture. Every language deeply rooted in a particular culture conveys a unique

representation of the world. Good argumentative points and diplomatic techniques are useless

without the ability to communicate them. As there are strong differences in verbal and

nonverbal communication across cultures and subcultures129 as well as the possibility of

misinterpretations, language can also be an obstacle on the way to a successful diplomatic

process. Diplomatic interaction is not possible without communication; successful diplomacy

is therefore not possible without the proper and deliberate use of language. As a result,

language skills are one of the most important tools for every diplomat. The only possibility to

communicate and negotiate without proper language skills is third party interpretation.

However, involving an interpreter can lead to a loss of behavioural nuances and confidence130

and can therefore be considered as second choice only. Hence, language is the medium which

not only enables communication, but can also complicate it131. One obstacle in the way to a

successful diplomatic interaction is the different use of language among different cultural

groups. In this respect, Edward T. Hall differentiates between high and low context cultures.

Whereas high-context communication implies the transfer of much unspoken meaning within

125 Lewis, p. 168. 126 Kremenyuk/Lang, p. 4. 127 Lang, Negotiation as Diplomatic Rule-Making, p. 133. 128 Haslett, Communication and Language Acquisition Within a Cultural Context, in: Ting-Toomey, Stella/Korzenny, Felipe (Ed.), Language, Communication, and Culture, Current Directions (Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage 1989), p. 20. 129 Haslett, in: Ting-Toomey, p. 26. 130 Bolewski, p. 81. 131 Sawyer, Jack/Guetzkow, Harold, Bargaining and Negotiations in international Relations, in: Kelman, Herbert C. (Ed.), International Behavior, A Social-Psychological Analysis (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1965), p. 479.

24

communication, low-context communication contains all information in the utterances and

there is not much or even nothing implied apart from what is explicitly said. Communication

is based on the explicit verbal part of information. High context cultures communicate more

allusively than directly, so that the context of what is said is as important as the content132.

What becomes communicated is based on non-verbal aspects of the message. This cultural

distinction shows that speaking the same language does not necessarily mean using the same

language in the same way.

Even if the negotiation partners use the same language, for example English, it is sometimes

difficult or even impossible to translate the meaning and relevance of a certain word. Some

words have a completely different meaning depending on the culture in which they are used,

so that it is often not sufficient just to translate them from English into the specific language

or vice-versa. This different use of language can cause misunderstandings and therefore lead

to a communication gap. One example of such a communication gap is the different

interpretation of “human rights”. Traditionally, Western developed countries associate human

rights with civil and political rights which define individuals as human beings, such as the

right to express oneself freely regardless from gender or religion. Human rights are

considered as a means of defending ones freedom against the state as an oppressive authority.

In contrast, former communist countries and developing Third World states tend to perceive

human rights as rights of the collective or larger community and prefer less clear-cut

distinctions between individual, society and state133. This example shows how difficult it can

be to find a consensus in diplomatic interactions without the same values and ideas behind

fundamental terms which are in the focus of these interactions. Especially in diplomatic

negotiations, the knowledge of such linguistic and cultural nuances and differences helps to

avoid the communication gap.

Experts influence the diplomatic language in such a way that they acquire a common

language134. The fact that lawyers are the main actors in diplomatic interactions influences the

language used, so that it often gets a legal impact. As shown above, legal language is

predominating and therefore a connective factor in negotiations.

IV. Other factors determining the negotiation process:

132 Hall, Beyond Culture, pp. 39, 53, 105-113133 Mingst, Karen A./Warkentin, Craig P., What Difference Does Culture Make in Multilateral Negotiations?, in: Global Governance 2, 1996, p. 174. 134 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 20.

25

1. Nature of the decision:

One of the most important determinants of the negotiation process is the nature of the decision

to be taken135. The nature of the decision influences the type of the negotiation which can vary

between the traditional bilateral or multilateral diplomacy, parliamentary diplomacy,

summitry diplomacy or conference diplomacy by means of ad hoc meetings136. Especially

sensitive topics might necessitate secret instead of open diplomacy and thereby influence the

atmosphere of the negotiation.

Furthermore, there is interdependency between the importance of the decision to be taken and

the public interest in it and, in consequence, the behaviour of the actors. The more important

the decision and the higher the level of public interest, the higher the pressure the decision-

makers put on their diplomats. Thus, the level of public interest in the matter can influence

their negotiation behaviour.

2. Behaviour of the actors:

Another factor influencing the negotiation process is the behaviour of the actors themselves.

Since diplomats act as servants for their decision-makers, their behaviour depends first and

foremost on their instructions. Moreover, the behaviour of the actor is influenced by factors of

authority of his country, such as the gross domestic product, the military power, the level of

international integration and the dependency on aid and energy supplies137.

Apart from the nature of the decision to be taken, the number of negotiating parties and

individual participants involved in the negotiation process is another factor which influences

their behaviour. In the case of multilateral negotiations, the amount of parties increases the

amount of possible coalition partners and makes the negotiation strategically more complex.

On the other hand, a high number of participants decreases the secrecy of the negotiation138

and has a strong influence on the amount of talking time per participant. The more

participants taking part, the more parties each participant has to deal with in an inversely

135 Lang, Winfried, Multilaterale Entscheidungsprozesse, in: Köck, Heribert Franz (Ed.), Völkerrecht in Zeitverantwortung, Ausgewählte Schriften zu Diplomatie, Umweltschutz, internationalen Organisationen und Integration (Wien: Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag 2006), p. 77; Lang, Winfried, Multilateral Negotiations, The Role of Presiding Officers, in: Köck, Heribert Franz (Ed.), Völkerrecht in Zeitverantwortung, Ausgewählte Schriften zu Diplomatie, Umweltschutz, internationalen Organisationen und Integration (Wien: Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag 2006), pp. 86 et seq. 136 Sawyer/Guetzkow, pp. 490 et. seq. 137 Lang, Multilaterale Entscheidungsprozesse, p. 74. 138 Sawyer/Guetzkow, p. 492.

26

proportional amount of time139. Furthermore, even if more coalitions are possible, they are not

necessarily more stable.

3. Time and place:

Time is an important factor in diplomacy. However, the perception of time varies among

different cultures and can therefore be an obstacle in negotiations. Not only varies the

perception of time itself among cultures, but also the perception of the future and the

importance of punctuality140. Edward T. Hall subdivides cultures into mono- and polychronic

cultures. Whereas monochronic people do one thing at one time, take time commitments such

as deadlines and schedules seriously and are usually low-context, polychromic people do

many things at once, consider time commitments an objective to be achieved only if possible

and are usually high-context. They change plans often and easily and are highly distractible.

Monochronic people on the other hand stick to plans and concentrate on their job.

Considering these differences, it becomes clear that time can be an obstacle in negotiations

which can only be overcome with intercultural awareness.

Moreover, although time is usually fixed in advance, it can happen that a negotiation takes

longer than expected. In this case, time might evoke stress and become a relevant factor as

well. Especially in diplomacy with its tight schedules and deadlines advanced time planning

becomes important.

The place of the interaction is another factor which should not be underestimated. The

diplomatic setting of interaction has to be chosen deliberately to avoid diplomatic blunders.

As far as location is concerned, it is important that there is on the one hand enough space for

all participants, but on the other hand not too much space so that a familiar atmosphere can

develop and informal meetings among the participants are possible to pave the way for a

successful ending of the interactive process141.

V. Interdependency between diplomacy and culture?

Knowing the correct cultural “program” is indispensable to deal with cultural particularities.

The question is, if cultural norms influence diplomatic negotiations and their outcomes or if

diplomacy influences culture. Is there interdependency between diplomacy and culture and if

is, how do both influence each other?

139 Sawyer/Guetzkow, p. 492. 140 Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, p. 34. 141 Lang, Multilaterale Entscheidungsprozesse, p. 79.

27

Having examined the cultural differences among diplomatic participants and their impact on

the outcome of diplomatic interactions, interdependency between diplomacy and culture can

hardly be denied. Negotiation styles are strongly influenced by the cultural background of the

negotiation parties as well as the perception of time and the setting of priorities within

interactions.

However, this knowledge does not give answer to the question of the direction of this impact.

Assuming that diplomacy influences culture, how could this happen?

Somehow a competition is taking place between national and professional culture in

international interactions, especially concerning the different negotiation styles142.

Diplomats can only be successful if they can cope with the simultaneous challenge of living in

or with foreign cultures, and – at the same time - representing the interests of their national

states. Moreover, intercultural competence is essential to understand participants with other

cultural background. As shown above, nobody is ever able to abandon ones “programming of

the mind”. However, once this cultural awareness exists, it influences the culture of

diplomacy in such a way, that diplomats at least try to respond to the cultural particularities of

their interaction partners. It leads to a better relationship among the participants in diplomatic

interactions and is the appropriate instrument to pave the way for diplomatic success.

Therefore, intercultural communication competence is the imperative quality for a successful

diplomatic process. Concerning the aims of diplomacy of protection and guidance of

individual interests on the one and avoiding or settling conflicts on the other hand, diplomacy

influences the negotiation culture because of the need for successful diplomatic solutions. Due

to the need for challenging intercultural differences, a professional or “third” culture of

diplomacy emerges.

The question is if this impact also works vice-versa, to say if culture also influences

diplomacy.

As every participant involved in diplomatic negotiations has his or her own “programming of

the mind” which cannot be abandoned, a cultural impact on diplomacy is inevitable. Culture

does not only influence negotiation style, time perception and the significance of

relationships, it has also an impact on social roles and etiquette. As all these aspects play

some role within diplomatic interactions, they are in principle suited to influence diplomacy.

142 Lang, A Professional’s View, p. 114.

28

In practice, diplomacy is as much about cultural relations as it is about political relations. It is

culture, even more than politics, that provides structuring principles in the understanding of

diplomatic practices and processes.143

The US military, also, sees the need to include cultural anthropologists as advisers in “Human

Terrain Teams” in Afghanistan and Iraq to enhance their human perspective.144

VI. Cross-cultural training:

Having examined the high impact of cultural variations on diplomatic processes it has to be

determined how diplomats and other actors involved in diplomatic processes can successfully

be prepared to meet the challenges of the interdependency of diplomacy and culture.

Diplomats must be aware of the fact that there are cultural differences, which kind of

differences exist and how to deal with them. The key to a deliberate and successful exposure

to intercultural conditions and differences is cultural awareness. Without the awareness of

cultural differences diplomats might tend to look only for similarities rather than also

acknowledge the differences as a defence against alienation. Once they are in a different

cultural area, their perception of culture might become selective; filtering out what is

inconsistent with their own culture145. The need for such preparedness is especially relevant in

the context of globalization.146

The best way to evoke cultural awareness and guarantee the required intercultural competence

is international training. Only in this way can they cultivate cultural intelligence and learn

how to communicate cross-culturally147.

Such an intercultural training should include a theoretical, practical and personal

component148: Transfer of cultural theories could be the starting point for this learning

process, connected with analysis of cultural similarities and differences in different cultures.

Moreover, it is important to evoke cultural awareness by taking a look at the cultural

143 Lee, Donna/Hudson, David, The old and new significance of political economy in diplomacy, in: Review of International Studies 2004, 30, p. 343 (356), see Bozemann, Adda B., Politics and Culture in International History: From the Ancient Near East to the Opening of the Modern Age, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1994)144 see David Rohde, Army enlists anthropologists as advisers, The New York Times (as reported in: Cahier du „Monde“, October 13, 2007)145 Sunshine, pp. 26 et.seq. 146 Former U.S. Ambassador Henry E. Catto, Jr., talking about “Diplomacy in 2015”, suggested: “Finally, the Foreign Service will need more than ever the guidance and help of that corps of unsung and knowledgeable heroes, national employees, who can educate our diplomats on host-country mores and oddities. Every country (definitely including us) has its peculiarities, and it takes a native of the country to interpret them to the visitor” (Catto, Henry E., Jr., The End of Diplomacy?, in: Fulton, Barry (ed.), Net Diplomacy I, Beyond Foreign Ministries (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace http://www.usip.org/virtualdiplomacy/publications/ reports/14.html 2002). 147 Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malte, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 20. 148 Korshuk, in: Slavik, p. 410.

29

background of the trainee and adapt it to the cultural categorization model. To be as efficient

as possible, intercultural training should be initiated at an early stage of the diplomatic

education and be followed by knowledge, skills and practice149.

An example of suitable training programs can be found in Canada: There, the Centre of

Intercultural Learning (CIL) is the countries` largest provider of intercultural training

programs. CIL has been a part of the Canadian Foreign Service Institute of Foreign Affairs

since 1996 and offers not only workshops concerning the field of intercultural

communication, but also courses concerning pre-departure to new missions and re-entry from

previous postings150.

Moreover, the private DiploFoundation based in Malta with offices in Geneva and Belgrade

presents to its participants academic results of latest research offering an adequate knowledge

pool for prospective diplomats and other interested parties151.

Since there are more participants in diplomacy than employees of Foreign Offices, it is

therefore not sufficient to offer intercultural training only within the classical diplomatic

education, but also to TNC, NGOs, media and among experts and members of the parliament.

Especially among MNOs competent international training fulfils another factor which should

not be underestimated: Failed sojourns due to insufficient cultural preparation are not only

expensive, but also unnecessary. To prevent expatriate failure combined with the costs of

unrealized business, intercultural training is indispensable152.

In the future, the need for competent intercultural preparation will increase proportionally

with the amount of participants involved in diplomatic interactions. Though international

training can only lay the foundation for successful diplomatic interactions, it is the basis on

which diplomats can develop their intercultural skills by means of their own experiences.

Cultural sensitivity thus is the highway which leads to diplomatic success, it can make or

brake any international career.

VII. Conclusions:

149 Hofstede/Hofstede, p. 359. 150 Further information: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/cfsi-icse/cil-cai/home-en.asp151 Kealey, Daniel/MacDonald, Doug/Vulpe, Thomas, Intercultural Competence and its Relevance for International Diplomacy, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malte, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), p. 440. 152 Wiseman, Richard L./Shuter, Robert, Communication in Multinational Organizations (Thousand Oaks: Sage 1994), p. 154.

30

In view of diplomatic cultural relativism and in the quest for intercultural accords, only when

each of the disparate cultural systems in our world is fully recognized in its intrinsic substance

will it be possible to understand the various patterns of globalized relations.

Thus, cross-cultural preparation for diplomatic negotiations is even more important than

thorough consideration for its context. To make such a preparation work in practice and

demonstrate how diplomatic interactions can lead to a successful result, it is useful to proceed

along the following guidelines153 which this author has experienced in more than 30 years of

diplomatic practice:

- a) Building confidence is the first step to diplomatic success.

Confidence, respect and empathy are what make honest interactions possible. As one

usually feels uncomfortable in interactions lacking confidence, only those built on

confidence can end with a positive and sustainable result.

- b) Cultural awareness is the starting point for intercultural competence.

Culture is like a lens through which one looks at the world and its cultures. Only the

awareness of the existence of this lens opens the mind for different cultures. This cultural

awareness instead of the displacement of one culture over another is what enables one to

deal with cultural differences. Therefore it is the starting point for the development of

personal intercultural competence by means of training, experience and practice.

- c) Every culture as an expression of identity demands equal respect and

tolerance.

Being aware of intercultural differences means to consider each culture equal to others

and especially to the own cultural background. Culture is an expression of identity and

must be treated respectfully and sensitively. As far as cultural particularities are

concerned, there is no right or wrong, something like the “correct” culture does not exist.

- d) Be prepared to meet the demands different cultures make.

Diplomatic success depends on cultural awareness and the right feeling for cultural

particularities. As stated above, a profound cultural preparation is even more important

153 Fisher, Glen, Mindsets, The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations (Intercultural Press: Yarmouth 1988), p. 75; Cohen, Raymond, Negotiating Across Cultures, pp. 225-226; Sunshine, Russell B., Negotiating for International Development, A Practitioner’s Handbook (Dordrecht: Nartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1990), p. 77, Lewis, Richard D., When Cultures Collide (Boston, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing 2006), p. 174.

31

than a preparation in respect of contents. The easiest way to achieve this is to study the

countries` particularities such as climate, history, geography, economy, social structures

and international connections and relate them to cultural consequences. Additionally,

intercultural training can be seen as the best preparation.

- e) Be aware of the fundamentals of a culture.

Apart from cultural differences described in Hofstede´s and Hall’s theories, there are

deeply rooted cultural fundamentals such as religion, philosophy and ideology which form

cultural identity and which must be taken into account. In this context it is important to

face the possibility that there might be issues that can evoke strong emotional reactions

and therefore be a threat to diplomatic success. The more emotional a cultural identity is,

the more rigid it becomes. As such fundamentals and emotions are usually deeply rooted it

cannot be expected that they easily change.

- f) Take into account the images of the other side.

Understanding the images of each other is indispensable to understand other parties`

negotiation behaviour. Question like “How do the others see themselves”, “How do they

see us” and “How do the others think we see them” should be asked. National self-images

can explain reactions to issues or events. To fully understand them, it is helpful to look for

their sources. In this context, national pride is important as it mirror images its position in

history or popular beliefs about ones role in the world.

- g) Lack of tolerance is a destructive recipe for effective diplomacy.

Especially in the context of images, lack of tolerance and of sensibility or even any

demonisation are destructive recipes for effective diplomacy. They are signs of a lack of

cultural respect and contrary to the principles of diplomacy. Cultural variations are

nothing inherently good or bad; they simply exist and have to be recognized as such.

- h) Nonverbal communication is at least as important as the verbal one.

Having examined the cultural differences concerning negotiation behaviour it should be

obvious that also nonverbal communication plays an important role in diplomatic

interactions and therefore requires subtle attention. In this context it is important to be

aware of the fact that ones nonverbal communication will always be interpreted in the

light of the others` cultural background.

32

- i) Your needs and interests are not necessarily those of other’s.

Before entering a diplomatic interaction one should be aware of the fact that all

participants might have different needs and interests. Especially hidden ones and

unanticipated priorities can influence diplomatic interactions more than the official ones.

In every negotiation some participants might have a hidden agenda, intentionally or

unintentionally. Sometimes the subconscious influences a negotiation more than the actual

subject being discussed. Understanding of gaps between points of view requires not only a

profound knowledge about factual issues, but also about different cultural programs and

currents.

- j) Take others seriously in their claims.

As a sign of respect, it is important to take others serious in their claims. Diplomatic

interactions require respect to lead to a result which is satisfactory to and lasting for all

participants. Moreover, the underestimation of other participants can lead to unexpected

and negative surprises during the interaction which can be a threat to a satisfying and

sustainable result.

- ..k) Stay flexible.

Once involved in intercultural interactions, one should be aware of the fact that even the

best preparation might not be sufficient in practice. As it is not possible to be prepared for

all eventualities, one must be flexible enough to react with the required degree of

alertness, respect and professionalism to limit any damages caused. Nevertheless,

flexibility may not be the appropriate instrument to deal with intransigent negotiating

parties.

- l) Step out of your own culture to broaden your mind.

The best way to evoke cultural awareness is to experience cultural differences in practice

and to acknowledge cultural pluralism. Even intercultural training, as good as it might be,

cannot fully replace personal experiences. Cultural variations should not be seen as a

threat to ones own cultural background, but as the possibility to broaden ones mind.

A. Bibliography:

Bátora, Jozef Does the European Union transform the institution of Diplomacy?, Clingendael Discussion Papers in Diplomacy No.

33

87 (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael”, 2003)

Bayne,Nicholas/Woolcock, Stephen:

The New Economic Diplomacy (Hampshire: Ashgate 2003).

Beyers, Jan: Multiple embeddedness and socialization in Europe: The case of Council officials, in: International Organization, Vol. 59, No. 4, 2005, pp. 899-936.

Bolewski, Wilfried: Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized Relations (Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer 2007).

Carstarphen, Nike: Making the “Other” Human: The Role of Personal Stories to Bridge Deep Differences, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malta, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), pp. 177-196.

Cohen, Raymond: Negotiating Across Cultures, International Communication in an Interdependent World (Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace 2004).

Cohen, Raymond: Putting Diplomatic Studies on the Map, in: Diplomatic Studies Program Newsletter, Leicester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy 1998.

Cohen, Samy: Les Diplomates, Négocier dans un monde chaotique (les Èditions Autrement: Paris 2002).

Coolsaet, Rik : The Transformation of Diplomacy at the Threshold of the New Millennium, Diplomatic Studies Program No. 48 (Levester: Centre for the Study of Diplomacy 1998).

Cooper,Andrew F./Hocking, Brian:

Governments, Non-governmental Organisations and the Re-calibration of Diplomacy, in: Global Society, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2000, p. 366.

Devin, Guillaume: La diplomatie d`État vue par les ONG, in: Cohen, Samy, Les Diplomates, Négocier dans un monde chaotique (les Éditions Autrement: Paris 2002), p. 100.

Falk, Richard A.: Culture, Modernism, Postmodernism: a Challenge to International Relations, in: Chay, Jongsuk (Ed.), Culture and International Relations (New York, Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger 1990), pp. 267 ff.

Fisher, Glen: Mindsets, The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations (Intercultural Press: Yarmouth 1988).

Fulton, Barry (ed.): Net Diplomacy I, Beyond Foreign Ministries (Washington, DC:

34

United States Institute of Peace, 2002, http://www.usip.org/ virtualdiplomacy/publications/ reports/14.html).

Gudykunst, William B.: Cultural Variability in Ethno linguistic Identity, in: Ting-Toomey, Stella/Korzenny, Felipe, Language, Communication and Culture, (Newbury Park: Sage 1989), pp. 222-243.

Hall, Edward T.: Beyond Culture (New York: Anchor Books, 1976).

Haslett, Beth: Communication and Language Acquisition Within a Cultural Context, in: Ting-Toomey, Stella/Korzenny, Felipe (Ed.), Language, Communication, and Culture, Current Directions (Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage 1989), pp. 19-34.

Heuser, Annette: Diplomats for Europe - Key elements for a European External Action Service (Centrum für angewandte Politikforschung, 2005, http://www.cap.lmu.de/download/spotlight/Reformspotlight_02-05_en.pdf).

Hocking, Brian: The End(s) of Diplomacy, in: International Journal 1997, p. 169.

Höffe, Otfried: Globalisierung? Ja bitte!, Warum universale Werte nicht nur westliche Werte sind, in: Die Literarische Welt – Eine Beilage der Welt, Saturday, 21st of July 2007, p. 1.

Hofstede, Geert: Diplomats as Cultural Bridge-Builders, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malta, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), pp. 25-38.

Hofstede, Geert/Hofstede, Gert Jan:

Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind (New York: McGraw-Hill 2005).

Jong-hwan, Song: North Korean Negotiating Behaviour: A cultural approach, in: East Asian Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2003, pp. 87 – 104.

Juncos, Ana E./Pomorska, Karolina:

Playing the Brussels game: Strategic socialisation in the CFSP Council Working Groups (European Integration online Papers, Vol. 10, No. 11, 2006, eiop.or.at/eiop/index.php/eiop/ article/ viewPDFInterstitial/2006_011a/33 -).

Kappeler, Dietrich: The Birth and Evolution of a Diplomatic Culture, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malta, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), pp. 353-360.

Kealey,Daniel J./MacDonald,Doug/Vulpe,Thomas:

Intercultural Competence and its Relevance for International Diplomacy, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malta, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), pp. 431-444.

35

Kegley Jr., Charles W. /Wittkopf, Eugene R.:

World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 9th ed., (Thomson Wadsworth, California 2004).

Korshuk, Alena: On Intercultural Training of Diplomats, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malta, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), pp. 405-416.

Kremenyuk, Victor A. /Lang, Winfried:

The Political, Diplomatic, and Legal Background, in: G. Sjöstadt (Ed.), International Environmental Negotiation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage 1993).

Lang, Winfried: A Professional´s View, in: Faure/Rubin (Ed.), Culture and Negotiation (London: Sage 1983), pp. 38 et. seq.

Lang, Winfried: Negotiation as Diplomatic Rule-Making, in: International Negotiations, No. 1, 1996, pp. 65 et seq.

Lang, Winfried: Multilaterale Entscheidungsprozesse, in: Köck, Heribert Franz (Ed.), Völkerrecht in Zeitverantwortung, Ausgewählte Schriften zu Diplomatie, Umweltschutz, internationalen Organisationen und Integration (Wien: Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag 2006).

Lang, Winfried: Multilateral Negotiations: The Role of Presiding Officers, in: Köck, Heribert Franz (Ed.), Völkerrecht in Zeitverantwortung, Ausgewählte Schriften zu Diplomatie, Umweltschutz, internationalen Organisationen und Integration (Wien: Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag 2006).

Lewis, Richard D.: When Cultures Collide (Boston, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing 2006).

Lieb, Julia/Maurer, Andreas:

Making EU Foreign Policy more effective, consistent and democratic: The options and variables for the European External Action Service (Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, 2007 http://www.swp-berlin.org/en/common/get_ document.php?asset_id=4203&PHPSESSID=2078dfb5988e654848da6a22f7828063);

Metz, Andreas: Europäische Union nach dem Vertrag über eine Verfassung für Europa. Eine Untersuchung aus kompetenzrechtlicher Sicht – mit Erläuterungen zu den Außenkompetenzen nach dem Vertrag von Nizza (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 2007).

Mingst, Karen A./ Warkentin, Craig P.:

What Difference Does Culture Make in Multilateral Negotiations?, in: Global Governance 2, 1996, pp. 169 – 188.

Mühlen, Alexander: Internationales Verhandeln. Konfrontation, Wettbewerb,

36

Zusammenarbeit mit zahlreichen interkulturellen Fakten und Fallbeispielen (Münster: LIT 2005).

Neyer, Anne-Katrin: Multinational Teams in the European Commission and the European Parliament (Frankfurt am Main: Lang 2005).

Nydell, Margaret Kleffner:

Understanding Arabs. A Guide for Westerners (Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press 2002).

Rana, Kishan S.: Asian Diplomacy, The Foreign Ministries of China, India, Japan, Singapore & Thailand (Malta and Geneva: DiploFoundation 2007).

Rana, Kishan S.: Diplomatic Culture and its Domestic Context, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malta, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), pp. 381-390.

Sawyer, Jack/Guetzkow, Harold:

Bargaining and Negotiations in international Relations, in: Kelman, Herbert C. (Ed.), International Behaviour, A Social-Psychological Analysis (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1965), pp. 466 – 520.

Sharp, Paul: Talking to Americans: Problems of Language and Diplomacy, in: Kurbalija, Jovan/Slavik, Hannah: Language and Diplomacy (Malta: DiploProjects 2001), pp. 93-106.

Sharp, Paul: The Idea of Diplomatic Culture and its Sources, in: Slavik, Hannah, Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malta, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), pp. 361-380.

Slavik, Hannah: Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy (Malta, Geneva: DiploFoundation 2004), pp. 13-21.

Sunshine, Russell B.: Negotiating for International Development, A Practitioner’s Handbook (Dordrecht: Nartinus Nijhoff Publishers 1990).

Svedberg, Erika: Feminist Theory and International Negotiations, in: International Studies Perspectives 3 (2002), pp. 153-1753

Weisglas, Frans W./de Boer, Gonnie:

Parliamentary Diplomacy, in: The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 2 (2007), pp. 93-99.

Wenzhong, Hu/Grove, Cornelius L.:

Encountering the Chinese. A Guide for Americans (Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press 1991).

Wiseman, Geoffrey: Pax Americana: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture, in: International Studies Perspectives 6, 2005, pp. 409-430.

Wiseman, Richard L./Shuter, Robert:

Communication in Multinational Organizations (Thousand Oaks: Sage 1994).

37

B. Additional Reading:Asselin, Gilles/ Mastron, Ruth:

Au Contraire! Figuring out the French (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 2001).

Berton, Peter/Kimura, Hiroshi/Zartmann, I. William (ed.)

International Negotiation: Actors, Structure/Process, Values (New York: St.Martin’s Press 1999)

Binnendijk, Hans: National Negotiating Styles (Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Foreign Affairs/U.S. Department of State 1987).

Blaker, Michael: Japanese International Negotiating Style (New York: Columbia 1977).

Condon, John C.: Communicating with the Mexicans (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 1985).

Crouch, Ned: Mexicans & Americans: Cracking the Culture Code (London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing: 2004).

Goldman, Alan: Doing Business With the Japanese (New York: New York State University 1994).

Hall, Edward T./Reed Hall, Mildred:

Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French, and Americans (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press 1983).

Hall, Edward T./Reed Hall, Mildred,

Hidden Differences: Studies in International Communication: How to Communicate with the Germans (Hamburg: Stern Magazine/Gruner & Jahr 1987)

Hall, Edward T./Reed Hall, Mildred

Hidden Differences. Doing Business with the Japanese (New York 1990)

Hocking, Brian/Spence, David (eds.):

Foreign Ministries in the European Union: Integrating Diplomats (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian 2002).

Khuri, Fuad I.: Etiquette of Bargaining in the Middle East, in: American Anthropologist, Vol. 70, No. 4, 1968, pp. 698-706.

Lewis, Richard D.: Finland. Cultural Lone Wolf (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 2005).

Liu, Xiaohong: Chinese Ambassadors: The Rise of Diplomatic Professionalism Since 1949 (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press 2001).

Mehta, Jagat S.: Negotiating for India: Resolving Problems Through Diplomacy (New Delhi: Manohar 2006).

Nakamura, Hajime: Ways of thinking of Eastern Peoples: India, China, Tibet, Japan (London, Kegan Paul 1964; revised English edition 1997).

Rana, Kishan S.: Inside Diplomacy (New Delhi: Manas 2002).

Rao, S. N.: History of Organization, Procedure and Personnel of the Indian Foreign Service (Mumbai: Strand 2002).

38

Richmond, Yale: From Nyet to Da: Understanding the Russians (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 1992).

Richmond, Yale: From Da to Yes : Understanding the East Europeans (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 1995).

Richmond, Yale/Gestrin, Phyllis:

Into Africa: Intercultural Insights (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 1998).

Robinowitz, Christina Johansson/Carr, Lisa Werner:

Modern-Day Vikings : A Practical Guide to Interacting with the Swedes (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 2001).

Robinson, Thomas W./ Shambaugh, David:

China’s Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Claredon 1994).

Shechter, Jerrold L.: Russian Negotiating Behavior: Continuity and Transition (Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press 1998).

Scully, Roger: Becoming Europeans? Attitudes, Behaviour, and Socialization in the European Parliament (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005).

Snyder, Scott Negotiating on the Edge: North Korean Negotiating Behavior (Washingtion, D.C.: United States Institute for Peace Press 1999)

Solomon, Richard H.: China’s Negotiating Behavior: Pursuing Interests through “Old Friends” (Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace 1999).

Stein, Kenneth W./Lewis, Samuel W.:

Making Peace among Arabs and Israelis : Lessons from Fifty Years of Negotiating Experience (Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace 1991).

Stephenson, Skye: Understanding Spanish-Speaking South Americans: Bridging Hemispheres (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 2003).

Stewart, Edward C./ Bennett, Milton J.:

American Cultural Patterns : A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Yarmouth: Intercultural Press 1991).

39