DİPLOMASİ

Sumerians were the earliest practitioners of diplomacy (3000-2370 BCE). The diplomatic tradition emerged from this site mainly because the Sumerians were the civilization which invented writing sometime in the 4th millennium BCE. In the meantime, Sumeria was the site of the first urban communities consisted of complex social, economic and political structures each of which was ruled by an independent King.

The first known diplomatic letter was a message sent by the King of Ebla (in northern Syria) to the kingdom of Hamazi (north of Iran today), which shows a similar style of language and contend of modern diplomacy. This letter provides a clear evidence of the existence of a well performing mechanism, in which both sides knew the rules. The letter was not written by the king himself, but through the voice of an official, and was not directed to the Hamazi King but to his envoy.  Since the Ebla region had priority in trade, diplomacy was mainly a part of their trade relations, the reflection of which could also be seen in the Ebla letter.

One of the earliest and most informative resources regarding our knowledge on Near East diplomacy is the Mari cuneiform archives, which consist of more than 20 thousand letters, legal documents, diplomatic correspondences, and treaties written on clay tablets.

Diplomacy as a means of foreign relations was intensified particularly under the rule of Babylon’s sixth and most known King Hammurabi.

After the conquest of Sumer by the Akkadian, the Akkadian language supplanted Sumerian as the language of diplomacy in conformity with the political situation. 

The concept of brotherhood included in this letter served as the central argument on which all superseding diplomatic relationship would be centered. The expression of brotherhood is at the same time a sign that indicate the equal relationship between the kings.

The system was mainly based on that of the Sumerians in the south, Babylonian and Akadian in the center and Assyrians in the north.

We find the Amarna letters which contain information about:

• Strategic-military cooperation,

• Treaty negotiations,

• Dynastic marriages,

• Trade regulations

• Strengthening friendly relations

• Negotiating alliances

Hittite diplomacy is best known for the first peace treaty signed in 1270 BCE between Egyptian King Ramses II and Hittite King Hattusili III after the battle of Kadesh in Syria. The Kadesh treaty was signed to end the long war between the Hittites and the Egyptians, which lasted for nearly two centuries for the domination over Syrian region.

Early records indicate that Sun-Tzu lived in the Warring state era and his very famous work The Art of War was influenced by the increasing violence of this era. In contrast to its name, the book does not really focus on war time strategies, but on strategies that would prevent the outbreak of war. The core of the strategy for Sun Tzu is not to defeat the enemy in battle, but to repress him without fighting. Sun Tzu therefore focuses on the pre-war period as the realm for strategy and hence pays particular attention to diplomacy at this stage. Sun-Tzu makes a number of suggestions for the use of diplomacy mostly before the war, but even usable during and after the war, all of which seem to be very important to be a good diplomacy player in international relations. He first advices to attack the enemy’s strategy before attacking the enemy itself. He then mentions indirect methods for manipulating the enemy’s actions in order to keep away the danger of being attacked. Another strategy Sun-Tzu suggests is to be flexible in strategy in regard to changing circumstances.  Finally, his famous saying of “all war is based on deception” is another piece where his thoughts could be related to the logic of diplomacy.

The main source for ancient Greek diplomacy has been the writings of Thucydides. It is widely accepted that the first account of diplomacy at this period was a diplomatic conference held in 432 BCE. As Nicolson quoted from Thucydides, this conference was convened by Sparta to decide with its allies on punishing Athens with war due to its violation of treaties. While this conference was convened by Sparta for its allies of the Peloponnesian League against Athens, it is known that an Athenian delegation was also allowed to participate at and even to be involved in debates. In fact, the Athenian delegation was there for another specific mission but still was allowed to attend; and this is a sign that by 5th century BCE Greeks were aware of some diplomatic right and some kind of immunity.

In the Ancient Greek diplomacy,  they preferred oral messages to written notes; therefore, there is not a large archive of diplomatic correspondence of ancient Greece.

There were three kinds of representatives:

• angelos: a messenger used for brief and specific missions

• keryx: a herald

• proxenos: a resident consul but the proxenos were citizens of the city in which they resided, not of the city-state that employed them. If a resident representative was needed in another state, then a resident was given the title of proxenos by the state which he represented. In other words, the proxenos looked after the interests of a foreign state while residing in the state of which he was a citizen.

Envoys were selected from among the prominent members of the state by the city assembly and they were not necessarily qualified persons. They were rather chosen for their political stance and for their association with the state which they were negotiating with. Representatives were first expected to show their oratorical abilities. The number of members in a mission ranged from three to ten men, and they were given brief instructions such as; ratifying treaties by oral oath, inquiring about terms for peace, and solving a dispute in the interest of the community.

Considering its longevity and organization, the Roman Empire contributed little to the development of diplomacy. This may be explained by their will to impose their policies on others instead of negotiating. 

It is widely accepted that the contribution of Romans to diplomacy is much more related to the international law and is represented in the theory, not the practice, of diplomacy.

In the early years of the Roman Republic, procedures similar to those developed in Greece were used. People were expressing their will through popular assemblies, and therefore were arbiters of diplomatic issues such as war, peace and treaties. Envoys from foreign powers never came before the assemblies of the people. However, as Rome came to power, the Senate took over the authority and gained a disproportionate influence, along with the right of choosing and instructing envoys and of receiving incoming embassies. After the empire was established, diplomacy turned to be part of regular government policy which was in the hands of the emperor, despite the Senate remained.

Divide and Rule –Divide et Imperia

It was an important strategy for the Roman imperial system. Romans divided the newly conquered peoples into their component units such as tribes; or city-states made separate alliances and treaties with each to control and make them contribute to the defense of the empire in common. The Byzantine Empire adopted this method in its external affairs with divide its enemies and embroil them to each other.

Sumerians were the earliest practitioners of diplomacy (3000-2370 BCE). The diplomatic tradition emerged from this site mainly because the Sumerians were the civilization which invented writing sometime in the 4th millennium BCE. In the meantime, Sumeria was the site of the first urban communities consisted of complex social, economic and political structures each of which was ruled by an independent King.

Diplomacy was used by Sumerians with a motivation to end conflicts through the conventional method of sending messengers with the messages written on clay tablets in cuneiform. Sumerian was used as the lingua franca of diplomacy until the Akkadian hegemony was established in the region.

The structure of the inter-state system of this Late Bronze Age period can be defined as a system of a “Great Powers’ Club” along with some vassal states dependent on Great Kingdoms. The Great Power Club was composed of five major kingdoms: the kingdom of Hatti, the kingdom of Mittanni, the kingdom of Assyria, the kingdom of Kassite of Babylon and the kingdom of Egypt.

Ancient China can be categorized under two different periods regarding the political structure of the time. The first is the Warring States Era between 656-221 BCE, characterized by the emergence of sovereign states. It was a period of a balance of a power system, so international relations was based on great power rivalry and ephemeral alliances (Hamilton, 1995:12). The Great Powers had leagues, missions and an organized system of correspondence between their many warring states. It is not surprising that Sun-Tzu, one of the best known military strategists, and his thoughts were influential at this period. Early records indicate that Sun-Tzu lived in the Warring state era and his very famous work The Art of War was influenced by the increasing violence of this era. In contrast to its name, the book does not really focus on war time strategies, but on strategies that would prevent the outbreak of war. The core of the strategy for Sun Tzu is not to defeat the enemy in battle, but to repress him without fighting. Sun Tzu therefore focuses on the pre-war period as the realm for strategy and hence pays particular attention to diplomacy at this stage. Sun-Tzu makes a number of suggestions for the use of diplomacy mostly before the war, but even usable during and after the war, all of which seem to be very important to be a good diplomacy player in international relations. He first advices to attack the enemy’s strategy before attacking the enemy itself. He then mentions indirect methods for manipulating the enemy’s actions in order to keep away the danger of being attacked. Another strategy Sun-Tzu suggests is to be flexible in strategy in regard to changing circumstances (Szykman, 1995).

According to Kautilya, war is what defines inter-state relations. Kautilya defined six forms of foreign policy (from Arthshastra 7.1.13 – 18).

Diplomacy remained, for the most part, rudimentary in ancient Greece, but there is no doubt that a pattern had emerged. The structure of the inter-state system caused another diplomatic formation as a means of foreign policy, forming alliances. In this line, considerable attention was given to the winning of allies and making of treaties during the 5th and especially 4th centuries. The duration of the alliances were mainly specified, particularly in the 5th century since alliances were founded on the basis of allying for war. In other words, city-states, aware of their weaknesses in face of each other, formed alliances in case of a threat of war. In the 4th century, alliance treaties began to be specified in duration as for ever, and the reason for this may be the new understanding of inter-state relations that alliances shall be based on peace rather than war (Mosley, 2001: 321-322).

Another peculiarity of the ancient Greek diplomacy was that they preferred oral messages to written notes; therefore, there is not a large archive of diplomatic correspondence of ancient Greece. There were three kinds of representatives:

Considering its longevity and organization, the Roman Empire contributed little to the development of diplomacy. This may be explained by their will to impose their policies on others instead of negotiating. As Nicolson mentioned “…[Romans] they sought to impose their will, rather than to negotiate on a basis of reciprocity” (Nicolson, 2001:14). This, of course, does not mean that diplomacy was unimportant for the Romans. Rather, it had an important place in governing their relations with rival states in Italy and in managing their relations with foreign peoples after establishing their empire. However, as it is widely accepted that the contribution of Romans to diplomacy is much more related to the international law and is represented in the theory, not the practice, of diplomacy.

Since the rulers of the empire were aware of their military weakness, the Byzantines first adapted the practices of former civilizations and developed their own way of diplomacy with their political and cultural contributions. For example, they adapted the practices of protocol and dynastic marriages from the Near Eastern civilization, oration as a tool for public speaking from Greece, and the divide and rule tactics from the Roman Empire. In this manner the diplomatic methods they exercised were ranging from the, formation of alliances to dynastic marriages, from exploiting the enemy’s weaknesses, to deception and the use of religion. The Byzantines employed a number of tactics, both overt and covert to achieve their aims through diplomacy rather than military force.

It is therefore common to label Byzantine diplomacy as “war by other means” (Antonucci, 1993: 11). They were unique in their method of involvement in internal affairs of other countries For this aim, the empire initiated a new institution for diplomatic practice, the Bureau of Barbarians, responsible for the imperial post, the supervision of diplomatic officers, and the reception of foreign envoys; and he eventually became the emperor’s chief adviser on foreign affairs. The logothete was also responsible for the internal security of the empire until the 11th century. The Bureau sent envoys on diplomatic missions to barbarian lands in order to gather information from every possible source. This was the main function of it. After the envoy’s return to Byzantium, which took mostly years, the information they had reported were recorded and constituted the essential basis of their knowledge on the weaknesses or strengths of their enemies and/or allies.

Diplomacy in the Islamic world began with the establishment of the first Islamic state in 622; and it was not founded through military means but by a social contract, the Medina Charter. (Khan, 2006). The Charter was an agreement settling the inter-tribal conflict between Muslims, Jews and pagans; and it constituted a free state of a pluralistic community. It is a constitution which provided for dispute resolution, a tax system, rights and responsibilities to both Muslims and non-Muslims.