HOW DIPLOMACY WORKS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS

An everyday person’s experience of diplomacy is likely limited to what they see in news media: press conferences, official state visits, trade deal signing ceremonies and the like. This polished, sanitised version of international relations might work well for the cameras, but it’s very much the tip of the iceberg when looking at the diplomatic process as a whole.

In truth, the overwhelming majority of diplomatic activity takes place behind closed doors, far from view of journalists and the general public. This is where the complex, gritty and sometimes tense interactions take place between world leaders, their delegations and all other stakeholders, and where virtually all major breakthroughs are actually achieved.

In this article, we will explore what these processes look like, and how they play an integral role in any diplomatic strategy.

Track one vs track two diplomacy

As anyone would expect, a large proportion of diplomatic processes are led and executed by world leaders, government representatives and other officials with direct ties to national administrations. This is known as track one diplomacy, and typically focuses on resolving specific conflicts and managing wider international relations.

This is, however, only one part of the broader diplomatic equation. Away from official interactions between national governments, track two diplomacy takes place between non-state actors such as academics and the institutions they represent, influential civil leaders and NGOs.

Interactions are less formal in nature, and generally consist of workshops or open conversations, where the human reasons for conflicts can be discussed, and new relationships built in a more relaxed environment. An example of track two diplomacy is the Oslo Accords of 1993, which were agreed following informal meetings between Israeli and Palestinian academics and activists.

While track one and track two diplomacy operate in different arenas and use different methods, both ultimately have the same goals in mind: encourage open dialogue, resolve conflicts, and pave the way for lasting peace and goodwill.

Backchannel communications

Long before official talks or finely choreographed press conferences can happen, diplomats and other interested parties will use private, unofficial lines of communication to test the waters, defuse any tensions and get the wheels moving on negotiations. These backchannels can include personal envoys or trusted intermediaries, neutral third countries recognised for their skills in diplomacy (such as Switzerland), or other private, non-state intermediaries such as academic institutions, religious leaders or NGOs via track two diplomacy.

These communications are vital to any diplomatic process, as they enable negotiations to take place informally, reducing political risk and avoiding media scrutiny. They require savvy, tactful operators who can see the bigger picture and understand the hidden groundwork required to achieve long-term results.

A major example of successful backchannel communications occurred during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, where secret conversations between President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Union leader Nikita Khrushchev helped de-escalate the situation and avoid a potential nuclear conflict.

Away from official interactions between national governments, track two diplomacy takes place between non-state actors such as academics and the institutions they represent, influential civil leaders and NGOs

The power of personal relationships

The success of behind-the-scenes diplomacy also depends heavily on personal relationships between world leaders, envoys and non-state actors. These connections are often built over long periods of time, through private meetings, dinners and informal phone calls where important matters are discussed in a lower-pressure environment.

These relationships are so important because they help set the tone for more formal discussions in the future, by breaking the ice, softening tensions and ensuring all parties can come to the table with a level of decorum and respect established.

While two countries might officially be adversaries in the public eye, personal relationships between leaders are often more amicable and constructive, and can have a hugely positive impact on relations in the long term. The personal trust built up between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, for example, was an important catalyst in helping bring an end to the Cold War.

Incremental bargaining: reaching a compromise

Once formal talks have begun between two parties, a new phase of behind-closed-doors negotiations starts to take place. Before two world leaders can announce the signing of a treaty, trade deal or normalisation of relations to the public, plenty of wrangling is carried out in side rooms between both delegations’ leaders, advisors, legal representatives and other experts.

Incremental bargaining is a key part of this process. While an external observer might think that a set of diplomatic talks are centred on a single issue, in truth these negotiations represent an opportunity to discuss multiple bones of contention, and attempt to find compromises that can feed into an overarching agreement on international collaboration or the resolution of a conflict.

One side, for example, might offer to reduce tariffs on imports or form a lucrative new trade agreement, in exchange for the other side reducing its military presence in a contested territory. Current diplomatic negotiations, such as those designed to end conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, will certainly involve a level of incremental bargaining.

Concrete commitments, with a hint of ambiguity

The ultimate goal of diplomatic negotiations is to reach clear, firm and binding agreements between nations on contentious issues. While this is usually the case in all successful talks, the final wording of any accord is also often deliberately vague, a concept referred to as constructive ambiguity. It is a good example of pragmatism being applied in diplomacy.

While it has its critics, constructive ambiguity allows both sides in an agreement to interpret the outcome in a way that suits their own audience. The 1998 Good Friday Agreement, for example, avoided defining Northern Ireland’s final status, thereby making tangible gains in the peace process and extracting significant compromises on both sides, but with both still able to claim victory.

It might sound counterintuitive on the surface, given the need for clarity in areas such as conflict resolution or trade deals, but constructive ambiguity is often crucial in forming lasting resolutions to international conflicts, trade wars or territorial disputes.

Constructive ambiguity is often crucial in forming lasting resolutions to international conflicts, trade wars or territorial disputes

Gaining a psychological edge

Behind-the-scenes diplomacy also involves both sides trying to gain an understanding of the psychology of their opponents. Part of this is proactive: diplomatic teams will investigate the personalities, challenges and cultural differences of their counterparts, and use this insight to inform how they approach talks. Knowing that a leader is facing upcoming elections or a lack of popularity or at home, for example, could give one side added leverage in discussions.

Symbolic communication can also serve a major purpose. This can boil down to specific details such as the choice of room for a particular negotiation, the artwork or flower arrangements displayed in said room, or even where or how individual figures are made to sit. Think, for example, of Queen Elizabeth II’s historic state visit to Ireland in 2011, where she wore a green outfit on arrival, and received a warm response from attendees at a banquet in Dublin Castle by speaking a few words of Irish at the beginning of a speech.

Being adept at reading body language and other forms of non-verbal communication is also vitally important. While diplomats can learn to recognise certain cues and behaviours proactively, being able to apply this knowledge reactively in the midst of a tense discussion, and improvise where appropriate, is also critical.

Those with a high level of empathy and emotional intelligence are likely to be skilled in the psychological elements of diplomacy. Desirable traits include being a good listener, being adaptable to the ebb and flow of a conversation, and having a communication style that avoids insulting or humiliating the other side in a contentious discussion.

Diplomacy: much more than meets the eye

Behind every ostentatious state visit, elaborate banquet or lavish signing ceremony, there is an intricate web of secret conversations, personal relationships and political manoeuvring, all of which combine to achieve the results that the rest of the world sees. This process doesn’t just involve politicians; the value of the neutrality offered by academic institutions, activists and others through track two diplomacy cannot be understated.

Understanding the diplomatic process, therefore, means understanding everything that goes on beneath the surface; diplomatic teams that manage to do this are the ones that will see the most success.