Scholars of International Studies and   diplomacy have identified diplomatic practices experience across from the human experience, spanning the globe and going back before recorded history. Even so, the actual term ‘diplomacy’ did not enter into usage until the last decade of the 18th century. The advent of the concept marked not only the drawing together of a number of what had been perceived as ‘political’ activities of princes and their representatives and named them collectively as the business of interaction between polities, it also happened as the culmination of a long process of critique against the very same practices [1].

 Furthermore, the emergence of ‘diplomacy’ was part of a much larger shift in political languages, replacing the understandings of absolutism with the new understandings of the enlightenment. What we today refer to as ‘diplomacy’ was, according to this understanding, born out of (Western) revolution and enlightenment.

Diplomacy, like so many areas of public policy, it is affected by the radical changes of the 21st century. Shocks within the international order, the revolution of internet-based global communication, and legitimacy problems of liberal governments seem to necessitate a fundamental re-orientation of foreign policy tools. Otto von Bismarck, first chancellor of the German empire of 1871, described diplomacy as the never-ending negotiation of reciprocal concessions between states. If that is the case, then today we face the question of the purpose of such a time-consuming art of managing international relations.

Geoffre S [2] has argued that Diplomacy on the other hand, is not an end but a means; not a purpose but a method. It seeks, by the use of reason, conciliation and the exchange of interests to prevent major conflicts arising between sovereign states. It seeks, by the agency through which foreign policy seeks to attain its purpose by agreement rather than by war. Thus when agreement becomes impossible, diplomacy which is the instrument of peace becomes inoperative; and foreign policy, the final sanction of which is war alone becomes operative”. The last sentence of the above quotation tends to destroy the nice distinction between diplomacy and foreign policy which Nicolson has made. And it is misleading in that it suggests that diplomacy ceases to function when major international war arises, especially if they lead to war.

From above definitions by scholars we can understand the   blurring of line, in fact between diplomatic activity and violence is one of the developments of note distinguishing modern diplomacy. The point can be made more generally in terms of widening the content of diplomacy. Certainly what constitutes diplomacy today goes beyond the definitions which sometimes rather narrow political strategic conception given to the term. Nor is it appropriate to view diplomacy in a restrictive or formal sense as being the preserve of foreign ministries and diplomatic service personnel. Thus diplomacy should be seen rather to be undertaken by officials from a wide range of domestic ministries or agencies with their foreign counterparts, reflecting its technical content, between officials from international organizations such as International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) and the United Nations (UN) Secretariat or involve foreign corporations and a host of government transnational and with or through- Non Governmental Organizations and private individuals.

The art of diplomacy is as old as the existence of human communities. Sending of emissaries to open negotiation was a common practice among primitive nations. In many cases their reception and treatment is regulated by international customs. The Greek city states frequently dispatched and received with accreditation emissaries who present their cases openly before the rulers or assemblies to whom they were sent. By the 15th century the principle and method of the Greek city states had developed. As the middle age proceeded, the sovereignty of individual states demanded a condition that credentials been required from an ambassador who wants to be received by a sovereign power [3].

At the beginning of the 16th century, the practice of diplomatic envoys have started spreading to other countries of Europe in the atmosphere of shifting alliances and dynastic struggles for power. The classical diplomacy was conducted by the members of the ruling class who had more in common with each other than with majority of their own people. It was conducted according to well defined rules and conventions. It was then a personal and flexible type of diplomacy. In the post-revolutionary Europe, new objectives arose. Acceptance of an established monarchical order gave way to emphasis on liberty and individual rights.

The slogan of the French revolution of 1789 which reverberated through Europe was “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”. Hence forth, diplomacy was to be conducted not in the interest of a dynasty but of the nation as a whole. After World War I, demand grew for open diplomacy that will be accessible for public scrutiny. In the wake of the new emphasis on the sovereignty of the people, the electorate claiming control of the government want to know what agreement was being made with their name [4].

For example, the United States of America refused to participate in the League of Nations in spite of the role played by President Woodrow Wilson. Nowadays the openness of agreement is guaranteed in principle by the United Nations rule that all agreements concluded by member states must be registered and their text deposited with the Secretary General. The irony is that negotiations conducted under the public eye undermine the process of negotiation. By true nature, negotiation must be confidential. This is the essence of diplomacy in the contemporary global context.

Diplomacy

There is no general definition of diplomacy which can be all embracing or consensual. Consequently, there are as many definitions of diplomacy as there are writers on the concept. However, in this paper we are concerned with basic definitions of diplomacy by relevant authorities of diplomacy. This is in order to have a good fundamental understanding and knowledge of diplomacy and diplomatic relations among nations.

Random House Dictionary defines diplomacy as:

The conduct by government officials for  negotiations and other relations between nations; the art or science of conducting such negotiations, skills in managing negotiation, handling of people so that there is little or no ill-feeling bahaviour among actors.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines diplomacy as:

The management of international relations by negotiations; the method by which these relations are adjusted and managed by Ambassadors and Envoys; the business or art of diplomatic practice.

As already stated, because of many definitions of the concept diplomacy, there is no one definition considered to be comprehensive or universal in nature about diplomatic practice.

Sir Earnest Satow asserts that:

Diplomacy is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent state, extending sometimes also to their relations with vassal states; or briefly still, the conduct of business between states by peaceful means [5].

Adams Watson on the other hand believes that:

The diplomatic dialogue is the instrument of international society: a civilized process based on awareness and respect for other people’s point of view; and a civilizing one also, because the continuous exchange of ideas, and the attempt to find mutually acceptable solutions to conflicts of interests increase that awareness and respect (Watson: 1987: 20).

Some leading diplomats and scholars of international relations have used the word “diplomacy” to mean the practice of international legal principles and norms in international relations. In the words of E.J.J Johnson (Johnson: 1964:11)

Although diplomacy might be described as a complex and delicate instrument that measures forces working at epicenters of international relations…, the subtle measures of diplomacy can be used to arrest, ameliorate or reduce, discard misunderstandings and disagreements which precipitate international crises.

From the different definitions of diplomacy by these authorities, it is therefore believed that diplomacy is concerned with the management of relations between independent states and between these states and other actors. Diplomacy is often thought of as being concerned with peaceful activity, although it may occur within war or armed conflict or be used in the orchestration of particular acts of violence.

Foreign Policy and Diplomacy

However, it is necessary to bear in mind that there is a defined distinction between foreign policy and diplomacy. The foreign policy of a state according to Childs [8] is the substance of foreign relations, whereas, diplomacy is the process by which foreign policy is carried out.

Policy is made by different persons and agencies but presumably on major matters in any state, whatever its form of government; it is made at the highest levels, though subject to many different kinds of control. Then it is the purpose of diplomacy to provide the machinery and the personnel by which foreign policy is executed. One is substance; the other is method.

One of the most astute students and practitioners of diplomacy in the twentieth century, Harold Nicolson is particularly insistent on calling attention to this distinction. However, in some cases, his efforts to be very precise in this matter seem to raise further questions. For example, in his interesting study, The Congress of Vienna (A Study in Allied Unity, 1964) Nicolson wrote:

It is useful, even when dealing with a remote historical episode, to consider where diplomacy ends and foreign policy begins. Each of them is with the adjustment of national to international interests. Foreign policy is based upon a general conception of national requirements…

The subject of diplomacy, as part of the foreign policy is to protect the security of a nation by peaceful means if possible, but by giving every assistant to the military operations if war cannot be avoided. Diplomacy does not cease to function as Nicolson suggests in time of war, although it necessarily to plays it with intelligence, perseverance and goals inclusiveness role. In war time, the work of diplomats as of foreign ministers may even expand. The diplomacy of the two world wars of this century provides convincing support for this contention. Diplomatic agents play significant role in the formulation of foreign policy, particularly through periodic reports which they send to the foreign office relating to the affairs and interests of the sending states in the countries to which they are accredited. These reports become inputs or raw materials through which foreign policy is formulated. The importance of diplomacy and diplomatic agents in the formulation of foreign policy is pointed out by Francois de Callieve thus:

While the final responsibility for all success or failure in diplomacy would seem to rest upon the king and his ministers at home, it is nonetheless true that since these ministers can only act upon information from abroad, the influence which an enlightened diplomat can exercise upon the actions and design of the home government is very large. Therefore, the responsibility for diplomatic action is in reality shared in about equal degree between the home government and its servant’s abroad.

From the above statement we can understand that, for a state to succeed in its relations with other states, a sound and harmonious combination of competent diplomacy and pragmatic foreign policy is very necessary. It could therefore be said that while foreign policy is concerned with substance and content of external relations across the national boundary, diplomacy is primarily concerned with the methodology for implementing the foreign policy objectives of nation-states.  Diplomacy is not policy but the agency for giving effect to policy. Both are complementary to each other since one cannot act without the cooperation of the other. Diplomacy has no separate existence from foreign policy, but the two together form one executive foreign policy document agenda. However, for a very country to achieved its foreign policy goal their need for it to properly formulate its strategy and foreign policy objective in compliance with best global international practice.

Historical Evolution of Diplomacy

The beginning of organized diplomacy is the relations among city-states of ancient Greece. By the 5th Century B.C. Nicholson [6] stated:

Special missions between Greek city-states had become so frequent that something approaching our own system of regular diplomatic intercourse had been achieved.

Thucydides wrote much about diplomatic procedure among the Greeks. For instance, in his account of a conference at Sparta in 432 B.C. the Spartans and their allies considered what action should be taken against Athens. The Romans did little to advance the art of diplomacy by negotiation, but they did make important contributions to international law. In the Eastern Roman Empire, which was established after Constantine had moved his capital to the city that honoured him for many centuries; diplomatic methods were employed with great effect. The Eastern emperors had marked success in playing off potential rivals against each other, and the reports of their representatives at foreign Courts gave them information which they were able to utilize to their advantage. Their representatives therefore became skilled diplomats and trained observers, thus extending the practice of diplomacy to include accurate observation and reporting as well as representation.

Until the later 18th or early 19th century, diplomacy more often meant the study and preservation of archives than the act of international negotiation. This conception was especially prevalent in the middles ages. It was in papal and other chanceries, under the direction and authority of successive “master of the rolls” that the usages of

The Origin of Modern Diplomacy

Modern diplomacy as an organized profession arose in Italy in the late middle ages, the rivalries of the Italian city-states and the methods which their rulers used to promote their interests are described in masterful fashion in Machiavelli’s The Prince. The Holy See and the Italian city-states developed systems of diplomacy at an early date. There are views that the Holy See was the first to utilize the system of permanent representation which is the characteristic feature of modern diplomacy. However, the first known permanent mission was established at Genoa in 1455 by Francesco Storza, Duke of Milian [9]. During the following century, Italian city-states established permanent embassies in London and Paris and Francis I of France devised something like a permanent diplomatic mission.

However, for over three centuries, the mission was neither adequate nor standardized. Diplomacy was still the diplomacy of the courts, its object was to promote the interests of the sovereign abroad, by various means, direct or devious, fair or foul and its standards were low and ill-defined. The ambassador then as now, was deemed to be the personal representative of his head of state in a foreign country. An affront to him was an affront to the head of state himself and hence to the nation that they symbolized.

In the absence of well-defined rules of procedure, frequent dispute sometimes so bitter as to lead to duels or even to wars arose from questions of precedence and immunity. Ambassadors who attempted to entertain in a style befitting the dignity of their sovereigns often found themselves in dire financial straits, especially if the sovereigns whose dignity they were trying to enhance by sumptuous display neglected to pay them salaries. By the 17th century, permanent missions were the rule rather than the exception and diplomacy had become established profession and a generally accepted method of international intercourse. The rise of nationalism and the nation-states system made such machinery essential, especially after the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 has crystallized and formalized the state system. Diplomats from all European countries as well as noblemen and other countries from all parts of France graced the court of Louis XIV, and gave it that pomp and splendor which dazzled his contemporaries and set a pattern for decades to come. Many other monarchs of Europe tried, but not too successful to copy the “sun king” and to establish their own courts of Versailles.

The diplomacy of the courts entered its golden age in the eighteenth century. The game came to be played according to understood rules, with a great deal of glitter on the surface and much incompetence and intrigue beneath. Diplomats represented their sovereigns and were often merely the willing tools in the great contests for empire and for European supremacy that were waged in that century. Strong rulers like Peter the Great of Russia and Frederick the Great of Prussia used diplomacy and force to achieve their ends. The same comment might be made of important ministers of state men like Pitt, the Elder and Vergennes.

By the late 18th century, the industrial, American and French revolutions had ushered in a new era of diplomacy and indeed of history. Captains and king passed from the scene in many lands, and the voice of the people began to be heard. The unassuming figure of Benjamin Franklin in the streets of Paris and London, representing a nation in the making, symbolized the coming era of more democratic diplomacy. To attempt to represent a nation rather than ruler imposed more complicated duties on the diplomat. Indeed it called for a new land of diplomat, but the remuneration remained so inadequate that the diplomatic profession was still largely confined to those who have other sources of income. Inevitably, this meant that so-called democratic diplomacy was still carried on by representatives of the aristocracy of wealth and often of rank.

As diplomacy became less formal and restricted, its rules became more standardized and more generally accepted. The congress of Vienna made particularly important contributions in this respect. To place diplomacy on a more systematic and formal basis, the congress laid down certain rules of procedure which are still commonly observed. These rules were embodied in the Regalement of March 19, 1815 and in regulations of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. The present diplomacy can be said to have started in the nineteenth century, which then demanded new methods as well as new personnel. These methods were defined in many international agreements and became an intricate and generally observed code. Under the aegis of the Holy Alliance and the Concert of Europe, buttressed by the operations of the balance of power system, the game was played according to the new rules with fair degree of success.

Contents of Modern Diplomacy

One of the most striking aspects of post-war diplomacy is the rapid growth in the volume of diplomatic activity since the end of 20th century and beginning of the present 21st century. To a large extent this has come about because of the expansion of multilateral and regional diplomacy, much of which is economic or resource related. The changes in volume can be seen in the number of treaties that are concluded among nations annually which doubled since the end of Second World War [7].

The broadening of the international agenda especially since the 1970s into issues concerning trade, technology transfer, aviation, human rights, and transnational environmental and sustainable development questions has continued with the increasing addition of novel or revived threats. Examples of the later include global sea-level rise, stratospheric ozone depletion, environmental sabotage, terrorism attacks, money laundering, refugee dumping, transnational stock exchange fraud and black market nuclear materials trade. Underlying the expanded diplomatic agenda are a range of issues concerning the relationship between domestic and foreign policy, sovereignty and adequacy of agreements and arrangements at a bilateral, regional, international or global level.

The point can be made more generally in terms of the widening content of diplomacy. At one level the changes in the substantive form of diplomacy are reflected in terms such as dollar diplomacy, oil diplomacy, resource diplomacy, atomic diplomacy and global governance diplomacy. Thus what constitute the contents of diplomacy today goes beyond the sometimes rather narrow politico-strategic conception given to the term. Nor is it appropriate to view diplomacy in a restrictive or formal sense as being the preserve of foreign ministries and diplomatic service personnel.

Players in Diplomacy

Childs, J. R. [8] has made a submission that Diplomacy is a primary political instrument nation states use in pursuit of national interests in their relations with other nations. In this paper, we will study the various types of diplomacy or combination of diplomacy that a country may use to achieve its goals in the international system. In addition, we will treat the advantages and disadvantages of employing any of the types of diplomacy to nations applying them at a particular point of time. A major feature of modern diplomacy is the enhanced role of personal diplomacy by the head of state or government. Usually, such initiatives are at the expense of the local ambassador, who might have only limited formal involvement for an example, in a special summit.

However, whilst the importance of political reporting, part of traditional diplomacy has been eroded by developments in communication, the decline of the role of Ambassadors is over-stated. The role remains important in terms of explanation of policy at crucial (moments, political assessments, involvement in economic and trade work, and participation from time to time in international conferences).

The growth of post-war multilateral diplomacy has seen periodic involvement of a wider range of ministries with some involvement in external relations, such as industry, aviation, environment, shipping, customs, health, education and sport. The task for the foreign ministry or otherwise is to co-ordinate both formulation and implementation of international agreements. This is particularly important in technical agreements which choice of presentation, drafting of instructions and follow-up post-conference activities are especially important.

Non- state actors have proliferated in number and types, ranging from traditional economic interest groups, through to resource, environmental, humanitarian, criminal and global governance interests. Some instances, Non-governmental organizations are closely linked to official administrations, while others are transnational linked. Above all the institutionalization of non-governmental organizations in the diplomatic process especially, in multilateral conferences has become an important distinguishing feature of players in modern diplomacy.

Permanent Traditional Diplomacy

Permanent traditional diplomacy is when permanent traditional structures are used in diplomatic discussions. That is, all diplomatic discussions must involve the state’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs through its minister, Ambassadors, Charge de affairs, Protocol, Information Attaches, etc. The head of government would normally allow the Foreign Affairs Minister make all the pronouncements, on behalf of the state whenever the Head of Government wants to make such pronouncements. The Minister or the Legislature must also have an input.

In case of change of government, this structure is not altered, although personnel may change such as the Ministers and Ambassadors sometimes. No matter how radical or revolutionary a regime may be it cannot afford to change the structure all a time.

Conference Diplomacy

Under conference diplomacy discussions are carried out through various conferences. This is particularly over issues that go beyond the power of individual states. Organizations such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), African Union (AU), United Nations Organization (UNO), Non-allied Movement (NAM), European Union (EU), the Commonwealth of Nations, Arab League, World Trade Organization (WTO) etc hold annual summits and extra-ordinary summits on general or specific issues concerning World Peace and Security. Consequently, before ECOWAS launched the ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), it met, discussed and approved military monitoring action on Liberia to curtail conflict and promote harmony in the war torn area. The AU annual summits normally highlight African problems with possible solutions. With one voice they call on the international community to resolve crisis on economic matters. Within the OAU as AU was then called, there was the Committee on Southern Africa Liberation and Apartheid. There is also a mediation and reconciliation committee within the present AU with peacekeeping missions. One problem with AU however, is the inability of its leaders to put weight behind agreed actions. This was the reason why it failed in its peacekeeping mission in Chad, where Nigeria was abandoned to bear the burden.

Parliamentary Conference Diplomacy

Each state constitution recognizes the importance of establishing committees on foreign affairs. It normally debates foreign affairs issues and pass them on to whole house for general debate. As it is normal, parliament must ratify treaties signed by the Head of Government. The inability of Nigeria’s Supreme Military Council to ratify the cessation of the Bakasi Peninsula to Cameroun by Gowon led to the protracted case between the two countries until the ratification of the World Court judgment by the present Senate in July, 2008.

Ad Hoc Conference Diplomacy

This is a temporary diplomatic format set up by states or organizations for specific purposes, and it terminates after the purpose might have been achieved. For example, the OAU’s Apartheid Committee which Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was one time co-chairmans, Eminent Persons Group on South Africa etc. As soon as apartheid was crushed in 1994, the ad hoc committees were disbanded.

Personal Diplomacy

This is a diplomatic style where the Head of State or the Foreign Affairs Minister side-tracks the permanent traditional structure for personal initiative. This entails diplomatic shuttles and allies, traveling from one country to another for image laundering and other matters. Although journeys are usually in the company of staff of relevant ministries, the promises by the envoy are made out of his volition. General Yakubu Gowon and Chief Olusegun Obasanjo are the best examples in Nigeria. During one of the diplomatic shuttles Gowon promised to pay the salaries of Grenada civil servants for six months.

The danger in this type of diplomacy is that the environment he visits easily influences a weaker leader. But for strong leaders it is difficult. This was why the expectations of the Nigerian Government were high that Margaret Thatcher’s visit to Nigeria may influence her thinking over apartheid in South Africa. However, Nigeria miscalculated because Britain believes in following the traditional policy-making process.

Economic Diplomacy

This is the means by which government influences and controls certain productive arms of government in concert with the private sector interest in the economies of other countries for her domestic benefit, which are economic and political. The concept dates back to 1580 when the policy of technical assistance was in vogue for the objective of promoting export markets. There is offensive economic diplomacy where a country in pursuit of its international relations, with its buoyant economy is not only ready to change the course of events and situations, but also has the capability to strike first at any instance when its national economic interest is at stake. This may entail the extension or denial of financial benefits, petroleum products, food supplies, the granting or denial or withdrawal of trade concessions, the establishment or disinvestment of foreign investment etc. Nigeria, for example, nationalized British Petroleum (BP) assets in Shell PDC on August 2, 1979 over the issue of Zimbabwe’s independence. The Arab State’s oil embargo of 1973 was to pressurize the Western World. The Monroe Doctrine, Marshal Economic Plan and Brezhnev Doctrine are other examples.

There is also the Defensive Economic Diplomacy, where a country that is exploited and objectified reacts violently at its opponents and tries to force them out rather than succumb to servitude. A country may want to be a master of it. For example, Japan, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. put up struggles to sustain their sovereignty. There is also the need to restructure the existing international economic order.

Appointment, Reception and Recall of Diplomats

Diplomats are basically a county’s representatives in another country. They are expected under all circumstances to comport themselves very well in the country of their accreditation. This is optimally expected because they are seen as the representatives of their nation and culture. Literally, they are figured as their country’s head of state or their people in entirety; because they are the ones being represented abroad and as the head of state, they cannot afford to misbehave. Some scholars have posited that ambassador or diplomats are emissaries sent from their countries to go and tell lies abroad. What this simply means is that they are expected, under all circumstances to polish the character and image of the countries of their accreditation.

Appointment of Ambassadors

In almost all modern states, the Head of State and Government makes all appointments of diplomats or ambassadors to foreign countries, depending on the constitution of such a country. The appointment is based upon the recommendation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Parliament or the General Assembly. The APPOINTMENT OF DIPLOMATIC OFFICERS IS USUALLY REGULATED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF EACH STATE.

Originally, appointments of Ambassadors are expected to be based on training, educational qualifications, experience and age emanating not only from one, but the combination of all these criteria. Such appointment would benefit immensely from the expertise savvy, and maturity of those appointed. In other words, the appointment of diplomats is expected to be a career thin’ i.e., nominate from the vista of career diplomats who are schooled in the arts of international relations. These set of appointees will be at home with the culture and manner of behavior obtainable between and among states.

In selecting career diplomats, Nigeria for instance can select from the staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the officials of the Nigerian Institutes of International Affairs (NIIA), tutors in Foreign Affairs Academy, or lecturers of political science or international relations in the nation’s tertiary institutions.

However, in most developing countries, political appointees have inundated the business of foreign office as diplomats. In other words, ambassadorial appointment have often been based on being a member or linchpin of a political party, quota system, or federal character (in federal states) such that architects, business tycoons, and contractors are appointed in preference to career diplomats who are grounded in inter-state behaviour and etiquette. These non-professional diplomats in most cases commit blunders in form of combative dispositions, name calling and other behaviour that could tarnish the image of the country abroad.

Reception of Diplomatic Officers

Joseph W. Stilwell [10] It is the universally accepted principle that any state which has full sovereignty has the absolute right as a practical political necessity to send diplomatic officers, and the obligation to equally receive such officers to help in conducting their negotiation as well as maintaining their relations with foreign countries on matters of mutual concern. States are also bound by international law to receive diplomatic officers accredited to them from other countries principally for negotiation.

In international politics, any full sovereign country which desires its voice to be heard among other countries receives and sends diplomatic envoys without which it would become practically irrelevant and will have no influence in international affairs.

As already pointed out, certain individuals appointed as envoys can be rejected by the receiving states for some reasons. International law gives no right to a state to insist upon reception of an individual appointed by it as diplomatic officer. Every modern state can refuse to receive as diplomatic officer, an individual objectionable to it. And any country that refuses to receive an individual officer cannot be compelled to specify the type of objection it has or to justify its reasons for objection. For instance, Italy refused to receive Mr. Keley as Ambassador of the United States of America in 1885 because Mr. Keley protested in 1871 against the annexation of the Papal States.

To avoid conflicts arising from the rejection of a diplomatic officer by one country, many countries of the world have adopted the practice of never appointing an individual as ambassador until it has ascertained beforehand whether the individual to be appointed would be persona-grata. Based on international law, a country which does not object to appointment of a certain individual when, its opinion was asked beforehand is definitely bound to receive such individual as diplomatic officer.

Similarly, in a situation where a particular state does not object to the reception of an individual as diplomatic officer accredited to such state, his letter of credence is received from him by the Head of State and government of that country, and then a red-carpet reception organized for him by the host country. It would be noted that, the mode of reception accorded a diplomatic officer differs accordingly, depending on the class to which the officer in question belongs.

The official recognition accorded to the diplomatic officer makes him to be officially recognized and equally enable him to officially commence the exercise of his functions. The tenure of a diplomatic officer is considered not from the time he was received but from the time when his credentials were handed over to him on leaving his home state.

Recall of Diplomats

To recall a diplomat means that the country that sent him wants him either to RETURN HOME BRIEFLY OR FOR A VERY LONG TIME; WHICH COULD BE CAUSED BY ANY OF FOLLOWING:

• A recall to briefly consult with him on a particular burning issue of commercial or political importance. For instance, the Nigerian Ambassador to the Republic of South Africa was recalled when late General Sani Abacha and (Dr) Nelson Mandela were pouring venom on each other as a reaction to the hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists hanged on November 10, 1995 as well as series of human rights violation in Nigeria under the administration.
• A recall could be on account of misdemeanor of a diplomat. For instance, if a diplomat is accused of any criminal act such as smuggling or drug peddling. Though this rarely happens, because luggage belonging to diplomats is often exempted from law enforcement agents’ checks due to the diplomatic immunity they enjoy.
• Another account on which a diplomat could be recalled is if a diplomat is religiously sanding the ground of his own country as directed from home. If this position is not comfortable to the country where he is accredited to, and he is either declared a persona non-grata, or the environment is no longer safe enough for him to properly carry on with his duties, he would be withdrawn or recalled. This was the case in Nigeria when Western countries such as United States of America, Canada, etc recalled their ambassadors, because they were constantly condemning the repressive rule of the late General Abacha.

It is important to note that the recall of a diplomat is a pointer to the beginning or actual deterioration of the relationship between or among countries. It should also be noted that globalization has facilitated the recall of envoys in contemporary times.

Characteristics of a Diplomat

The level of success of the diplomacy of any nation states depends heavily upon the nature and qualities of diplomats chosen. In other words, most of the breach of diplomatic relations is caused by the attitudes of the diplomatic envoys. For that reason, a diplomat is required to have a balanced mind, amicable disposition, ability to withstand stress, reasonable tact and skill to assess and deal with a number of issues and problems. Diplomacy as a profession demands great personal qualities, charm and intellectual incisiveness, and as such, a diplomat must have proven abilities to win the confidence of the receiving state and goodwill of its people.

Moral influence is the most essential qualification of a diplomat and he must be a man of the strictest honour if the government to which he is accredited and his own government are to place explicit confidence in his personality to continue the relations. However, some of the qualities of a diplomat, according to Harold Nicolson (1956:35) have to do with moral influence founded on seven specific diplomatic virtues.

• Truthfulness
• Precision
• Calmness
• Modesty
• Good temper
• Patience, and
• Loyalty

As a result of the complex nature of modern diplomacy and international relations, a successful diplomat should always rely on factual situations, watch things as an observer and employ high degree of precision in his dispatches to his home government vis-à-vis the receiving state. He should always attempt to win the confidence of his government as well as the affections of the people. Again, a diplomat should be a scholar, well-versed in history, political science, geography, military science, economics, international relations etc.

A diplomat in charge of a particular embassy has to realize that he should be able to inspire and coordinate the team of other officials of the embassy or mission. He has to keep watch on all the members of the mission. His responsibility include coordination of the work of various officials like military, naval, air, commercial, financial, agricultural and labour advisers attached to him. A diplomat must necessarily be ambivalent in order to be successful in his career and avoid breach of diplomatic relations.

Another attribute of a good diplomat is his readiness and ability to prepare dispatches both to his government and the state he is accredited to, in a much more precise and appropriate language. He has to express his writings in well-articulated words without being offensive in content, but very straight-forward and clear in substance. This means that, any letter he is sending either to his home, state or receiving state must be carefully scrutinized to avoid improper usage of words, consciously or unconsciously, in what he intends to convey. In summation, a diplomat must judge accurately and appropriately the likely behaviour, reaction and actions of others, and appreciate their views with a clear sense of accuracy and equally present them to his government. This is the best way to ensure mutual understanding between states for continued cordial diplomatic relation.

Moreover, a diplomat should be sociable and penetrating, more or less a cosmopolitan, because he should be able to adjust himself to the conditions in his state of accreditation even when the prevailing conditions is not conducive. In other words, he should be able to familiarize himself with the tradition, customs, language and circumstances of the state he is accredited to, and equally conduct himself in such a way as a good friend of the receiving state.

Qualities of a Good Diplomat

Apart from the recent developments especially in developing countries, where diplomats are randomly or arbitrarily appointed without serious consideration for performance and efficiency, a good diplomat is expected to possess some sterling qualities which include:

• Eloquence - That is ability to talk fluently without inhibition and the ability to carry along his audience without making them easily bored. If the diplomat is knowledgeable on a wide range of issues, the more fluent he will be able to explain same to people. So a good diplomat is expected to be fluent and eloquent so as to be appealing to his hosts. A good diplomat is also expected to be clever enough to know what to say at any point in time to provoke discussion and thus make him get the information that is needed by his government or that will be beneficial to his home government.
• Intelligence - A good diplomat is expected to be mentally alert, and sound. This way, he will be able to discern when to talk or keep quite. He will be able to decipher what he is expected to report and which to leave out to the government he is representing. He should be intelligent enough to know where to go and when to go there so as to source the much needed information.
• Multilingual - A good diplomat is expected to be proficient in more than one international language. If he is multilingual, he will readily understand other people in his country of posting so also will easily understand him. In this way, however one cannot says that diplomats that are not multilingual are not efficient, as there are interpreters in diplomatic meetings and conferences, but sometime, interpreters might not be fast enough or leave some crucial details.
• Decency- Another quality of good diplomat is decency, Diplomat are expected to be of good conduct. He should be a person that does things with moderation. His manner and approach to issues should be quintessential. He should not be given to recklessness in speech and conduct. He is expected to be ordinary person without the diplomatic garb.

Functions of Diplomatic Missions

A diplomat is at times spoken of as “the eyes and ears of his government” in other countries. His chief functions are to execute the policies of his own country, to protect its interest and its nationals, and to keep his government informed of major developments in the rest of the world

On the other hand, diplomats refer also to all the public servants employed in the diplomatic affairs whether serving at home or abroad. Strictly speaking the political head of the ministry is also a diplomat. His functions are that of a responsible state- man conducting the affairs of his country with other states.

Diplomatic Functions

There are many functions performed by a diplomat, some of these include: diplomatic representation, protection of his nationals, exchange of roles on matters of mutual interest, political and parliamentary negotiations, and most importantly, preservation and projection of the national interests of his country generally.

The functions of diplomatic missions are spelt out in the Vienna convention of 1961. Article 3 of the convention states as follows:

• Representing the sending state in the receiving state.
• Protecting in the receiving state the interest of the sending state and its national within the limits as permitted in the international law.
• Negotiating with the government of receiving state
• Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving state and reporting them to the sending state.
• Promoting friendly relations between the receiving and sending states and developing cultural, social and technological relations.e functions of a diplomatic mission can consist of the following:

It goes on to say that nothing in the present convention shall be misconstrued as preventing the performance of the consular functions by a diplomatic function. Consular functions consist of issuing passport and other traveling documents and acting as notary public. In the discharge of these functions, the head of mission will be consulted either by permanent members of diplomatic service especially trained by Ministry of Foreign Affairs or other officers belonging to ministries of government.

In an address before the American/Japan public in Tokyo, on         November 22, 1938 Joseph C. Grew, United States Ambassador to Japan observed that the work of a diplomat is a heavy responsibility. Said Grew,

He must be, first and foremost, an interpreter, and this function of interpreting acts both ways. First of all he tries to understand the country where he serves - its conditions, its mentality, its actions, and its underlying motives, and to explain these things clearly to his own government. And then contrariwise, he seeks means of making known to the government and the people of the country to which he is accredited the purposes and hopes and desires of his native land. He is an agent of mutual adjustment between the ideas and forces upon which nations act Simon &Schuster, (1944: 262).

The work of a diplomat may be broken down into four basic functions

• Representation
• Negotiation
• Reporting and
• The protection of the interests of the nation and of its citizens in foreign lands. These functions, as we shall see are closely interrelated.

Representation

A diplomat is a formal representative of his country in a foreign state. He is the normal agent of communication between his own foreign office and that of the state to which he is accredited. In the eyes of many citizens of the country in which he is stationed, he is the country he represents, and that country is judged according to the personal impression he makes.

The diplomat must cultivate a wide variety of social contacts, with the ranking officials of the foreign office and of the foreign government in general, with his fellow diplomats, with influential persons in all walks of life, and with articulate groups in the country. Social contacts can be enjoyable, stimulating and profitable; they can also be hard on the stomach as well as on the pocket book, trying to the diplomat’s patience as well as to his intelligence. Whatever else they may be, they seem to be an inescapable adjunct of the important duty of representation.

Although these contacts have tended to become less formal, they have at the same time broadened in scope. Ambassador Grew, a career diplomat of long experience, referred to them as “the x-ray language vibrating beneath the surface of the spoken and the written word” which is simply diplomatic way of saying that trained-mixer-observer-auditor can often pick up information or intelligence of great value in-or from-conversation at social function.

In the cause of representing his country a diplomat equally provide necessary information and advice to foreign policy decision-makers which have helped to shape the direction of foreign policy adopted. This is because such information is based on the spot assessment, experience and observation. It should be observed that, the extent to which such advice and information made available by ambassadors and diplomats abroad are considered and consequently acted upon is determined by attitude, values, biases and image of the policy makers as well as the prevailing domestic factors.

Negotiation

Virtually a synonym for diplomacy, negotiation is per excellence the pursuit of agreement by compromise and direct personal contact. Diplomats are by definition negotiators. As such, they have duties that, as described by Mr. Childs, include “the drafting of a wide variety of bilateral and multilateral arrangements embodied in treaties, conventions, protocols, a nd other documents of political, economic and social nature.

Their subject matter ranges from the creation of the international security organization, through territorial changes, establishment of rules to govern international civil aviation, shipping and telecommunications, and the adjustment of international commercial relationships, such particular matters as immigration, double taxation, water way rights, tourist travel, and exchange control. Almost the entire gamut of human activities is covered [8].

However, because of the developments in communications and the increasing resort to multilateral diplomacy, as well as for other reasons, diplomats do not play as great a role in international negotiations as they once did. Most agreements between states are still bilateral and are concluded through negotiation between the foreign offices by the use of ordinary diplomatic channels. But the major international agreements, especially those of multilateral character, are usually negotiated directly by foreign ministers or their special representatives often at international conferences.

Diplomats also have less latitude than they once enjoyed, they are now bound more closely to their foreign offices by detailed instructions and constant communication by cable, diplomatic pouch, and transoceanic telephone, although their stature has been somewhat reduced, they are more than glorified messenger boys at the end of a wire, and the value of the personal factor in diplomacy is still very great.

Reporting

Reports from diplomats in the field are the raw materials of foreign policy. These reports cover nearly every conceivable subject, from technical studies to appraisals of the psychology of nations.

Diplomats must, above all be good reporters, if they have the ability to estimate trends accurately, if they keep an eye out for all useful information, and if they present the essential facts in concise and intelligible form, they may be worth a king’s ransom. According to a publication of the United States Department of state on the American Foreign Service, diplomats are expected to “observe, analyse, and report on political, social and economic conditions and trends of significance in the country in which they are assigned.

Some major subjects of these reports are legislative, programs, public opinion, market conditions, trade statistics, finance, production, labour, agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, natural resources, shipping, freights, charters, legislation, tariffs and laws. Diplomats prepare thousands of reports of this sort every year.

Although a diplomat is expected to get along with the authorities of the state to which he is accredited - that is, he must be persona grata to the government of a state, he is also expected at all times to seek to further the best interests of his own country. However selfish this approach may seem to be, it is the bedrock of the practice of diplomacy.

While it is assumed that the interest of each state will be so interpreted that they will harmonize with those of the international community, it is not the function of the diplomat to make the interpretation. His duty is to look after the interest of his country as interpreted by policy-makers back home and in accordance with treaties, other international agreements, and principles of international law. He also has the more specific duty of attempting to assist and protect businessmen, seamen and all other nationals of his own country who are living or traveling in the country in which he is stationed or who happen to have interests there. He seeks to prevent or correct practices which might discriminate against his country or its citizens.

Before the development of modern diplomacy or organized diplomacy, as it is known today, with the establishment of permanent missions, many embassies were maintained and negotiations performed during the middle ages, but such missions were for a short while. The first step towards the establishment of permanent diplomatic missions was made in Italy where the cities of Florence and Papal Rome were preparing grounds as well as skillful makers of diplomatists. The history of diplomacy is as old as man himself. Between 700and100 B.C, many city states of ancient Greece were noted to have sent and received delegations for some period of time. The sending of ambassadors grew out of the practice of dispatching, particularly in time of war and conflict, heralds who were accorded certain immunities. This became necessary because, with the growth of Greek civilization, the nature of relationship and interactions among many city-states within the same neighborhood became highly complex and competitive in nature, and as such these city-states adopted the practice of choosing as their ambassadors the finest orators and advocates to plead the cause of their city before the popular assemblies of foreign leagues or cities.

By the early 20th century, the term democratic diplomacy had come into common use. It seemed to symbolize a new order in world affairs, one in which governments were fast losing their aristocratic learning and their aloofness and peoples were speaking to peoples through democratic representatives and informal channels. Actually, the new order was not as different from the old as it seemed in the atmosphere of hope that ushered in the present century.

While diplomacy has remained a rather esoteric profession, carried on by men of wealth, power and influence, it is being conducted with the assistance of a growing number of career officers, the elite guard of diplomacy, whose standard of competence and training are being steadily raised. Diplomacy is thus, being put more generally on a professional and non-political basis.

The expansion of the international community has affected style, procedures, substance and scope of diplomacy. It has brought with it divergent regimes and ideologies. Rather than diminishing, the ideological element has, if anything increased. This necessarily raises the question; can diplomacy in a broad sense cope? Apart from the East-West dimension, numerous national as well as wider ideologies have been introduced, such as economic. Issues associated with North-South relations who demand economic redistribution and transfer of technology. Although these demands were partly diverted in the 1980s into the promotion of South-South relations between developing countries, they nevertheless remained as an important feature of the diplomatic content of economic confrontation due to the expansion of multilateral diplomacy.

1. Adesola, F. International Relations: An Introductory Text. Ibadan: College Press and Publishers. 2004.
2. Geoffre S. The Structure of International Society: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Pinter Publishers.1995.                                                                    
3. Ray Ofoegbu. A Foundation Course in International Relations for African Universities. London: George Allen and Unwin.                                                                           
4. Harold N. Evolution of Diplomatic Method. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1956.
5. Satow Ernest Guide to Diplomatic Practice .London: Macmillan Publishers.1922.
6. Nicholson H. Diplomacy. New York: Oxford University Press.1952.
7. Harold N. Diplomacy. London: Oxford University Press. 1939
8. Childs JR. American Foreign Service.1948.
9. Nicolson H. The Congress of Vienna: A Study in Allied Unity: New York: Harcourt, Brace.1946; 1812-1822.
10. Joseph W. Stilwell. The Stilwell Paper Arranged and Edited by Theodore H. White. New York: William Associates.1945.
11. Keith Hamilton and Richant Langhorne. The Practice of Diplomacy. London: Routledge.1995.
12. Palmer and Perkins. International Relations.India: .I.T.B.S. Publisher. 2007.
13. Wrights, Quincy. The Study of International Relations. VK, UK Printers.1955.