The legitimacy of diplomatic secrecy
The legitimacy of diplomatic secrecy
We always assume that we see and hear everything, yet we don’t. The art of diplomacy is a powerful weapon that is fragile; sometimes secrecy is needed in order to ensure peace. We can think of many examples of secret diplomacy. The Second World War and the Cold War are probably two historical events in the twentieth century that stand out and drew attention to this matter. How is this legitimate? Is it needed? In the following article, I will examine these questions through a careful analysis on the basis of relevant documents.
It is always easier to start with a definition, so let’s define “secret diplomacy”: “Secret diplomacy is a unique form of diplomatic activity since it frequently involves concealing not only the diplomatic initiative from the public and media, but also from one's own government.” There are two arguments for legitimizing secrecy in diplomacy. First, states can’t be forced to submit their internal affairs to public scrutiny, as these might contradict the only priority that matters: the safety of the state. The second justification comes from a more liberal approach: secrecy is an efficient and ethical way to resolve conflicts and ensure peace. A perfect example would be “the Secret Diplomacy of Extraordinary Renditions” by the C.I.A, just after the attacks on 9/11. This program made it possible to torture terrorism suspects in secret bases outside the U.S., such as Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. It created a huge wave of protests, as these practices were against human rights. But, through polls, we can see that a majority of public opinion is in favor of this program, as it is seen as necessary in order to ensure public safety.
The world has changed, and so has our way of fighting wars. A war isn’t only a fight on a vast battlefield as before; it has become more technical. Diplomacy has become an efficient weapon to mitigate geopolitical instability. Through cooperation, wars can be fought in a way that brings peace and lets it last in the aftermath. We can observe such events throughout the Cold War. The most well-known example is probably the secret visit of Henry Kissinger to Pekin in 1971, in order to prepare the reopening of diplomatic relations between the United States of America and China. Secrecy was needed to minimize media interference and keep public opinion out of it.
Secrecy can maximize the utility of information for the states that diplomats represent. To do so, the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations played a crucial role in facilitating the preservation of diplomatic secrecy. The convention establishes diplomatic immunity: “The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.” It also establishes the inviolability of diplomatic premises and private residences as well. Immunity and privileges, despite sometimes being seen as unfair to other citizens, are much needed to ensure the efficiency of diplomatic missions and their confidentiality.
Secrecy is a pragmatic way to minimize risks during negotiations, or to reduce media attention that could lead to public scrutiny. I can only conclude that the legitimization of secret diplomacy lies in the need and urgency of a state to conduct negotiations, ensure public safety, etc. The legitimacy lies in public opinion and context, and therefore depends on different factors that have to be taken into consideration.
van der Veer Guillaume
