Mapping Boundaries in Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: The Colonial Remains of Brexit

Mapping Boundaries in Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: The Colonial Remains of Brexit

In diplomacy, boundaries play a crucial role in separating and connecting our perceptions of reality. These boundaries exist both conceptually and physically, helping us distinguish between different forms of communication and establish distinctions between actors. However, as we examine new complexities in diplomacy, it becomes clear that these boundaries are not always clear-cut.

One boundary that is often blurred is the distinction between diplomacy and foreign policy. While diplomacy is seen as a means to an end, foreign policy provides the framework for achieving those ends. Diplomacy encompasses various measures, such as economic, psychological, and political, that are used to achieve foreign policy objectives. It is through diplomacy that actors communicate and represent their group's interests and values.

Another boundary that requires exploration is the separation between diplomacy and civil society. Diplomats act as agents on behalf of groups and seek to bridge gaps between them. In contrast, civil society actors are primarily accountable to private interests. However, the boundary between diplomacy and civil society is becoming increasingly porous, with more diplomacy occurring within civil society and vice versa. This blurring of boundaries is driven by the need for political leaders to base their decisions on collective group interests and values.

The boundary between diplomacy and governance is also worth examining. While governance refers to the rules, norms, and institutions that shape a group's shared activities, diplomacy involves the communication and representation activities used to manage relationships and achieve governance-related outcomes. The distinction between the two can be seen in the different actors and roles they encompass. Trans-governmental networks involve various governmental actors, while polylateral networks consist of both state and non-state actors. Cosmopolitan networks, on the other hand, include transnational activist organizations that seek to influence those in power.

The complexities of diplomacy are further exemplified by the colonial nostalgia and narcissistic nationalism that fueled the Brexit campaign. Brexit can be seen as the result of long-standing imperial attitudes and a yearning for a glorious imperial past. The use of colonial nostalgia in the campaign tapped into a sense of national attachment and British exceptionalism. This attachment is rooted in World War II, which is seen as the last incarnation of British imperial fortitude.

In conclusion, mapping boundaries in diplomacy's public dimension is essential to understanding the complexities of the field. By examining the distinctions between diplomacy and foreign policy, diplomacy and civil society, and diplomacy and governance, we can gain insight into the dynamics at play. Additionally, recognizing the influence of colonial nostalgia and narcissistic nationalism in events like Brexit allows us to understand the deeper motivations behind political decisions.

Three actionable advice:

1. Embrace complexity: Recognize that boundaries in diplomacy are not always clear-cut and that actors and roles can overlap. Embracing this complexity will help navigate the intricacies of diplomatic relationships.
2. Foster dialogue between diplomacy and civil society: Encourage more interaction and collaboration between diplomatic actors and civil society organizations. This will lead to a better understanding of public interests and more effective diplomacy.
3. Challenge narratives of imperialism: Be critical of narratives that glorify the colonial past and fuel nostalgia. Recognize the impact of these narratives on national identity and work towards a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of history.