International diplomacy acknowledges the existence of an "understanding gap," which often hinders the unflawed transference of concepts, intentions, or knowledge across cultural and language barriers. Diplomatic protocol is a man-made set of rules that defines the generally accepted system of international courtesy among various countries or cultures. The diplomatic protocol can effectively and safely bridge cultural or language differences that otherwise might have collided and created enmity between the countries.
Diplomatic language generally uses neutral or nice words with very elastic conceptual boundaries in all matters, except in areas of cultural sensitivity. "Diplomatic words," by agreement, rigidly define and freeze certain words and concepts that cover delicate cultural differences. Such words or phrases as "persona non grata," "diplomatic immunity," "detente," "charge' d'affaires," "protocol," "expulsion," etc., represent a prescribed way of behaving or communicating that acknowledges and strives to overcome the inherent inability of man to communicate accurately between cultures most of the time.
There are also code words (to conceal differences?) that seem neutral but have universal underlying meaning in diplomatic circles, such as described in an article by Robert B. Cullen in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune:
—Frank: participants barely able to avoid coming to blows.
—Candid: is only slightly less disastrous than frank.
—Useful: almost any meeting that falls short of concluding a treaty.
—Fruitful: the two sides discovered some unspecified common ground.
Is this somewhat slightly reminiscent of Orwell's Newspeak in "1984"?
On the negative side, Diplomacy also allows diplomats and countries the privilege of sometimes lying to each other within the bounds of "diplomatic duplicity" without a loss of credibility and honor in the future. Such was the the case when the Russian ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin lied to President Kennedy about the presence of Russian missiles in Cuba in 1962, yet he continued as a respected Washington-based diplomat for an additional twenty-three years before being promoted to a senior post on the communist party secretariat in Moscow. Another example of diplomatic duplicity was the Japanese Ambassador, Kichisaburō Nomura, lying to President Roosevelt on the eve of Pearl Harbor. However, the Secretary of State at that time, Cordell Hull, wrote in his memoirs after the war that Nomura was sincere in his efforts to avoid war
Diplomacy definitely tends to minimize intercultural friction at the sensitive points where they rub each other raw. Prevention of these rifts is important because it is detrimental to the interests of each country by drawing attention away from their fundamental interest — economic benefit. Diplomacy is an important expediency that lubricates the path and eliminates or minimizes the obstacles to commerce and profit.
The quote I like is: "Countries don't have friends, only interests." This oft-repeated, anonymous quotation truly sums it up — economic interests do in fact frequently take precedence over fundamental honesty in diplomacy. For sure, diplomacy does create some humanitarian improvements, but the primary purpose of diplomacy is to promote national interests, including political goals and profits from commerce, which sometimes requires resorting to the Newspeak-like language of diplomacy out of necessity to achieve these ends.
