Kryachkov 2!indd

129
Английский язык для магистратуры
D
iplomacy in the Mirror of Globalization
5
Copeland’s proposed response to what he considers a diplomatic performance gap 
centers on public diplomacy and its more extreme, perhaps more powerful form, which 
he labels guerrilla diplomacy. His basic point seems to be that states such as Canada and 
the United States must make “human-centered development” paramount. To do so, their 
Foreign Service personnel must connect with a broad range of individuals, not just coun-
terparts in various ministries. Public diplomacy and guerilla diplomacy therefore seek to 
have contact with societies, to understand them, and to influence them. 
6
Public diplomacy, of course, is not unknown in Washington or elsewhere. What has been 
said on this subject echoes some of Copeland’s discussion, a discussion that relies on a rep-
etition of catch phrases such as networking and advocacy, branding and maintaining the 
credibility of the brand, creating networks of communication with individuals in the other 
society, and most importantly, creating a “genuine dialogue” where one listens as much or 
even more than one talks, “connecting with a population rather than a state,” and providing 
intelligence back to one’s own government about the concerns and interests of others.
7
The author’s perspective on change on the level of the foreign ministry and of the for-
eign service seems to be somewhat more specific.
8
First, Copeland points to the need to re-focus the diplomatic service and concentrate 
on core competencies which lie, according to Copeland, in connecting to people abroad 
and the national image abroad. He proposes ‘to begin a carefully planned and phased with-
drawal from day-to-day work on particularistic issues’. By leaving such issues as environmen-
tal law or resource regulation to the relevant ministries, the diplomatic service avoids turf 
battles and can focus on its core competencies. Second, Copeland proposes the creation 
of virtual desks. Organised by topic or region, these could bring together a wide network 
of experts — extending far beyond the foreign ministry. Third, Copeland calls for making 
greater use of the internet and other electronic media. For example, when talking about 
blogging he states that ‘responsive foreign ministries and some senior officials are doing it, 
and so too should more ambassadors, especially those posted to trouble spots’.
9
The book’s most valuable contribution lies not in the assertion that we live in the age 
of globalization and that globalization has altered the way in which international policy 
is conducted — this is certainly not new; rather it is in its holistic approach and in the 
intriguing analysis of diplomatic practices and their need for adaptation and reform. Co-
peland’s description of the qualities of the guerrilla diplomat and the workings of a for-
eign ministry are wise and insightful. His belief in the possibilities of diplomacy and the 
primacy of talk over war are well underlined in the examples given and the proposals for 
change made. Copeland is not afraid to include science and technology in his analysis 
and to talk about the possibilities the internet and new social media have to offer for 
advancing diplomacy.
10
However, there are several points on which I would like to sound a note of caution. 
First, I remain to be convinced of the almost universal application of methods of guerrilla 
diplomacy. What Copeland’s analysis really needs is a presentation of guerrilla diplomacy 
at work, with extensive case studies — or if those are too sensitive (or unavailable), then 
with extensive fictional illustrations of what guerilla diplomacy might look like on the 
ground and how the results might feed into policy formulation and implementation, or 
into building a persuasive brand. They should suggest in some detail — even fictional 
detail — how guerilla diplomacy is likely to have a meaningful impact on dealing with 
development and globalization issues. 

---