[MUSIC] Hello, I'm joined by Richard Woodward of Coventry Business School. Richard, in your experience in your academic career, what do you conceive diplomacy to be? >> Well, I have a slightly schizophrenic personality on this one which is, when someone mentions diplomacy or diplomats, the first thing that I still think of even now is the very conventional idea of men. And of course very often is still men, in very smart suits going to big international conferences, representing their national interest in very important matters of state. But of course in my own research, I've come to realize that's a very narrow view of diplomacy. And what I call the three As, which is something I hear by copyright, and my three As are actors, audiences, and ambitions. And by actors, I've come to realize that there are many, many more actors involved in diplomacy than just states or just the professionals who inhabit Ministries of Foreign Affairs, and the like. And I suppose while it would be trite to say that we are all diplomats now, we have the potential I think all to be diplomats. Technology has made that possible. In terms of the audience, I think something else that's changed is that traditionally we would once think of the audience being the elite of another state. In other words, their foreign policy establishment. Whereas I think now the audiences tend to be very often the public's of those states as well. And the last thing I think is in terms of the ambition. I think there's a much greater emphasis now on using diplomacy to augment soft power in world affairs. In other words, to try to get the people, foreign audiences, to want what you want. Which might obviate the need for diplomacy in future or at least smooth the path of future diplomacy. >> Okay, that's very interesting though in thinking about how that plays out. What do you identify as successful diplomacy therefore? >> I think, for me, successful diplomacy is about getting to yes. In other words getting some sort of agreement. I suppose if you think back to the more conventional views of diplomacy here, it's about getting to yes in the knowledge that there are constraints here. You know partly of course what your opposite numbers will be thinking and what you want, but you also of course know what your own side would want in an ideal world. So I think it's about getting to yes, but with the knowledge that their are constraints. And getting to yes without giving too much away, being a skilled and tough negotiator. >> Okay, so, conversely what does failed diplomacy look like to your mind? >> Well, I think that's a much more difficult thing to identify, because that sort of presumes that you know what diplomacy is setting out to do in the first place. I think one of the things for me is I think diplomacy is an iterative process. In other words, it's not a one shot thing. I think that's how it's often portrayed. That again, you go off to a conference, or you go off to a meeting, and if you don't come back with an agreement then somehow that's a failure. I don't necessarily see that as a failure because as I said, I think diplomacy is iterative. So you keep, very often going back to the same problem again and again. Likewise what I've found in my own experience both personal and looking through academic and doing research here is that very often when one diplomatic path is closed or blocked, others remain open. So an example that I would give here is very often that something like a G7 or a G20 meeting. Yes, they'll come away with the communique but there will be certain areas where perhaps no deal has been reached, and you think well, that's maybe a failure of diplomacy. But very often what happens is those same people who were at that meeting will go off into another organization, another setting and negotiations will continue. And the OECD, in my experience, is very often where that happens. So the same group of people will go away into a, perhaps a less public forum and quietly resolve the matter that they haven't been able to resolve in a more public space. >> And is that sort of disjunction between a public and a private space, something that you see as important in the way that diplomacy can play out. >> Yes, I think in the public sphere very often diplomats and politicians are worried about losing face, perhaps with their own domestic audiences in mind. Whereas in more private settings, they're perhaps I wouldn't say they're unconcerned by it, but they're perhaps less concerned or perhaps willing to be more malleable. And certainly again using my experience with the OECD here, I'd say that's definitely the case. That in the OECD perhaps where they're not meeting and perhaps making a final agreement, but then perhaps edging towards one it's in that space where real concessions are actually made. >> So thinking about your experience in perhaps in OECD, who do you identify as the sort of good diplomats or those with sort of good diplomatic skills? >> I think the ones that I have admired the most that I have encountered and I think which is the key thing here, people who have encountered. I'm not going to name names because I don't think that wouldn't be appropriate. But I think the one thing that they've all really had is a very deep knowledge of international affairs and particularly international history. And they have also understood the organizational setting that they've been operating in. On the international history side of things, I think very often there's a tendency for people to jump to conclusions or to jump to here is an easy solution. Whereas those you have a greater knowledge of international history and a greater knowledge of past emnities or past friendships and realize that that might not even be a possible solution, it's something that you can put off the table completely. On the organizational side of things, I think they really understand how you can use an organizational setting to get to yes. In other words again, they might recognize that this is something we couldn't do maybe at the World Trade Organization or the IMF. But we might be able to do it here because it's a slightly different institutional milieu that we're operating in. >> Okay, and thinking about those individuals, what sort of characteristics are distinct to a good diplomat? >> I think they tend to be, or they come across as very confident, and they come across as having a real confidence in having mastered their own brief. And I think is what what's really important to them is the feeling that they've actually got the backing of the people their representing. I've seen a number of at that the OECD diplomats who, particularly if there's been a change of government, in other words they've had a change of masters. It is always very tempting to see that foreign affairs just carries on a respective of who the government is. But I've seen it before where they've got a new minister of state or whatever it is that they're representing. And all of a sudden they're just that little bit more uncertain about perhaps what it is that they are now representing. Obviously in international relations we tend to see national interests as very fixed and unmoving. But in actual fact I think a number of diplomats, while they would sort of to move toward that international, that national interests are to some extent unchanging, but there's always some wiggle room around the edges and they seem to be very sensitive to that. >> Finally, if I may, how important do you think of trust in diplomacy? I'm mean certainly in the context which I'm mostly familiar with it is the OECD and I think that its actually vital partly because if the organization runs. So that is an organization where in the private meetings that diplomats have, so very often the OECD committees are the place where these sort of discussions might take place. And the whole point of these meeting is that they are private and so you can have full and frank exchanges of views, safe in the knowledge that this isn't going to be something that becomes public knowledge. It doesn't very often happen, but when it does happen, if a diplomat does speak out in public and makes clear that there has been a disagreement, that can be fatal for that diplomat in that setting. Because of course every time they go back to another meeting, there's always the people thinking, well hang on a minute. The last time we said anything slightly controversial or disagreed, this guy went away and effectively told all. So I think in that context, trust is absolutely essential. >> Okay, thank you very much, Richard. >> Thank you. [MUSIC]
