Welcome 2017-04-11T16:34:14+00:00

Formerly a university teacher, I am now a freelance writer specialising in the theory and practice of diplomacy from the earliest times until the present. As well as hoping to encourage the study of diplomacy, this site provides periodic updating of my textbook (see immediately below). This page contains some news and views. The contents of the rest of the site can be navigated via the column on the left-hand side.

Diplomacy: Theory and Practice

5th edition
(Palgrave-Macmillan: Basingstoke and New York, 2015)
In Editor’s Choice.

Read more about this book
on the publisher’s website.

CLICK HERE
FOR ONLINE UPDATING

a

berridge diplomacy 5th

From the back cover: ‘Probably the most prolific contemporary writer on diplomacy is Professor Geoff R. Berridge … Each of his many books is impeccably written and full of insights into the fascinating formation of modern diplomacy” (Robert William Dry, New York University, USA, and Chairman of AFSA’s Committee on the Foreign Service Profession and Ethics); “I discovered Geoff Berridge’s book on diplomacy after serving as a diplomat for over 30 years. It is well-researched, sophisticated, inspiring and, where the subject invites it, suitably ironic” (Dr Max Schweizer, Head of Foreign Affairs and Applied Diplomacy, ZHAW School of Management and Law, Switzerland); “Berridge’s Diplomacy is an enlightening journey that takes the student, the practitioner and the general reader from the forefront to the backstage of current diplomatic practice. The thoroughly updated text – also enriched with a stimulating new treatment of embassies – is an invaluable guide to the stratagems and outcomes, continuities and innovations, of a centuries’ long process” (Arianna Arisi Rota, Professor of History of Diplomacy, University of Pavia, Italy).

Tillerson, Russia and the return of ‘megaphone diplomacy’

The Trump administration quickly declared its view – almost certainly correct – that the Syrian air force was responsible for the chemical attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun in northern Syria early last week. While emphatically reserving its own position on responsibility pending a ‘full investigation’, the Russian government – the chief backer of President Assad’s Syrian regime – roundly condemned the use of chemical weapons and significantly added that its support for President Assad was ‘not unconditional.’ This statement, issued by President Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, clearly suggested that a deft diplomatic response by Washington could exploit this juncture to produce the long-awaited breakthrough in the on-off negotiations for a political settlement of the catastrophic Syrian civil war. And the prospect of this need not have been diminished – could even have been enhanced – by the subsequent American cruise missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat airbase near Homs, from which the chemical attack is believed to have been launched. It was, after all, only symbolic and the Russians were given advance warning to get their people out of harm’s way – and yet it demonstrated a marked increase in Trump’s willingness to make Syria a high priority.

But what happened next? After a mercifully short and uncharacteristically measured announcement of the cruise missile strike by President Trump at Mar-a-Lago, in which there was no mention of Russia at all, America’s ‘top diplomat’, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, went out of his way to anger the Russians. In a prepared statement, he declared publicly that the atrocity at Khan Sheikhoun was only possible because the Kremlin was either ‘complicit’ with its Syrian client or – by virtue of failing to ensure that it complied fully with the 2013 agreement to dispense with its chemical weapons – ‘simply incompetent’. Either could be true, but since the Trump administration has itself become a by-word for across-the-board incompetence, the latter charge was probably all the more galling for being a spectacular case of the pot calling the kettle black. Evidently stung by these remarks as well as in some measure humiliated by the casual slap administered to its client, Russia’s public reaction was predictable, and we seem now to be back to the conduct of Washington-Moscow relations by the dangerous ‘megaphone diplomacy’ of the early 1980s. Tillerson, who – following a meeting of the G7 today – is scheduled to travel to Moscow in the next day or so to present what is being widely described as an ultimatum to President Putin to fall in with Western views on how to settle the Syrian civil war (get rid of Assad and then hope for the best), has simply made matters more difficult for himself. He moderated his public criticism of Russia only slightly over the weekend.

It is obvious that Russian cooperation will be needed to achieve any Syrian settlement, so why has Tillerson prepared the ground so badly? Why didn’t he just respond to Peskov’s initial statement by saying something like the following, and then shut up? ‘We are already confident in our view that the Assad regime was responsible for this attack and are worried about what it suggests for the strength of the Russian government’s commitment to the 2013 agreement on chemical weapons, and I shall be taking this and other matters up with Mr. Lavrov, whom fortunately I shall be meeting in Moscow next week.’ Among possible reasons for Tillerson’s failure to sugar-coat his response in this sort of way at this crucial moment are the disarray and demoralization of his own department (the State Department), and his reported anxiety to allay suspicions that he is a secret friend of the Kremlin because of close Russian connections forged during his business career. What there would seem to be no doubt about, however, is that he has been speaking in a diplomatically clumsy way because he is a complete diplomatic novice. Let us hope that this does not prove too disastrous in the next few days. At least Tillerson ought to have some valuable items to offer in return for Russia’s cooperation over Syria, among them an easing of sanctions and a return to its seat at the top table of industrialized states, thereby making the G7 once more the G8.

The one good thing to come out of this so far is that British foreign secretary and honorary US deputy-sheriff Boris Johnson has cancelled (or had cancelled by Tillerson) his own long planned and already once-postponed trip to Moscow. Instead, he has gone to the G7 in Italy in order to provide light relief for the serious foreign ministers there assembled while seeking to raise from their ranks a posse against Russia, meanwhile offering entertainment for President Putin with a risible plan for smart sanctions against senior Russian and Syrian military officers should he not submit quietly to diplomatic arrest.

April 10th, 2017|

“Brexit is government of the old, by the old, for the old” (Anthony Barnett)

One of the most striking statistics about the great social variations in support for Brexit in the UK has always been that concerning age groups, and this is confirmed once more by the latest YouGov poll. This records that 65 per cent of 18-24 year olds say it was wrong for Britain to vote to leave the European Union, against only 12 per cent who think it was right. By contrast, 62 per cent of over-65s say it was right to leave and only 31 per cent say it was wrong. Once more, Anthony Barnet puts it neatly: ‘Brexit is an old people’s home.’  It is notoriously also an English old people’s home. Scots, save yourselves.

March 30th, 2017|

Black Wednesday, A50, and Potholes in the road

On 29 March, Black Wednesday, the Tory government in Britain is triggering Article 50 (aka ‘A50’) to commence BREXIT, thereby starting a diplomatic procedure that threatens to unravel the institutions that have played such an important role in preserving stability in Europe since the Second World War. This is the handiwork of a few opportunists in its ranks (chiefly Theresa May and Boris Johnson), a number of mendacious and generally unscrupulous newspapers led by the Daily Mail, and a clique of extreme right-wing, anti-EU Tory fanatics basking in the glory of their massive 37 per cent majority of ‘the people’ in last June’s referendum (hang on – isn’t there something wrong there?). It is only a small consolation that the triggering of A50 briefly shared headlines on the BBC News this morning with the reminder that Britain’s road network is in a parlous state, with potholes everywhere (I have hit them on motorways as well as minor roads), and ‘the A50’ is also the name of a road in the UK. I don’t believe in omens, but at least those in favour of remaining in the EU have been gifted a very serviceable metaphor.

March 28th, 2017|

The regrettable resilience of ‘resilience’

Don’t you get fed up with the over-use of certain words and phrases? As ‘fit for purpose’ and ‘up to speed’ have mercifully faded, top spot in this category at the moment must go to the noun ‘resilience’ (less frequently ‘resiliency’; adjective ‘resilient’). From politicians confronting low poll ratings and premier league managers after being hammered by Chelsea to those representing farmers’ organizations in the aftermath of heavy rain during harvest, just about everybody with a microphone pushed at them by a journalist goes on about how much they admire the ‘resilience’ in the face of adversity of their supporters, lads, or members – by which they mean their refusal to give up or concede defeat and their ability to bounce back. What they describe is indeed admirable, and harried people put on the spot are entitled to clutch at a short, fashionable word that most will understand. There is, however, no excuse for the rest of us, because English is a rich language and the Internet has easily-reached dictionaries of synonyms. On it can also be found at a click the text of the stirring Victorian poem ‘Invictus’, with its famous words ‘bloody, but unbowed’. Now there’s the kind of language I wouldn’t mind seeing being repeated … well, for a while. Thanks to its suicide-disposed government (it’s leaving a note at the side of the BREXIT slip road of the A50 on Wednesday 29 March), the British people will soon need to seek comfort from the spirit it invokes.

March 27th, 2017|

A public diplomacy own goal for Trump’s State Department

The US State Department used to be very good at keeping America’s own diplomatic correspondents abreast of foreign policy developments. It gave daily press briefings (also found useful by US embassies for giving pointers to policy) and permitted a ‘press pool’ of American diplomatic correspondents to fly in the same plane as the secretaries of state on their many foreign trips. It has, therefore, been a spectacular public diplomacy own goal for Trump’s State Department, headed if not led by former Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, to have not a single press briefing until 7 March and also refuse to permit a press pool to accompany Tillerson on his current trip to Asia. These actions have not only deeply angered the US press corps but also delivered the news management of US foreign policy, such as it is, into the hands of others – not always friendly. Only an administration as stupid as that of Donald Trump could have achieved this.

March 17th, 2017|