diplomacy Art of conducting relationships for gain without conflict. It is the chief instrument of foreign policy. Its methods include secret negotiation by accredited envoys (though political leaders also negotiate) and international agreements and laws. Its use predates recorded history. The goal of diplomacy is to further the state's interests as dictated by geography, history, and economics. Safeguarding the state's independence, security, and integrity is of prime importance; preserving the widest possible freedom of action for the state is nearly as important. Beyond that, diplomacy seeks maximum national advantage without using force and preferably without causing resentment. For more information on diplomacy, visit Britannica.com. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. diplomacy 1. the conduct of the relations of one state with another by peaceful means 2. skill in the management of international relations Collins Discovery Encyclopedia, 1st edition © HarperCollins Publishers 2005 Warning! The following article is from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979). It might be outdated or ideologically biased. Diplomacy an official activity carried out by heads of states, governments, and special bodies dealing with foreign relations, for the purpose of implementing the aims and tasks of the foreign policy of states and defending the interests of the state abroad. Diplomacy serves the interests of the ruling classes (in a socialist state, those of the working people). In literature, diplomacy is often defined as the “science of foreign relations” and the “art of conducting negotiations.” The word is derived from the Greek diploma—in ancient Greece, the designation for folded, inscribed name-plates that were conferred on envoys as credentials and documents confirming their authority. The word “diplomacy” gained currency in Western Europe at the end of the 18th century as the term for state activity in foreign relations. The basic forms of diplomatic activity are congresses, conferences, and meetings, correspondence in the form of declarations, letters, notes, and memoranda, the preparation and conclusion of international treaties and agreements, the day-to-day representation of the state abroad by its embassies and legations, the participation by representatives of the state in the activity of international organizations, and the clarification in the press of the position taken by the government on given international questions. International law prohibits interference by diplomatic representatives in the internal affairs of the country in which they reside. (In the practice of imperialist diplomacy, especially in semicolonial and dependent countries, this rule is continually violated.) Agencies and individuals performing diplomatic duties have universally recognized rights and diplomatic privileges in the country of residence (for example, immunity and inviolability of diplomatic personnel and premises, the right to carry on correspondence by code and closed diplomatic communication, the right to fly the flag of one’s own state, and customs privileges). The goals of foreign policy that must be achieved by diplomacy determine the character of the organization and methods of diplomacy. The character of diplomatic activity is closely connected with the political structure and social foundations of the state. In slaveholding societies, where military conquest was resorted to regularly to replenish the labor force, foreign policy was carried out primarily by military methods. Diplomatic ties were maintained only sporadically by embassies, which were set up for a definite mission in a given country and which returned home when it had been fulfilled. During the period of feudal fragmentation the “private” diplomacy of feudal sovereigns became widely practiced. Between wars, they concluded peace treaties, entered into military alliances, and arranged dynastic marriages. Byzantium maintained wide diplomatic ties. With the development of international relations in the mid-15th century, states gradually began to maintain permanent missions abroad. The diplomacy of bourgeois society has much in common with that of the feudal period, insofar as both are the diplomacies of exploitative states. At the same time, the diplomacy of capitalist states took on some new features engendered by the aims of their foreign policy, which included the struggle for markets, partition and eventually repartition of the world, and world economic and political supremacy. Under the new conditions the scale of diplomatic activity was significantly increased, and diplomacy began to be used by the state to build support among wider circles of the ruling class in foreign countries and at home and to establish contacts with various political parties and representatives of the press. Diplomacy became more dynamic. In the premonopoly stage of capitalist development, diplomacy played an important role in the struggle for the achievement of the aims of some antifeudal, democratic, and national liberation movements, in the formation of nation-states in Latin America and the Balkans, and in the unification of Germany and Italy. Basically, however, diplomacy was always used by the major capitalist states as a means for achieving their expansionist, aggressive aims. In the age of imperialism, the bourgeois diplomacy of the developed capitalist countries serves the influential groups of the capitalist oligarchy. In their interests diplomacy and military methods have been used in the struggle among imperialist powers for colonies, and since World War II (1939-45) they have been used to pursue a neocolonialist policy. The granting of loans with crushing terms and of financial and economic “aid” to other countries (for example, dollar diplomacy—a method of US foreign policy), as well as military and political pressure, espionage, and diversionary tactics, are among the diplomatic methods of the imperialist states. The diplomacy of imperialist states has often used internal struggles in other countries as pretexts for diplomatic and military intervention (for example, US intervention in the internal affairs of Guatemala in 1954 and US attempts at aggression against Cuba and intervention in Indochina in the 1960’s). Profoundly hostile to the interests of the people, bourgeois diplomacy was and remains a secret diplomacy. A variety of methods have been applied to imperialist diplomacy in its relations with the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, including diplomatic preparation of the anti-Soviet intervention of 1918-20 and attempts to prevent the regeneration of Soviet power by applying economic pressure (the Geneva Conference of 1922). Western diplomacy pursued a policy of nonintervention that was designed to direct the aggression of Hitlerite Germany against the USSR. However, with the outbreak of World War II the Western powers were compelled to switch to a position of supporting efforts to create an anti-Hitlerite coalition. After World War II, the Western powers’ cold war and “bridge-building” policies were intended to undermine the world socialist system. Before the war the Western powers had attempted to use the League of Nations against the Soviet state, and after World War II, they tried to use the United Nations against the socialist countries. From the moment of its entry into the international arena the Soviet state has opposed imperialist diplomacy with its own, the aim of which is to secure peace throughout the world and the movement of mankind along the road of progress. Soviet diplomacy has gained the respect and support of broad strata of progressive public opinion throughout the world. The change in the balance of forces between the capitalist and socialist systems in favor of the latter, the growth of democratic and socialist forces throughout the world, and the disintegration of imperialist colonial systems and the formation of new independent states have prompted bourgeois diplomacy to use an increasing variety of methods in the struggle for the preservation of imperialist positions. Occupying an increasingly important place in the activity of contemporary bourgeois diplomacy is ideological diversion against the socialist states, which is conducted in a great variety of ways with the aim of undermining the socialist structure in these states. Bourgeois diplomacy makes extensive use of anti-Soviet propaganda, contributing to the swelling of the war potential of the most powerful capitalist states, the unleashing of wars, and the creation of focuses of potential military conflict in various regions of the world, including the Near East. At the same time, the new distribution of ferees in the international arena and the active diplomacy of the socialist states—above all the USSR—have compelled bourgeois diplomacy to conclude treaties that have contributed to some alleviation of international tensions and to the settlement of disputes. In bourgeois diplomacy the struggle between two tendencies has manifested itself with increasing clarity. On the one hand there is a striving to regulate the international situation by peaceful means and on the other, an interest in heightening further international tensions. Bourgeois diplomacy has sought to direct the foreign policy of the developing countries into channels dictated by imperialism. This policy has been opposed by the diplomacy of the developing countries, particularly those oriented toward socialism, which have been directing their energy toward consolidation of their independence. Having overcome various difficulties, they are liberating themselves from the vestiges of economic and political subordination to the forces of imperialism. The forms and methods of the diplomacy of the Soviet Union and other socialist states are determined by the goals adopted by their foreign policies. Of these the most important are ensuring peaceful conditions for building a communist society in the USSR, consolidation of the world socialist system, and comprehensive support for movements for national liberation. One of the bases of the foreign policy of socialist countries is the Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence between states with different sociopolitical systems. The relationship between the socialist countries is based on the principles of socialist internationalism, fraternal alliance, and mutual assistance. Having no need to mask their aims in any way, the socialist countries reject secret diplomacy. Based solidly on principles, socialist diplomacy is at the same time distinguished by flexibility and readiness to make certain compromises in the interests of consolidating the forces of socialism and democracy and strengthening peace and security. The diplomacy of the socialist states constantly exposes the aggressive designs of imperialist governments and the diplomatic maneuvers masking them.