Can It Be Argued That Intelligence Studies and Practice Constitute One of the Relatives of Diplomacy - Assignment Example

Can It Be Argued That Intelligence Studies and Practice Constitute One of the Relatives of Diplomacy? Introduction Intelligence studies and practice can be considered to be linked to diplomacy based on the fact that they share a similar objective which is seeking to gain an understanding of foreign countries. However, the two fields have evolved significantly over the years to become separate institutions that depict varying perceptual lenses. The only factor that links both institutions in modern age is defense. In the field of intelligence, data and understanding and the presentation of results to concerned parties are the sought after ends1. On the other hand, diplomacy is inclined towards the adjuncts to policies and actions. In this case, it is clear that the two differ significantly in relation to their methods and their utilization of human sources whereby both operate under varying conditions and constraints. Intelligence is used in reference to the relevant knowledge to statecraft and insight into capabilities and intentions of other states. It is considered as a crucial element in enhancing defense and influencing the advancement of national interests2. Data that is analyzed in relation to national objectives and interests is considered as intelligence. Intelligence is mainly retrieved from overt collection and clandestine collection. Herman states that intelligence is inclusive of coverage and expertise on issues such as war, conflict, military forces, terrorism, and warning3. The data outputs of diplomacy and intelligence are complementary4. However, intelligence is found to include the coverage and professionalism in matters that are associated with military forces, warning, war, terrorism, and limited conflict. Evidently, diplomacy is not set to specialize in such areas. Therefore, top-level foreign policies are more reliant on intelligence as opposed to diplomatic assessments especially when the subjects have national security content. Intelligence and diplomacy’s common functions of data gathering and building of knowledge are not the key relationship between the two institutions. The produce and the consumer for a key relation between the institutions5. In this case, Diplomacy relies on intelligence for strategy and tactics6. Additionally, the institution also relies on intelligence for an advanced area of defensive security. However, the relationship is influenced by subsidiary influences, interactions and overlaps. Diplomacy utilizes a nations national intelligence capabilities as a crucial element in influence and power7. Evidently, this presents a card in the negotiating hand. In other case, it is required to engage in negotiations with the aim of meeting intelligence needs. The intelligence and diplomatic relationships with foreign nations interact which reinforces and other times modifies each other. The growth and expansion of intelligence in the last half-century in relation to diplomacy has led to a major separation between the two institutions8. Diplomacy plays a crucial role in providing intelligence facilities and covers. Additionally, it is a target of intelligence that requires defensive intelligence support. In this case, it has been argued that there is a need to increase the distance between the two to limit their association within reasonable limits to prevent the scenes witnesses in the Cold War. Diplomacy’s Dependence on Intelligence From a historical perspective, it is evident that the art of diplomacy and intelligence were associated. However, this changed as a result of specialization of government departments which occurred in the 19th century. The Vienna Convention is used to set the limit between acceptable data gathering in diplomatic relations. Hughes and Oleson note that effective diplomacy is dependent on intelligence (47)9. Since the 9/11 attacks on the US, it is evident that the intelligence world has been subjected to public scrutiny. Additionally, intelligence has evolved significantly to adapt to the new world order. Evidently, the past two decades have witnessed a shift from conventional intelligence to non-state threats. Intelligence is a considered as a powerful tool for public diplomacy based on its ability to add objectivity to the legitimization of decisions and government’s public appeals10. Objectivity is enhanced through its provision of evidence as opposed to the reliance of instinct and ideologies in decision making. However, the years following the 9/11 attacks have reflected on the misuse intelligence whereby it has been politicized by democratic regimes that result in lack of legitimacy11. Intelligence supports diplomacy by influencing the setting of priorities for public concerns. Additionally, intelligence serves as a legitimate call to bring the international community together against violations of international law. American leaders such as President Kennedy heavily relied on intelligence which enabled him to be confident in his actions in the nation and abroad. This is evident in his ability to effectively address the Cuban Missle Crisis to the American people12. Hughes and Oleson note that intelligence has played a major contribution to diplomacy through the verification of bilateral and multi-lateral arms control agreements that have ensured that diplomats succeed in their pursuit of peace13. The authors also note that diplomacy plays a major role in setting diplomatic agendas. This is evident through the ability of presidents to set diplomatic agendas based on intelligence reports. Recent activities show that there is a significant need for government branches to change how they employ intelligence for public diplomacy especially in relation to military action. Intelligence resources have been politicized through omissions and distortions that have resulted in poor-decision making14. As a result, this has also led to the significant decline in public trust. The cases of the American and British public diplomacies since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the American and British request to invade Syria in 2013 based on the Ghouta chemical attacks reflect on the need to change how intelligence is employed in public diplomacy. The nuances that tend to occur in the presentation of data have subjected intelligence to be considered as a failure. Moreover, this is enhanced by the politicization of intelligence to present persuasive arguments that are not based on legitimate and accurate data15. The Bush administration was criticized for ignoring the available information. Diplomacy’s contribution to Intelligence Diplomacy also positions itself as a major contributor to the overall intelligence process and products. This is evident through diplomatic reporting. Diplomatic establishments across the globe play a major role in hosting crucial intelligence community assets. According to Hughes and Oleson diplomatic reporting has played an essential role in enhancing intelligence on crucial matters such as criminal enterprises16. In this case, they have provided essential information on how to combat international crime. Diplomatic interchanges play a major role in providing crucial information for intelligence analysis in relation to host government intention, their politics, leadership, and political struggles. Diplomatic reporting is also reflected on as a crucial source for bio information on personalities in the host country. Difference between Diplomacy and Intelligence Diplomacy is recognized on a global perspective as a decision taking and executive function17. On the other hand, intelligence is not recognized on the same capacity. However, it acts with the aim of providing essential data and forecasts for those concerned to act upon. In this case, the main difference is that data and knowledge are the ends in intelligence while data and knowledge are adjuncts to the implementation of policies and actions. There is a potentially serious difference between diplomacy and intelligence. Creative tension between diplomacy and intelligence stems from the involvement of both with questions of strategy and statecraft18. Indeed, the source of this conflict is often clandestine or covert activities that become public and adversely affect both relations between states and diplomats’ ongoing work. Adverse Effects of Intelligence on Diplomacy The PRISM scandal is an example of the adverse effects that intelligence is bound to have on diplomacy when they used in the wrong way19. It is evident that a misuse of intelligence is bound to have major impacts on the relationship between states. This is evident in the case of US and Brazil and US and Germany. The perceived legitimacy of intelligence was influenced by the Bush and Blair administrations through their presentation of data in support for the invasion of Iraq in 200320. Evidently, public diplomacy was adversely affected through the demonstration of the effect of the government having its own version of intelligence which led to the misleading messages. In this case, both the US and Britain government were found to further divide the association between intelligence and diplomacy21. Intelligence is an essential tool in informing the public and guiding the decision of a course of action. However, it is subject to major risks. The key risk is based on the fact that utilizing intelligence for public diplomacy is that it is bound to lead to the introduction of nuances that result in political difficulties. Evidently, this is bound to occur regardless of the fact that the intelligence may not contradict with what the policymakers are intended on revealing. It is also evident that the misinterpretation of intelligence is bound to result in dangerous situations. Mwagiru notes that the presentation of intelligence may lead to omissions of crucial details22. It is clear that intelligence is important for effective diplomacy. However, scholars have been known to harbor an aversion to the intelligence activities. The aversion is based on the past operations that have gone wrong and a reflection of the effect that mislead intelligence has on diplomatic relations. Hughes and Oleson also note that diplomats are often bitter of harboring intelligence assets especially because they will be left in the dark leading to surprises23. Conclusion Intelligence and diplomacy are linked. However, their union is not continent but operates on necessity. For diplomacy to be effective, it requires effective intelligence. Intelligence studies and practice can be considered to be linked to diplomacy based on the fact that they share a similar objective which is seeking to gain an understanding of foreign countries. However, it is evident that the two differ significantly in relation to their methods and their utilization of human sources whereby both operate under varying conditions and constraints. Diplomacy is also seen to be linked to intelligence which enhances their connection. Evidently, diplomacy plays a crucial role in providing intelligence facilities and covers. Intelligence is a considered as a powerful tool for public diplomacy based on its ability to add objectivity to the legitimization of decisions and government’s public appeals. Moreover, intelligence supports diplomacy by influencing the setting of priorities for public concerns. Clearly, intelligence has played a major contribution to diplomacy through the verification of bilateral and multi-lateral arms control agreements that have ensured that diplomats succeed in their pursuit of peace. Diplomacy also positions itself as a major contributor to the overall intelligence process and products. Additionally, diplomatic interchanges play a major role in providing crucial information for intelligence analysis in relation to host government intention, their politics, leadership, and political struggles. Bibliography Herman, Michael. “Diplomacy and Intelligence.” Diplomacy & Statecraft, 9, 2, (1998): 1-22. Herman, Michael. Intelligence Services in the Information Age. Routledge. 2001. Hughes, Philips and Olsson, Peter. “Diplomacy and Intelligence Strange Bedfellows.” Journal of U.S. Intelligence Studies, 22, 1, (2016): 47-52. Mwagiru, Makumi. "Diplomacy and Its Relations: Perspectives on Contemporary Themes in Diplomacy." East African Journal of Human Rights and Democracy, (2011). Pinkus, Jonathan. “Intelligence and Public Diplomacy: The Changing Tide.” Journal of Strategic Security, 1, 4, (2014): 33-45. Read More