Free Essay: Foreign Policy vs. Diplomacy

Diplomacy refers to the implementation of tact to gain a strategic advantage over a particular situation or seek mutually acceptable solutions to a given challenge. It primarily involves negotiation between the representatives of various states, especially in the United States. It may also incorporate the conduct of foreign relations by having professional diplomats intercede in the process. Therefore, it is only through diplomacy that decisions and conduct of international governments, as well as officials, are realized through negotiations, dialogue, and some other nonviolent techniques (Suri 2011). Diplomacy can, therefore, be termed as the main integral of foreign policy as it entails every goal as well as strategies that are workable for a particular state.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Foreign policy consists of the goals that define the collaboration between countries in economic, political, or social perspectives. Therefore, foreign policy could entail the aspects of international trade, military alliances, war, and foreign aid (Baru 2009). Sometimes foreign policy could be seen as the phenomenon where a particular state protects its national interests through well-drafted self-interest strategies. National interests have always been critical to any country, and the government is always prompted to design foreign policies through effective decision-making processes. The intended goals could be achieved through peaceful cooperation with others or even through their exploitation and taking advantage of them (Baru 2009). Even so, there are different exhibitions of foreign policies as multiple countries have different rates of change as well as scopes of intent. Therefore, one foreign policy could impact several other countries as well as international relations as a whole.

Even though it could be explained differently, diplomacy is a tool of foreign policy as some of its aspects are used or implemented in foreign policy. The two terms are commonly used interchangeably, yet the differences that exist between then should be considered. It is only through diplomacy that foreign policy can be implemented. Even though foreign policy may remain powerful and considered as the rile-making body, diplomacy tends to liaise more on the application part of the system. Even though diplomacy remains to be procedural, foreign policy is primarily considered as a substance (Natarajan 2014). There are a series of laid down strategies in a country that determine its foreign policy. It is the strategies that are geared towards achieving national interest. However, for the country to improve its condition, it would require intervention through various skills, including diplomacy. Therefore, diplomacy remains to be the central tact that is used to come into agreement with other countries (Natarajan 2014). Therefore, foreign policy is the entire diplomacy. The two aspects, diplomacy, and foreign policy have various differences that dissociate them from each other.

On the one hand, Foreign policy is controlled by the head of state (Nzomo 2014). On the other hand, diplomacy is used as the instrument for implementing foreign policy unto the state (Nzomo 2014). For instance, in the policy of the United States, the president is influential (Ross 2002). He controls the nation's war-waging and diplomatic relations. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and often tends to decide on how and when they can wage war. They have the power to make treaties that can be approved by the senate. Additionally, they present foreign policy to show their successful measures while on power. War powers can be proven to be the avenue to act in foreign policy by the president (Collins, DeWitt, & LeFebvre 2019). Diplomacy is stated in the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, and it empowers the president to appoint various officials of the senate (Nzomo 2014). Therefore, the president can appoint the upper- and lower-level diplomats and foreign-aid employees. It is through diplomacy that foreign policy then gets implemented unto the state itself.

Foreign policy can be viewed as the expression of the complex organization operating within every state. Additionally, foreign policy dictates the state of the leaders, the level of an economy, and the stability of the country. Diplomacy does not engage any of the complexities of organizations working within states (Goldsmith & Horiuchi 2009). It does not even check on the social and political pluralism that is looked into by foreign policy. Additionally, it is the role of foreign policy to look into the opinion of the public, yet diplomacy fails in such instances. There has been an issue between public opinion and foreign policy in various scholars, presented as a matter of the schools of thought. For instance, there has been realism presented in the context of theoretical disagreement, where public opinion can be perceived as being emotional, ill-fated, and volatile. None of the matters arise with diplomacy, as no empirical evidence can be found with public opinions.

The foreign policy of countries also remains active in most of the times and can be viewed as being voluntary and reflexive in various periods, however, diplomacy is not any voluntary and does not present as being flexible. Diplomacy controls the state and ought to be stable than foreign policy (Goldsmith & Horiuchi 2009). Besides, foreign policy is comprised of various decisions as well as actions that have been proposed to adjust to the behavior exhibited by a country. It is also concerned with the needs and opportunities of the public as well as those presented by the international environment. However, diplomacy does not manifest either in a public or international context. Diplomacy does not integrate with any issues of the public as it is only meant to control the foreign policy, which later influences the public or international methods in diverse ways.

Foreign policy also consists of the various bodies of doctrine that impose discipline on the wills. However, there is no such discipline affected by diplomacy. Additionally, the discipline could extend to orders and operations that are suited to a specific goal at the situation. Most of the time, discipline is perceived when there is peaceful coexistence between various nations. For diplomacy, there ought not to be any peaceful negotiations for the same to work as the public is not involved. Besides, there are no specific goals for diplomacy, as it is aimed at ensuring that foreign policy works to the maximum effectiveness as presented by the nations (Kickbusch 2011). Foreign policy also ought to be coherent, whereas diplomacy is not in any way coherent because of the differences in points of focus.

Foreign policy is also pertinent to every state, whereas diplomacy is not influenced by any state. In that connection, each state can only work as it can concern the discretionary assessment of the objectives and the intentions of other states (Labonte & Gagnon 2010). Therefore, foreign policy depends on the interconnection that exists between states for it to be effective. The performance of a single state can be answered by the actions of another state either through a conflict of interest or through reconciliation. Therefore, a single state would not work to the best of the foreign policy compared to the typical operations of diplomacy. Even so, the states have to adapt to each other in what would be considered as a perpetual interaction in the aspect of international politics. However, for diplomacy, the aspect of interconnection between states is neglected, as its primary focus is on the effectiveness of the functioning of foreign policy.

Foreign policy could also be subject to international law. Additionally, foreign policy acts per the interests of the political parties that are controlled by the government. However, for diplomacy, political interests are factored out, and there are no guidelines to which the aspect would be deemed effective. Foreign policy only contains the necessary goals that have been pre-set by decision-makers of a specific state to the actions of other states as well as international bodies (Labonte & Gagnon 2010). It is the action that would lead to national interests. However, for diplomacy, national interests do not need to be protected as there are no intended goals in the interconnection between states. Additionally, foreign policy could consist of various strategies as well as techniques to make the goals effective. In contrast, diplomacy would rather neglect the goals as the primary focus would be on making foreign policy successful.

Foreign policy is also a dynamic process in function, whereas diplomacy is a static process in an implementation. The interpretation of national interests by foreign policies is primarily aimed at encouraging national interests in a continuous process (Feldbaum & Michaud 2010). However, diplomacy neglects the process itself and would rather not follow any of it. Foreign policy seems more consistent in the developments in the international arena. Additionally, from a global perspective, the foreign policy of a state also consists of a pattern that is consistent that covers international relations between a single state and others (Feldbaum & Michaud 2010). The relationship can be followed through by checking on the state actors that exist, especially the head of state as well as the foreign minister. However, for diplomacy, the president does not uphold consistency as he oversees all the processes and would approach the matter from any dimension, making it a static procedure. Besides, the actions and public statements of the leaders in diplomacy would not impact international political situations contrary to how foreign policy would become.

Foreign policy also demands full coordination along the process. The head of state, as well as the foreign minister, would be required to act precisely in their duties and along the process to ensure that every planning, as well as activities involved only, exists within the general structure of the pattern that is consistent with national interest (Kickbusch 2011). However, the president at a diplomatic level could neglect national interest and still see success in the process. Diplomacy could, therefore, not be considered being as strict as the conduct of foreign policy. It is only in foreign policy that there is a strict requirement of application of coordination with every critical component of the unity of action across either one state or a single state. The lack of coordination would mean the lack of unity and, subsequently, the failure of the entire process.

The foreign policy that consists of the guiding principles that a country should follow also consists of a particular timeframe along with the tools and priorities such as the internal development of the country and the maintenance of peace (Gilboa 2006). There is an importance in time considered as the set goals, as well as priorities, could change with time. However, for diplomacy, there is no need to have a specific timeframe as it would rather rely on the effect of peace, including communication and interactions for the success of the states involved or the realization of goals (Smith 2001). Time is also important as it dictates the realization of territorial expansion as well as ideological upholding. Foreign policy with the lack of time would only be deemed ineffective.