The Western world's reaction to the destruction of Bosnia has been a
triumph of diplomacy. A triumph, that is, of diplomacy over foreign
policy. The sky has been dark with airplanes shuttling statesmen and
their entourages between London, Paris, Washington and Geneva.
Meetings have been held, deferred and reconvened; pieces of paper
have been signed, and declarations made to the television cameras.
And yet, in spite of all this--or rather, to a large extent, because
of all this--the killing and destruction in Bosnia have continued
unabated.
A crude but adequate account of the difference between diplomacy and
foreign policy might go as follows. The sign of successful diplomacy
is that all parties can come out of a meeting feeling that their
interests have been respected. The sign of successful foreign policy
is that one party can come out of the meeting knowing that its own
interests have been advanced. Diplomacy seeks to assuage, to
conciliate, to reassure: the end-state at which it aims is a
psychological one. Foreign policy, on the other hand, has concrete
aims: to make things happen which are in a country's own interest, or
stop things happening which are frustrating it.
