M"""""""`YM MMP"""""YMM MM"""""""`YM    MM'""""'YMM MMP"""""YMM M"""""`'"""`YM MM"""""""`YM M""MMMMM""M M""""""""M MM""""""""`M MM"""""""`MM
M  mmmm.  M M' .mmm. `M MM  mmmmm  M    M' .mmm. `M M' .mmm. `M M  mm.  mm.  M MM  mmmmm  M M  MMMMM  M Mmmm  mmmM MM  mmmmmmmM MM  mmmm,  M
M  MMMMM  M M  MMMMM  M M'        .M    M  MMMMMooM M  MMMMM  M M  MMM  MMM  M M'        .M M  MMMMM  M MMMM  MMMM M`      MMMM M'        .M
M  MMMMM  M M  MMMMM  M MM  MMMMMMMM    M  MMMMMMMM M  MMMMM  M M  MMM  MMM  M MM  MMMMMMMM M  MMMMM  M MMMM  MMMM MM  MMMMMMMM MM  MMMb. "M
M  MMMMM  M M. `MMM' .M MM  MMMMMMMM dP M. `MMM' .M M. `MMM' .M M  MMM  MMM  M MM  MMMMMMMM M  `MMM'  M MMMM  MMMM MM  MMMMMMMM MM  MMMMM  M
M  MMMMM  M MMb     dMM MM  MMMMMMMM 88 MM.     .dM MMb     dMM M  MMM  MMM  M MM  MMMMMMMM Mb       dM MMMM  MMMM MM        .M MM  MMMMM  M
MMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMM    MMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMM

Diplomacy, an art, innate and the key to interaction between all humans without exception— scaling from individuals to groups, and matters ranging from minuscule to egregiously major— has retained its imperative of communication since the inception of the art dating back to the Renaissance during the fifteenth century, in the city-states of Italy. There are levels to diplomacy; Although it is key to interaction between all humans, it’s mandatory amongst all states within the international system and its balance of power which is the theme for interstate relations, which is focal, as its effects are consequence to chain reactions which have effects from the top-down— participant states of the international system, down to the residents and citizens of those states. Diplomacy is thoroughly established as an art—one that encompasses soft science and references to hard science, in that there’s no single correct way to partake in the act apart from communication.

Karl Schweizer quotes Pigman, in the article, ‘Diplomacy’s Seamless Web’, stating, “The historic balance between state actors and diplomatic techniques, must be placed in an expanded, more dynamic context congruent with contemporary international realities. Thus, diplomacy’s core functions – representation and communication – while symbiotic, still need to adapt, respectively to ever widening, multicultural interactions and expanding technology-enabled connectivities.”(Schweizer)

Considering diplomacy, its roots, and tenure in society recently exceeding five hundred years of age, it’s only natural that it has also adapted to changes in said society and has experienced evolutions in its practice. However, being that it’s an established practice which rewards its practitioners, ambassadors and other representative statesmen, with the benefit of peace, though temporary, in addition to negotiation by way of force, but more importantly—access to the repository of wisdom, which the art of diplomacy continuously and recursively appends to. Dr. Karl Schweizer has written extensively regarding the topics of international relations, of which diplomacy is the foundation, in the article titled ‘Diplomacy’, he stated that “diplomacy goes on in the absence of government.”; Considering that the lack of government would be an anarchical state—state of statelessness at that—that to the likes which the states of the international system operate under in order to maintain their sovereignty in avoidance of the being under the dictatorship of another of its ilk. With that, the age-old adage of ‘as above, so below’, the macro- and micro- perspectives of diplomacy from state to individual, and the balance which functions analogous to the Newtonian Solar System— can be deemed to be a trifecta of metaphorical concepts which may potentially act as signage interchangeably with the equal sign, or the three-dotted ‘therefore’ glyph utilized in formal logic which is used when concluding syllogisms. There are numerous proposed forms of diplomacy that turn into norms, and are creatively conjured similar the proposed glyph concept, yet it isn’t established nor nominated for entry into the repository of diplomacy as such topics to the like of alternative forms of diplomacy like ‘coercive diplomacy’. This is akin to the constructive and creative art of diplomacy’s connection to misconception in its various forms.

In fact, in the era of Torcy’s renowned Académie Polotique, a school for diplomats in 1712; This was when diplomacy’s construction and growth was slightly stumped due to highest appointments being granted by inheritance and status, “to aristocrats who, by definition, expected to assume these as their right without prior education or preparation. Throughout most of Europe, these aristocratic pretensions were a key factor inhibiting growth of systemic training and the professionalism it symbolized. In addition, it was widely felt that successful diplomats were formed by experience rather than study, by mixing in polite society and analyzing negotiations in progress rather than by reading archival records and maps.” (Schweizer, Diplomacy p. 363). Taking the repository of wisdom that diplomacy is into consideration, this event in history is what may have led to today’s norm of diplomats coming from a wide array of backgrounds and professions due to the ever-changing dynamics of the art, and the later development of theories much like but not including deterrence, coercive, security dilemma, and cumulativity, amongst other entailing concepts of diplomacy.

Like various forms of diplomacy, there are various forms of misperception, and the two— diplomacy and misperception work together, especially in hindsight— connected by creativity and relating to the reality of the situation sets in and the conflict has escalated or deescalated. Misperception, most accurately gauged in hindsight of escalated conflicts, is commonplace in the practice of diplomacy. “Misperception involves a discrepancy between the physiological environment of decision makers and the “operational” environment of the real world. Decisions may be determined by the former; effects or consequences constrained by the latter.” (Schweizer) Misperception, by alternative definition, is the incongruence between what one state mistakenly; Whether conceitedly or diffidently perceived as the fact of reality regarding a nation’s standing regarding power and status via economy, technology, and military capability— underestimates or overestimates the retaliatory consequences or lack thereof by the adversarial state. This can and has resulted in brief wars after a demonstration of force is exhibited—akin to coercive diplomacy.

What’s more, there are two categorical forms of misperception: Central and Secondary. The central form of misperception relates to discrepancies between reality and expectation regarding combat; Secondary misperception is about the misperception of others’ perspectives, and decisions—in addition to the future’s reality or disruption of anticipated outcome. Misperception has played a diplomatic part in numerous wars, more recently the brief combative stint between Argentina and England over the Falkland Islands in 1982. This occurrence between the two states is a great demonstration of the connection between diplomacy and misperception because Argentina attempted to impose herself and make claim to a British territory. This is a prime example of the diplomacy as a constructive art and its connection to misperception because the occurrence of misperception, upon the completion of combat and urgency of one or either side to return to peaceful normalcy—it evokes the necessity of communication, which commenced hundreds of years before the conflict escalated to combat but the moment the crisis of war between the two powers began, it was destined to end because conflict situations are cause to the effect of bargaining situations, just as bargaining situations may lead to conflict.

In conclusion, properly employed diplomacy can reduce the incidence of misperception by way of transparency in negotiations between states but that is a security risk which could induce either side of the conflict to commence rearmament, preparing for war, and the continuation of diplomacy.