Diplomacy is an array of strategies used by sovereign states to achieve and enhance their relations to achieve their national interests. Thus, diplomacy consists of many interests ranging from simple relations to matters of war. There are three modes of diplomacy. First, bilateral diplomacy is when two sovereign states negotiate for their interests. Second, unilateral diplomacy is when a state acts alone without the consent of another state. Lastly, multilateral diplomacy is when more than two states or parties achieve diplomatic solutions. Most states today give preeminence to bilateral diplomacy as opposed to multilateral diplomacy. As per Quincy Wright’s definition, diplomacy involves tact, shrewdness, and negotiation skills. This paper discusses the underlying motivations for this preference.
Advantages of Bilateral Diplomacy
First, bilateral diplomacy is quicker and more effective, which leads to better results promptly. In bilateral diplomacy, there is an ease of communication with minimal disturbances, which enhances efficiency in providing results. For example, in a conflict between Kenya and Uganda, ambassadors and envoys can meet promptly to discuss the way forward, generating a solution within hours. In multilateral diplomacy, however, there are many states, so more arrangements must be made. Delays characterize this. An example is Morocco’s appeal to join AU.
Second, bilateral diplomacy can be achieved even when the countries have grievances. When two nations have grievances but have a mutually beneficial opportunity, they can easily agree and address the grievances later. For example, China and Japan have close economic ties since they are mutually beneficial despite their political differences aggravated by the Taiwan issue and marine resources (Song et al., 2020). In contrast, multilateral diplomacy has more complexity since there is no direct communication, discouraging collaboration.
Third, comparative advantage can be applied in bilateral diplomacy, unlike multilateral diplomacy. The motivation behind economic diplomacy is enhancing a country’s economic strength by maximizing income while minimizing expenditure. Thus, countries with similar resources have limited mutually beneficial prospects. This is mostly the case in multilateral diplomacy. For example, the European Union has failed to be a successful fiscal union because the member structure has almost similar economies (Sahgal, 2020). In contrast, a bilateral relationship between Kenya and the UK is more beneficial to the UK because they are major manufacturers while Kenya relies on agriculture (Leong, 2020).
Fourth, bilateral diplomacy is cheaper and more discrete as opposed to multilateral diplomacy, which is expensive and public. Multilateral diplomacy involves summits that have major financial implications for the host countries. In addition, the details of multilateral diplomacy are either made public or leaked. In contrast, bilateral diplomacy is cheap because arrangements are not extensive. Also, the agreement’s details and even the agreement itself could remain a secret for long. Thus, it is easier to achieve secret diplomacy through bilateral diplomacy than multilateral diplomacy.
Finally, states can obtain more tailored agreements in bilateral diplomacy than multilateral diplomacy while avoiding conflict. In bilateral diplomacy, each state knows what it offers, the challenges that need to be overcome to enhance the collaboration, and the values shared that enhance the diplomacy. The USA avoids possible conflict in a multilateral agreement between Japan and China by collaborating with each nation directly and enjoying different outcomes from each.
