[From Diplomaticheskii Slovar' (Diplomatic Dictionary), Vol. 1. State Publishing House for Political Literature, Moscow. 1960]

DIPLOMACY

In diplomatic manuals and in books on the history of diplomacy quite frequently diplomacy is defined as "the science of foreign relations," or as "the science of negotiations." Diplomacy as a basic and major means of foreign policy is a component part of politics. From a Marxist viewpoint "politics is a science and an art" (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 61). Politics should be guided by the laws of public life as revealed by science, and political activities, in order to be successful, must be based on the conclusions of science. However, the application of these conclusions for changing the actual situation in the direction of determined political objectives is an art. All of this also applies to diplomacy. Diplomacy is not the subject of a special science. The attempts of contemporary bourgeois authors to construct a "science of international relations" (Guggenheim, Wright) or a "science of international politics" (Morgenthau) are factitious and groundless. Diplomatic activity should be based on data from a number of sciences: the history of international relations, the histories of individual countries and of economic science in relation to the study of world economy and the economies of individual countries, international law, the laws of individual countries and other subjects, the knowledge of which is necessary for the correct evaluation of overall conditions and specific events of international life and the domestic affairs of various countries. Without such an evaluation diplomacy may find itself in a position where it is unable to implement the foreign policy objectives of the state.

Present day bourgeois diplomacy, as the diplomacy of an obsolescent class, is incapable of using the scientific analysis of reality for support. Although after World War II, in connection with reforms of the British and U.S. diplomatic departments, an extensive departmental scientific research apparatus and even special agencies for the "scientific planning" of foreign policy were created, by no means can the diplomacy of those countries be regarded as scientifically wellgrounded, because, as a rule, it does not want to take a sensible view based on the actual state of affairs, it sets goals in opposition to the action of objective regularities determining social development, and it disregards the course of social development which is propelling new social and political forces into the world arena. This very factor constitutes one of the main sources of the malcalculations of bourgeois diplomacy and has led to a number of its serious defeats in the postwar years (for example, in China, in the Near and Middle East, etc.). In contrast to this the diplomacy of the USSR and other socialist states is scientific diplomacy. It is constructed on the foundation of MarxistLeninist theory and knows how to use the powerful weapon of a

Marxist, i.e., truly scientific, analysis of reality and the knowledge of regularities of historical development.

"Marxism," wrote V. I. Lenin, demands of us the most precise and objectively verified calculation of the correlation of the classes and the specific features of each historical moment. We, Bolsheviks, have always tried to be true to this demand, which is absolutely obligatory for every scientifically based policy."

In their foreign policy the USSR and other socialist states proceed on the basis of the Leninist doctrine that a historical period of simultaneous coexistence of two systems, socialist and capitalist, is inevitable, and on the basis of the scientific conclusion that it is possible under present day conditions to prevent a new world war through the efforts of peace-loving nations. Supported by a profound understanding of the objective regularities of the present epoch and guided by the principles of peaceful coexistence, socialist diplomacy has achieved important successes in strengthening the international position of the socialist states and in the struggle against the aggressive plans and actions of imperialist powers in various parts of the world.

However, the application of conclusions arrived at on the basis of analyzing international relations or the domestic affairs of individual countries to the practical actions of a diplomat cannot be compared with the application of a scientific theorem to earlier established data. The methods of diplomatic activity are based on the attainment of definite objectives, connected with a change of reality, and are used in a constantly changing situation. By no means do the methods add up to any set of standard rules, because the attainment of assigned diplomatic foreign policy objectives with the aid of these methods depends to a considerable degree on the particular operating procedures of the persons applying the methods. Accumulated as a result of long historical experience, in their application diplomatic methods are creatively supplemented and corrected in accordance with any change in the local conditions. Diplomatic activity constitutes an art, although it should be supported by the conclusions of science.

In the books of bourgeois authors diplomatic art is usually reduced to the subjective qualities of a diplomat, to the qualities of his mind and character. Thus, for example, in the words of Garden, writing at the beginning of the 19th century, it is "a certain tact, the capability of taking advantage of someone else's weaknesses and of calming an irritated country with courtesy." In the words of Kennedy, writing a hundred years later, it is "a penetrating and astute mind combined with a well-developed sense of honor." In such interpretations the so ial-political nature of diplomatic art is ignored. Of course, in diplomatic art, as in any other, individual capabilities cannot be disregarded. A diplomat's skill in using the forms and methods applied in foreign relations is important for the success of diplomatic activities. However, first and foremost diplomatic art has to be considered in relation to those historically developing social and political conditions in which it is growing and developing. In the final analysis diplomatic art amounts to influencing other states and the international situation in the interests of the ruling class in a given state and in the interests of strengthening the particular social and political structure which supports that state. Consequently, the methods and modes of diplomacy are closely conditioned by the objectives of that foreign policy which

such diplomacy is actually implementing. And the foreign policy of a state, as the Marxists always emphasize, is the direct continuation of its domestic policy. . . .

The socialist diplomacy of the USSR and the countries of peoples' democracy is a genuinely new and genuinely popular diplomacy, both as to its aims and its essence, as well as to its forms and methods. The essence of their diplomacy is inextricably connected with the essence of their foreign policy, and the latter is conditioned by the nature of their social and state system. In the socialist countries there are no classes and parties interested in wars or in supremacy over other countries. The peoples of the socialist countries are striving to build a Communist society and to create international conditions promoting the implementation of this great aim. The general line of the foreign policy of the socialist countries is the Leninist principle of the peaceful coexistence of states under different socio-political systems and the struggle for the preservation and consolidation of peace among peoples. The basis of the foreign policy of the socialist countries, so far as this concerns their relations with each other, is the principle of socialist internationalism, fraternal unity, and mutual aid. The struggle for freedom and independence of peoples, respect for the sovereignty of large and small states, and the building of relations between all states on the principles of full equality and mutual aidthese are the bases of the foreign policy of the socialist countries.

These aims and principles of socialist foreign policy primarily also define the basic characteristics of socialist diplomacy and its principal features, distinguishing it substantially from the diplomacy of all the exploiting states. Socialist diplomacy does not need any kind of camouflage for its foreign policy aims, since the foreign policy aims of the socialist states answer the basic interests of the peoples throughout the world and enlist the sympathies of all progressive mankind. “An overwhelming majority of the world's populations approves our peaceful policy," said V. I. Lenin in establishing the bankruptcy of the international plans of the Entente. (Works, Vol. 30, p. 365) In contrast to the diplomacy of the exploiting states, socialist diplomacy has a direct and open nature. "Bourgeois diplomacy," said V. I. Lenin, "is incapable of understanding the methods of our new diplomacy of open, direct statements." (Works, Vol. 31, p. 250) "The old world has its own old diplomacy which cannot believe that it is possible to speak directly and openly." (Works, Vol. 33, p. 124)

Socialist diplomacy relies on the support of the broad popular masses and strives as extensively as possible to explain to them its aims and the support of the foreign policy measures it is implementing. Socialist diplomacy views the political awareness of the popular masses in its own country as well as in other countries and the masses' understanding of international politics as one of the most important sources of its power. For this reason, socialist diplomacy in all its activity focuses special attention on bringing to the knowledge of the peoples throughout the world the truth about foreign policy and international relations.

Socialist diplomacy is deeply principled, in contrast to bourgeois diplomacy which often proffers earlier enunciated foreign policy principles and the most solemn declarations for the sake of political benefits at the given moment. Socialist diplomacy is not susceptible to

opportunistic combinations and diplomatic deals which conflict with the principled bases of socialist foreign policy. Thus, when at the 1922 Geneva Conference, the capitalist powers demanded that the Soviet state renounce its annulment of the loans and liabilities of the Tsarist and Provisional Governments and its nationalization of foreign enterprises and foreign trade monopolies, proposing instead de jure recognition, the Soviet state resolutely rejected these demands and subsequently acquired de jure recognition with the complete preservation of all principles and institutes in its system and in its domestic and foreign policy.

Socialist diplomacy combines principledness with flexibility, with a readiness for cooperation and agreement, for the concessions required to achieve cooperation and agreement, but not proceeding beyond the limits of its applicable foreign policy principles. Socialist diplomacy is combined with caution and restraint, the ability not to yield to provocations and to avoid conflicts by exercising firmness and decisiveness. An immutable characteristic of socialist diplomacy is adherence to the word given and the obligation assumed. The diplomatic history of the Soviet state provides convincing illustrations of this. Even such a reactionary political figure as W. Churchill was compelled to state the following in the English Parliament on 27 February 1945: "No government has so precisely fulfilled its obligations even to its own detriment as has the Soviet Government." This quality of socialist diplomacy, which so sharply distinguishes it from the diplomacy of exploiting states, results from the peace-loving character of the foreign policy of socialist states and from the stability of the main lines of that policy.

Throughout the course of the history of Soviet foreign relations, and also that of other socialist states, there have been established diplomatic methods appropriate to the essence of socialist diplomacy and to its above-stated fundamental features. In the aggregate these methods form a new type of diplomatic art-the diplomatic art of socialist countries which helps them influence the international situation in the interests of the workers.

One of the primary among these methods is the method of direct diplomatic negotiations. It is used extensively by socialist states both for establishing cooperation with other states in implementing common measures for insuring international peace and security as well as for the peaceful settlement of controversial issues and for the easing of international tension. Apropos of this N. S. Khrushchev stated: "It is now clear to any sensible person that it is not possible in these times to resolve international problems by the force of arms, that there is only one way-the way of peaceful negotiations taking into account the interests of all participants, negotiations based on equal rights and mutual advantage. The Soviet Union specifically supports such a course for the resolution of international problems."

The diplomacy of socialist states is based on the sympathy and support of broad peoples' masses of the entire world. With unvarying success it exposes the aggressive intentions of imperialist governments and the diplomatic maneuvers covering up such intentions. It opens the eyes of all people to the actual state of events. It does this from the rostrum of diplomatic conferences, in official diplomatic acts and documents, and in the press. The unmasking of the aggressive plans

and actions of imperialists is one of the important methods of socialist diplomacy, assisting it to mobilize democratic public opinion and popular masses throughout the entire world against the aggressive policy of imperialist governments.

A prominent position among the methods of socialist diplomacy is assigned to advancing constructive suggestions on international problems requiring settlement, in particular on problems concerning the guaranteeing of universal security and the easing of international tension. Socialist diplomacy has invariably advanced and continues to advance such proposals both within the framework of its relations with individual states as well as on a general international scale. As far back as the first decree of the Soviet state-the peace decree of 1917it advanced a program for universal democratic peace and new international relationships, without the enslavement of peoples, seizures of territory and secret diplomacy. In the 1920's and 30's the Soviet Government introduced a number of proposals on questions of disarmament and collective security. During World War II and the years immediately thereafter, the Soviet Government made a great contribution to defining the principles of postwar construction (within the provisions of the U.N. Charter, peace negotiations of 1947, etc.). In the postwar period, in the interests of guaranteeing international peace and security, the USSR and other socialist states advanced proposals on questions of armament reduction and banning nuclear weapons, stopping the testing of such weapons, the creation of a nuclear free zone in Central Europe (the Rapacki Plan), the collective security of Europe, the German problem, the problem of prevention of a surprise attack, and universal and complete disarmament.

Features of the constructive proposals of socialist diplomacy are their realism and political effectiveness. In distinction from the proposals frequently encountered in the practice of bourgeois diplomacy, which only outwardly are directed at peaceful objectives and in actual fact are inimical to the cause of peace and serve as a means of deceiving public opinion, the proposals of socialist diplomacy reveal the absolute possibility of practically guaranteeing the attainment of the peaceful objectives contained in them by the implementation of these proposals. An example of this was the Soviet Government's proposal for the permanent neutrality of Austria which promoted the strengthening of peace and security in Europe. Proposals of socialist diplomacy, as a rule, contain such a clear statement on international problems requiring settlement that they compel imperialist states to define their actual position on such problems and, consequently, should such proposals be turned down, they show that the imperialist states do not desire to take any real steps toward strengthening peace and opposing aggression. In such manner these proposals promote the self-exposure of imperialist governments and increase the vigilance of the popular masses.