»DIPLOMACY AND SECURITY AFTER THE END OF THE COLD WAR: THE

CHANGE OF THE PARADIGM«

Special Guest Lecture at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna – An Outline
October 16, 2006 at 19.00 – By Milan Jazbec1

A. From 1648 to 1989

A.1 The Peace of Westphalia

The peace of Westphalia can be considered as the birth of the nation state as we have known
it over the last few centuries.
The Treaty confirmed that sovereignty should be ascribed not just to the sovereign but also
to the particularity of his territorial holdings. Key elements of the agreements ratified in
Westphalia survived hundreds of years of turbulent history, and codified some of the basic
elements of the modern system:
a) Non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states,
b) The concept of diplomatic immunity,
c) The recognition that only states (i.e. not the Church) were able to exercise political
control.
With this treaty, the Thirty Years’ War was formally ended and a state system was born,
which was in use for centuries afterwards, some of its elements being recognizable even
today, and an equilibrium of power among the then European powers was established.
Modern Europe was born with the Peace of Westphalia.
The Peace of Westphalia thus occupies a key place in the history of international relations:
a) The long-lasting international and also internal war, which had been ravaging Europe, was
ended and it was therefore possible for the leading European powers to switch from
mutual attrition to overseas expansion. This coincided with the development of national
markets and the modern nation state, as well as with the appearance of world markets and
the global international community.
b) The numerous peace treaties, which were signed by the European states, then pointed to
the growing complexity of international relations. This actually represented the first
recognition of the existence of an international community by these states.
c) The peace treaties determined and established territorial borders within the European, and
in particular the Western European, state system. A certain mode of political behavior
originated in this fact – equilibrium of power was established among the European states,
particularly the most important ones: France, England, Spain, the Netherlands and Austria,
and later Prussia and Russia.
This was also the time of the final birth of the nation state: The birth of the nation state is
closely related to an emerging pattern of relations between states, an international system, and
to the growth of commercial relations across the world – a global system. The nation state in
its traditional sense from then on marks the development of international relations with one
key characteristic – with sovereignty based on territory, with its internal exclusive power over
the population within its territory, including the criterion of having the legitimate monopoly
of the use of force.

1
Dr Milan Jazbec, Minister Plenipotentiary, Head of Policy Planning and Research Division, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia. Former State Secretary for Defense Policy and International
Relations at the Slovene Ministry of Defense. Assistant Professor for sociology of diplomacy. Author of seven
books and numerous articles on diplomacy, security and defense. The views presented at the lecture are solely of
his own and do not represent those of his employer.
A.2 The Contemporary International Community

Is marked by the following changes which have taken place over the last hundred years and
which have become more pronounced in the last decade:
a) The contemporary international community is a global one - geographical borders no
longer play an important role;
b) Contemporary international phenomena are global phenomena, linking various
dimensions - political, military, economic and others – and within them a very important
role is played by the linking and mutual dependence of the internal and the external;
c) Contemporary international relations are characterized by their heterogeneity, i.e. in the
existence of states with different socio-economic systems and at varying levels of social
development, which can on the one hand be seen in the discrepancies between the
developed and undeveloped parts of the world, and on the other hand in the co-existence
of varying degrees of intensity of international activity and in the choice of instruments
(which correspond to the stage of economic development of individual subjects,
particularly countries) and ways in which they make their appearance in the increasingly
complex structures of the international community;
d) The contemporary international community is, for the first time in the history of
international relations and the human race generally, faced with the question of survival,
which is a consequence of the development of weapons technology as well as the neglect
of the planet’s ecology, both of which serve as a distinct warning of the growing
importance of the structural interdependence of the contemporary world, at the same time
indicating the increased difficulty involved in working on the international stage.

A.3 The Post-modern World

The outlines and elements have been experiencing for some time, and which started to take on
an unmistakable shape after the fall of the Iron Curtain, has the following characteristics:
a) The breakdown of the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs;
b) Mutual interference in (traditional) domestic affairs and mutual surveillance;
c) The rejection of force for resolving disputes and the consequent codification of rules of
behavior. These rules are self-enforced. No-one compels states to obey CFE limits. They
keep to them because of their individual interest in maintaining the collective system. In
the same way the judgments of the European Court of Justice are implemented
voluntarily, even when they are disliked, because all EU states have an interest in
maintaining the rule of law;
d) The growing irrelevance of borders: this has come about both through the changing role of
the states but also through missiles, motor cars and satellites. Changes of borders are both
necessary and less important;
e) Security is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual
vulnerability.

B. Topics

B.1 Paradigm

- A typical example or pattern (15th century)

- A theoretical framework (1960s)
- The prevailing view of things

2
 - An example that serves as a pattern or model for something, especially one that forms
the basis of a methodology or theory
- In the philosophy of science, a generally accepted model of how ideas relate to one
another, forming a conceptual framework within which a scientific research is carried
out

B.2 Nation State - categories and periods

Three categories (and periods) of a nation state: pre-modern, modern and post-modern.

Pre-modern state is characterized by chaos, where the state as an institution has no

monopoly over the use of force: the state itself is a fragile structure. People live off natural
resources, which, for technologically developed states, ceased to be a source of power and
wealth a long time ago (with the exception of crude oil). These states are nowadays the
poorest ones, counting on various forms of aid from the rich countries, as they have no chance
in the global race. (Somalia, Afghanistan, Liberia, Cambodia, Sierra Leone)
The first period, ending with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648: we can talk about the pre-
modern, pre-Westphalian or pre-nation state. Characteristic of this time is the formation of the
basic shape of the international community and international relations, and with it of
diplomacy and international law. The state as an institution did not have the features of the
nation state: its function, apart from the use of force, did not as a rule extend beyond the
administrative frame. Likewise, we can still not talk about a state which existed or was
perceived in the minds of its population as a proper notion and institution. Borders between
territories were unclear and unstable and therefore we can, in terms of international relations,
talk about the war of all against all as a normal state of affairs.

Modern states are typical nation states: Here the classical state system remains intact. They
therefore have a strong belief in the sovereignty of the state and in non-interference. An
important characteristic of the modern state is the recognition of state sovereignty and the
consequent separation of domestic and foreign affairs, with a prohibition on external
interference in the former. They are willing to use force to defend their interests; expansionist
tendencies, great confidence and nationalism are likely to be present. Globalization can bring
these states a certain development, but on the basis of the use of second-rate technologies.
(India, China, Brazil; Southeast Asia, Latin America, the Near East).
The second period is characterized by the appearance and flourishing of the classical
nation state (modern or Westphalian) based on a defined territory, a stable population and a
sovereign, exclusive authority, which allowed no interference in the sphere of its domestic
jurisdiction. This period lasted from the Peace of Westphalia, i.e. the end of the Thirty Years’
War, to roughly the second half of the 20th century, when the bi-polar nature of the world
becomes eroded, probably ending with the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. Sovereignty has
been a key idea in the evolution of the modern world, although – like both the nation and the
state – it takes its meaning from societies that have long since gone, and in particular from the
problem of order in seventeenth century Europe. The nation state was at its apogee during the
18th and the 19th centuries, whilst the main lines of force and elements of the international
community, which were the foundations of the later appearance of the modern, global
international community of the 20th century, appeared mainly during the latter. The basic
model of international relations in the period of the Westphalian state is the balance of power,
which was constantly changing and the main holders of which were the Western European
states, i.e. initially Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, England and France and, later on,

3
increasingly also Austria, Prussia (later Germany), Russia (or the Soviet Union for most of the
20th century) and above all the USA.

Post-modern state: traditional sovereignty is no longer central to it. It places more emphasis
on the system of mutual co-operation, even domestically. The possibility of inspection and
even interference in the internal affairs of individual countries strengthens their mutual trust
and interdependence. The European Union, for example, is a highly developed system for
mutual interference in each other’s domestic affairs, right down to beer and sausages. In this
group we find most of the European states, particularly EU members.
The setting-up of the EU is a very important milestone in the development of the state as an
institution. Post-modern Europe begins with two treaties. The first of these, the Treaty of
Rome is a conscious and successful attempt to go beyond the nation state. The second
foundation of the post-modern era is the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE). The
legitimate monopoly on force, which is the essence of statehood, is thus subject to
international – but self-imposed constraints. It is thus an extraordinary revolution, a change
that points to a brand new image of the nation state, which agrees to consultation and common
dealing with matters belonging to the domain of traditional state attributes.
The third period has been recognizable for at least a decade now. In this period, the nation
state changes its traditional image. Its conventional attributes, which developed in the
previous period, start changing noticeably because of the influence of the international
processes of integration and disintegration. This is why we can talk about the state as the post-
modern state, post-Westphalian or post-nation state. The stress is on a pronounced and
voluntary co-operation with other states, on a great interest in taking part in the processes of
integration and on the openness of its domestic jurisdiction, all with a marked acceptance of
jointly agreed rules of behaviour. As already shown, we can observe the co-existence of all
three types of state in the modern global international community. It is probably this very
simultaneity that makes it easier for us to determine the characteristics of all three individual
types, their beginnings and evolution.

B.3 Diplomacy

Phases and Characteristics of the Development of Diplomacy

Early Classical Modern Postmodern

1. Till 1648 1648 - 1920 1920 - 1989 1989 and on
2. Ancient Greek Nation state Nation state and Nation state and
and Medieval international integration
Italian city states organizations processes
3. Individuals from Permanent Permanent Permanent
emperor’s closest diplomatic diplomatic diplomatic
vicinity organization and organization and organization and
diplomats diplomats (MFA) diplomats (MFA)
4. Ad hoc missions Permanent Permanent Permanent
diplomatic diplomatic missions diplomatic
missions missions and
proliferation of
diplomatic
representatives

4
 5. Instructions at the Permanent two- Permanent two-way Permanent two-
beginning of the way communication way
mission and communication between the MFA communication
reporting after its between the MFA and the mission between the MFA
closure and the mission (instructions and and the mission
(instructions and reports) (instructions and
reports) reports)
6. Origins of Bilateral diplomacy Bilateral and Bilateral and
bilateral and multilateral multilateral
multilateral diplomacy diplomacy
diplomacy
7. Secret diplomacy Secret diplomacy Public diplomacy Public diplomacy
8. Temporary and Congresses of The League of The UN, G8, the
indirect emperors Nations and the UN EU, NATO,
communication (direct various other
between emperors communication) summit meetings

Post-modern diplomacy – some characteristics:

a) Permanent diplomatic organization and diplomatic body
b) Additional forms of international diplomatic communication and representation. New
topics.
c) Proliferation of special diplomacies (military/defense, commercial, public,
parliamentary, cultural etc.).
d) Proliferation of various forms of diplomatic representatives (personnel, special, ad hoc
etc), with an increasingly high level (status) of representatives.
e) The ever-changing relations between multilateral and bilateral diplomacy.
f) Demonopolisation of foreign ministries (recruitment of various experts into diplomacy
for targeted tasks for limited period of time).
g) Revival of importance of heads of states and governments (they practically decide
about everything)
h) Constant need for education of diplomats with non-diplomatic topics. Senior
diplomats as managers. Coordination of processes.
i) Preventive diplomacy. Protection of individuals.

B.4 Security

Contemporary security:
- Security is indispensable and complex.
- Complementarity of key players. (states, international organizations, non-state actors,
networks)
- The equation: security + development + human rights. (social origins of violence)
- Who are terrorists, where do they come from and how to deal with them?
- Individual and security.
- Energy, environment, survival = security

Six clusters of threats (must be concerned now and in the decades ahead - UNHPReport):
- Economic and social threats, including poverty, infectious disease and environmental
degradation,
- Inter-State conflict

5
 - Internal conflict, including civil war, genocide and other large- scale atrocities
- Nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons
- Terrorism
- Transnational organized crime

Today’s threats:
- No national boundaries.
- Connected. Combined. Unpredictable. Simplified and efficient means of threat.
- Must be addressed at the global, regional and national levels with national and
international interagency approach.

What is security?
Absolute security is an illusion. It is a myth as well as absolute defense.
Security – hard, soft, social, environmental, health, educational, employment, intellectual,
emotional etc.
Hard power – providing security through military means.
Soft power – providing security through values.
Terrorism is a global matrix. Uncertainty has become permanent.

Forms of providing security through centuries.

Balance of power. (Till the end of WW1)

Collective security. (LN, UN)
Collective defense. (NATO)

C. Challenges

The question of action and reaction between rigid structures and loose networks.

C.1 Factors of Change:

Communication technology and ability to move and commute.

The century of migration – airline industry.
Internet = concentration of media = interconnectedness and alienation of individual.
Increased vulnerability of postmodern societies because of their complexity.
Demanding maintenance and management of systems.
Dependance from energy resources.
Proliferation of availability of all weapons and devices.

Aggressive activities of non-state actors and individuals (terrorism) are unpredictable and
combined. Horizontal and vertical inter-agency approach in countering them is a precondition.

C.2 Structures and capability to react

Flexibility of horizontal activities of unformal structures (neworkings).

Unflexibility of vertical activities of formal structures. (bureaucracies)
The capability of formal structures to react to security threats caused by unformal structures.
Hierarchy = domination // horizontal networks = efficiency + interdependency

6
There is a fundamental asymmetry between today’s global reality and the existing
mechanisms of global governance.
= Restructuring cold war institutions to reflect the post cold war distribution of power.

C.3 Paradigm:
- Integration
- Disintegration = GLOBALISATION
- Availability of information
- = War and violence – fragmentarization + privatization
- An individual

Postmodern matrix:
National and modern state, wars for territories.
The postmodern one: to defend values.
The UN – how to adapt?
The EU – an overall structural adaptation of national societies.
NATO – a structural adaptation of national security & defense system & armed forces.
= Denationalization of societies & armies = harmonization & international cooperation
= Cooperation + consensus = new + different set of values

D. Way Ahead

1989 is the turning point in the modern history that marked global, fundamental and
structural change. It also portraits the increased vulnerability of postmodern societies because
of their complexity.
The new paradigm: the dynamic movement full of new, complicated and interdependent
contradictions. Security has become the key development issue.
The main change is the one in the security environment, which influences primarily the
organization and functioning of social structures. This corresponds also to the wider
comprehension of the modern paradigm (art, literature, science, philosophy etc.), which
started with the period of renaissance and lasted throughout most of the twentieth century.
(Compare: from Cervantes /Don Quixote – 1605/16/ to Eco /The Name of the Rose –
1980/83/). The expiring modern paradigm encompassed several previous centuries, when
European powers controlled global relations.
Globalization as the enabling framework for the new paradigm: integration and disintegration.
The all-encompassing availability of information. A century of unprecedented commuting.
Unlimited freedom of choice.
An overall proliferation of threats (unpredictable, combined, complex, interconnected).

E. References

A more secure world: Our shared responsibility. Report of the High-level Panel on Threats,
Challenges and Change. New York: United Nations. 2004.
Cooper, Robert. 1996. The Post-Modern State and the World Order. London: Demos.
Friedman, Thomas. 2005. The World is Flat: A Brief History of Twenty-first Century. Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Jazbec, Milan. 2005. The Fall of the Berlin Wall and the Change of the Paradigm. IFIMES
Yearbook 2004. Ljubljana. Pp. 147-159. www.ifimes.org
Kennedy, Paul. 1989. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military
Conflict from 1500 to 2000. London: Fontana Press.

7
Mautner-Markhof, Frances. 2004. Order and Chaos in the 21st Century. Wien: Schriftenreihe
der Landesverteidigungsakademie.
Reiter, Erich. 2003. Perspektiven der globalen strategischen Entwicklung: Das Ende der
Ordnung von Jalta. Hamburg, Berlin, Bonn: Mittler Verlag.