What is the relationship between Intelligence and Diplomacy? That is, I think, an important and quite interesting question, but it begs two other ones: What is in fact intelligence? And what does diplomacy even mean?
Since this article presents my personal opinions, I will also take as the point of departure my own sense of the meaning of those two words.
To me, intelligence is, quite simply, what the intelligence agencies produce. How they obtain their information – be it signals intercepts, human sources, or anything else – is less important to me as a consumer of their products.
One key feature of intelligence is that it is secret. It is narrowly distributed within the government structures, and only on a strict need-to-know basis. Consequently, only a select few individuals within, for instance, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, have access to intelligence – and the more sensitive it is, the fewer. Due to the high level of discretion and the difficulty guaranteeing information security at embassies and other missions abroad, intelligence tends to be shared primarily between units and officers in the capitals.
In a similar vein, diplomacy is – to me –what diplomats do to manage international relations and interests. What does that mean in practice? When we are on a foreign post we try to get to know people who can tell us about this or that aspect of the host country – foreign policy priorities, domestic politics, the functioning of the economy, business opportunities, fruitful areas of cultural cooperation, a million different things. We try to understand the host country, so we can inform our capital what is going on and, preferably, explain why it happens and how that affects our own country. And maybe how we can influence developments in a beneficial way according to our national – and in the best case mutual – interests.
As the reader may have noticed, both the preceding paragraphs contain a sentence on the role of the capital. While the Ministry for Foreign Affairs may be the main recipient of embassy reporting, it is by no means the only one. Many other ministries – in particular Defence, Justice/Interior, and Finance – are keen readers of reporting from the missions abroad, as is the Prime Minister’s Office. Those with a need-to-know are also avid readers of intelligence reports.
Simply put, intelligence services and diplomatic reporting normally cross paths in the capitals, enabling informed policymaking. This is where it gets interesting.
Whereas intelligence often provides pieces of the puzzle – diplomatic reporting can often contribute with the bigger picture.
Intelligence focusses on facts, compiled into larger sets of facts, refined into analysis. As an example, intelligence may recount actions of specific warships or aircraft and makes analytical deductions from the observed actions. But intelligence does not propose policies or reactions to what is observed.
Diplomacy is rooted in analysis, often with a holistic and contextual approach to the issue at hand. Diplomats normally spend several years in the country, often even several tours over a longer period of time. They develop a wide network of contacts in diverse fields of activities and different groupings in society, even building friendships. They immerse themselves in the culture and history of the country concerned. In short, they develop an understanding based on huge amounts of information combined with personal experience, which they can translate into a form that is understood by the recipients in the capital. And they often make policy recommendations or propose courses of action.
If you only use intelligence as the basis of decisions, i.e. only the pieces of the puzzle, you run the risk of applying the sending nation’s interpretations, values or interests – or quite simply world view – on the receiving country’s motivations, intentions and actions. The diplomats’ deep knowledge of the country in question and the resulting ability to provide a more insightful and comprehensive analysis reduces the risk of that fallacy. They provide the bigger picture into which the pieces of the puzzle fit.
Conversely: thanks to the understanding of their country’s national interests and priorities vis-à-vis the host country (and sometimes augmented by explicit instructions), diplomats can promote the views and interests of the sending country. They seek to develop common ground with the host country and try to influence the host country’s decision-making process. All this is made possible thanks to their local networks and their thorough knowledge of the country.
So, to answer the question at the start of this text: the relationship between intelligence and diplomacy is mutually supportive and complementary. Both are important for a country to conduct an effective foreign policy.
Peter Ericson
Ambassador of Sweden to Finland
