Statecraft - The Theory
Statecraft is a comprehensive blend of strategies to pursue the interests of a state, nation, or distinct people[1]. At the most basic level, statecraft involves using resources and tools (economic, political, military, intelligence, and media) to pursue the interests of a state by influencing the behaviors of others – friendly or hostile.
Hence, statecraft is construed as (1) an art, (2) a series of methods, and (3) strategies that come together to ensure the skillful management of a state’s affairs. These are employed to steer a state or similar political unit to pursue a desired end or end game.
The scope of statecraft includes international relations, engaging in world politics, and institutional structures to manage different publics within a state's jurisdiction. Statecraft, therefore, involves:
1. Construction of institutions
2. Engaging with existing normative orders, and
3. Contribution to the creation and utilization of innovative methods of consensus-building and governance[2]
Thus, statecraft is about mobilizing power and deploying it in a political system to attain the best forms of compromise and, in many cases, maintain a synthesis of different competing parts
External perceptions of statecraft involve how a state manages relations with other states and international actors[3]. This is particularly true in today's extended Westphalian global order, driven by cooperation and international trade.
In theory, anyone can declare any piece of land a state. However, in today's global order, the only mechanism for effectively creating a state is universal or significant recognition by other sovereign states.[4].
Functional statecraft is, therefore, premised on a system of mutual international recognition of a state by the "family of states" to gain the essential powers to function appropriately. This requires vital pointers, including:
1. A state apparatus,
2. A clearly defined national interest, and
3. A legitimate authority that leads the distinct people of the state[5]
Hence, statecraft is incubated based on these three fundamental principles. Once that is achieved, there should be an internal state-making process that shapes the state through:
1. Comprehensive communication by the leadership,
2. Promote and engage in careful deliberation among the different publics and stakeholder groups, and
3. Satisfaction of the interests and inquisitiveness of audiences through appropriate “stage-managed” gestures to maintain national cohesion[6].
While this submission by the historian Brian J.C. McKercher is somewhat controversial, symbolism is central to maintaining the statecraft process. Thus, symbols and actions in the mass communication arena can be useful in providing certain assurances the public needs to maintain their trust in a government.
Some scholars like Benjamin Cohen go as far as asserting that there is a dramatical approach to international relations which helps states to meet their goals and ends[7]. The process involves:
1. Seeking cross-cultural comprehensibility,
2. Rigorous deliberation and discussions,
3. Satisfying the curiosity of an interested audience[8]
These elements are so essential that some thinkers assert that states and international actors tend to unite to set international agendas that are adopted into national policy frameworks across states[9]. These pointers are dramatized and communicated to interest groups to create new policies and norms that are used to progressively steer and direct a state or similar political unit in the framework of statecraft.
Hence, statecraft is about managing relations within and between states to the advantage of a state. It uses many instruments of national power to defend vital national interests. The next articles in this series will cover statecraft's functional and structural elements.
[1] Dennis Ross. Statecraft: And How to Restore America's Standing in the World. (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2008) px
[2] Stacie E. Goddard, Paul K. MacDonald & Daniel H. Nexon. "Repertoires of statecraft: instruments and logics of power politics" International Relations 33 (2) 2019 pp304-321 DOI: 10.1177/0047117819834625
[3] Charles Hill. Grand Strategies: Literature, Statecraft, and World Order. Boston, MA: Yale University Press, 2012
[4] Gezim Visoka. "Statehood and recognition in world politics: Towards a critical research agenda" Cooperation & Conflict 57 (2) 2021 pp133-151 DOI: 10.1177/00108367211007876
[5] Brian James Cooper McKercher. Routledge Handbook of Diplomacy and Statecraft. (London: Routledge, 2022) p24
[6] Brian James Cooper McKercher. Routledge Handbook of Diplomacy and Statecraft. (London: Routledge, 2022) p24
[7] Benjamin Cohen. International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008) p1
[8] B. J. C. McKercher. Routledge Handbook of Diplomacy and Statecraft. (London: Routledge, 2022) p24
[9] Felix Schenuit. "Staging science: Dramaturgical politics of the IPCC's Special Report on 1.5 °C" Environmental Science & Policy 139 2023 pp166-176 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.10.014