ABSTRACT
Diplomacy is essentially an interactive activity. Effective action in diplomacy requires taking into account what others are saying, thinking, and doing. What we decide and do in diplomacy very much depends on what others decide and do. Game theory has been called the theory of ‘interdependent’ decisions. That is why it may be useful for us to make some forays in game theory. Games can act as guides for strategic thinking and hence for policy-making. We start with the well-known Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD), first in its one-shot and then in its iterated version, which changes the logic of the game entirely. From there we move to some other ‘diplomatic’ games: the Game of Stag Hunt, the game known as the Battle of the Sexes, and the Chicken Game. We will illustrate these games by giving examples ranging from the merits of multilateral diplomacy (an iterated PD game) to the current potential Chicken-Game-like confrontation between China and Taiwan. There are limits on what game theory can teach us when, as often happens in diplomatic practice, pride and honour show up replacing the dual assumption of game theory: rationality and self-interest. The Ultimatum Game will help us understand what is going on in such situations. Interactive diplomacy is not just about strategic thinking, it is also and perhaps primarily about understanding the mind of the other. That is what ‘rational empathy’ is about. Misunderstandings are often the source of miscalculations. Getting into another’s mind is not just understanding what the other says but grasping the reasons and motives explaining why he is saying it. ‘Empathy’ is easily confused with ‘sympathy’, whereas, in fact, it is almost its reverse, as we will explain. To show how rational empathy plays out in diplomacy, we will look at some important differences between the Western and the Eastern mind, easily overlooked in diplomatic practice. They help explain why the ways of doing diplomacy, the diplomatic style, in the West differ from those of the East.
