Golf Diplomacy as a Deliberate Instrument of Informal Interaction and Socialization For Foreign Policy

Анотація

Purpose. Golf diplomacy, either as a separate instrument or a part of sports diplomacy, has been present in the practice of different international actors for decades. Golf diplomacy has been examined, yet the existing research focuses on the Asian region and lacks the framework that explains why and how golf-based meetings produce foreign policy results. This article aims to answer this gap by developing a model for golf as a deliberate diplomatic instrument, analyzing its application for diplomacy and the informal interaction of elites worldwide.

Methods. The study resorts to the qualitative comparative analysis of diplomatic practice in ASEAN countries, the U.S., Japan, Finland, Australia, South Korea, and Ukraine. The article uses three theoretical concepts to develop a framework: Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical view of interactions, Alexander Wendt’s understanding of repeated interactions’ role, and Joseph Nye’s soft power concept.

Results. The study shows that golf diplomacy works under three mechanisms: 1) a backstage setting that lifts pressure and enables position testing without pressure; 2) socialization via repeated and continuous co-presence of diplomats, allowing to generate trust; 3) exerting soft power due to the shared values and signals. The comparative analysis underlines that these mechanisms work within diverse cases. The case of ASEAN’s founding shows the institutionalization of golf diplomacy within the region due to its effect on cooperation. The Abe-Trump and Stubb-Trump cases emphasize the effect of golf meetings on Japanese security interests and outline significant economic and security dividends for Finland. The Australian case covers the use of non-state actors with golf capital to support foreign policy, while the case of South Korea confirms the investment in golf for diplomatic interaction on the highest level. Lastly, the actions of Ukrainian actors, both low and high-level, represent that golf diplomacy, when not all conditions are met, may have a symbolic or limited effect and bring no tangible results.

Conclusions. Golf diplomacy is a deliberate instrument that involves three prerequisites to be effective: continued investment into multiple diplomatic meetings, access to pressure-free informal settings, and a shared attitude towards golf among the parties involved. When these conditions are met, the golf diplomacy would contribute to the tangible outcomes such as agreements or security arrangements. If they are not met, the bonding is likely to provide no bonding and bring rather symbolic results. Future research should pay attention to whether the framework may be used across other sporting formats, cultural contexts, and levels of diplomatic affairs.