To achieve a broadly desirable goal, short of war, a state and its authorized diplomatic representatives must use the art of communication. “Watson, quoted in Batora 2005 page 1” describes diplomacy as “the process of dialogue and negotiation by which states in a system conduct their relations and pursue their purposes by means short of war.” I believe that this means that a diplomats job is to use skills of communication to achieve such goals, without using negative threats or military violence. They can do this through discussing issues with fellow delegates at the United Nations, finding other nation’s who have the same concerns as they do, or supplying funds and setting up or finding a humanitarian organization specializing in the issue they want to support. Goals that involve changing a country’s infrastructure are more difficult, and in past history have almost always resulted in violence. An example of that would be the Iraq war that has lasted for years longer than anyone expected. By trying to create a democratic government in their society America has triggered many groups into revolt, injuring thousands of innocent people and destroying lives. The best way to go about something such as this would be to slowly introduce it, you cannot force something so new on a state with such foreign ways of society.
But communication does not always work, we must remember that every country is run by one person or a group of people and people can easily be stubborn and uncooperative. If communication alone fails there are other ways to influence and persuade countries to focus on human rights or to see the benefits of democracy. Powerful nations can cut off trade and threaten the economies of states that are continually in violation of human rights.
ReplyDeleteYes you have a good point, but by cutting off trade and threatening their economy does it not put pressure on the leaders, thus creating harsh feelings and possible aggression? By putting such pressure on a country and threatening their ability to survive can sometimes bend them to your will but at the same time it causes damage that can effect many other states as well. Consider the issue between the U.S. and Cuba, the United States stopped all trade between the two countries and cut all economic ties but the Cuban government is still in power and actively voices hostility towards the United States.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel because communication is not always a reliable way to achieve a goal. Because many countries have their own language, communication can be very difficult and is not always the best resort in trying to achieve one's goals. Obviously it can be used to do so, but I don't think a country should rely solely on communication because there are other ways to achieve a universal goal. These other motives do not have to include threatening and cutting off trade, but a goal can be achieved through peaceful endeavors and compromise.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe that communication should be the method most frequently used in international relations, I agree with Ben and Rachel that it cannot be the only method. Economic sanctions should be used when necessary to stop violations of human rights and other UN treaties. In these cases it is more important to change the opposing nations' policy than eliminate all conflict.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am trying to say is to achieve it by evolution rather than revolution, to not dive right in and do something unchangeable but to rather slowly move into it. And as you have said it does not always work, but when it does it is the best way to achieve such a goal.
ReplyDeleteBen made the point that “other motives do not have to include threatening and cutting off trade, but a goal can be achieved through peaceful endeavors and compromise”, but is compromise not formed through the communication and negotiation between states?
Evolution vs. Revolution. Evolution can be a more effective instrument of change in that because it is not so dramatic it gives people time to adjust. People may not even be aware of the change. Therefore it will most likely eventually be accepted by more people, or at the very least there will be less opposition to it then if it were sudden and dramatic. However if there is a specific idea you wish to instill upon a group of people evolution may not be the best. Because of the long drawn out process of evolution ideas get distorted or get so watered down they become meaningless. And it just takes a lot longer. But in the specific case of Iraq it may be a good thing that ideas get distorted. Evolution allows the Iraqi people to mold whatever ideas of Democracy, et cetera we export to them in something that will work for them.
ReplyDeleteAnother point i'd like to raise is one I made in our class discussion. That threats of military violence, or sanctions being imposed are all forms of diplomacy. That warfare itself is, while not diplomacy in and of itself, a tool of diplomacy. How is war a tool of diplomacy? First here's the definition cited by Nicole; “the process of dialogue and negotiation by which states in a system conduct their relations and pursue their purposes by means short of war.” War can be used in negotiations. Let's use Risk as an example. Let's say I want peace with Ben. We start talking but he doesn't want to stop fighting me cause he is currently taking over several of my territories which he needs as a stepping stone to get to Russia, his objective. So then I start building my forces up to stop his advance. I start taking over some of the territories he took from me, and some he even had at the start of the game. Pretty soon I'm about to destroy his industrial base of Australia. So we start negotiations again. This time however he desperately wants peace with me, if not all he'll have left his a few scattered territories. I just used warfare to put myself in a more favorable position to negotiate with Ben diplomatically. Threats are just apart of the Negotiations. I want Nicole to vote in my favor so I'll be the last player to play this turn, and the first player in the diplomatic round. She doesn't want to vote for me. I tell her that if she doesn't I'll declare war on her and use my growing forces in the Middle East to take all of her Asian territories. I also tell her that I'll get Rachel, my ally, to declare war on her as well. Now she is far more inclined to vote in my favor. And i used negotiation and dialogue to pursue my purpose which was to have votes in my favor. I've just been "Diplomatasizing" Point is diplomacy is not necessarily nice and peaceful.
ReplyDelete