In a Utopian world, every issue in which humans have control can be resolved through diplomatic means. Thus, “in principle”, it is in fact possible to do so in our modern world. Ideally, an issue would arise, diplomats and states would converse and negotiate about it for a period of time, and in the end both would come to an understanding where a peaceful resolution would be reached. However, this peaceful, seemingly simple form of diplomacy is rarely seen today. In his article Pax Americana: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture, Geoff Wiseman defines diplomatic culture as “the accumulated communicative and representational norms, rules, and institutions devised to improve relations and avoid war between interacting and mutually recognizing political entities.” Thus, ideal diplomacy should be nonviolent, but obstacles and complications come into play, making some issues seemingly impossible to solve. Religion and beliefs are prime sources of worldwide dispute and violence. Notable examples include Al Qaeda, the Islamist terrorist group, and the Ku Klux Klan, who performed brutal, racist acts. Negotiating with extremist groups such as these is next to impossible, and peaceful diplomacy is often given up. Countries turn to their last resort: matching violence with violence.
Power also greatly limits diplomacy’s ability to solve issues. The interference of the desire for power is the most straightforward; quite often countries want what benefits themselves the most, disregarding what is actually more important for the global community. Mary Rosenblum’s novel Horizons is can be seen as a battle for power between several different parties. In a world where same-sex couples are universally accepted and religious tolerance is at a much more advanced level than it is at today, the struggle for power had not matured at all. The desire even coursed through individuals; when Ahni couldn’t comprehend her mother’s actions, Tania explained: “’She gave up power, Ahni…do you really think artistic success would outweigh loss of her power?’” (77). Violence and chaos ensued, illustrating what occurs all too often in today’s world when countries only think for themselves. Even small countries are affected by power’s drive; they make diplomatic decisions based on what they believe would best protect themselves. James Wallihan gives an example of this in Negotiation to Avoid Agreement: “…Israel and Arab states entered negotiations in which none of them reportedly wanted to participate. They attended in order to avoid antagonizing the United States.” Thus, each country’s individual interest in power limits diplomacy to a great degree.
Aside from the limits that stem from beliefs or human “vices”, true limits to democracy do exist. These issues are those that are completely out of man’s control, including environmental challenges and the development of complex, contagious diseases. Humans, as much as they try, cannot stop an earthquake from occurring or a volcano from erupting; the most that is within our ability is to work for prevention. Global warming is already causing potentially devastating climate changes. Diplomacy cannot stop the catastrophes from happening, but it can work to improve the environmental conditions. It is possible that once humans have “saved” the environmental crisis, then the frequency of natural disasters would lessen. However, it is also possible that once humans have caused enough damage, there is no turning back, and diplomacy would never be able to solve the issue. The same goes for contagious diseases. Attention has recently been brought to a new strain of bacteria that resists all forms of antibiotics and allows other sicknesses to do the same; if the bacteria was to develop into a global epidemic, then diplomacy would not be able to “solve” the issue until a medical solution is discovered. Environment and medicine are great aspects of world politics, but there is very little that diplomacy can do to resolve those issues. However, concerning the matters that stem from human interaction, diplomacy could technically resolve all of them, but only when people manage to get past the immense obstructions in the way that they built themselves.
Angela states that "Countries turn to their last resort: matching violence with violence." While this is sadly true, Gandhi contradicts this statement by saying "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." According to this belief, turning to violence instead of diplomatic means will not ultimately resolve the source of conflict, but worsen issues. Resorting to violence, when negotiation and deliberation do not seem to be able to create a consensus between two or more conflicted states, will only create more internal political issues and fluctuate international relations. I agree with that there are limitations to ideally peaceful means of diplomacy. However to extend and defend Angela's stance, violent measures have been historically necessary in order to protect basic human rights. As explained our world withholds "extremist groups" with which diplomacy fails. Diplomacy is defined as peaceful means of negotiation, which means that both parties must be willing to cooperate and compensate one another. Adolph Hitler held and "extremist" view on citizens of Jewish decent, such an extreme view that means of diplomacy failed because one party was unwilling to cooperate leading to World War II. According to "We the People," a textbook of civil values, when liberties and fundamental rights of humanity are being infringed upon and diplomacy is a failed effort, violent actions are a necessary last resort in order to instill humanity and dignity back to the people. While this is not the ideal means of diplomacy it is a negotiation between nations for the well being of the common good.
ReplyDeleteAngela continues to explain conflict arises from power struggles and nations actions for individual advancement leading to a breach of functioning diplomacy. This correlates to the question whether nations should act for the advancement of themselves or the world as a whole. Angela's reference to "Horizons" confirms that diplomacy will fail if nations act for their independent advancement alternatively to the advancement of the world as a whole. This fact proves that diplomacy is especially limited when consideration for the benefit of humanity is not addressed while nations take selfishly advancing actions. I would also like to contribute that diplomacy is limited but human nature according to "Limiting Characteristics of Official Diplomacy," by Olga Botcharova. Conflicts of interest, power struggles, and the inability to completely subside human nature, will inevitably always limit diplomacy.
I strongly agree with Angela’s reference to a utopian society and the idea that in an ideal world all disputes can be settled through diplomatic means. Unfortunately, the fact is that human nature, with all of its flaws, restricts how we can peacefully and diplomatically resolve disputes. Before the creation of organized societies people lived in nomadic hunter gathering societies. Conflict was not on a great scale in these instances and the complications of the modern world didn’t plague them. But with the invention of food production which resulted in more food being produced, this led to a higher population which in turn led to more advanced societies. With more advanced societies comes more complicated issues that increase the potential for more warfare.
ReplyDeleteThis example is widely used in the book, Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. The major point he makes in the book is that more advanced technological societies usually wipe out less advanced peaceful societies. These examples are testaments to how violence is engrained in human nature and also point to the limits of diplomacy. Violence is simply part of our animal instinct to be dominant and to survive. This will to live is also prevalent in the works of Darwin, frequently quoted by Diamond. With this violent tendency in human nature it is a sad reality that ethnic cleansing and genocides take place. It is my personal opinion that in these situations diplomacy has its limits and the need for military intervention in necessary. So to answer the question, yes I do believe there are limits to diplomacy, but only in the most tragic circumstances.