4. Are there issues in world politics that cannot, even in principle, be resolved through diplomatic means? In other words, are there limits to diplomacy?
According to Webster's Dictionary, diplomacy is: "the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations." Theoretically one should have the ability to solve any conflict with diplomacy; the key is doing it peacefully. Some of the great leaders of the world were able to bring about great "negotiations" and change without war or violence. Examples of these leaders include Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr. But for these leaders it also took a great deal of time, patience, and sacrifice. Many not only sacrificed their time but they also sacrificed their own lives because others wouldn't be accepting of the change. You can resolve issues of world politics through diplomatic means but you need to have patience. If it were easy, then all issues would be solved through diplomacy. People sometimes need to decide what's worth dying for and what they are willing to tolerate. All issues in world politics have the potential of being resolved through diplomatic means. Right now in Afghanistan, there is a real fear that the progress made in promoting education and women's rights will be sacrificed in the interest of forming an alliance to battle the war on terror. In the past, the U.S. befriended Iraq despite the genocide of the Kurds by means of chemical warfare because of involvement in war with Iran. Sometimes two different issues are being considered at the same time and countries choose to "look the other way" in order to achieve a different interest.
Sarah makes several good points and arguments here, however, I do not agree that "all issues in world politics have the potential of being resolved through diplomatic means." According to Masahiro Igarashi, professor of preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution, the definition of diplomacy varies. I believe sarah's definition that diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations is correct but is also extended to include doing so in peaceful manners, short of war. The majority of diplomacy takes place within the arena of the United Nations, which has the primary goal of each state co-existing peacefully and preventing war as a means of conflict resolution. Yes, by sarah's definition diplomacy is not limited because negotiation can be practiced relentlessly without limits. When you demand the negotiation to take place peacefully within a definition of diplomacy, there are limits. History has shown that sadistic measures have been inevitable to protect the Human Rights of the majority of constituents. Such as acting violently in response to another nations demanding negotiations initiating every war in history. Thus, the fact that war exists, has led me to believe their are limits to diplomacy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete