#2

Short of war, how might a state and its authorized diplomatic representatives work to achieve some broadly desirable goal, like the promotion of human rights or democracy?

It is puzzling how often states resolve to war when there are nonviolent methods available to resolve conflict and achieve goals. First of all, war has countless more negative consequences than positive. The present “wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan are proof: there have been about 4732 Iraq coalition military fatalities, and 1993 Afghanistan coalition military fatalities. This does not include the countless innocent civilian losses. Suicide rates have recently been shooting up, and to date over $1.09 trillion has been spent on these two wars. What have we gained? Many Americans don’t even understand the purpose of American troops’ presence in the two foreign countries in the first place. Not only does war cause physical and monetary losses, but causes losses in morality as well. In Mary Rosenblum’s Horizons, the media constantly “capitaliz[ed] on the sensationalism of a minor incident or two” (169), twisting the truth to villanize the opposing side. This act is not uncommon in our current world. War spawns hatred, despair, and prejudices; better ways to achieve goals must exist.

Kim Hakjoon’s article, The Process Leading to the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between South Korea and the Soviet Union, is an excellent example of states achieving goals by recognizing and accepting differences. Gorbachev’s ‘new thinking’ “proceeds from recognizing mutual dependence on the countries of the world and the priority of common human goals the utmost being a survival of humanity over class, national, religious, and other interests.” According to Hakjoon, the Soviet leaders thought diplomatic solutions were much more attractive than military force. They “seemed intent on pursuing a policy of resolving important problems in East Asia realistically on an anti-ideological and pragmatic level.” As a result, the Soviet Union eventually made peace with South Korea, overcoming strong hostility. The peace between the two countries is proof that diplomatic goals may be achieved sans bloodshed, as long as states are open-minded, accepting, and willing to negotiate.

In most cases, broad goals cannot be achieved solely by governments and diplomatic representatives; citizens are involved as well, and their consent and cooperation is usually needed. Thus, to achieve issues such as human rights or democracy, awareness amongst the public must be raised. In Paul Sharp’s article “Who Needs Diplomats? The Problem of Diplomatic Representation”, he states that “people should live with the consciousness of citizens within their countries, accepting the claims of their governments and acknowledging the expertise of their diplomats”. However, what if the citizens do not agree? Then, simply enough, goals will not be achieved. Diplomats and governments must not lose sight of whom they represent. In order to achieve international goals peacefully, countries cannot have domestic conflict.

To those that believe that these minimalist methods of solving international issues peacefully are too idealistic and unfeasible, I currently agree. As PTJ put it, “states are war-making machines”. However, there are only two options: violence or nonviolence. I believe that nonviolent methods are completely doable, but they take patience, control, understanding, and time, things that countries often do not want to execute. Hopefully someday states will recognize the futility of war, and peaceful negotiations will be the only method of solving problems. But who knows how far off in the future that is.