Nuances of Conference Diplomacy - Essay Example

Topic: Conference diplomacy may facilitate negotiation; but rarely if ever changes negotiators' values or perceptions'. INTRODUCTION: Many nations enter in a conference diplomacy agreement(Chasek, 2001: p. 24) with many other nations in order to facilitate negotiation(Nigro, 1999: p. 1). However, there are times when the parties go to the conference diplomacy agreement feeling that their values or perceptions are being sacrificed for the benefit of many nations(Gaddis, 1999: p., 120). Also, diplomacy can be likened to foreign policy. Hans J. Morgenthau defined diplomacy as "the formation and execution of foreign policy"(De Magalhaes, 1988: p. 49) And, many political scientists identify the term diplomacy as synonymous with foreign policy. In layman's term, diplomacy can be defined as the friendly way of kissing and making up whenever two countries have disputes in order to avoid the perils of war. The following paragraphs explains the nuances of conference diplomacy and its relations to negotiators' values or perceptions (Hughes,2002 : p.173) BODY: Conference diplomacy is a necessary action for international peace to prosper(Richardson, 1995: p. 205). War lives in the hearts of traditional paradigms. No one can forget the horrors of Hitler's German Army that had murdered many Jews in its concentration camp(Kaplan, 1998: p. 145). No one can also forget the long Great Britain war against the invasion of Napoleon Bonaparte of France. Had Diplomacy been used, there would have been peace pervading the air in these European Countries. Many well known figures were recognized for their diplomacy to use peace actions in the pursuit of their individual and community goals while others specifically wage war to impose their beliefs and traditions. Some of these peace diplomats are the charismatic and personalities like Gautam Buddha, Jesus Christ and Mahatma Gandhi. All these three renounced the use of war or force and instead preached that diplomacy was the best way to win an argument or misunderstanding. Also, the North Korean - United States nuclear diplomatic talks prove that conference diplomacy may facilitate negotiation for it did not change negotiators' values or perceptions. North Korea used its nuclear reactor facilities in Yongbyon as one of its ace cards to force the United States to provide security assurances and political and economic ties to North Korea. But for three years, the U.S. did now WANT to engage itself in an on-going diplomatic give and take with North Korea. The U.S. wanted North Korea to comply with It first insisted I.A.E.A conditions as before talks could begin. During the U.S. -North Korea Talks, the U.S. did not want to state what it would give in return for North Korea's dismantling its nuclear weapons. Furthermore, when the U.S. and North Korea talks concluded with conditions imposed on the U.S. and North Korea, the U.S. did not comply with their diplomatic agreements. The U.S. stated that its compliance was dependent on other nations to fulfill them. Furthermore, North Korea's volatile and ever- changing government leadership was one of the causes of their failed diplomatic agreements. To help, Seoul, South Korea supplied the lubricant needed to keep the U.S. North Korea nuclear talks open(Sigal, 1998: p.168). Furthermore, many diplomacy- inclined persons think that with a world that cannot be changed, many reasonable persons adapt and accommodate these unavoidable changes(Watson, 1991: p. 40). These people decided to group together in diplomacy to make peace a reality. After many years of war against each other such as World War I and World War II. The first steering committee met to agree on a global action to prevent war, This is an international coalition to abolish armed conflict and genocide. They predicted that diplomacy among nations can result to gradual dismantling of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Their diplomacy centers on removing all capacity to attack another country(De-Magalhes, 1988, p. 101). In fact, global violence can be likened to household violence. This means that the head of the family and the other family members and friends have placed top priority to eliminating violence inside the home by just STOPPING it before war flares up. In just over the 20th century, there have been thirty million people killed in wars in many countries over many years. In these country wars, seven million people have been killed in civil wars and another one hundred seventy million people have been killed for simply being against the government (rebels). In another example, the Supreme Council in the Genoa Conference met for the 16th time in January 1922 in the French Mediterranean resort city of Cannes. Belgium joined with much of the agenda concerning Germany. An American observer and a German representative. The week long meeting were composed of statesmen and financial experts that talked on the three basic issues: Germany, Russia, and the Anglo-French pact. The Cannes Conference unexpected folded up with no agreements on reparations moratorium and the distribution of the first payments, on the terms under which Russia would renew its ties with the West, or on the Anglo-French pact. Instead, the diplomatic outcome was the convocation of a world economic conference to be held two months hence, on 8 March 1922, in Genoa (Nicolson, 1984). Furthermore, The shelling of Quemoy on August 1958 by the PLA had caught the U.S. in a trap. This was China's start of its planned invasion of the Taiwan Straits which is in front of Taiwan. The U.S. entered into a diplomatic agreement where China must stop its plans to invade the islands. If China refuses to agree with the U.S. diplomatic overtures, the U.S. will be forced to drop nuclear bombs on China. In consequence, China backed out of its plans to invade the island near Taiwan. Declassified U.S. documents identified this as "successful American deterrence of a Chinese attempt to invade the offshore islands"(Soman, 2000: P. 165) The shelling, preceded by China's military buildup in its Fujian coast (opposite Taiwan), seemed to many in the United States to herald an invasion of the offshore islands. The strategic importance of the islands did not justify US military intervention in their defense. However, with one-third of the Nationalist army deployed in Quemoy and Matsu, the fall of the islands to communist China would have spelled disaster for the ROC. Therefore, the Eisenhower administration decided to intervene in the defense of the islands. American plans for the defense of the offshore islands called for the use of nuclear weapons against targets in mainland China. However, domestic and international opinion strongly opposed a nuclear war in defense of the tiny islands and forced a change in the US policy. Nevertheless, for a time, the United States found itself in a crisis in which it probably came closer to using nuclear weapons than on any other occasion after the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. Some accounts of this crisis, written before significant volumes of American documents for the period were declassified, have treated the episode as a case of successful American deterrence of a Chinese attempt to invade the offshore islands. In recent years, several studies based on newly declassified American documents as well as Chinese sources have examined this crisis. Shu Guang Zhang treats the crisis as a case of mutual Sino-American deterrence The above examples clearly show that many countries go to the conference table in order to present their side of the story. After this, the countries try to come up with a plan to prevent another escalation of war. Based on the above dangers of the war such as death, famine, damage to property, disease, lost of love ones among others, many nations have grouped together to form a family of nations. This family of nations was established in Europe was formed after world war 1. Its main purpose was to prevent the occurrence of another world war. This was the forerunner of our modern day United Nations(Rittberger, 1997: p. 3). Unfortunately, this diplomatic organization was not able to prevent the onslaught and the sadness of world war two. As a consequence this forerunner of the United Nations had to close shop because it had failed in its mission to prevent the war. After World War 2, the United Nations was born in New York. The United Nations took over the functions of its forerunner. It had been more successful in its primary purpose of coaching nations that have misunderstandings with each other to settle their differences diplomatically within the United Nations corridors where other nations will help the conflicting parties kiss and make up. Diplomacy among nations is the foremost weapon used by the United States to stop the unfolding of world war three. This diplomacy is being practiced to the limits by the United Nations(Cooper 2002: 38 ). Also, the United Kingdom government had demanded that its defence chiefs should continue with the appearance of Great Britain sticking strictly to the diplomatic route as against using any military build-up in its readiness to take part in the war with Iraq( Crahan, 2004: p 77 ). And, in the face of reports that a few leading defence chiefs had tried to strongly influence Downing Street to make a firm stand in ten days. This calls for the war strategy of deploying armoured divisions and soldiers to be brought in the gulf. In fact, the Ministry of Defence had made it loud and clear that they will not be entangled in the setting that they classify as windows for military build-up. For a clear example of the importance of diplomacy over the choice of going to war, we can study the case of the Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. This small group of islands had been the subject of sovereignty disputes by many nations. Many countries have claimed and counterclaimed owners sometimes bringing the heated debates over to the brink of war. Many of the country claimants state that they first discovered the islands. Still other countries state that they dominated or even governed the islands for some time thereby making them the rightful owners. Other nations also claimed that they had once lived in the islands thereby making them the true owners of the islands. In fact, four major European nations claim they are the owners of the islands because they had spotted the islands from afar. One document of claim is the Papal decision of called the Bulls Enter Coetara and the Dudum si Quidem which divides the New World between Spain and Portugal. Pope Alexander VI, in 1494 defused the explosion tempered conflict between these two countries in their maritime and colonizing expeditions. The Pope stated that the dividing line was west of the line which is the meridian 100 leagues west of the Azores. West of the line was Spain's territory and the East was Portugal's territory. Many countries that were not part of this two country agreement disapproved of the Spanish - Portugal Treaty. As a consequence the treaty was replaced by the much improved Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494. This later treaty had realigned the division(Kinney, 1989: p. 37) We can clearly see that diplomacy had prevented a Spanish war against Portugal. Also, the revised treaty was the diplomatic way to prevent a war involving other nations in the Falkland Islands territorial ownership conflict. According to Carol Cosgrove-Sacks, Professor of the College of Europe, Bruges, and Director of the Trade Division, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Geneva stated that the evolution of the European Union's diplomatic policy on human rights, particularly in its relations with many developing countries that the overview of the judicial development of the human rights doctrines within the European Union has reached its external relations(Falk, 2000 : p. 189). Its internal as well as external diplomatic relations include the First to the Second Pillar instruments. This will definitely be the subject of the first two parts. His agreement will then be submitted so that, despite the increased attention paid to the promotion of human rights, the Union (and notably the Community Pillar) is far behind in terms of constitutional and legal ambiguities in the arena of human rights diplomacy. This hinders the European Union from pursuing a comprehensive policy in relation to developing countries. Evidently, the cause of the failure of human rights diplomacy comes from constitutional law considerations. And, side by side with the political and organizational difficulties, there are evidently legal impediments that prohibit the full development by the European Union to implement a diplomatically viable comprehensive human rights policy towards developing countries(Cosgrove-Sacks, 2001: p. 67). In the article The British Base, the Korean War, and Egyptian Nationalism: The First American Commitments to Middle East Stability, 1950-1951 The United States had primarily accepted responsibility for maintaining the stability, peace and security in the Middle East from January 1950 until October 1951. In fact, a limited commitment had been made to stop communism from reaching inside this region and to fortify its defenses against Soviet military power in case war erupts(Powaski, 1998: p. 135). The presumption that Britain will be primarily responsible for this peacekeeping job of diplomacy continued. In fact, the United States had endorsed British efforts to maintain rights to use the air bases in Egypt. However, the ever changing diplomatic scenes in the Middle East and elsewhere had influenced American policy and diplomacy decision makers that they should actively help the British in these understandings. Otherwise, the fear that the region might be run over by the Soviets is not far from reality. Also, the eruption of the Korean War in June 1950 as well as its consequent developments had forced American officials, especially Assistant Secretary of State George C. McGhee, to admit significant responsibility for the peace, stability and security of the Middle East area of responsibility. For, attacks by North Korea on South Korea raised fears in Washington that communist troops will infiltrate into the Middle East. Currently, The capabilities of Great Britain to defend the region had decreased. Furthermore, The Egyptian nationalism started to slide diplomatically onto neutrality in relation to the Korean conflict as well as the Cold War in general(Whitcomb, 1998: p. 7). Furthermore, a major United States military formation in late 1950s had made it possible to accept more and more responsibility for the United States security. McGhee had been convinced that the United States should make a commitment to diplomatically help the Middle East in its stability and security concerns to bolster the decreasing British position(Hahn, 1991: p. 93) CONCLUSION: All the above examples clearly demonstrate that many countries use the conference table in order to present their side of the story. After this, the countries will have to come up with a plan to prevent another escalation of war. Based on the many disadvantages of the war such as death, famine, damage to property, disease, lost of love ones among others, many nations have grouped together to form a family of nations. In the recently concluded war on Iraq, the United States defied the diplomatically maneuvered actions of the other members of the United Nations not to interfere with the internal affairs of Iraq. In fact, Iraq sent is emissary to the United Nations to explain to the United States and its allies that it did not have any weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations voted against the proposal of the United States to dropped many bombs in Iraq on the reason that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction. In disobedience to the outreached diplomatic arms of the United Nations, the United States formed the coalition of the willing. The coalition of the willing, which included the United Kingdom, attacked Iraq in the middle of the night until the early dawn with bombs. The result was that the United States until today has not found a single weapon of mass destruction. Furthermore, the United states in the recent US invasion and capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq is a very clear evidence that some countries attend Conference diplomacy only to facilitate negotiation. But, this diplomacy rarely if ever changes the negotiators' values or perceptions'. Meaning, if the decisions of the conference diplomacy undertakings are not in favor of one of the parties to the conference diplomacy, such aggrieved party may consider implementing its decisions. For example, United States attack disobediently attacked Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein against the United Nations vote not to go to war on Iraq. And, conference diplomacy could be one sided and forced. Also, this is just like the U.S. - China diplomatic agreement not to attack the islands of Taiwan otherwise, the U.S. will drop nuclear warhead on China. China unwillingly agreed to facilitate the negotiation literally rammed down its throat but the agreement did not change China's values or perceptions' that Taiwan and all islands in the China Sea are its territories. Diplomacy is necessary in our information age where borders among nations have been cut down(Dizard, 2001: p. 99). REFERENCE: Cooper et al., Enhancing global governance: towards a new diplomacy. United Nations Press, Paris, 2002 Kinney, D., National Interest/ National Honor: The Diplomacy of the Falklands Crisis, Praeger Publishers, London, 1989 p. 172 Cosgrove-Sacks, C., Europe, Diplomacy, and Development: New Issues in Eu Relations with Developing Countries, Palgrave, United Nations, New York, 2001 p. 67 Hahn, P., The United States, Great Britain, and Egypt, 1945-1956: Strategy and Diplomacy in the Early Cold War, University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, N.C., 1991, p. 93 Crahan, M. (2004). Wars on Terrorism and Iraq. London: Routledge, p. 77 De-Magalhes, J. (1988). The Pure Concept of Diplomacy. London: Greenwood Press, p. 101 Falk, R. (2000). Human Rights Horizons: The Pursuit of Justice in the Globalizing World. London: Routledge, p. 189 Gaddis, J. (1999). Cold War Statesmen Confront the Bomb: Nuclear Diplomacy since 1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 120 Hughes, S. (2002). Global Governance: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge.P 173 Kaplan, M. (1998). Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish life in Nazi Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, P 145 Nigro, L. (1999). The New Diplomacy in Italy. Paris: Peter Lang, P., 1 Powaski, R. (1998). The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union 1917-1991. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 135 Rittberger, V. (1997). The United Nations System and Its Predecessors. Oxford: Oxford University Press, P. 3 Watson, A. (1991). Diplomacy: The Dialogue between States. London: Routledge, p. 40 Whitcomb, R. (1998). The Cold War in Retrospect: The Formative Years. London: Praeger. De Magalhaes, The Pure Concept of Diplomacy. New York, Greenwood Press, 1988, P. 49 Soman, A., Double-Edged Sword: Nuclear Diplomacy in Unequal Conflicts, The United States and china, 1950-1958, Praeger, Connecticut, 2000, p. 165 Richardson, D., Stone, G.,(1995), Decisions and Diplomacy: Essays in Twentieth Century International History, Routledge, London, p. 205 Chasek, P.,(2001) Earth Negotiations: Analyzing Thirty Years of Environmental Diplomacy. United Nations University Press, New York, p. 24 Dizard, W., (2001), Digital Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Information Age. Praeger, Westport, P. 99 Sigal, L.,(1998), Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ., p. 168 Read More