Diplomatic Relations between Countries - Essay Example

Why Diplomatic Relations between Countries Break Down I. Introduction Wholesome bilateral relationships do not just happen in a vacuum. Those who carry on any form of relationship will have to work on it if they want the relationship to continue. It is the same with individuals as with countries. Many relationships, however, are said to function poorly, and there are reasons why this is so. Diplomatic relations can break down from various issues to include those of border, water, security, occupation by enemy forces, communism, nuclearization, and making pact with the enemy. In trying to resolve such breakdown, it is important first to gauge the level of tension created. For example, there is "rupture" which is often used to refer to a breach of diplomatic relations. However, it may also connote a lesser deterioration in relations between two states.1 Lesser deterioration is what may generally obtain in diplomatic relations and not complete breakdown which implies belligerent status such as war. Diplomatic relations are rather complex in that both relationship issues and substantive issues maybe involved. The first refers to the way countries deal with each other, whether logically or emotionally, clearly or ambiguously, honestly or deceptively.2 The second concern issues that are the subjects of discrete negotiations, for example, the terms of a treaty, the price of one product, the levels of armaments.3 Apparently, when relationship is not problematic, substantive issues are easier to deal with. History is replete with accounts of diplomatic relations gone sour and broken down, followed by corresponding actions taken. A complete breakdown is a serious matter, implying that the countries involved are not interested even in the future where they can be friends. 4 Nevertheless, there are ways of salvaging fledgling relationships, but they need to follow some basic principles. For this portion, this paper largely centers on discussions of Scott Brown,5 a founding member of the acclaimed Harvard Negotiation Project. Brown advises to be unconditionally constructive on relationship issues. He states that indeed, many diplomatic relations function poorly, and he explains why and how they can be improved. II. Diplomatic Relations Before any substantive issue is to be dealt with, relationship issues must be looked into. There are six categories of relationship issues according to Brown: 6 the balance of emotion with reason between the two countries; their level of common understanding; the extent and nature of communication between them; the degree of trust between the two; the level of coercion as a method of influence; and, the degree of acceptance of the legitimacy of the negotiating partner. Diplomatic relations may therefore be said to have strong correlations with understanding, communication, trust, influence, and acceptance of negotiator. If something is wrong with any of these, the diplomatic relation may not be exactly wholesome but tittering on the brink of rupture. A. Mediated relationships. Diplomatic relations may be understood as special relationships between countries where they ink agreements, whether economic, political, social, and the like. These relations are specially firmed up with treaties to keep peace and order in the region, and at times with the involvement of a bigger power. The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 was signed into law for the purpose of establishing a new relationship with Taiwan after U.S. recognized the People's Republic of China.(PRC)7 One thing that plagues Taiwan seemingly forever is its determination to be the China, and the United States in this case acts as mediator. Since it is the PRC that the United States has recognized, it also has to chalk up a relationship with Taiwan. In Wen Jiabao's 8 speech hosted by nine American Organizations, he said that people sincerely hope to see a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question in the midst of Taiwan's separatist tendencies. Batting for the One China policy, and challenging America to understand it, Wen Jiabao said - "..Our endeavor for peace has time and again been challenged by the separatist forces in Taiwan. We respect the legitimate democratic rights exercised by our Taiwan compatriots, but will absolutely not tolerate the "Taiwan Independence" forces' attempt to separate Taiwan from China under the signboard of democracy. B. Representations. The larger countries of the world are said to have permanent diplomatic relations with several other countries, whether these countries are friendly or unfriendly.9 For countries that have no diplomatic relations, their interests may be represented by diplomats of other powers. In case of war between two countries, their interests are usually represented by neutral states. There are times a diplomat is considered persona non grata and is not accepted by another country or is being demanded by the foreign nation to be recalled. In such cases, the diplomat's government must either comply or break off relations. 10 C. Benefits. Diplomatic relations reap many benefits for countries who have dealt long with each other. For example, for over 100 years of Japan-UK relations, the two countries have developed close co-operative ties, building a solid foundation on the accumulated interaction between them in terms of investment, technology, information and people programs.11 On China-US relations, according to Wen Jiabao, 12 a review of the history of over the last 50 years since the founding of the People's Republic led to three important benefits: peaceful coexistence, cooperation for mutual interest, and stability in the Asia-Pacific region as well as peace and development in the world. Other countries can also account for many more benefits reaped from diplomatic relations. These relations do not exactly run fair and wholesome throughout, however. Infractions to agreements may happen which cause tension, and thence to possible breakdown. D. Small beginnings. Diplomatic relations breaking down may possibly start from small beginnings. Worse, when this happens, hostilities do not involve just the two countries in the sense that the rest of the world may have to help to maintain order. But before anything can happen, small fires of hostilities should be snuffed out. Media can help through its opinion power, as it tried to help in the case of India and Pakistan. The Hindu 13 records that hostilities began with the alleged harassment of the Charge d'Affaires at the High Commission of India in Islamabad by personnel of the Pakistan's intelligence agencies. Accordingly, instead of responding soberly to India's legitimate protest over this affair, Islamabad countered with the charge that New Delhi allowed its intelligence agencies to intimidate Pakistan's top diplomat in the country. Afterwards, New Delhi expelled four Pakistani diplomats and Islamabad retaliated likewise, so that numbers went down to 51 each. The editorial warned that there are far more serious developments happening outside that this was no time for both India and Pakistan to break down relations. Both are energy-poor and may be displaced if changes take place in the strategic position of the whole world such as if oil supplies get disrupted by wars in other places. Furthermore, the editorial said, "the rest of the world is too pre-occupied to be able to help restore calm in the Subcontinent if India and Pakistan cannot do so by themselves."14 E. Indirect effect of relations with others. Tension in diplomatic relations can come indirectly as a result of being in relation with one country who has her own set of diplomatic relations. In the case of North Korea in its relations with China and Soviet Union, it wisely balanced its relations with both countries throughout the Cold War as it established relations with them in the 1970s and early 1980s. This was to be able "to extract the maximum benefit from the relationships at minimum political cost."15 The Soviet-backed Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan created strains between China and the Soviet Union and, in turn, in North Korea's relations with its two major communist allies. Wisely, North Korea was said to keep away from becoming involved in the Sino-Soviet split, obtaining aid from both the Soviet Union and China and trying to avoid dependence on either.16 In the same vein, South Korea had formed diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in 1990 and with the People's Republic of China in 1992. This was said to cause some strain on relations between North Korea and its traditional allies.17 F. Breach of agreements. War is obviously a way of breaking relations, among other reasons. On US-Great Britain relations, Arnett Lindsay18 wrote about how a large number of Negroes were taken from the United States by the latter during the Revolutionary War, leading to tensions between them. This led to securing the return of these Negroes, understandably through an agreement stipulated in the Treaty of Paris which ended the war in 1783. However, according to Lindsay, agreements were broken; settlements could not be reached, until war broke out between them. In Lindsay's words - "So numerous were the infractions of the stipulation prohibiting the carrying off of the Negroes and so fruitless were the discussions resulting from the non-fulfillment of the articles in the treaty that several diplomatic representatives were sent on missions to Great Britain, the last of which ended with the Jay Treaty of 1794. Obviously, no satisfactory settlement as to the Negro could then be reached. It is evident, moreover, that the United States was not satisfied with this treaty and that between Great Britain and this country there was widening a breach which culminated in the War of 1812." 19 In other words, according to Lindsay' account, amidst several infractions which threatened the relation, Great Britain closed communication lines and did not give any value to personal representations made by the United States. G. Triggers to break down. In a case between Great Britain and Soviet Russia, a raid on a Russian joint stock trading company and the Russian Trade Delegation took place in May 1927, when a document of the British Air Ministry went missing. There were indications that it was in the possession of Soviet Russia. As a result of this raid, diplomatic relations established in 1924 were terminated, through a note sent to the Soviet Government on May 28, 1927.20 The Baldwin Government of Britain unanimously voted for a resolution to end relations, stating that the rupture was on account of the raid and the Russian Trade Delegation engaging in military and industrial espionage, while using their premises as a clearinghouse for Communist propaganda. 21 Apparently, the raid for a missing document was only a precursor to checking on activities on communism, an ideology foreign to the interests of Great Britain. Definitely, this was enough for Great Britain to think of breaking diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia. H. Differing complexities. While issues in disputes may come in twos, threes, or in bundles, complexities for each may differ. CNN transcripts22 account for the case of Israel and Syria where the issues involved were water, security, borders, on top of relationship problems. When interviewed by CNN, Dr. Shibley Telhami of the Center for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland, said the easiest to solve was that of relationship, and the hardest was the question of defining the borders. The United States has involved itself in this Israel-Syria case to come to an agreement as it was going to cost the U.S. a lot economically. In the first place, the U.S. has a commitment to Israel on the one hand, and very important interests in the Arab world on the other hand. Moreover, every time these two parties are in conflict, the U.S. is dragged into it.23 I. Back up. The constant backing of the United States may serve to define a country's relation with other countries, for better or for worse. The case of South Korea and North Korea is a case in point. As the two Koreas tried to unify, North Korea was miffed at South Korea having annual military exercise with the United States that it called out talks for unification.24 With Israel, because of its protection by the United States, it is not being attacked by those who hate its existence. However, for this very reason, it is being isolated. 25 The Arab world has never accepted the legitimacy of the existence of Israel and is not likely to do so, an attitude that is handed down from generation to generation.26 In cases like this, relationship issues are already there even before a substantive issue comes up, which makes diplomatic relations more complex and challenging than normal. J. Differing interpretations. A still bigger power than the United States coming in between two countries is the United Nations. There remain problems however, largely on communication and understanding between long-term enemies. Just like in the case of Israel and Palestine where Resolution 242 of the United Nations Security Council (UNSCR) was meant to keep peace between them. 27 Resolution 242 established provisions and principles hoping it would lead to a solution of the Middle East conflict. Pro-Arab sources however, often claim that UNSCR 242 requires Israel to withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza, and other areas. This is what UNSCR 242 actually means: 1) UNSCR 242 calls on all parties to the conflict to negotiate a solution, and 2) It anticipates that Israel will withdraw to secure borders (not specified in the resolution) in exchange for peace guarantees from the Arab parties.28 The Resolution was said to be carefully worded to require that Israel withdraw from "territories" rather than "the territories." 29 This construction, leaving out "the," was intentional, because it was not envisioned that Israel would withdraw from all the territories, hence returning to pre-war borders. Israel thinks that very terrorist incident proves that the time to trust the Palestinian Arabs has not yet arrived.30 Agreements are supposed to enhance diplomatic relations, but the experience of some countries prove this wrong in terms of differing interpretations that still make them engage in hostilities. K. Legitimacy unrecognized. If recognition of legitimacy is very important to people, more so with countries. In the mid-1930's, Japan invaded China in the preliminary stages of their quest for Pacific dominance. Along the Open Door Policy, China had expected the United States to come to their aid at least in line with protecting territorial integrity, but America refrained from involvement until the bombing at Pearl Harbor that followed after many years. Such delay was said to chill relations between China and the United States.31 In October 1949, the communist party seized control and declared Peking the capital of the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.) forcing the Chinese nationalists to flee to Taiwan.32 On record, the United States refused to recognize the P.R.C. as the legitimate governing body of China. Diplomatic relations between China and the United States then broke off. 33 L. Attachments. A classic case that can show how attachments could affect diplomatic relations, how they could be broken and how it is attempted to be restored is in the case of countries torn apart into two by warring forces occupying them. North Korea (Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea, DPRK) and South Korea (Republic of Korea, ROK) are clearly one country before. In August 1971, North and South Korea held talks through their respective Red Cross societies purposely for reuniting the many Korean families separated following the division of Korea and the Korean War. In July 1972, the two sides agreed to work toward peaceful reunification and end hostilities. Officials from both countries exchanged visits, and regular communications ran through a North-South coordinating committee and the Red Cross.34 Both Korean governments were desirous of reunifying the Korean Peninsula, but until 1971 they had no direct, official communications or other contact.35 Several issues of contention had come between North and South Korea, for example communist military aid on the part of North Korea, and United States annual military exercise with South Korea. 36 Still, initial contacts were said to break down in 1973 when South Korean President Park Chung Hee announced that the South would seek separate entry into the United Nations. Dialogue resumed in September 1984 when South Korea accepted the North's offer to provide relief goods to victims of severe flooding in South Korea. Red Cross talks to address the plight of separated families resumed, as did talks on economic and trade issues. But then in January 1986, the North suspended all talks because of the annual U.S.-South Korea "Team Spirit" military exercise which they saw as "inconsistent with dialogue." A year after, a South Korean commercial aircraft (KAL 858) was bombed by North Korean agents.37 M. Proposals. Every diplomatic relation gone sour that still wants to maintain a relation has proposals from each country. Generally, these would be adjustments in communication, in social relationships, and in trade and industrial cooperation. For example, according to Wen Jiabao, 38 constructive and cooperative relations could be had in the China-US experience, if high-level visits and strategic dialogue between the two countries continue, if mutually beneficial trade and economic cooperation is facilitated, and if a sound mechanism to address bilateral issues is established. These accordingly should be coupled with intensified coordination on major international and regional issues, and expanded people-to-people exchanges.39 III. Resolving differences Scott Brown 40 says, some countries may deal with their differences through armed conflict, others through hostile hard bargaining, and others through cooperative problem-solving. The diplomat then, for his part, should establish a working relationship that can handle any problem that might arise between the two countries.41 There are just two very important principles in diplomatic relations that Oberg 42 wants to be understood. First is that it is better to keep some channels open for communication with the adversary than to close them. This principle is considered broken in the case of Great Britain harboring ran-away slaves of the United States and refusing to return them, contrary to agreements they made in the Treaty of Paris.43 In this case, Great Britain had closed its communication lines and did not honor personal representation. Hence, this lead the United States to break diplomatic relations with her. Second is that the more we know about the other side, including ourselves, the greater is the chance for a compromise or solution to the problem.44 A classic example of this are the countries dichotomized into North and South, East and West for reasons of warring countries occupying them. They know each other fairly well because formerly they were one - in location, in culture, in language, in identity, and now in renewed aspirations - but only were cut into parts by other countries playing host off their systems. Reconciliation or unification is not remote and very much possible, once they work hard for it. Sound diplomatic relations between them is not remote. Diplomatic relations often crumble upon meeting serious problems and break down eventually when problems become especially severe. When this happens, decisions are based on emotion rather than reason and normally, neither side listens to or tries to understand the other.45 This applies to the relations obtaining between India and Pakistan that an editorial took notice. There is more the concept of saving face involved here, which appears common among some people groups in the East. Relationships are said to function poorly when governments mix relationship issues with substantive issues. Governments also tend to bargain about the conduct of the relationship itself, treating relationship issues the same way they treat substantive issues. This often leads to a tit-for-tat battle that damages the relationship in this manner - "Since anger dominates your thinking, it will dominate mine. Since you misunderstand me, I will misunderstand you, often by putting the worst interpretation on your actions. If you do not listen to me, I will not listen to you. If you violate agreements, I will be unreliable too. Since you try to coerce me, I will try to coerce you. Since you denigrate my interests and views, I will denigrate yours." 46 As explained, since mixing substantive issues with relationship issues damages a working relationship, the first step toward improving is to disentangle the two, and deal with each independently. Secondly, one is to be unconditionally constructive on relationship issues, where each negotiator should act in a way that will strengthen the relationship without sacrificing substantive concerns, regardless of the behavior of the other.47 IV. Conclusion Diplomatic relations verily have peace as number one issue to contend with. Beginning with the two countries concerned, that would technically mean no relationship issues between them so that they only have substantive issues to attend to. Coming to terms, however, can be very hard, especially after what many decades or even centuries have wrought in a relationship. The 100-year conflict in the Middle East that has strained many diplomatic relations and involved many nations is a case in point. And yet leaders come to the negotiating table to talk in an effort to improve their diplomatic relations. There will be ups and downs, as Chairman Bark of Israel put it. "But if there is determination, conviction, and commitment, the goal of achieving peace and putting an end to conflict will be reached." Just like in any relationship, problems can crop up in diplomatic relations. What really counts, in the final analysis, is how one reacts to these problems. Understanding what it takes to make a relationship work will already make oneself halfway ready to face future challenges. Especially where there are kinks in a relationship, a fair amount of understanding, enough communication, some degree of trust, a fair method of influence, and acceptance of legitimacy of the other can greatly enhance relationships - for those who consciously work to maintain sound diplomatic relations. When these elements are gone, then diplomatic relations face the possibility of breaking down. End Notes 1 Berridge, G. R. and James, A. (2004). A dictionary of diplomacy. Last updated: 20 January 2005. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.grberridge.co.uk/dict_comp_p_t.htm. 2 Brown, S. (2004). "The Working Relationship." The 7 Elements of Negotiation: Relationship. Harvard Negotiation Project. [Other works available in Penguin: 1988, 1989]. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.pon.harvard.edu/hnp/theory/tools/relationship.shtml. 3 Ibid. 4 "Escalating absurdity." The Hindu. Online edition of India's National Newspaper, Jan 25, 2003. Retrieved December 17, 2005, from http://www.thehindu.com/2003/01/25/stories/2003012500331000.htm. 5 Brown, S. (2004) 6 Ibid. 7 "Taiwan Relations Act of 1979." USconsulate.org. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.usconsulate.org.hk/ustw/geninfo/tra1979.htm. 8 Jiabao, W. "Working Together to Write a New Chapter in China-US Relations." Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China at Dinner Hosted by Nine American Organizations. Ministry of Foreign Affairs,the People's Republic of China(MFA, PRC). December 9, 2003. Retrieved December 14, 2005, from http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t55971.htm. 9 "Diplomatic service." Answers.com. Retrieved December 14, 2005, from http://www.answers.com/topic/foreign-service. 10 Ibid. 11 "Japan-UK relation." Ambassador's Speech at the Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation. Embassy of Japan in the UK. uk.emb-japan. September 25, 2002. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from, http://www.uk.emb-japan.go.jp/en/japanUK/speech/020925.html. 12 Jiabao, W. (2003) 13 "Exacerbating Absurdity." Editorial. The Hindu, 2003 14 Ibid. 15 "Background Note: North Korea." Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. US Department of state. Bureau of Public Affairs (BPA). November 2005. Retrieved December 17, 2005, from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm 16 Ibid. 17 Bureau of Public Affairs (BPA). November 2005. 18 Lindsay, A. G. "Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Great Britain Bearing on the Return of Negro Slaves, 1783-1828." Journal of Negro History 5 (October 1920: 391-419). [MA Thesis, Howard University]. HTML by Dinsmore Documentation.Added April 10, 2003. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.dinsdoc.com/lindsay-1.htm. 19 Ibid. 20 Betteridge, J. (2005). "The Political Purposes of Surveillance: the Rupture of Diplomatic Relations with Russia, May 1927. The Guardian. P9. Retrieved December 17, 2005, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/history/e-journal/Betteridge.pdf. 21 Ibid. 22 "President Clinton Expected to Return to Israel-Syria Peace Talks in W. Virginia." Sunday Morning News. CNN transcripts (1/9/2000) ET. Cable News Network. [Kyra Phillips, CNN anchor interviewing CNN Correspondent Andrea Koppel and Prof. Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland's Center for International Development and Conflict Management]. Retrieved December18, 2005, from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/09/sm.02.html. 23 Ibid. 24 Bureau of Public Affairs (BPA). November 2005 25 O'Brien, C. C. "The State of the Zionist State." The Middle East Quarterly. June 2000. Vol VII. No. 2 [Interview by Daniel Pipes and Joseph Skelly, Middle East Quarterly (MEQ]. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.meforum.org/article/81. 26 Ibid. 27 "What was United Nations' Security Council Resolution 242 and what does it say Palestine Facts. UNSC Resolution 242. Israel 1948-1967. Retrieved December 19, 2005, from http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf 1948to1967 un 242 php. 28 Ibid. 29 www.palestinefacts.org 30 Ibid. 31. "Why Did China Normalize Relations With The United States in 1972" VnutZ's domain. Retrieved December 14, 2005, from http://www.geocities.com/mvea/china.htm. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Bureau of Public Affairs (BPA), November 2005. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Bureau of Public Affairs (BPA), November 2005. 38 Ministry of Foreign Affairs,the People's Republic of China(MFA, PRC). December 9, 2003. 39 Ibid. 40 Brown, S. (2004). 41 Ibid. 42 Oberg, J. & Harleman, C. "EU countries must act now to break out of the US/Iraq diplomatic blackout." TFF PressInfo # 157. The Transnational foundation for Peace and future research. August 30, 2002. Retrieved December 14, 2005, from http://www.transnational.org/pressinf/2002/pf157_IraqEU.html. [Oberg is TFF director and Harleman, is TFF Board member]. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 Brown, S. (2004) 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. References "Background Note: North Korea." Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. US Department of state. Bureau of Public Affairs (BPA). November 2005. Retrieved December 17, 2005, from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm. "Diplomatic service." Answers.com. Retrieved December 14, 2005, from http://www.answers.com/topic/foreign-service. "Japan-UK relation." Ambassador's Speech at the Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation. Embassy of Japan in the UK. uk.emb-japan. September 25, 2002. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from, http://www.uk.emb-japan.go.jp/en/japanUK/speech/020925.html. "President Clinton Expected to Return to Israel-Syria Peace Talks in W. Virginia." Sunday Morning News. CNN transcripts (1/9/2000) ET. Cable News Network. [Kyra Phillips, CNN anchor interviewing CNN Correspondent Andrea Koppel and Prof. Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland's Center for International Development and Conflict Management]. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/09/sm.02.html. "Prime Minister Barak Statement at Joint Press Conference with Chairman Arafat". Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). Jewish Virtual Library. [A division of the American-Israeli cooperative enterprise]. July 11, 1999. Retrieved December 19, 2005, from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/erez.html. "Primary Documents: Britain's Breaking Off of Diplomatic Relations with Germany, 4 August 1914." Firstworldwar.com. Last updated June 21, 2003. Retrieved December 13, 2005, from http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/scrapofpaper1.htm. "Progress or Breakdown in the Middle East Peace Process," Center for Strategic Studies. University of Jordan. Css-jordan.org. Activities-Workshops. May 2000, Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.css-jordan.org/activities/workshops/peace/. "Taiwan Relations Act of 1979." USconsulate.org. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.usconsulate.org.hk/ustw/geninfo/tra1979.htm. "What was United Nations' Security Council Resolution 242 and what does it say Palestine Facts. UN Resolution 242. Israel 1948-1967. Palestinefacts.org. Retrieved December 19, 2005, from http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf 1948to1967 un 242 php. ' '""Bottom of Form ."Why Did China Normalize Relations With The United States in 1972" VnutZ's domain. Retrieved December 14, 2005, from http://www.geocities.com/mvea/china.htm. al-Ansary, S. "The question of settlements." Posted December 4, 2003. english.aljazeera.net Retrieved December 20, 2005, from http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0761B1FF-AC1B-4969-BE65-731D454BF983.htm. Berridge, G. R. and James, A. (2004). A dictionary of diplomacy. Last updated: 20 January 2005. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.grberridge.co.uk/dict_comp_p_t.htm. Betteridge, J. (2005)."The Political Purposes of Surveillance: the Rupture of Diplomatic Relations with Russia, May 1927. The Guardian. P9. Retrieved December 17, 2005, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/history/e-journal/Betteridge.pdf. Brown, S. (2004). "The Working Relationship." The 7 Elements of Negotiation: Relationship. Harvard Negotiation Project. [Other works available in Penguin: 1988, 1989]. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.pon.harvard.edu/hnp/theory/tools/relationship.shtml. Oberg, J. & Harleman, C. "EU countries must act now to break out of the US/Iraq diplomatic blackout." TFF PressInfo # 157. The Transnational foundation for Peace and future research. August 30, 2002. Retrieved December 14, 2005, from http://www.transnational.org/pressinf/2002/pf157_IraqEU.html. [Oberg is TFF director and Harleman, is TFF Board member]. O'Brien, C. C. "The State of the Zionist State." The Middle East Quarterly. June 2000. Vol VII. No. 2 [Interview by Daniel Pipes and Joseph Skelly, Middle East Quarterly (MEQ]. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.meforum.org/article/81. Jiabao, W. "Working Together to Write a New Chapter in China-US Relations." Premier of the State Council of The People's Republic of China at Dinner Hosted by Nine American Organizations. Ministry of Foreign Affairs,the People's Republic of China(MFA, PRC). December 9, 2003. Retrieved December 14, 2005, from http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t55971.htm. Lindsay, A. G. "Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Great Britain Bearing on the Return of Negro Slaves, 1783-1828." Journal of Negro History 5 (October 1920: 391-419). [MA Thesis, Howard University]. HTML by Dinsmore Documentation.Added April 10, 2003. Retrieved December 18, 2005, from http://www.dinsdoc.com/lindsay-1.htm. Read More