When did diplomacy ever work?

[a_unique_person]

I meant diplomacy between opponents, not between allies.

Allies? The US and GB and the USSR might have been allies, but it took diplomacy for them to actually work together. Uncle Joe wasn't the easiest person to get on with, from what I have heard.

 

[TriangleMan]

What about the breakup of the USSR and independence of the Warsaw Pact countries? Many of them (not all mind you) did it without a lot of violence. The splitting of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia went pretty smoothly as well.

Montenegro splitting from Serbia appears to be going smoothly (so far).

 

[Kerberos]

But doesn't that come around to the same thing? Patrons, UN groups and so on?

Where would N Korean diplomacy be today if it wasn't really between the US and China and perhaps the hangers on in Russia?

I must admit I don't understand what you're trying to say in either of those paragraphs. Could you clarify it for me?

 

[egslim]

Diplomacy really only works if both parties are evenly matched.

I disagree. Invading another country, even if it's a small one, is always an expensive risk in financial, military, internal political and foreign political terms. Therefore both parties have a major interest in avoiding such a war. Things go wrong when the bigger country underestimates the quagmire it will get into if it decides to invade anyway.

I think I meantioned that, but I think it was really an incident, however scary (I remember) within the cold war between the USSR and the West (US) and as such part of the ongoing diplomacy in all that time.

Oh yes, apologies for that.
Another, more hawkish example is Bismarck. He extracted a promise from France to remain neutral in case of war between Prussia and Austria, even though the French regretted that decision when war broke out. After the French-Prussian war, when France was looking for revenge, Bismarck kept France isolated diplomatically from any potential allies.
After Bismarck resigned, it didn't take long for France to ally with Russia and tighten relations with Britain.

A perfect example of good diplomacy from Bismarck, ruined by dumb sabre-rattling diplomacy from Wilhelm II.

 

[Elind]

Allies? The US and GB and the USSR might have been allies, but it took diplomacy for them to actually work together. Uncle Joe wasn't the easiest person to get on with, from what I have heard.

As I recall reading, the supplies were going TO the USSR. They were given help to defeat Germany. It was a lesser of two evils at the time. That made them allies in name only and they screwed us at every opportunity since.

I don't know what "diplomacy" had to do with that "expediency".

 

[Beerina]

Mainly when a much more powerful third state had selfish interests in matters.

If Stalin told two commie states to knock it off, that probably worked wonders.

Reminds me of that scene in one of the more recent Bond films, about the drug lord, where the drug lord, worth $8 billion, says to the recalcitrant president of some South American dictatorship, "You are after all, only presidente for life."

 

[Elind]

I must admit I don't understand what you're trying to say in either of those paragraphs. Could you clarify it for me?

Perhaps I misunderstood you. You said "Small nations still have options though, like navigating between different great powers or negotiate the level of conscesions they have to give. If this wasn't the case all small powers would behave simply as extensions of their more powerfull neighbours which clearly isn't the case."

Isn't N Korea just acting as a proxy for China and to some extent Russia playing games with the US? In other words, ultimately and diplomatically this is really an issue between "equals", not unequals?

 

[Kerberos]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. You said "Small nations still have options though, like navigating between different great powers or negotiate the level of conscesions they have to give. If this wasn't the case all small powers would behave simply as extensions of their more powerfull neighbours which clearly isn't the case."

Isn't N Korea just acting as a proxy for China and to some extent Russia playing games with the US? In other words, ultimately and diplomatically this is really an issue between "equals", not unequals?

Ahh OK. Yes, you're probably correct that NK is to an extend acting as a proxy for China, though I would think they're also acting in their own (percieved) interest.

Even if we assumed that they we're totally under the domion of China that wouldn't neccesarilly mean that this was the case for all small state/great state relations.

Iran would, I should say, be a clear example of a lesser power not acting as a simple vassal state for any greater power. You might argue that China and Russia backs Iran too, but I think it's clear that Iran is acting for itself, not as a vassal state for either Russia or China.

Saudi Arabia is another state which, while officially an American ally, certainly doesn't seem to be a vassal state for anybody.

The world is litered with small and weak states that aren't vassal states. In fact I'd say that small states being vassal states for a great power is the exception rather than the rule, at least after the end of the Cold War.

 

[egslim]

I'm not even sure North Korea (meaning its dictator) is much of a proxy for China. I expect Kim's main goal is to stay in power, and if possible expand that power.

China is probably concerned about keeping its smaller neighbours in its own sphere of influence, and definately out of other powers' spheres. Their intervention in the Korean war was because they did not accept a US ally/puppet on their border.

So that's a very good bargaining chip for North Korea. If NK somehow falls, they'll be absorbed by South Korea - South Korea is a close US ally/puppet, and the Chinese really don't want that. Thus China is pretty much forced to support NK, even if they don't support its goals, because for them the alternative is worse.

Small nations often play the bigger ones against each other, and profit from that.

 

[a_unique_person]

As I recall reading, the supplies were going TO the USSR. They were given help to defeat Germany. It was a lesser of two evils at the time. That made them allies in name only and they screwed us at every opportunity since.

I don't know what "diplomacy" had to do with that "expediency".

Diplomacy is a lot more than just stopping a war.

 

[CapelDodger]

What about the breakup of the USSR and independence of the Warsaw Pact countries? Many of them (not all mind you) did it without a lot of violence. The splitting of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia went pretty smoothly as well.

It all went remarkably smoothly, didn't it? Romania was a rogue-state from both points of view. Apart from that ...

Montenegro splitting from Serbia appears to be going smoothly (so far).

Bloody Serbs. How's the division of the Yugoslav Navy going? The Navy thing caused a lot of friction between Ukraine and Russia, and Ukraine actually has a coastline.

Never underestimate the Serbian appetite for pointless violence. If not satisified today, the need is greater tomorrow.

 

[Elind]

Diplomacy is a lot more than just stopping a war.

Of course, but that happened to be the issue in the OP. Testing the limits you might say.

 

[Elind]

I'm not even sure North Korea (meaning its dictator) is much of a proxy for China. I expect Kim's main goal is to stay in power, and if possible expand that power.

China is probably concerned about keeping its smaller neighbours in its own sphere of influence, and definately out of other powers' spheres. Their intervention in the Korean war was because they did not accept a US ally/puppet on their border.

So that's a very good bargaining chip for North Korea. If NK somehow falls, they'll be absorbed by South Korea - South Korea is a close US ally/puppet, and the Chinese really don't want that. Thus China is pretty much forced to support NK, even if they don't support its goals, because for them the alternative is worse.

Small nations often play the bigger ones against each other, and profit from that.

That last point may have truth, but I don't think it's applicable in this case. N Korea IS it's ruling elite. Very few of them would survive, or be allowed their freedom in such a case. Hardly a retirement fallback.

As to China, I think the issue was larger than having a US "puppet" on their border, which was communist slang for democracy. Surely you use the word ally rather than puppet, do you not?

 

[egslim]

N Korea IS it's ruling elite. Very few of them would survive, or be allowed their freedom in such a case. Hardly a retirement fallback.

I agree, and that was exactly my point when I mentioned:
"I expect Kim's main goal is to stay in power, and if possible expand that power."

That last point may have truth, but I don't think it's applicable in this case.

Well, I believe the thing China wants most is to regain Taiwan. Two things making that goal much harder to obtain are an increased US military presence in East-Asia and poor US-Chinese relations. And both of them will be caused by China avidly supporting North Korea.

I don't think China wants to rattle the US' cage just for the sake of rattling. If they do, I expect there's a purpose behind it.

As to China, I think the issue was larger than having a US "puppet" on their border, which was communist slang for democracy. Surely you use the word ally rather than puppet, do you not?

Finland was a real democracy on the border of the Soviet Union, yet they were not considered a US puppet by anyone. So it takes a little more than only democracy to be considered a puppet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_government
"A puppet government is a government that, though notionally of the same culture as the governed people, owes its existence (or other major debt) to being installed, supported or controlled by a more powerful entity, typically a foreign power. Such a government is also known as a puppet régime."

Many in South Korea perceive their military security to be dependent on the US, and their economic growth on generous trade agreements. Thus they owe a fairly major debt to the US.

We could argue about ally/puppet status until the cows come home. Would you instead simply agree that South Korean foreign policy towards its neighbours is far more influenced by US foreign policy towards those same countries than the other way around?

 

[Elind]

As to puppets, Wikipedia would then call most or all of Europe US puppets, would it not?

As to the question, I'm sure there is a better word for the attitude described, but all I can think of at the moment is .

This is akin to saying that terrorists are mainly influenced by the attitude of the US towards them.

 

[Darat]

As to puppets, Wikipedia would then call most or all of Europe US puppets, would it not?

...snip...

Why?

 

[Kerberos]

As to puppets, Wikipedia would then call most or all of Europe US puppets, would it not?

Not since the colapse of the Soviet Union, no. You are correct that the definition is incomplete though, it should include something abbout the puppet state being controlled by the state it was a puppet of.

 

[egslim]

As to puppets, Wikipedia would then call most or all of Europe US puppets, would it not?

Yes, and at least before the end of the Cold War that would have made some sense. For example, at the time of the Marshall plan and a similar defense program the US wielded enormous influence over the foreign policy of its recipients. It's not far-fetched to consider those countries US-puppets back then.
Note that Spain decided to support the US in Iraq against the wishes of its population. In other words, the government considered the wishes of the US above the wishes of its own population. That's typical puppet-behaviour.

Now I'm not saying Spain is a US puppet, but many European countries do show at least some puppet-like behaviour. There is a huge grey area between being completely independent (like Sweden) and being a total puppet.

Which is why I used the term "ally/puppet". Formally South Korea is a US ally, but in practice they also exhibit a lot of puppet-like behaviour.

As to the question, I'm sure there is a better word for the attitude described, but all I can think of at the moment is

Domination?

This is akin to saying that terrorists are mainly influenced by the attitude of the US towards them.

What part is, and why is that so?

 

[Elind]

Why?

:shrug: Perhaps Germany is the strongest example, but I was thinking that western Europe would be someone else's puppets if not for the US. Note that "controlled" is only one of the possible conditions in the definition.

"A puppet government is a government that, though notionally of the same culture as the governed people, owes its existence (or other major debt) to being installed, supported or controlled by a more powerful entity, typically a foreign power. Such a government is also known as a puppet régime."

 

[Elind]

What part is, and why is that so?

Oh, I'm just referring to the often stated position that terrorism would not exist if not for whatever injustice has been created by the US, or the west in general. This ignores the possibility that certain terrorism is simply driven by an inability to accept differences.