• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When did diplomacy ever work?

Diplomacy usually works, it's only when it doesn't that we notice it.

I'll paraphrase Sun Tzu (because I don't know where my copy of the Art of War is):

"We celebrate the General who wins the war, but forget the Diplomat who prevents it."
 
Henry Kissinger in 1973

Even though there is a lot Kissinger has to answer for, he did avert a major superpower conflcit during the Middle East crisis of 1973, his shuttle diplomacy worked. And both sides were on a hair trigger, we came darn close. This is one thing we have to thank Kissinger for.
 
a_unique_person said:
The word is that Diplomacy is hard at work right in the Middle East. If the war doesn't turn into all out shooting, how do we know what did and didn't work.
Click to expand...

It has been at work there for how many years. Sure isn't working today.

It is my opinion, as I think I've said before, that diplomacy does not, will not, can not, work with God's chosen people(s).
 
Let's not forget Jimmy Carter, Anwar Sadat, and Menachem Begin.

Before Camp David, it was just given that Egypt and Israel always had been at war, and always would be, and their last shooting war had been only five years before.
 
Diplomacy *always* works... until it doesn't...

An example I would like to offer (and pertinent to current ME happenings) is the diplomacy that maintained peace in the "holy land" during the reign of Baldwin the Leper King of Jerusalem.

The diplomatic efforts of two leaders managed to prevent two enormous armies of raving madmen from annihilating each other. Of course... once one of those leaders died...

The question of "When did diplomacy ever work?" really depends on the objective of a given diplomacy. There were diplomatic missions with the specific objective of starting a war. If hostilities broke out, that diplomacy succeeded excellently.

The mistake is a modern notion that diplomacy is the antithesis of war, and that the sole objective of diplomacy is to prevent war. This is not true at all. Diplomacy is nothing more than the communication between states. Sometimes that communication becomes physical, which is why war is referred to as an extension of diplomacy by other means. As long as communication between the states is ongoing (and carpet bombing another state's cities is EXCELLENTLY clear communication, wouldn't you say?) diplomacy is "working".

We are accustomed to the messages that diplomacy seeks to impart being nice and pleasant and reasonable. This is because generally countries don't want wars, it is bad for them. But sometimes the message countries want to impart with their diplomacy is "STFU, I will pwn u".

-Andrew
 
gumboot said:
and carpet bombing another state's cities is EXCELLENTLY clear communication, wouldn't you say
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn't say that. Usually the message that the bomber intends to send with it is something like "We don't like your so-and-so policy, cut it out!" but the message is usually understood as "they want to destroy us all, we must retaliate to make them stop that policy!"

Rarely is such a message understood as it was intended. Osama Bin Laden's demands have rarely been discussed in the USA after 9/11. The Japanese didn't get their message across with the attacks on Pearl Harbor. The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only just managed to get the Japanese do what the USA wanted, after many fire bombings failed to deliver that message.

As a mode of communication, violent attacks are not very effective at getting your message across.
 
Earthborn said:
As a mode of communication, violent attacks are not very effective at getting your message across.
Click to expand...


...but you think that 50 some years of UN and who knows what other "messages" are effective?

Please, give us a break with the platitudes. The truth is that winners win and losers lose, and then the talking heads analyse.

All you are supposed to do is pick your side.
 
gumboot said:
The question of "When did diplomacy ever work?" really depends on the objective of a given diplomacy. There were diplomatic missions with the specific objective of starting a war. If hostilities broke out, that diplomacy succeeded excellently.

The mistake is a modern notion that diplomacy is the antithesis of war, and that the sole objective of diplomacy is to prevent war. This is not true at all. Diplomacy is nothing more than the communication between states. Sometimes that communication becomes physical, which is why war is referred to as an extension of diplomacy by other means. As long as communication between the states is ongoing (and carpet bombing another state's cities is EXCELLENTLY clear communication, wouldn't you say?) diplomacy is "working".

We are accustomed to the messages that diplomacy seeks to impart being nice and pleasant and reasonable. This is because generally countries don't want wars, it is bad for them. But sometimes the message countries want to impart with their diplomacy is "STFU, I will pwn u".

-Andrew
Click to expand...
I disagree with that; saying "STFU, I will pwn U" isn't diplomacy and neither is starting a war. saying "STFU, I will pwn U, unless you gives me [insert desired conscension]" or" "STFU, I will pwn U [and then turn around and try to convince other countries that you are the victim, and did everything possible to avoid war]" is however. Carbet bombing could be diplomacy, but only if your purpose is to send a message rather than just to destroy whatever you're bombing.
 
Kerberos said:
I disagree with that; saying "STFU, I will pwn U" isn't diplomacy and neither is starting a war. saying "STFU, I will pwn U, unless you gives me [insert desired conscension]" or" "STFU, I will pwn U [and then turn around and try to convince other countries that you are the victim, and did everything possible to avoid war]" is however.
Click to expand...


You're talking bargaining. Yes, usually diplomacy involves bargaining. Usually wars are fought because one sides wants something from another side.

But not always. Okay, my message example was a little juvenile. But the point remains - sometimes a communication between states (diplomacy) is NOT a bargain. Sometimes it is purely a statement. That statement might be "we condemn your actions" (a favourite of the UN) or it might be "we do not want you to exist" (a favourite of certain Islamic Extremist groups). Obviously a statement like "we do not want you to exist" is not usually going to produce results on its own, hence you extend your diplomacy by other means - war.

I agree that SOME messages are poorly expressed by acts of violence, but often acts of violence reveal things more clearly...

Consider this... which reveals more about how Al Qaeda regard the US? A printed statement requesting withdrawal from the Middle East, or hijacking civilian aircraft and ramming them into civilian buildings?

I personally think Al Qaeda's September 11 "press release" was VERY clear.

-Andrew
 
gumboot said:
Simple messages are clearer. They *do* want to destroy western civilisation.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of propaganda about to that effect, but that doesn't make it true. Al-Qaeda's aim is to "restore" Islam in the Islamic world. The western world is seen as the major obstacle to that aim. Al Qaeda wants it to disengage from the Islamic world, after that it can go to hell in its own way. (Which, of course, it assuredly will :) .)

Religious fanatics actually want some people to reject their faith, so that they will be supernaturally punished. They love that. As long as the unbelievers aren't a threat, of course.

Actions like 9/11 express this desire more clearly than their eloquent speeches.
Click to expand...
Both express the same desire - get out. As long as you're in my House, I'll be in your House, it's not a one-way arrangement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom