The term “Diplomacy” is a common word in most working environments, lives, and in many conversations. “She is a diplomatic person” might mean this person can handle situations that are not so good in a better way. It could also be seen in a negative light as a person who is not so truthful. It can signify someone engaging others for peace at the expense of truth. The truth is not always a peaceful action. What a person believes to be their truth might not be the truth of the other. In a world of chaos and constant warfare, “diplomatic” is used daily in every local and international news. The meaning is true to one and untrue to the other. It is a hope to some and another step of unfairness to others. To be diplomatic is the ability to relate cordially and engage in a good relationship with others. It is the peaceful alignment of the interests of the parties. Diplomacy is the influencing of international situations, directly or indirectly. It is the peaceful alignment of the interests of the parties. Diplomacy can function in times of Peace and war. It knows no limit. However, there are questions to be asked when the originators of diplomacy themselves are anti-diplomatic. R.P. Bartson, in his book Modern Diplomacy: Chapters 1-14, examines the history and development of diplomacy and highlights diplomatic relations to international trade, finances, negotiations, and mediation. Mark Simonoff’s speech at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics and Political Library, Saint Anselm College, gave an overview of the United Nations’ role in current world politics. The third edition of Inside a U.S. Embassy reveals the real people who work within the United States Embassy, their biographies, jobs, the mission, and their day-to-day life while on a mission. In this paper, I will write on the following: the Evolution of Diplomacy, Diplomacy in the Times of Crisis, Diplomacy and Economy, United States and Diplomacy, and the Irony of Diplomacy.
EVOLUTION OF DIPLOMACY
Diplomacy is the “management of relations between states and between states and other actors” (Barston 2006, 1). In diplomacy, promoting interests, defense, and security is key. The diplomatic personnel acquire the necessary information to avoid threats and conflicts between their host and domestic countries (Barston 2006, 3). They are skilled in watching, finding, and relaying information to their domestic country. In the diplomatic process, the fusion between countries’ international and domestic policies has continued to impact the international community. International decisions are made by countries considering their domestic influence (Barston 2006, 11). Therefore, a country’s domestic situation determines what it makes of its foreign policy. For example, the foreign policy of a country ruled by a military government will differ from that of a democratic one (Barston 2006, 17).
The establishment of the United Nations (UN) by the United States (US), Europe, and other allies after the 2nd world War was intentional to enhance international diplomacy (Simonoff, 2012). The abolishment of the Cold War also saw much expansion in this light. The existence of de facto states, as well as economic, transport, and social cooperation amongst states, has increased the international arena (Barston 2006, 6). The formation of regional organizations like ECOWAS, World organizations like the UN, and its specialized institutions have expanded international diplomacy (Barston 2006, 9). The creation of these organizations has therefore widened the scope of diplomacy.
Diplomatic relationships have moved from those between states to the idea of a foreign and diplomatic office. Diplomacy has stopped being the business of appointed diplomatic officers. However, it now includes actors like non –non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international organizations, and private individuals (Barston 2006, 1). Foreign policy has become so complex that the need for other actors has become necessary (Barston 2006, 14). Maintaining and creating relationships between nation-states is, therefore, not only in the hands of those countries’ ministries of external/diplomatic affairs, depending on the name given, but also includes an extensive range of actors. For example, in the current war between Israel and its neighboring countries, the UN and its organizations and regional Arab organizations have been vital to its movement toward humanitarian and cease-fire negotiations so far.
DIPLOMACY IN THE TIMES OF CRISIS
A crisis is an inevitable situation where people co-exist, either as a local or an international community. Diplomacy’s attempt to create cordial relationships between states does not stall the crisis. The existence of conflict, however, does not necessarily mean a failure of diplomacy. One of the reasons for diplomacy is the settlement of disputes between states and between states and other actors. Tools in diplomacy are utilized when conflict arises between states. Therefore, the possibility of resolving a crisis is at the core of diplomacy.
a) Negotiation during the crisis
Negotiation is one of the primary functions of diplomacy (Barston 2006, 2). It is an attempt to explore and reconcile conflicting positions in order to reach an acceptable outcome. Whatever the nature of the outcome, which may actually favour one party more than another, the purpose of negotiation is the identification of areas of common interest and conflict (Barston 2006, 48). The negotiation process is a progression towards reaching a substantive agreement. It typically involves multiple phases, starting with preparation and ending with the final agreement.
Negotiation can be complicated, especially when the conflict has escalated into violent conflict. At this time, the issues of conflict have been reduced to a minimum, and negotiators must deal first with the most urgent issues. For example, the Israel and Hamas conflict, where the most urgent task of the negotiators was the hostage situation. The people held hostage by both sides are still one of the issues at present, as the war extends. Negotiation methods may vary depending on the specific context of the hostage crisis.
In many conflicts, there is a possibility of a hostage situation on both sides to get leverage. Negotiations, such as those involving hostage situations, present unique challenges with elements like video communication, public appeals, and conflicting objectives. However, Hostage negotiations are not beyond the capacity of diplomacy…rather, hostage negotiations are well within the domain of diplomacy, which traditionally is concerned with developing and using a variety of contacts, and operating in dangerous situations (Barston 2006, 62).
Hostage situations have aligned with the development of technology. “The use of video and phone to communicate of pure violence” (Barston 2006, 62) complicates the situation. We have seen video recordings and telephone conversations of hostages taken by Hamas and Israel. The use of modern technology has also had an impact on crisis, sometimes negative and at other times positive. Recently, the US defense confirmed a leak of Israel’s classified document, which contained Israel’s intent to attack Iran.
Negotiations are affected by factors such as the negotiating environment, available assets, and contingent variables. However, negotiating in crisis and reaching a settlement is possible where these factors are used positively. The negotiators are aware of the factors that influence the parties and take them into consideration during negotiation. Negotiation may also take longer and lead to a lack of a conclusion due to the influence of parties with personal objectives or interests.
b) Mediation during the crisis
The settlement of disputes involves various methods such as inquiry, negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, mediation, and judicial settlement. Mediation is distinguished from other forms of conflict resolution in that it not only identifies the issues of conflict but also provides a solution.
Mediation focuses on facilitating communication and understanding opposing viewpoints. The mediator, who is the third party, seeks to influence the process and content of potential solutions, often helping parties adjust their perspectives, goals, and behaviors. Mediators, who can be external to the dispute, are crucial in facilitating peaceful resolutions (Barston 2006, 234) . A mediator must also earn the trust of both parties for acceptance and effectiveness of the process so that he can “soften the edge of controversy and provide a mechanism for adjustment on issues of prestige” (Barston 2006, 234).
In times of escalated conflict, though faced with the challenges of bringing the parties together, mediation is still embraced. Conflicting parties rarely reject mediation; it is usually entered into voluntarily (Barston 2006, 241). The successful outcome of mediation is usually characterized by
• The maintenance of secrecy in the process,
• The use of informal mediators, and
• The wording of the agreement covers bilateral cooperation between the parties.
In complex, multiparty conflicts, multiple levels of mediation may occur concurrently, especially when one party lacks diplomatic resources or faces isolation. In these cases, various forms of formal and informal mediation may be utilized to navigate the conflict. In the current wars between Israel and Hamas and Russia and Ukraine, mediation is still ongoing to resolve the issues of conflict and find an agreement that better serves the parties.
DIPLOMACY AND ECONOMY
International conflict and wars have contributed to poverty all over the world. Banks and other financial institutions do not function during wars and violent conflicts. Markets, stores, and supermarkets are also do not function at violent times. Hence, victims rely on supplies from their government and local and international organizations.
In times of war and violent attacks, stronger parties use their powers to prevent the weaker from receiving financial and humanitarian help from organizations. They block these humanitarian supplies from reaching the weaker party to gain more strength and win. Therefore, one of the tactics of winning a war is ensuring the other party lacks food and medical supplies. Nigeria won its war against secessionist Biafra in 1970, ensuring that salt and other humanitarian supplies did not get into Biafra.
In the current Israel/Palestine war, Israel, at one point, prevented international organizations from getting food and medical supplies into Gaza. Recently, the US sent a warning to Israel to withdraw its support if Israel continues to prevent humanitarian supplies from getting into Palestine. During a full-blown war, participating countries, both winning and losing, suffer intense financial crises. Hence, the need for money in the aftermath of a war.
For this purpose, international financial institutions were created by the United Nations (UN) at the end of World War II. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank were established on December 27, 1945, after the Bretton Woods Conference, with 44 countries. The Bretton Woods agreements focused on preventing another international monetary system collapse like the 1930s, emphasizing reconstruction and transitioning to peacetime economies (Barston 2006, 104).
The purpose of the Bretton Woods conference was to prevent a recurrence of a world financial collapse, as it was in the 1930s. The conference aimed to regulate the world’s economy. The IMF’s main tasks include providing international liquidity and assisting members with balance of payments challenges. The IMF also plays a crucial role in providing international liquidity and assistance to member countries experiencing challenges with balance of payments. The IMF aimed at establishing a stable exchange rate and discouraging the implementation of direct controls (Barston 2006, 105).
The World Bank was established to facilitate capital investment for development, particularly in post-war recovery. It also operates as a joint-stock entity with voting rights based on shareholding. The bank mirrors the IMF as it plays a crucial role in loan recommendations and management (Barston 2006, 106). The World Bank and the IMF, therefore, aimed to restore the economy of war-torn countries by lending money to those countries. The bank aims to facilitate capital investment for productive purposes, with an emphasis on less developed countries. It provides financing through guarantees and direct lending (Barston 2006, 107).
Despite the intentions of the two financial institutions, the IMF and World Bank had limited impact during the late 1940s and early 1950s due to post-war reconstruction being primarily financed through the Marshall Aid Program. The USA played a vital role as a source of international liquidity through the dollar. However, developments in the late 1950s and early 1960s changed the institutions’ focus and reduced the US’s influence. Serious balance of payments deficits in the late 1950s raised concerns about the US’s role in the Bretton Woods system. Western European powers and Japan emerged as major decision-making groups in international financial matters.
The IMF saw an increase in membership, especially from Africa, which brought a more comprehensive range of interests and demands on resources. The IMF and the World Bank have transformed over the years by establishing the Development Committee. However, despite the overhauling of the two institutions and the IMF’s financial focus, the major borrowers have been the developing countries while the lenders are the developed countries (Barston 2006, 112–118). The borrowing countries have continued to borrow at a greater rate since debt negotiations are sensitive to domestic and international events (Barston 2006, 125).
Despite all the restructuring of the bank and the IMF and the guidelines set for borrowing countries, the fact remains that the developed European countries, the US, and Japan, are the beneficiaries. This form of financial diplomacy has kept developing countries returning for more loans. These countries are in perpetual debt as they continue to want more, as with “Oliver Twist,” and have incurred great and significant repercussions. Financial diplomacy is, therefore, rooted in deceit for the rich to become richer and the poor poorer.
THE UNITED STATES AND DIPLOMACY
The Foreign Service is a career like no other. It is much more than a job; it is a uniquely demanding and rewarding way of life. As representatives of the United States to foreign governments, Foreign Service members have a direct impact on people’s lives and participate in the making of history. They travel the globe, experiencing foreign cultures as no tourist can. They work alongside highly talented colleagues, face the unexpected every day, and find themselves in situations that push their ingenuity and creativity to the limit (Inside a U.S. Embassy, 2011, 20).
The embassies of the U.S. are in most countries of the world. The diplomatic career is a fulfilling one for its diplomatic workers. Diplomats get to travel to places they have not or would never have imagined travelling. They learn about other people’s cultures, learn to eat different food, and perhaps experience different religions. They also experience the other side, which can be challenging and unforgettable. For example, the burning of the U.S. embassy in Kosovo and the subsequent evacuation of the U.S. diplomatic crew (Inside the U.S. Embassy 2011, 283–85). The diplomatic responses to the war in Iraq, even though most diplomats did not agree with the U.S invasion (Inside the U.S. Embassy 2011, 121).
The United States (U.S.) embassy is vast in its operation and present in almost all the countries around the world (Inside the U.S. Embassy 2011, 21–24). Compared to other countries, the U.S. embassy has embraced both born and naturalized citizens in its embassies and foreign offices (Inside the U.S. Embassy 2011, 33).
The U.S., being the most influential state with the U.N., holds its head as the democratic center of the world and as the symbol of international unity (Simonoff, 2012). For example, the U.S. ensured a world without nuclear weapons by invading Iraq in 2003 and concluding a deal with Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons. The United States of America is perceived as the most democratic country in the world. The epitome of democracy and an exemplar for the whole world. The US is the first negotiator of conflicts in most parts of the world. However, is it so, or is it just a facade? U.S. diplomacy gives the impression of intent at world peace. Can we conclude otherwise after reading between the lines of the words from its diplomat?
Every day, consular officers help stranded Americans get home. Every day, economic and commercial officers assist U.S. businesses to compete overseas. During times of upheaval, political officers are the ones on the front lines around the world, keeping Washington informed about the real situation. U.S. diplomats negotiate the international agreements that end the wars, keep the peace, and protect and promote U.S. interests. Foreign Service diplomats and specialists are truly the unsung heroes of American foreign policy (Inside the U.S. Embassy 2011, 17).
The phrase “promote U.S. interests” is pregnant with meanings. The above quote is an exposition of what diplomacy is all about to the U.S. Just as the former President of the US, Donald Trump, stated repeatedly, “It’s America first.” All the diplomatic hands that are stretched forth are because of American businesses all over the world and the citizens. Can it be concluded that the U.S.’s interest is the reason it interferes in other countries’ affairs and why it seems to negotiate and attempt to keep peace around the world?
The U.S. has several Missions worldwide, especially in places of vital interest. Two of these are the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). USAID has implemented several humanitarian and development assistance programs in war-torn countries worldwide. This includes a country like Iraq, where the war was an action of the U.S. (Inside the U.S. Embassy 2011, 273).Holly Higgins, FAS agricultural officer, states: These organizations play a “ role in improving foreign markets for U.S. products and building new markets” (Inside the U.S. Embassy 2011, 48).
The USAID is directly under the office of the U.S. Secretary of State and, hence, is fully monitored by U.S. national security. These organizations have over 77 developing countries depending on them for humanitarian supplies and support, and are represented by over 165 foreign service officers(Inside the U.S. Embassy 2011, 68).
USAID is not only a humanitarian organization of the U.S. to needy states but also an important diplomatic tool for the U.S.’s national security. The U.S. ambassadors to other countries, therefore, have a point of duty always to debrief the USAID director (Inside the U.S. Embassy 2011, 248).
IRONY OF THE UNITED NATION’S SECURITY COUNCIL
The Security Council consists of 15 Members who have one vote and are accountable for maintaining international peace and security. Amongst the 15 states are the five permanent members: China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America (Simonoff, 2012).
The Security Council can impose sanctions on states. The powers of the Security Council are legally binding on the receiving states and can be enforced by the UN. Sanctions have been imposed on countries like North Korea and Iran. These are examples of the exercise of powers of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, whose main task is to keep world peace.
Simonoff, singing the praises of the UN, stated the embedded content of Article 1 of the charter as:
• To maintain international Peace
• To develop friendly relations among nations
• To achieve international co-operation
The UN charter states that all its member states shall peacefully settle all their disputes and restrain the use of force. Its members shall also respect the sovereignty of all member state. On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded the sovereign state of Ukraine for reasons best known to its president, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. China has constantly bullied Taiwan, declaring the state and its election as illegitimate. Vowing to use nonpeaceful means if it succeeds. The U.S. invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, falsely alleging that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The UN Security Council has to agree on a motion to sanction any state. On the 25th of February 2022, the UN Security Council was unable to adopt a resolution on ending the Ukraine Crisis, as the Russian Federation wielded a Veto. The Kyiv’s Permanent Representative told the council, ” Your Words Have Less Value Than a Hole in a New York Pretzel.” The draft submitted by Albania and the U.S. gained support from 11 members but was vetoed by the Russian Federation, with China, India, and the United Arab Emirates abstaining. The giants are indeed taking their turns in bullying the peasants. Nobody is about to stop this Russian giant; it is its turn.
CONCLUSION
The UN charter aims for a peaceful world. The UN has averted wars and mediated and negotiated peace in crisis situations. On October 17, 2024, the vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris, gave a remark after Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, believed by Israel to be the chief architect of the militant group’s deadly October 7, 2023, terror attack, was killed, asking for a cease-fire.
Israel retaliated and waged War on Gaza and Palestine after Hamas attacked Israel and killed about 1,3000 people. In Palestine, an estimated record number of over 43,000 people have been killed by Israel to date. The war has extended beyond Hamas and Israel. Lebanon and Iran are now interested parties in the war. They have attacked Israel in support of Hamas and Palestine and in retaliation for Israel’s attacks on other militant groups.
Diplomatic settlement tools are being used while the war is still ongoing. The UN’s ultimate goal is to prevent a third world war and bring peace to the world. The UN, the U.S., regional organizations, and independent states all have their hands on deck to avert global conflicts and resolve the ongoing ones.
Building relationships amongst nations while peacekeeping is very important in diplomacy. We all have more in common than we know; we are all humans, and we all have the same color of blood flowing through our veins, no matter our physical identity. Diplomacy is a means to an end. The tools of diplomacy can and should be utilized to end a crisis.
REFERENCES
Barston, R. P. 2006. Modern Diplomacy. 3rd edition. Pearson Education Limited, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex CM20 2JE, England.
Inside the U.S. Embassy 2011,. n.d. “Inside a U.S. Embassy: Diplomacy at Work, All-New Third Edition of the Essential Guide to the Foreign Service: Dorman, Shawn: 9780964948846: Amazon.com: Books.” Accessed October 20, 2024.
Mark Simonoff, December 3, 2012. Diplomacy at the United Nations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXKjJL-Asu8&t=7s. Assessed 09/15/2024.
The United Nations Meeting Coverage Security Council, 25 February 2020. SC/148088979 TH MEETING (PM) https://press.un.org/en/2022. Assessed 10/21/2024.
