- Introduction
Diplomacy, in the modern world, is the practice of countries dealing amicably with each other. It is the process by which countries conduct negotiations and come to agreements; during these talks, individuals often act on behalf of the state. There are a number of desires that shape the movement of diplomacy agreements, but Schroeder suggests that it is the mechanism of shared ambition - which acts like an invisible hand to make alliances and international relationships work. Imbalances of power are bad for peace. In today’s world, diplomacy is the conduction of international relations by heads of state. These heads of state deal with economics, war, culture, human rights, trade, and environment issues during diplomatic talks; however, most of the discussion here will center around the issue of war and diplomacy during wartime.
- Britain
British diplomatic history did not begin at the dawn of the twentieth century, but much of the great diplomatic history does. In the late 1800s, Britain is embroiled in a number of wars, potentially as a result of its sprawling empire. The country is facing uprisings in China and elsewhere, and the amount of upheaval in the empire was enough to cause the British to focus on diplomacy as a solution.
Britain participated in the first Hague conference, a diplomatic meeting held with the plan of codifying and solidifying the rules of international peace (Eban). The peace was not to be, however: for much of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, Britain handled most of its diplomatic policies through war (Eban). Britain helped suppress the Boxer Rebellion in China, began to fight the Second Boer War in South Africa, and nearly had a war in Egypt all in the same time frame as the Hague Conference.
As World War I began, diplomatic ties for Britain became more important than ever. During the latter half of the nineteenth century, Britain’s ties with the United States had been growing stronger. Britain’s diplomatic ties with the rest of Europe were also changing: when Germany threatened war with France in 1905, Britain made it clear that in the case of war, Britain and France would be allied (Eban).
Immediately preceding World War I, Britain entered the Triple Entente with Russia and France; this effectively bound Britain to these countries in the case of an attack, which seemed more and more likely during this time (Eban). Germany had already threatened France with war twice by this point; all that was needed in Europe was a spark, and the whole continent would alight with war (Eban).
Indeed, this is exactly what happens; World War I breaks out in 1914, and Britain holds diplomatic ties with Russia and France, and the world goes to war. When the war ends in 1919, the League of Nations-- the precursor to the United Nations-- is formed, and Britain becomes an active member in the organization (Eban). Despite this attempt to garner peace in Europe, however, then-Prime Minister David Lloyd George makes one of the most questionable diplomatic decisions of the age, and makes Germany both apologize to the conference for beginning the war and also pay reparations to the winning side (Eban). This lapse in diplomacy is arguably the reason for the second World War. Although the League of Nations was meant to be able to keep peace in Europe and abroad, it was too weak. The organization had no real power, and there was no bite; any country could ignore the League of Nations and find that there was no real problem with this.
After World War II, Britain’s power in international diplomacy waned, particularly during the Cold War as the USSR and the United States vied for power in the international community. Although Britain still occupies a privileged seat in the international community, the balance of power has significantly shifted in the past century.
- Japan
Japan is a unique addition to the list of countries that have been instrumental in western diplomatic history; historically, Japan was a very closed nation. Indeed, Japan did not open diplomatic ties with the west until the 1850s (Kertesz et al.). When Japan did open her borders to trade with other nations, one of the first country to establish ties with Japan was the United States; the United States was guilty of what is called “gunboat” diplomacy in this case. The United States put on a serious show of naval power, and Japan conceded to their demands (Kertesz et al.).
This kind of forced diplomacy commonly causes problems in international relations. Because it is coerced, it often leaves a bad feeling for one country, particularly as though that country has been taken advantage in some way (Kertesz et al.). This feeling in Japan stayed and continued to be problematic for the people of Japan for many years; it may well have been part of the impetus for Japan’s willingness to join World War II and eventually attack the United States (Kertesz et al.).
Japan has a long history of rejecting the idea of international diplomacy-- indeed, Japan blatantly ignored the League of Nations, going to war with China and Manchuria in 1931 (Kertesz et al.). As the United States put more and more pressure on Japan under the guise of diplomacy, Japan retreated further and further into negotiations with the Axis powers, eventually joining World War II on the side of the Germans and other Axis powers (Kertesz et al.).
One thing that Kertesz et al. note about the Japanese is that their idea of international diplomacy was fundamentally different from a western idea of diplomacy, particularly in the years immediately following the opening of Japanese borders (Kertesz et al.). In Japanese culture, the idea of signing a treaty is undesirable, even shameful; it caused issues between Japan and the west every time the Japanese were forced to sign treaties by gunboat diplomacy (Kertesz et al.).
- Germany
Germany has long made and broken diplomatic ties with the rest of Europe. During the twentieth century, however, the most important diplomatic ties that Germany made had to do with their connection to the Triple Alliance with Italy and Austria (Kertesz et al.). Germany’s participation in this particular Alliance cost it dearly; the Triple Alliance lost the first World War, and Germany had to take responsibility for the war in front of the member states at the Treaty of Paris (Kertesz et al.)
The problem with diplomacy is that there are human beings involved: no matter how good the diplomat, he or she sometimes makes mistakes and becomes emotionally compromised by the situation. When the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom forced the Germans to take responsibility for the war and pay reparations to the Allied powers, he was laying the groundwork for World War II. The reparations-- the policy of appeasement that the British insisted upon after World War I-- were more damaging than they could have known at the time.
When World War II broke out, Germany had broken under the strain of the reparations that they had been forced to pay to the rest of the Allies. The payment of reparations-- and the policy of appeasement as a whole-- was, in hindsight, a bad choice insofar as diplomatic relations between Germany and the rest of Europe; Germany quickly became unable to pay, and the people suffered greatly, causing unrest and eventually war (Eban).
- France
France and Britain had a long history of conflict between their nations, but the beginning of the twentieth century changed the relationship between these two nations. While they had long been at odds as a result of their close geographic location, the Entente Cordiale ensured that Britain and France would be allies going forward. This turned out to be a good tactical move on the part of France-- as Germany threatened to go to war with France multiple times during the Moroccan Crises, Britain staunchly reminded Germany that any attack on France would not be met with neutrality on the part of the British government (Kertesz et al.)
France and Germany continue to struggle until the beginning of World War I-- indeed, France joined the Triple Entente just to ensure that the balance of power in Europe would not shift towards the Germans. In 1918, the Armistice between the warring powers was signed in France, under French direction. In this way, French diplomacy has been very influential over the years-- both the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Versailles were signed in France (Eban). During much of World War I and II, France was a battleground; by the end of these conflicts, France was willing to do a lot to ensure that no more World Wars would occur. The French willingness to cooperate and foster cooperation between European and international countries led directly to the formation of the League of Nations and eventually the United Nations (Eban).
- The United States and the USSR
As a relatively young nation, the United States has certainly had a checkered past. For most of her history, the United States has been entangled in war and conflict; despite being one of the most powerful nations in the world today, the United States did not always have such a powerful international position. In the years leading up to World War I, the United States was taking steps to remove itself from entanglements with its European counterparts (Eban). Instead, the United States was trying to establish diplomatic relationships with Japan and China, because the United States saw these nations as such important trading partners for the future (Eban). In 1917, the United States interrupted the Zimmerman Telegram, which proposed a military alliance between Mexico and Germany; America was, understandably, outraged, and joined World War I, turning the tide of the war (Eban).
Perhaps the most interesting time period in American diplomacy is the time period immediately following World War II, which would come to be known as the Cold War with the USSR (Eban). The United States and the USSR both possessed nuclear weapons, which made attacking each other (or any of their allies) an impossibility without starting a global crisis that could have, essentially, ended humanity (Eban). The United States was one of the founding members of the United Nations, the body that was formed to take the place of the defunct League of Nations. Because the United States was one of the winning nations of World War II, it was guaranteed a permanent seat on the security council (Eban). As tensions between the USSR (another permanent member of the Security Council) and the United States rose, so too did tensions in the United Nations.
In the years following World War II, the USSR began to amass power in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Western Asia. Although not part of a fascist regime with internationalist sentiments, the USSR tended to back these regimes; both the USSR and the United States were building up their military and strategic access points for wartime diplomacy.
The USSR was involved in a number of diplomatic disasters with the United States, some of which almost resulted in the end of the human race. The Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, almost resulted in nuclear weapons being fired at the USSR by the United States; the policies that were enacted during this time were polices of escalating aggression, but both sides were ultimately unwilling to be the first to escalate the conflict past the mutual shows of force.
During this time, the United States and the USSR were both also involved in the space race; both countries were doing their best to put a man on the moon as quickly as possible. This was another symptom of the arms race that was happening between the two nations; nothing seemed to be able to cool the tensions that rose more every day (Eban). As the two countries moved around Europe and the rest of the world collecting chess pieces, they were causing irreparable damage to the countries that they were manipulating into playing the Cold War game.
- Peace talks
There are a number of ways to enact effective peace talks, as can be seen through many historical examples. European history has been rife with treaties and agreements; although these treaties and agreements are not always effective in the long run, there have been a number that have been successful for long enough to be considered a good option for diplomacy as a whole.
Negotiating peace for an ongoing conflict may be the most difficult task in all of diplomacy. A diplomat must be able to maneuver around war, but once a war has begun, it is very difficult to get participants to stop fighting until one side has clearly won and the other has clearly lost. However, there are some solutions that are commonly used in diplomacy to end conflict.
Treaties are commonly used to end conflicts, although many outside of the international community scoff at their applicabilty and efficacy. Hoffman et al. write, “Formal treaties have been unfairly derided as mere scraps of paper and largely ignored in the literature in international relations. Yet scholars from every major school of thought, including the realists led by Hans Morgenthau (1947), have noted that formal treaty relations are vital for understanding the nature of the global system. Recent work by Leeds (2003) finds that even in the dangerous world of peace treaties, some 75% are rigorously adhered to throughout their relevant life-span Instead of viewing treaties as indicators of the level of cooperation in a specific area, or as cases of rational choice and design dynamics, we recognize treaties as key organizing principles of the world system, and examine them in a relational manner” (Hoffman et al.). Without trust in the process of creating a treaty, it would be nearly impossible for countries to trust each other enough to stop fighting. This is why the process of peace talks are so important, and so many brilliant minds have been part of the process of diplomacy. Peace talks are made easier by the creation of international bodies like the United Nations. While these groups do not necessarily have a lot of international power, they do act as effective places for discussion to take place between nations who are having conflicts.
- Great Figures of Diplomacy
There are a number of notable names in diplomacy, but many of these names came from the great conflicts of the twentieth century. Henry Kissinger, for instance, is responsible for the United States reopening diplomatic ties with China in the late 1960s and early 1970s; without his contribution, the United States and China would have remained in conflict much longer (Hoffman et al.). However, Kissinger is responsible for a number of questionable diplomatic decisions as well, including the decision to extend the Vietnam War and to intervene in political matters in South America (Hoffman et al.). Another American diplomat, Ronald Reagan, made a number of enemies throughout the world with his “Evil Empire” speech. Kissinger and Reagan were two diplomats in a long line of American diplomats who took a hard line on the Soviet Union and its imperialistic expansion (Hoffman et al.).
Conversely, Winston Churchill, despite his dislike for the Soviet Union and communism as a philosophy, recognized the danger of an Axis victory during World War II; instead of taking a hard line on philosophical differences, Churchill helped the Soviet Union to remove Hitler. There are many different types of diplomats, and many different types of diplomacy; the United States has a tendency towards hard-line diplomacy, whereas other nations are much less likely to take such controversial and confrontational stances towards international issues.
- Conclusions
Diplomacy is a difficult process, regardless of the international community and the climate of the international community at any given time. During times of high conflict, the process of diplomacy is much more difficult than the process during peacetime. There are any number of different stances a country can take on diplomacy.
After World War I, for instance, the winning nations demanded appeasement; during the Cold War, however, both the USA and USSR were simultaneously trying to outdo each other while also trying not to irritate the other into attack. The relationship between nations in a diplomatic relationship can be viewed along hierarchical lines; peace is the dominant or controlling idea and law and diplomacy are secondary, in that they serve to achieve the goal of peace.
References
Berridge, G. R. Diplomatic Theory From Machievelli to Kissinger. New York: Palgrave, 2001.
Eban, Abba Solomon. New diplomacy international affairs in the modern age. New York: Random House, 1983.
Handelman, Sapir. "Two Complementary Settings Of Peace-Making Diplomacy: Political-Elite Diplomacy And Public Diplomacy." Diplomacy & Statecraft 23.1 (2012).
Hoffmann, Matthew J., and Robert A. Denemark. "Global Diplomacy In World System History: A Network Analysis Of The Multilateral Treaty System Over 400 Years." Conference Papers -- International Studies Association (2008).
Kertesz, Stephen Denis, and M. A. Fitzsimons. Diplomacy in a Changing World. Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame, 1959. Print.
