has diplomacy ever worked?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

can't think of any, sorry!

[nokhor]

i read a case study on the u.s. and panamanian diplomatic struggle over ownership of the panama canal. it was interesting because the u.s. had most of the power in terms of political, military, economic power in the dispute, but the panamanians were eventually through diplomacy, able to wrest control of the canal from the americans.

[Suppiluliumas]

To be fair, it helped that Carter was a walking talking vagina.

[Sethik]

To be fair, it helped that Carter was a walking talking vagina.

Quoted for validity.

[Kraxis]

One could easily say: Had diplomacy not worked, Europe would be a hotbed of smallscale wars as it has always been, perhaps a bit less since our cultures have intermingled a bit, but we would still fight over little issues.

[Red Harvest]

Depends on what you call diplomacy. It will work if both sides would like to end or avoid a conflict, but it rarely works if one side is set on it. Saber rattling often goes hand in hand with diplomacy.

The Cuban missile crisis is a case of diplomacy working. Neither side really wanted a war, neither side fully understood what the other was up to at the start, so a combination of serious saber rattling and diplomacy extricated both sides from a situation neither wanted to be in.

The Louisiana purchase was a good bit of diplomacy that apparently avoided a conflict and was win-win if memory serves.

I could name others. The problem is, you won't hear all that much when diplomacy works. It is when it doesn't that there is a lot to be written about.

In my opinion a good "bad example" would be the Serbian attacks on the other former Yugoslavian republics (and no I haven't forgotten what the Croation nationalists did either.) Diplomacy was an utter failure, because one side had no interest in negotiating, and no real *perceived* threat over their heads (thanks to their mistaken belief that their Russian allies would run successful diplomatic interference indefinitely, etc.) When they finally started facing military consequences diplomacy went to work. Unfortunately it took two separate conflicts before the ultra-nationalist sentiment and power base was broken. My assessment at the time, and now is that had the U.S. shaken the stick vigorously from the start, there would not have been the massive genocide, nor a sustained war, that later required US and allied military action to resolve. The international community committed the most serious stupidity of an arms embargo that only really punished the emerging states that had no military...in the face of a well armed aggressor...ASSININE. Bush senior failed to take a leading role. (Of course, that's what got us into the first Iraq war...sending the wrong diplomatic signal to Saddam. And Bush senior sort of got us into the 2nd by failing to support those attempting to topple Saddam after the 1st war...and by negotiating a poorly thought out "peace.") A bright spot in this bad example was Slovenia where the Serbs did not have much to gain (no major serb population there), and faced a resolute militia. They gained their independence after a very short conflict.

Appeasement doesn't work. Diplomacy from a strong position can.

[Rosacrux redux]

Red Harvest got it right. In most cases, diplomacy works. When it fails to do so, threats start going on and dimplomacy procedes to another level. If it fails again... well, the arms take the scene.

But there are a tsousand times more disputes taken care of with diplomacy than with war.

[Watchman]

Well, most major wars have tended to end with greater or lesser degree of diplomacy, but I don't think that's what was being asked...

A great many rulers of old actually preferred diplomacy for power games - it was generally far less risky and expensive than warfare. The vast Habsburg dynasty, whose lands stretched across Europe, was primarily built on royal marriages...

[doc_bean]

In my opinion a good "bad example" would be the Serbian attacks on the other former Yugoslavian republics (and no I haven't forgotten what the Croation nationalists did either.) Diplomacy was an utter failure, because one side had no interest in negotiating, and no real *perceived* threat over their heads (thanks to their mistaken belief that their Russian allies would run successful diplomatic interference indefinitely, etc.) When they finally started facing military consequences diplomacy went to work. Unfortunately it took two separate conflicts before the ultra-nationalist sentiment and power base was broken. My assessment at the time, and now is that had the U.S. shaken the stick vigorously from the start, there would not have been the massive genocide, nor a sustained war, that later required US and allied military action to resolve.

I'm not sure, but didn't the US keep a little back because they hoped Europe would handle it ? I know the whole crisis was a crisis situation for the EU (or didn't they have that name yet then ?) because they lost all credibility as a true international player.

[Red Harvest]

I'm not sure, but didn't the US keep a little back because they hoped Europe would handle it ? I know the whole crisis was a crisis situation for the EU (or didn't they have that name yet then ?) because they lost all credibility as a true international player.

Yes, I recall this being a major part of it. The U.S. sat on its hands, waiting for the Europeans to do something. It was a huge failure for European diplomacy and has certainly colored U.S. foreign policy since then. The feeling in the U.S. (right or wrong) was that the EU worked like an ineffective committee, never doing anything decisive. I know from conversations at the time that many of my fellow Americans were very opposed to getting involved in an ethnic squabble in Europe. When you have clear indication of genocidal actions happening or about to happen, swift overwhelming response is about the only response that is going to produce results. Waiting is criminal. It was obvious very early on where this was headed, but the world community let it fester. It seems we all should have learned our lessons from WWII.

[The_Emperor]

Diplomacy has worked many times, but because it is not as dramatic as "bad news" it is often overlooked (especially if a war is on in someplace more important)

The most prominent examples of diplomacy working are the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Berlin Crisis, Detante arms reduction treaties and the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. More recently we have had Libya secure a deal with the UK to renounce its WMD programs and any support for terrorism and to re-enter the international community.

[The Wizard]

Byzantine diplomacy throughout the existence of the empire always seems to have been pretty succesful... the Byzantines were more pragmatic when concerning war than most of their contemporaries.

Think of surrounding an enemy with a net of foes, or carefully manipulating the enemy so that he was strong, but constantly busy (both happened to Sassanid Persia).



~Wiz

[Red Harvest]

More recently we have had Libya secure a deal with the UK to renounce its WMD programs and any support for terrorism and to re-enter the international community.

I agree with your examples (nearly listed them all myself.) Libya is an interesting one, because limited military action was also part of the equation. The Gulf of Sidra operation and later bombing of the capital sent a pretty clear message. Of course the French denied the U.S. use of their airspace for the raid...typical. Not sure what side they are on, but it sure as heck isn't ours.