has diplomacy ever worked?

[VAE VICTUS]

ok, i know it must have worked somehow at least once.does anyone have any examples????besides diplomacy putting off the inivitable.

All time is a spiral, growing ever smaller as it reaches a climax.

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

[sharrukin]

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.

At a guess I would say they are on their own side as you are on your side.

Nations look out for themselve's. In the best of them it's an obligation the leadership owes their people. The spanish denied the Americans overflight as well. Now they are your pal's...wait, maybe not, they pulled out of Iraq, so maybe they are not your friends.

France sent troops to fight in the first gulf war. They did so for their own interests as did the United States.

Do you think the USA should look out for France's interest above it's own? Would you vote for any President that did?
Why then should France, or Spain, or anyone do what you will not?

[Red Harvest]

Do you think the USA should look out for France's interest above it's own? Would you vote for any President that did?
Why then should France, or Spain, or anyone do what you will not?

Actually I would, if I felt it was in the world's best interest. If France were stuck in some sort of peace keeping role with some aggressive nation taking shots at her armed forces regularly, I would support France in kicking the snot out of the aggressor and removing him from power, even if it cost some U.S. business or was not popular here. I'm not a "populist" voter and I have a long time horizon. Siding with terrorists or ultra aggressive authoritarian dictators is NEVER the right thing to do. Many nations including the U.S. have done so in the past under the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach. It almost never ends well. I'm a citizen of the world, not just my own country or little piece of it. Depressingly few folks seem to share that view.

My problem with the French gov't is their obstructionist approach that actually drives countries away from diplomatic solutions. Taking a principled stand is one thing, but their business ties, etc. left a bad stain (I seem to recall that they built that Iraqi reactor that the Israeli's took out.) And their efforts were obviously counterproductive to avoiding war. While I'm none too happy with the current U.S. administration and its way of conducting the present war (particularly the justification for it), France has been a pain about dealing with terrorists for a long time. It is my very strongly held belief that they have been working counter to world interest in resolving these issues. Their role has been very reminiscent of Russia's role in the Serbian mess.

Bush wanted this war and it was clear he was going to get it unless Saddam changed his ways rapidly. So the French stepped in to run interference for Saddam, sending the wrong signal. (Remember Bush, Sr. sending the wrong signal about Kuwait?) Result, no resolution with teeth to force Saddam to open back up. I really don't think Saddam thought we were going to invade until the final week or two. France's actions were a tremendous diplomatic blunder that guarranteed that Bush would get his war. I was hoping the French would change their stance in order to PREVENT a war.

WMD was the wrong reason to go to war because the evidence wasn't there. I freely admit that I was duped into thinking it was...until I saw Powell's presentation before the war. My reaction: that's it? I though we had clear proof? However, Saddam could not be left in place forever. Remember the French were agitating to lift all restrictions on Saddam. Meanwhile the U.S. was stuck over there with some clown taking pot shots at our aircraft and no way out. The funny thing about WMD is that Saddam had bluffed other arab nations into believing he still had them. The really ironic part is that while it appears he did destroy the known weapons early after the 1st war, his record keeping was so terrible and he had worked so hard to obstruct weapons inspections that he had no proof of their destruction. (And when you've used chemical weapons on your own people...you are gonna need some proof.)

As for the Spanish, I can't blame them for being angry with the ruling party of the time when they had accused Basque separatists of the Madrid attacks. However, Spain caved in to a terrorist attack and demand, and it sets a horrible precedent. The timing of the terrorists was perfect, and the govt did the opposite of what they should have done at the time, so I can't blame the Spanish people for reacting as they did. It was an internal matter in a time of much grief and anger.

[sharrukin]

Actually I would, if I felt it was in the world's best interest. If France were stuck in some sort of peace keeping role with some aggressive nation taking shots at her armed forces regularly, I would support France in kicking the snot out of the aggressor and removing him from power, even if it cost some U.S. business or was not popular here.

They were shooting at planes in their own airspace! US planes overflying Iraq. I do not believe that Iraq was in the right or justified in doing these things, but I do believe the US has a problem with 'closure'.
When you kick the stuffings out of someone you should shout 'hurrah' and GO HOME! Instead you stuck around for close to a decade! What should have been done is a drive to Bagdad and then leave. Bush senior knew what junior did not. The American public and political structure would not allow a clean getaway. The American people have a desire to save the world, the problem is that the rest of the world may not want to be saved!

I'm not a "populist" voter and I have a long time horizon. Siding with terrorists or ultra aggressive authoritarian dictators is NEVER the right thing to do. Many nations including the U.S. have done so in the past under the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach. It almost never ends well. I'm a citizen of the world, not just my own country or little piece of it. Depressingly few folks seem to share that view.

Agreed that siding with 'insert bad guy' is often a bad idea. We, the allies sided with the Soviet Union against the Nazi's. We could have stayed out of the conflict. Or we could have sided with the Nazi's against the Soviet Union. Or we could have tried to take one or both of them on alone. The last option would have been long, bloody and brutal. There was talk at the end of the second world war as to whether the American public would have put up with the casualties to be sustained in an invasion of Japan. Perhaps they would have. What they would not have done, however is accept the kind of military casualties the Soviet Union sustained if they could have been avoided by not sending more boy's overseas. Sometimes the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach is what you need to do.

Now consider Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, or France. they do not wield the kind of power that the Americans do. Presented with Nazi aggression they did not have the luxury of time or choosing their friends. Every possible conflict is presenting them with the kinds of choices you faced in world war two. Not the same consequences and the stakes were not as high, but the same basic tradeoffs. As Americans you are not used to having to live with such limitations. It's like a kung-fu master saying "let's go roust out that Hell's Angel bar, do you want to tag along?" "Uhhh... maybe later, I have to finish my bagel first".

My problem with the French gov't is their obstructionist approach that actually drives countries away from diplomatic solutions. Taking a principled stand is one thing, but their business ties, etc. left a bad stain (I seem to recall that they built that Iraqi reactor that the Israeli's took out.) And their efforts were obviously counterproductive to avoiding war. While I'm none too happy with the current U.S. administration and its way of conducting the present war (particularly the justification for it), France has been a pain about dealing with terrorists for a long time. It is my very strongly held belief that they have been working counter to world interest in resolving these issues. Their role has been very reminiscent of Russia's role in the Serbian mess.

Bush wanted this war and it was clear he was going to get it unless Saddam changed his ways rapidly. So the French stepped in to run interference for Saddam, sending the wrong signal. (Remember Bush, Sr. sending the wrong signal about Kuwait?) Result, no resolution with teeth to force Saddam to open back up. I really don't think Saddam thought we were going to invade until the final week or two. France's actions were a tremendous diplomatic blunder that guarranteed that Bush would get his war. I was hoping the French would change their stance in order to PREVENT a war.

This thread is about whether diplomacy can work. The consensus is that if a nation is intent on war, it cannot work. Well, the American administration was just such a nation. They had no interest in a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Nothing France did, or did not do would have made the slightest difference to the outcome. France knew that a war was coming and opposed the Americans anyway. If I didn't know the French better, I might think THAT was a principled stand.
There was certainly nothing principled about the American conduct at the time. They used financial threats against small countries, bribed those they could and used tremendous diplomatic pressure to forge a tinsel alliance. There were not a lot of 'principles' being used on anyones part!

WMD was the wrong reason to go to war because the evidence wasn't there. I freely admit that I was duped into thinking it was...until I saw Powell's presentation before the war. My reaction: that's it? I though we had clear proof? However, Saddam could not be left in place forever. Remember the French were agitating to lift all restrictions on Saddam. Meanwhile the U.S. was stuck over there with some clown taking pot shots at our aircraft and no way out. The funny thing about WMD is that Saddam had bluffed other arab nations into believing he still had them. The really ironic part is that while it appears he did destroy the known weapons early after the 1st war, his record keeping was so terrible and he had worked so hard to obstruct weapons inspections that he had no proof of their destruction. (And when you've used chemical weapons on your own people...you are gonna need some proof.)

I was not duped because I learned my lesson during the Serbian conflict mentioned above. I was a lot more cynical when Bush junior made his presentation. The Clinton administration lied like their was no tomorrow. None of the parties involved were willing to come to a compromise but all the threats were directed at the Serbs. This guaranteed a war because the Muslim (your friends who helped train the Al'Quada boy's), and Croats knew they could attack and allows expect American or European help if things went bad. They should all have been forced to the table rather than being selective about it.

Why couldn't Saddam have been left in place? Let's go further and ask, why he could not have been your ally? What you should have done is make him an ally and use Iraq to launch an invasion of Saudia Arabia and root out the source of the 911 terrorist's.

As for the Spanish, I can't blame them for being angry with the ruling party of the time when they had accused Basque separatists of the Madrid attacks. However, Spain caved in to a terrorist attack and demand, and it sets a horrible precedent. The timing of the terrorists was perfect, and the govt did the opposite of what they should have done at the time, so I can't blame the Spanish people for reacting as they did. It was an internal matter in a time of much grief and anger.

I agree with you about the Spanish pullout. I will say in their defence that the previous Spanish government should never have committed their nation to a course of action that so many did not want. That government was democratically removed from power over that issue. What then should the incoming government do? Remain in a war they and their electorate disagree with, or stay in a conflict they see no end to, with no set goals, or realistic purpose. It was a very difficult position to be in.

[Red Harvest]

Yes, the US had a problem with closure in Iraq. Unlike the French we couldn't just leave the mess and go home. Well I suppose we could, and it would have been even worse had we done so. We got stuck in a situation reminiscent of Korea...guarding the border against an ultra-aggressor. The mistake was not taking out Saddam the first time. This had a lot to do with the coalition and fear about "destabilizing" the region with Iran next door. Bush failed to support the Kurds and other uprisings when he had the opportunity to do things the right way. Of course, Turkey and Russian were very opposed to that...

Why couldn't Saddam have been left in place? Let's go further and ask, why he could not have been your ally? What you should have done is make him an ally and use Iraq to launch an invasion of Saudia Arabia and root out the source of the 911 terrorist's.

Scarey concept. You made the classic error of suggesting we support a dictatorial madman that used chemical weapons on his own civilians. That never turns out well. He was an "ally" of sorts during the Iran-Iraq war as part of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" diplomacy. As a result Iraq fired two french built Exocet missiles from a french built Mirage into the frigate USS Stark.

The Saudi govt. is now trying to suppress the radical wahhabi movement, at least two decades too late. They created a nightmare that is likely to topple their own regime in an Iranian style revolution. It is a matter of time, and generational demographics.

As for your Serbian comments, you are pulling my leg, right? Serbia had an ultra nationalist fascist movement running the show, and backed by the Serbian population at the time. It was a textbook example. Serbian actions and political moves of the time were eerily reminiscent of Nazism. There was no "compromise". What a joke, you actually believe that nonsense? Serbia wanted to rule its neighboors, none of whom wanted to remain in a government run by Serb ultra-nationalists for Serbia's best interests. Serbian actions in Kosova early in the '90's actually led Slovenia to leave the federation first. It was much later that the Kosova portion of the war came to center stage.

I'm not going to waste more time discussing this. I have my views. Others are welcome to have theirs.

[Krusader]

Nice posts!!

A very unknown example where diplomacy has worked was the 1904-05 crisis between Sweden & Norway. Nationalism had hit Norway full strength and we wanted to break off the union from Sweden, which we had been in union with since 1814.

There was almost a war, and both Norwegian & Swedish soldiers were mobilized. However, cooler minds prevailed, and both sides got to the negotiating table where they discussed and came to terms. And since that Norway & Sweden have been good friends (except WW2)

[sharrukin]

Bush failed to support the Kurds and other uprisings when he had the opportunity to do things the right way. Of course, Turkey and Russian were very opposed to that...

Now I wonder why they would oppose such a thing?
It's not as if supporting a terrorist group (Afghan/Al-queda ) could backfire could it? Or lead to a nightmare of regional conflict. It must be because they are just selfish and bad!

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/wor...15/344843.html
Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network has been active in the Balkans for years, most recently helping Kosovo rebels battle for independence from Serbia with the financial and military backing of the United States and NATO.

Today, al-Qaeda members are helping the National Liberation Army, a rebel group in Macedonia, fight the Skopje government in a bid for independence, military analysts say. Last week, Michael Steiner, the United Nations administrator in Kosovo, warned of "importing the Afghan danger to Europe" because several cells trained and financed by al-Qaeda remain in the region.

"Many members of the Kosovo Liberation Army were sent for training in terrorist camps in Afghanistan," said James Bissett, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia and an expert on the Balkans. "Milosevic is right. There is no question of their participation in conflicts in the Balkans. It is very well documented."

They also set up secret terrorist training camps in Bosnia -- activities financed by the sale of opium produced in Afghanistan and secretly shipped through Turkey and Kosovo into central Europe.

The United States, which had originally trained the Afghan Arabs during the war in Afghanistan, supported them in Bosnia and then in Kosovo. When NATO forces launched their military campaign against Yugoslavia three years ago to unseat Mr. Milosevic, they entered the Kosovo conflict on the side of the KLA, which had already received "substantial" military and financial support from bin Laden's network, analysts say.

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache...=en&lr=lang_en
According to ‘Dani’, the Bosnian Foreign Ministry was seized by panic when Mehrez Aodouni, another Bosnian passport bearer, was arrested in Istanbul on September 09, 1999. Aodouni was believed to have close ties with Bin Laden. The Party of Democratic Action (SDA) [Bosnia´s main Muslim party led by Bosnian President, Alija Izetbegovic] issued a statement that on September 23, 1999, Audouni obtained the Bosnia-Herzegovina citizenship and a passport because he was a member of the Bosnia-Herzegovina Army.

Another senior commander of Mujahedeen battalion in central Bosnia-Herzegovina was Abu Zubair al-Haili (a.k.a. Mohammed Haydar Zammar, "the Bear"), German citizen of Syrian descent. He was the chief handler of the Hamburg Al-Qaeda cell responsible for September 11 suicide hijackings. He received military training in Pakistan in 1991 plied his deadly skills in what militant Islamic fundamentalists refer to as the " Jihad - holy war" which raged in ethnically strife-torn Bosnia in the 1990s.

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache...=en&lr=lang_en
In 1984, for example, the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) extended a $500 million loan guarantee to Iraq to build the Aqaba oil pipeline — a project that enjoyed the personal attention of then-Vice President George Bush.

Peter Mantius in his book Shell Game. "Between 1983 and early 1990, Iraq received $4.98 billion in farm loan guarantees from the CCC." Iraq is almost entirely dependent upon agricultural imports, and its war with Iran exacerbated this dependency. As Judith Miller and Laurie Mylroie point out, "The CCC credits were important to an increasingly cash-starved [Iraq]. Under the program, Baghdad had three years to repay the loans, and if Iraq defaulted, the U.S. government would be obligated to pay off the debt itself"

"The goods that Iraq wished to purchase with the $2.1 billion in loans that BNL/Atlanta extended in 1988 and 1989 were not the kind that would be eligible for purchase with CCC loan guarantees," Friedman recalls. The purchases involved high-technology machine tools, computers, and other "dual-use" items with obvious military applications.

The general contractor on the PC2 project was California’s Bechtel Corporation, which subcontracted with firms from the U.S., Japan, Italy, France, and Great Britain. PC2 "would be dual-use," points out Friedman. "This meant it would be able to generate chemical compounds needed to make mustard gas and nerve gas" in addition to innocuous petrochemicals.

The BNL account was handled by Scowcroft, who went from brokering Iraq-related deals for the bank to helping conduct the Gulf War as George Bush’s National Security Adviser. Kissinger himself became a member of BNL’s advisory board, a position he resigned on February 22, 1991 — more than a month after the Gulf War broke out. Eagleburger went from Kissinger Associates to a position as James Baker’s Deputy Secretary of State, in which capacity he "helped Iraq win up to $1 billion in loan guarantees" in 1989, according to Mantius.

One reason for the Clinton Administration’s participation in the whitewash is the fact that Hillary Clinton joined the board of the French multinational chemicals concern Lafarge in 1990 — and Lafarge "provided key services for the covert arms export network that supplied Saddam Hussein,"

Those bad Frenchmen!

You have trained, supplied and assisted your enemies on a continuing basis. You ally yourselves with Al-quada in Afghanistan, assist fundamentalist muslims in Bosnia, and drug-running Albanians in Kosovo, And you say the French are your enemies!

As for your Serbian comments, you are pulling my leg, right?

No, I am not! With the qualifier that the Serbs, Bosnians, and Croats ALL acted to create the situation, and to commit atrocities. There are no good guys and bad guys in the Balkans!

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache...=en&lr=lang_en

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1112681/posts

The American need for drama, good guys and bad guys often blinds them to the consequences of their actions. You are as a people incredibly kind and generous, but a little French style cynicism would help a lot.

I'm not going to waste more time discussing this. I have my views. Others are welcome to have theirs.

This we can agree on!

[Hurin_Rules]

The Suez Crisis springs immediately to mind when I think of averting war.

The Cold War also never got hot-- diplomacy is even more necessary in the nuclear age.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Am I in the wrong place.? havent been to the monastary lately but its starting to look an awful lot like the backroom. Whats up with threads like this being here?

[Gregoshi]

I guess that would be thanks to my misguided hand on the tiller of this forum Gawain. I suppose this is just another example of diplomacy failing - maybe I should start cracking some heads instead of declaring "Peace in our time!"