The diplomatic failure to avoid the first World War open the path for a “new diplomacy” in which secrecy gave away to openness enabling the public to play a stronger role in controlling and influencing states relations. The creation of the League of the Nations and later the United Nations has brought new players into the diplomatic realm, as well as serving to further establish a departure from the traditional method of relations.
The end of the Cold war and consequently the restructuring of the international system brought a fresh atmosphere in the relations between the two superpowers, as well as their relations with other states, moving away from previous policies of containment, deterrence and the naked pursuit of the national interest. This resulted in a change from the security driven policies of states to an emphasis on citizens’ welfare (low-politics). As states changed interests and non-states actors gained relevance, the process of negotiation also evolved with non-governmental organizations contributing to shape the new multilateral diplomacy away from the old bilateral way of relations.
The modern technological development of communication have also underpinned a monumental disruption on the traditional patterns of diplomatic relations between states, especially concerning the national interest’s pursue.
However, the episode of 9/11 has undermined the positive mood of diplomatic cooperation and persuasion in favour of a unilateralist use of military force whenever US vital interests are at stake. Their doctrine of pre-emption is a departure of its Cold War diplomatic policies of containment and deterrence. Furthermore, the war on terror has excessively relied on the use of “hard-power” in detriment of “soft power”, making the attainment of durable global peace more improbable. The US invasion on Iraq, only serves to strengthen the claim of realists, where institutions play a marginal role in influencing foreign policy outcomes. According to realists, institutions are merely tolls used to control outcomes as to benefit the great powers.
The end of the Cold war and consequently the restructuring of the international system brought a fresh atmosphere in the relations between the two superpowers, as well as their relations with other states, moving away from previous policies of containment, deterrence and the naked pursuit of the national interest. This resulted in a change from the security driven policies of states to an emphasis on citizens’ welfare (low-politics). As states changed interests and non-states actors gained relevance, the process of negotiation also evolved with non-governmental organizations contributing to shape the new multilateral diplomacy away from the old bilateral way of relations.
The modern technological development of communication have also underpinned a monumental disruption on the traditional patterns of diplomatic relations between states, especially concerning the national interest’s pursue.
However, the episode of 9/11 has undermined the positive mood of diplomatic cooperation and persuasion in favour of a unilateralist use of military force whenever US vital interests are at stake. Their doctrine of pre-emption is a departure of its Cold War diplomatic policies of containment and deterrence. Furthermore, the war on terror has excessively relied on the use of “hard-power” in detriment of “soft power”, making the attainment of durable global peace more improbable. The US invasion on Iraq, only serves to strengthen the claim of realists, where institutions play a marginal role in influencing foreign policy outcomes. According to realists, institutions are merely tolls used to control outcomes as to benefit the great powers.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.