Effectiveness of Diplomacy In Real World Politics

Dmitri September 29th, 2007

Lorazepam Without Prescription Lorazepam Without A Prescription Lorazepam Side Effects Lorazepam Prescription Lorazepam Pill Lorazepam Overnight Lorazepam Online Without Prescription Lorazepam Online Lorazepam On Line Lorazepam No Rr Lorazepam No Prescription Lorazepam mg Lorazepam C.O.D Purchase Ultram Order Ultram Without A Prescription Order Ultram Overnight Delivery Order Ultram C.O.D Order Ultram No Prescription Ultram Generic Ultram Discount Ultram Without Prescription Discount Ultram Online Discount Ultram No Rx Discount Ultram Cheapest Ultram Cheap Ultram Overnight Delivery Cheap Ultram Online Cheap Ultram Buying Ultram Buy Ultram Without A Prescription Buy Ultram Online Buy Ultram C.O.D Buy Ultram Ultram Without Prescription Ultram Without A Prescription Ultram Side Effects Ultram Prescription Ultram Pill Ultram Overnight Ultram Online Without Prescription Ultram Online Ultram On Line Ultram No Rr Ultram No Prescription Ultram mg Ultram C.O.D Purchase Soma Order Soma Without A Prescription Order Soma Overnight Delivery Order Soma C.O.D

As an international political site, we often get accosted by pacifists for our analyses on military related issues, especially discussions of nuclear and conventional weaponry. The outrage is often genuine and honest, after all who wouldn’t want a peaceful world where growth and human prosperity is not stifled by wars and conflicts? The United Nations was set up with this objective in mind, to promote peace and to act as a platform for nations so that they can resolve conflicts using peaceful diplomatic methods. Yet, a peaceful world without wars and conflicts is hardly in sight and the UN seems to be getting more irrelevant everyday. One might ask, what could be the reason for such a trend? One of the answers would be found on the concept of how real geopolitics is decided by military options and economic choices rather than moralist idealism.

A news video showing Russia’s recent vacuum bomb test: Military power games to ensure diplomatic peace

A lot of foreign policy decisions are exercised in the form of realpolitik - the game of exercising options, often dubbed by analysts as the “Game Theory”. Diplomatic solutions in case of conflicting interests works only when both parties are on a level footing in exercising their options. This makes sure one party cannot take advantage of the other. Wars are unavoidable between nations and global peace is an unattainable dream because of this political reality. A nation that can afford political or military force over opponents without severe fallouts wouldn’t want to bother with the aches and compromises of diplomacy, especially if the potential gains from a war are high.

A better understanding of the politico-military game theory can be had by using United States and its foreign policy as an example. The US is chosen because of its dynamic and highly active foreign policy which ranges from using diplomatic treaties to coercive military force against nations to achieve its goals. The trends of US foreign policy dealings with Russia/Soviet Union, China and other military adversaries have always been different from that of weaker countries in South East Asia and West Asia (Middle East). While militarily weak countries like Vietnam, Iran, and Serbia have been on the receiving end of US military aggression; China and Russia have been able to follow independant military and economic policies without much problems.

One notable example of US restraint from using military force against a strong adversary was the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 shoot-down by Soviet Union in 1983 which lead to 269 fatalities, several of them American passengers, including the US Congressman Lawrence McDonald. The reactions to this incident ranged from political condemnations as ‘crime against humanity’ to increased military exercises. Although there were high tensions, a military strike on Russia was never an American option. If any of the Gulf or weaker Asian countries shot down the aircraft, they would have inevitably faced the wrath of United States. A notable incident of this angle would be the US strike on Tripoli, Libya in 1986 (Operation El Dorado Canyon) which took out an entire city block, caused an estimated 500 casualties. The strike was in response to the Libyan bombing of a Berlin disco and military strikes on a US aircraft carrier close to its territorial waters, which killed 2 US serviceman. While a Soviet shoot down of a civilian aircraft containing a high profile US dignitary was met with nothing more than diplomatic sabre rattling, a much smaller Libyan strike was met with a severe military response.

The reasons for such contrasting responses is pretty obvious, a military strike on a Russian city would have resulted in Soviet forces retaliate by taking out an entire US city; possibly lead to an escalation to a full scale nuclear war. Libya on the other hand had no such military power to retaliate on an equal level. (However the Libyans did find a way around it, by bombing Pan Am Flight 103 which killed 243 passengers, most of them Americans. The US never struck Libya or Iran ever since this ‘retaliation’.)

Considering how military strength decides the stability of a nation’s foreign policy, military analyses become an integral part of geopolitical discussions. A strong and powerful military acts as a strong motivator against a non-diplomatic attack by external forces. This is not to say that it is right to use a strong military to create wars, as the US does (which brings home more unforeseen troubles than solve them). To win peace, one has to have the capacity to win wars or cause at least a strong deterrence against an adversary.