Diplomacy 101

[Scorpion4v9]

In modern society diplomicy does not get anything accomplished except, wasting time. Talking things out will never solve any propblems in life, or around the world.


What will solve the problems around the world, you ask. Simple, force. How did america come to power, Force, How did England come to power, Force, soviet union, russia all great contrys came to power by one underlying factor, pure animalistic violance.

[Whiteknight]

Erm... you have the wrong idea here, Scorpion.

Diplomacy, as you can see, is in the RP forum, a subsection of it. Diplomacy is a game, web based in most forums.

If you want to discuss this, then I'm sure a mod will gladly move this to Intellectual Roundtable.

[Scorpion4v9]

uhhh i got the idea here and hit the back button on my stupid browser, (damn IE, This is what i get for not using mozilla) and apparently i went to the wrong section. If a mod would move it i would be appriciated. AND yes i knew what this forum was for. I was reading some and decieded to make a forum about how diplomacy was crap.

[Grom_Icecream]

Id have to agree with your first post here, but not totally. Diplomacy is a little more subtle than just getting what you want. Most countries like the USA call the threat of force diplomacy, and i suppose they're not far off the mark.

[singo]

"violence never solved anything"...wishful thinking at its worst

Sheer naked force has settled more issues than any other factor throughout history

[EdvardMunch]

Places nonviolence has worked:
South Africa (http://www.pbs.org/weta/forcemorepowerful/safrica/)
Kapp putsch (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/kapp_putsch.htm)
India (http://www.pbs.org/weta/forcemorepowerful/india/)
Rosenstrausse (http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/rosenstr.htm)
Norwegian Teachers (it's under the heading "Educational Leadership") (http://www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/200303/23.html)
Guatemala (about half way down the page) (http://www.salsa.net/peace/conv/8weekconv6-2.html)
US Civil Rights - Nashville (http://www.pbs.org/weta/forcemorepowerful/nashville/)
United Farm Workers (http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/calheritage/UFW/)
Poland (http://www.pbs.org/weta/forcemorepowerful/poland/)
Chile (http://www.pbs.org/weta/forcemorepowerful/chile/)
Denmark (http://www.pbs.org/weta/forcemorepowerful/denmark/)
Russia, The Ruhr, El Salvador, Argentina, Philippines, Burma, Czechoslovakia (http://www.pbs.org/weta/forcemorepowerful/other/)

Violence might have a longer history and a seemingly proven track record (how can it not? Most violent conflicts end when everyone on one side is dead, thus "resolving" the issue), but nonviolence and negotiating are more effective. If everyone who disagrees with you is dead, have you won? Maybe, until someone else disagrees with you. You're best just to negotiate your disagreements out. Why not give nonviolence a chance? It won't hurt anybody.

[Scorpion4v9]

If everyone who disagrees with you is dead, have you won? Maybe, until someone else disagrees with you

That could be a VERY long time. Also you might want to remove russia from that list. Russia has had a civil war to become communist gaining power as a Super Power.

[Whiteknight]

That could be a VERY long time. Also you might want to remove russia from that list. Russia has had a civil war to become communist gaining power as a Super Power. That took around a few days, I'm pretty sure they pulled it off in a day. Very few people were killed.

[EdvardMunch]

If everyone who disagrees with you is dead, have you won? Maybe, until someone else disagrees with you.

That could be a VERY long time.

So... what are you saying? It kinda sounds like you're supporting me, since if it will take a very long time, then that's a long time of violence and bloodshed. Are you saying that negotiating and nonviolent methods will take longer? Because I don't think they do.

[singo]

erm...the ruhr, in germany?

led to ww2

nice peaceful solution don't you think?

anyway, places peaceful diplomacy HASNT worked (i dont know how to post links sorry but here goes)

Germany 1914-18 + 1939-45
japan 1939-45
italy "
Iraq
Afhganistan
The american war of independance
All civil wars everywhere
Rome, rise and fall of
and thousands of others i cannot remember.

[EdvardMunch]

Well crap, my PBS links died already. Anyway, I posted those links to counter the assertion that nonviolence has never resolved anything. Of course violence has "resolved" things, I know that. However, violence is typically rushed to before nonviolence is allowed to work.

Furthermore, look at it from the bigger picture. Violence might work to take out a single person or small groups of people with horrible agendas, by killing them and eradicating everyone with that agenda, but what about when dealing with millions of people? (Like the millions around the world who hate the U.S.) How will violence resolve that problem? Do we kill every single person who hates us? Violently overthrow their government and force them to stop hating us? Nonviolence, negotating, is the only way to get back in favor with the rest of the world.

[hammocksleeper]

There's no doubt that force/violence solves problems. Munch said it, In the end one side is completely wiped out. But there are often many solutions, and what you are really going for is the best solution. Keeping the enemy around is usually beneficial for you.

[singo]

yes but looking at the rest of the world...is it a good idea to be freids with most of them....incompetence, corruption, genocide.

yes, lets encourage them by allying with them all, what a good idea!

[EdvardMunch]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is your position on violence? Are you saying a pre-emptive strike is better than a peaceful resolution? Should we overthrow governments we disagree with?

As for governments with horrible agendas, there are a lot of proven nonviolent strategies. Here are some:
1. Rally world support - Expose to the rest of the world what this country is doing and take away all of their allies. Put massive political pressure on them to stop what they are doing.
2. Put economic pressure on them - Use sanctions, stop trading with them
3. Encourage civil disobedience - Convince the population to go on strike, boycott the government

Do you want to know more? Try here: 198 Nonviolent Strategies (http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations.php3?orgid=88&&typeID=15&action=printContentTypeHome&User_Session=f2897642cba2f52d34ceb6382750c70a)

Also from that website: Applications of Non-Violence (http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations.php3?orgid=88&typeID=6&action=printContentItem&itemID=190)

[singo]

rally world support: as in the UN? hmm im sure THEY can all come to an agreement

of course a pre-emptive strike is better than waiting to be hammered by an attacker.

economic sanctions....we all know that worked with saddam

encourage civil disobedience: promote anarchy?, destroy all we stand for?

only when all live under one law can injustice be eliminated.

(my god i sound like an evil bastard plotting to take over the world)

[EdvardMunch]

only when all live under one law can injustice be eliminated.

There are about 192 nation-states and about 8,000 ethnic groups in the world, and they have enough trouble as it is getting along. If we turn the entire world into one country I can only imagine how much worse they'll get along.

What exactly do you mean by "living under one law"? That, literally, all laws apply to all people? That would cause a huge problem for cultural traditions. I agree that some cultural traditions are sick and should be outlawed (like circumcising women) but other traditions are benign and shouldn't be outlawed (Like France's ridiculous head scarf ban).
Or do you mean that cultural people should be allowed to govern themselves, and that there be an international law enforcing organization? That's what the UN is.

Speaking of the UN, don't knock them, they've accomplished a lot:


Establishing Peace & Promoting Democracy

· Ending Conflicts. The U.N. has negotiated 172 peaceful settlements, helping bring about an end to the Iran-Iraq war, the civil war in El Salvador, and withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

· Peacekeeping. In El Salvador, Cambodia, Macedonia, Mozambique, Namibia, Cyprus and Haiti, to name a few, U.N. peace operations have helped uphold ceasefires, conduct free and fair elections, monitor troops withdrawals, deter violence, create free countries, and aid political stability.

· Preventing Nuclear Proliferation. The International Atomic Energy Agency has helped minimize the spread of nuclear weapons by inspecting and monitoring nuclear reactors and facilities in 90 countries. The U.N. has also advanced arms control through international agreements such as the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Eradicating Disease & Famine

· Ending Smallpox & Polio. A 13-year effort by World Health Organization (WHO) succeeded in eradicating smallpox in 1980. WHO also helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere.

· Universal Immunizations. In 1974, only five percent of children in developing countries were immunized against polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis. By 1995, as a result of the efforts of United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the WHO, there was an 80% immunization rate, saving the lives of over 3,000,000 children each year.

· Alleviating Chronic Hunger and Rural Poverty. The U.N. has provided famine relief to millions of people. The International Fund for Agricultural Development had developed a system of providing economic credit for poor and marginalized groups, benefiting over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries and building longer-term hunger relief.

Protecting People & Resources

· Helping Refugees. In 1997, 22 million refugees, mostly women and children, receive food, shelter, medical aid, education and repatriation assistance from the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

· Environment. Through international treaties, the U.N. leads efforts to protect the ozone layer and curb global warming. Forestry action plans help limit deforestation and promote sustainable forestry practices for 90 countries. The U.N. has helped provide safe drinking water for 1.3 billion people in rural areas, and has on-going efforts to help prevent over-fishing and clean up pollution.

· Improving Female Literacy. U.N. programs to help promote education and advancement for women helped raise their literacy rate in developing countries from 36% in 1970 to 56% in 1990.

Source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/action/whyun$.htm


Civil disobedience does not mean running amok, it means nonviolently refusing to cooperate with the government. Gandhi used this one a lot. People went on strikes, marched in the street, and did not recognize the government's authority. The civil rights movement used it too. Civil rights supporters broke all sorts of racist laws with the sit-ins and Rosa Parks, among others. They also imposed boycotts to great success.

[singo]

i agree, the UN have acomplished a lot, unfortunately, it has degenerated into a mass of political infighting and corruption.

erm. alleviating hunger and poverty, if certain corrupt governments were ousted, aid could more easily reach those people (remember "oil for food" lmao what a joke)

enviroment- global warming.....half the world say we will all burn, the other half say we will all freeze, until they make their minds up i will not subscribe to these beliefs.

has the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, in so many words, "done what it says on the tin", wasn't it supposed to limit nuclear weapons outside of the "big 5" america, britain, russia, france,china?
how many countries have them now?

peacekeeping- if the people would "live by one law" they would not have to.

and yes, one set of laws should apply to everyone, "cultural" reasons are not an excuse for murder, violation of human rights, etc.

if they cannot like each other then they can at least stop killing each other

[Scorpion4v9]

The US, toyed with the UN. We played them like a fiddle, and weve done it before, and were going to do it agian.

We never looked for any WMD, biological, or other. We made it look like we were. ALL tests were negitive. Then BAM we invade anyway. We conqured Iraq, For the reason i understand, is a family affair. Saddam, got GW SR., So his son gets into power and finishes what his father started.

Also they will never stop killing each other unless someone forces them to stop. Most problems in the middle east especially, go back too far. They under NO circumstance will work out those problems without someone making them. I believe though that the USA should not in any means be the ones to do it. Another country should follow the example of the US.

[singo]

not the US alone i agree...It will need the co-operation of many nations to provide enough force to get the middle east back on track

and considering iraq, i support any war that removes an evil dictator from power

[Scorpion4v9]

OOOO I think you got me wrong. I support the war 110%. But I think Bush Jr. Should of got some courage, and said hey were going over there and stopping a genocidle moron. and bringing peace to a land that hasnt seen it for tricades. My only problem on the war is that we (we meaning USA) toyed with the world. We LIED about being democratic. We said that there were weapons over there, even though every other source said there wasnt. The moment the US put itself on the pedistol that the rest of the world did not even deserve common curtesy to be told the truth is the day america has became what it fought against for decades. Was our intentions correct, YES, saddam did not need to be in power. And thats what we should of told the world, that we were going in IRAQ for one purpose absolute freedom for every, man, woman, and child in IRAQ. Not that we were looking for non-existant weapons.


My point of power is that diplomacy is useless. The only form of peace we have is the peace through force. Most nations, or other combatant groups are useing diplomacy as a way to show the world that they are trying to change and go and kill thousand more people the same day. Cant really blame them because they are picking up these tricks from the US. The old say "the only time to speak peace, is when you need time to reload". comes to mind.


A thing about international treaties, by americas own studies they are broken more times in a day then the basic speed limit. Do they help yes, but they are not helping those lost to the night. those faceless victems that are being killed because they knew,saw, or ate something. How many times in the past decade has Genocide been attempted, For fact being its being attempted know the only thing is that its against one party versus another party. The drug trade is more powerful now than ever. The red cross is out manned, and under supplied. And the US, paid more money to the IRAQI fredom than anyother country and we cant get thier oil.


Non-forceful (non-violent) ways to protest. This does not work. Civil rights movement; 100,000 hate crime a month US alone. Doesnt seem like it worked all too well. You can look on the bright side of things and say see its working. But, look closer and you will see that all you are looking at is the sugar coated topping. You start noticing the fact that IF these laws created by passifistism worked hell even 80%, there should be alot less crime. But then agian to counter myself that could also be because we do not have a strict enough justice system

[singo]

this is cut and pasted from another forum...no WMD's eh?

UNMOVIC acting executive chairman Demetrius Perricos told the council on June 9 that "the only controls at the borders are for the weight of the scrap metal, and to check whether there are any explosive or radioactive materials within the scrap," Middle East Newsline reported.

"It's being exported," Perricos said after the briefing. "It's being traded out. And there is a large variety of scrap metal from very new to very old, and slowly, it seems the country is depleted of metal."

"The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks," Perricos told the council. Perricos also reported that inspectors found Iraqi WMD and missile components shipped abroad that still contained UN inspection tags.
WorldTribune.com (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html)








sod, that isnt the whole thing....oops

ahh well, the story was about the dismantling and export of banned weapons AFTER the war had begun.

[Modred]

That took around a few days, I'm pretty sure they pulled it off in a day. Very few people were killed.

And you are referring to the Russian revolution? I hate to say it, but you are quite far from the truth.

The February revolution occured in March 1917 (February in the old Russian calendar). Riots and strikes grew outward from the capital (Petrograd, aka St. Petersburg). The military was called in to put down the strikes, but like in the French revolution, joined it instead. Tsar Nicholas II ordered the parliament (the Duma) to dissolve, but it instead created a provisional government and dethroned the tsar, holding him in prison until mid 1918 when he was executed. In April, Alexander F Kerensky (heh...Battletech players should recognize that name) became premier of Russia.

In September 1917 General Lavr Kornilov attemted to capture Petrograd, but failed to reach the capitol. His attempted uprising caused the socialist government to become more radical.

Later in the year, Lenin returned to Russia from Finland (thanks to the Germans) and incited the Bolsheviks to attempt a takeover. On November 7 (October 25 in the Russian calender, thus the October Revolution) a bloody, weeklong battle erupted in the streets of Petrograd and the Bolsheviks claimed the city on November 15.

Over the winter of 1917-1918, another civil war erupted between the Bolsheviks and another party, which spurred Lenin to begin the nationalization of property, putting the power into Bolshevik hands.

During these three (3) revolutions, Russia was still commited to fighting Germany in the Great War. Peace was achieved with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918.

From 1918 to 1920, the Red Bolsheviks and the anti-communist Whites fought another civil war.

Thus, the Russian revolution you speak of actually involved 3 years and 4 civil wars and 1 uprising, alongside with a year of World War I. The revolution was most certainly bloody and prolonged.

Saddam, got GW SR., So his son gets into power and finishes what his father started.

Correction:

George HW Bush (they are not Sr and Jr) halted the conventional army forces at the border of Kuwait since the goal of operatoin Desert Storm was to drive Iraq out of Kuwait and do that only. There were covert operations occuring in Iraq, however, but the decision to not invade Iraq rested mainly in the hands of Bush. Had he wished to invade, there was practically no other nation that would have stopped him. But, true to his word, he did not invade.

Also, Munch's reference to Russia refers to the end of the Cold War, not the Russian revolution.