Is Diplomacy a Solution to Today's Political Conflicts?

Today's world is becoming increasingly more divided and separated, ironically set against the backdrop of this economic phenomenon known as globalization where many claim will bring peace and prosperity for all. Still there are lives that are being lost as a direct and indirect cause of war and conflict. Indeed, the twenty-first century has been the most terrible of man's era. One person dies every twenty seconds as a direct or indirect cause of war. In all the glory of our scientific and medical achievements, why does man still fall prey to our most base desire, aggression? We have many peace talks, but people are still dying. Looking with hindsight, in this terrible century that has been scarred by war, I must say that diplomacy has a very small role to play into today's political conflicts.

Diplomacy has had its uses, and successes, especially in the last century. We have successfully ended wars between India and China, India and Pakistan (with the exception of conflict in Kashmir), and the conflict in Northern Ireland. In most cases, military conflicts have been avoided. In fact, the world is the way it is today, because Man has sat down rationally to talk about their issues and differences, instead of obliterating each other with nuclear weapons. The Cold War did not turn into a hot one, even during the 1967 Cuban Missile Crisis, where many people thought the world would end. Faced with mutually assured destruction, leaders, of course, had no choice but to sit down and talk about their differences. Between diplomacy and annihilation, there was only one way in which that crisis would have been solved and hence, Khrushchev and the leaders of the free world at that time sat down to talk about it [expression too informal]. However that was 1967. Today's political conflicts have taken on a completely new face.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka face a totally new and different set of problems in which a new set of solutions must be devised. Religious fundamentalism has resulted in the formation of new and different organizations, each using violent and non-violent means to attain their goals. Today's political conflicts are not between governments. There is no solid boundary between what was safe, and where the frontlines were. Today's political conflicts pit ideas against each other. They are of a totally different nature than the first half of the century. Today's political conflict is the war against terrorism.

With very few exceptions perhaps, there is no talking to a terrorist. He has one single aim, which is to achieve his goal, no matter what the cost. Fixed with such a mindset, there is nothing to discuss. You either give in to his demands, or face the consequences. In diplomacy, both parties meet a mutually decided conclusion where each of them gets the best terms that are negotiable. However, there can be no sensible conclusion reached when discussing with terrorists. All he wants is to attain his goals. There can be no negotiation. Hence, how can diplomacy be used as a counter to such a single-minded, stubborn party? This is the case in Iraq today. The US government has mediated peace talks between the Shi'ites and the Kurdish minority groups, but they are of little use. In fact the US has talked to so many of the little armies that are running around in Iraq but the violence and chaos there still permeates the landscape. Iraqis are still dying by the hundreds each week as the militia clash with each other, killing many innocent parties.

Even in the Middle East, diplomacy itself is not a solution. The countries surrounding Israel hate it to the core

Diplomacy ended and successfully prevented many military conflicts. Yet, it did not end the hate and aggression that people had for one another. The most famous example was World War I. After four years of fighting, the Allies and the Central Powers agreed to stop fighting. There was no military defeat. Diplomacy ended the most violent conflict the world had seen up to that point. Yet it merely led to another war. The Germans let hate and despair breed for twenty years, before unleashing another wave of terror on the world. Another conflict that diplomacy has not ended is the Korean one. The North Koreans are still at war with the South Koreans and the US. Even when there were peace talks and a ceasefire signed in 1953, the conflict was not over. North Koreans still believe they are at war with the US. Even now the North Koreans are still threatening to nuke Alaska. The Americans have frozen North Korean assets in their banks. If diplomacy had never worked then, what makes it a solution to today's political conflicts?

Thus, is diplomacy merely a mask or a façade to cover hidden aggression waiting for an opportune time to strike? In that case, then diplomacy would merely be just one arm of war and not a solution to political conflict [confusing].

Political conflict can be brought to an end. However, with the changing nature of today's political conflict, diplomacy may play a smaller role in stopping conflict than other methods. As mentioned earlier, there is no talking with a terrorist. His aims and goals are one-minded. Hence the solution to this would be to tackle the root of the problem, rather than addressing the problem at a cosmetic level.

Rather than talking with a terrorist and persuading him to put down his arms, one must delve into his reason for him being a terrorist in the first place. Today's political conflicts arise because of some inequality, merely perceived or real, having taken place. For example, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka who are still actively attacking military and civilian outposts, came to be because of the inequalities they suffered under their government. Peace talks have failed, because one has merely asked them to put down their arms to negotiate terms. However, if the inequality still exists, the people would easily turn to arms once more. Hence, to deal with that conflict, one has to remove the very problems that caused it in the first place, such as addressing that inequality.

In the case of Islamic fundamentalism, these problems are accentuated because of poverty, perceived inequality, misunderstandings as well as threats from what they perceive as an imperialist America. Poverty often results in a lack of choices, in which the poor are often forced to pick their easiest ways out. The terrorist organizations then capitalize on the conditions to direct their hate and aggression and unite them against some common entity. Hence, to deal with that, instead of merely talking to them, one must empower them with the skills to help them break the chain of poverty. Once empowered with the skills to earn a living, the poor are less likely to turn their hate and attention to the USA, or imperialist, capitalist economies. Hence, diplomacy is not the solution. Rather, one uses action and understanding to address the root of the conflict. This action must also come in the form of political will power, as well as financial input from all of the developed world, to help the poorer nations get on their feet.

The talks in North Korea have failed because America is not addressing the problem. American diplomats have continually offered food, aid and supplies to the North Koreans in their efforts to stop their nuclear programme. Even through North Korea has decided to halt their nuclear programme temporarily, it has once again shown that diplomacy alone has failed. The conflict will last, because some day, another despot or tyrant will decide to restart the nuclear programme in order to restore the nation-state to its former glory. The problem here is that enticing the North Korean government to give up its nuclear programme for food and aid is not going to work in the long run because the regime does not care about its people. Talking to a despotic regime holding on the power illegally is not going to help anything. Millions [exaggeration] of North Koreans starve every day, and almost every one of them is malnourished. In fact, the only way to get proper nutrition would be to join its four million strong army. A little wonder why its army is so huge. Here a regime change is needed much more than ever as compared to Iraq. Military action is required because just talking and waiting for something to happen is not going to end the conflict in North Korea. In this case, diplomacy is of very little use.

One political conflict that has ended well is the one in East Timor. Even though there are still some skirmishes with a rebel general's troops, effective cooperation between governments, financial aid, and education has managed to allow some form of an economy to thrive. East Timor is experiencing the growing pains of a city state, but it has come a long way since insurgent conflict in the 1990s against the Indonesian government. Eventually, several peace settlements were reached and the UN effectively played an important role in arranging peace talks and providing food and economic aid to the new state. Hence, diplomacy as well as effective action was taken fo prevent East Timor from descending into the bloodbath that has occurred in Sudan [bad analogy].

To a growing extent, the UN and diplomacy are playing a smaller and smaller role in today's political conflicts. Terrorists have no governments, no legitimate ruling body that can discuss issues that are common to all of mankind's problems and draw reasonable and agreeable terms away [exp.] from those discussions. They do not care that a nuclear explosion would cause a fallout and alter global climates, killing millions indirectly. How ca one talk to another man so bent on taking another's life? The UN also cannot talk to despotic governments who do not care about their people. No-diplomacy in those cases, have run their course. Effective action, in different forms, be it addressing the root of their problems, or education, or as a last resort, military action, must be taken, to end the political conflict once and for all.