At the beginning of the twentieth century, most part of the world was still very much a traditional world. The relations of the great powers remained what they had always been; the balance of power provided the central ordering principle of international social order. Such 
stability and moderation as the balance brought rested ultimately on the threat or use of force. War remained the essential means to the maintenance of the balance of power. Despite a growing movement that looked to the amelioration of state relations through greater legal regulation, international law depended for its effectiveness, as it had always depended, upon the maintenance of a balance.
( R. Tucker, http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/national-security-international/1059748-1.html, 2001 )
In last week’s Seminar, we discussed the origins and functions of diplomacy. The main argument was: that diplomacy if ‘old’ or ‘new’ is largely about the promotion of “National- (self) - Interest”! Rising concerns in each country to cope with globalisation, economic dept, exhaustion of natural resources and technological & nuclear warhead evolutions, is consequently developing into isolation of states. It was not everywhere that isolation found political expression, but primarily in Europe. Regardless of the changes in the ‘New’ Diplomacy, like public opinions and interest in moral principal rather in material interest, that behind the new diplomacy was still an old diplomacy, in that the determination to remain dominant within a traditional sphere of influence was as strong as ever. (R Tucker)
“War is still very much a rational and a relevant policy option in the
contemporary world. Witness the Korean War, the Indo-Pakistani Wars and the Arab-Israeli Wars in the post-war period: all had been fought with specific aims in mind; all had been deemed the most cost-effective way of resolving issues; and all had settled the political problem at hand, if not totally, then certainly satisfactorily.
But war is so much a consequence of the states system and human instincts that it does not seem likely to disappear; at least not until something wonderfully dramatic happens to mankind”. (War and the Use of Force in the Contemporary World by CPT Goh Teck Seng)
Another Article which inspired me to argue my point is the analysis written by Dr. G. Friedmann in 2003 at time of the Invasion of Iraq. In his article he demonstrates how imperative the relations between states are and how the balance of power is still a ‘traditional’ contest.
Any comment is appreciated and I am curious what other think!?!?!?!
http://textus.diplomacy.edu/thina/GetXDoc.asp?IDconv=3039
Electronic Resources:
- http://www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/national-security-international/1059748-1.html, R. Tucker, 2001, accessed 25.10.10
- http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/Vol25_4/13.htm, Goh Teck Seng, 1999, accessed 29.10.10
Riordan. S (2003) argues that as the diplomatic structures grew with the nation state, so did a predominant way of thinking about international relations. If the creation of the modern nation state exchanged internal order for international disorder, it should not be surprising if the principles for dealing with that were hard headed, verging on the cynical. As we have seen, the key principles of the so-called Westphalia system included minimal constraints on international behaviour, the permissibility of interference in the international disputes and the impermissibility of interference in the internal affairs of other states. These formed, and still form, the bedrock of the prevalent way of thinking about international relations.
ReplyDelete