Mediation is a dispute resolution process in which a neutral third party assists the participants to reach a voluntary and informed settlement. Mediation and diplomacy have both been used more and more frequently after the Second World War in order to prevent such a tragedy from reoccurring. Diplomacy can be used in several ways, but not all are considered orthodox although they can contribute to peaceful resolutions of problems. Certain countries like the United States are extremely advanced in almost all areas of technology, industry, militia and economy, therefore controlling the upper hand in most situations.
The U.S. has a tendency to help other nations only if it will benefit from the outcome. The United States often contributes to the resolving of a conflict by sending spokespersons to represent the interests of their country, which usually signifies large profits and also by sending troops to ensure that no aggression is taken during the peace talks. Other countries such as Canada have specialized peacekeeping troops to aid the citizens of a discontent region repair damage that might have been caused or more often prevent any aggression that might occur before a settlement is reached.
In history, it has been observed that Canada does not have as much of a hunger for profit in aiding other countries as the United States, which is apparent in Canada’s reputation. This Alternative Dispute Resolution has provided an option for many countries to deal with international conflicts and disputes rather than immediately resorting to violence. Nevertheless, there are always exceptions to the rule and not all problems can be resolved peacefully and without bloodshed. These exceptions must be recognized early enough so that the proper measures can be taken to immediately settle the conflict. However, not all attempts at resolving problems using diplomacy are successful and military intervention is required. These situations are identifiable if the first attempts at mediation or diplomacy result in continued aggression. During the Second World War, England and France continually tried to prevent war with Germany by using appeasement and creating several treaties like the Lend – Lease agreement but all to no avail. It was apparent after the annexation of Czechoslovakia and the distribution of Poland between Germany and Russia that the conflict between Europe and Germany was not to be resolved using diplomacy. Therefore, it must be recognized that diplomacy and mediation are excellent first means of resolving any conflict, but if any dangerous incidents arise during negotiations, such as invasion of nations, aggression towards any group of people or mass death, other methods of dispute resolution should be used.
In August 1997, President Heydar Aliyev of Azerbaijan, a former republic of the Soviet Union, was received at the White House with full honors for an official working visit with President Bill Clinton. Vice President Al Gore, Speaker Newt Gingrich and Defense Secretary William Cohen also met with Mr. Aliyev. The White House used the occasion to announce several economic assistance packages while President Aliyev signed a new Amoco exploration deal. Of course, Mr. Aliyev’s reception at the White House was only one step in an elaborate Clinton administration policy in the pursuit of what it considers a U.S. national interest: ensuring the potentially lucrative oil reserves in Azerbaijan and adjoining energy fields in the Caspian Sea flow through pipelines in a westward direction to the markets of Turkey and Western Europe. In order to achieve this goal, the administration has actively engaged the government of Azerbaijan with public and private diplomacy, offered the prospect of closer defense cooperation, provided commercial incentives to boost investment in Azerbaijan, and pressed Congress to lift sanctions imposed for its conflict with Armenia. In fashioning a policy of active engagement with both Azerbaijan and its Central Asian neighbors, the Clinton administration relied mostly on public displays of partnership, including frequent visits by senior U.S. officials to the region and public statements on U.S. hopes for the region. In its initial contacts with the Central Asian governments, the administration often depended on the use of non-official personages to break the ice. Washington foreign policy chiefs such as Henry Kissinger, General Brent Scowcroft, and Zbiginiew Brzezinski were active in the region, having served as consultants to the involved American oil companies. But, in several cases, they also served as back-channel contacts, which the administration used to signal support or discontent with a particular idea. Despite heavy criticism from democratization advocates concerning U.S. legitimization of an autocratic dictator and charges of favoritism from Armenian-Americans, President Aliyev met with the President, Vice-President, Cabinet secretaries Albright, Cohen and Pena, and CIA Director George Tenet. Subjects for discussion included the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Azerbaijan’s record on political pluralism and economic liberalization in addition to the pipelines issue. When President Clinton intervened with President Aliyev in the fall of 1995 to lobby Azerbaijan to accept the construction of a second medium-term pipeline to Supsa, Georgia, he offered to have the U.S. government engage more actively in peace efforts. Subsequently, in early 1997, the U.S. took a more direct role by assuming co-chairmanship of the OSCE peace process on this dispute, along with Russia and France. In the end of the negotiations, a multiple of oil pipelines ran through U.S. allied states towards Europe and avoided transit through Russia and Iran, as planned by the American administration. Here is it shown that diplomacy resolved a potential conflict between Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan concerning the newly found oil in the Caspian Sea region. By using peaceful negotiations and the obvious strong persuasion of the smallest force by the largest force, the United States was able to fully utilize diplomacy to solve a conflict and benefit from it largely. The U.S. saw no need to bring in military forces and therefore proceeded to apply diplomacy to the fullest extent successfully without any negative consequences.
Cite this WHEN DIPLOMACY IS NOT ENOUGH
WHEN DIPLOMACY IS NOT ENOUGH. (2018, Aug 15). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/when-diplomacy-is-not-enough-essay/