Berlin conference 1884
"The scramble for Africa"
Write about what you consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy. Give your reasons and provide illustrations!
First and foremost, one has to understand that there is no specific time in history where diplomacy was created nor founded by an individual or a state. Its roots can be traced back to the early centuries until it was later given the title diplomacy to describe the negotiations of representatives of each state.
Since then, the notion of diplomacy has changed tremendously which can be associated with the many issues countries had to face.
I consider the most significant change in diplomatic history the approach of diplomatic negotiations made between European powers in comparison between the late 19th century and modern day diplomacy.
A great example of how diplomatic negotiations were handled in the 19th century was the Berlin conference known as the “Scramble for Africa” in 1884 where European imperialists decided the apportionments of African states. This helps us understand that diplomacy in the past was carried out in a more realist way as greed and hunger for rich resources led to forceful colonisation and enslavement of African Nations. It is quite frankly a significant moment in diplomatic history as it is now
unimaginable to accomplish anything else similar to the events which happened at that moment of time; it is fundamentally inconsistent with the diplomatic ideals of contemporary time. (Alexandroff, pp. 43-60)
It could be argued that the profound global change in the nature of diplomacy arose with the reconstruction of the European Nations by the end of World War 2 and the founding of the United Nations which was established not only to end human rights abuses and promote equality but to improve diplomatic relations between states through the implementation of International law.
Considering these fundamental changes in diplomacy, delegates from over 191 states participate in proposals and solution making in global issues in an altered way of negotiation. Under the United Nations charter every nation’s sovereignty is protected, therefore in the example given with the Berlin conference European states are prevented from repeating such actions again. Furthermore, African countries in contemporary time have equal rights to engage in decisions that affect the global community.
Bibliography:
Alexandroff Alan, 1981, THE LOGIC OF DIPLOMACY, SAGE Publications Inc., California
I agree with you point of view that the contemporary diplomacy enable African countries to have more equal rights and decisions over global issues which is a positive progress in comparison with the colonial period. However, I am not sure whether their decisions can have real influences on global issues or change the global community.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting piece on the culture and rules of diplomacy. Keohane and Nye say some similar things in their book Power and Interdependence about how the rules and procedures of international organisations (like the UN) constrain the behaviour of more powerful nations while giving weaker states a voice. But as Minh points out, the latter do not always gain influence as a result.
ReplyDeleteI think you could develop this point a little further before you submit the entry as part of your seminar log. Perhaps you could explore this notion of the culture and rules of diplomacy a little further with a view to identifying the characteristics of the more inclusive diplomatic environment we inhabit today.
This is a very intriguing example you have selected! It would be great if you could elaborate a bit more how the changes you have mentioned (creation of the UN, of European states) translate into changes in the donduct of diplomacy... For even though the UN operates with a one country, one vote principle, I am not entirely convinced that some developing nations would feel that they truely have achieved equal status. It could be argued that some of the important decisions in the UN are still made by a Concert of Great Powers: The Security Council...
ReplyDeleteJust a few points to think about that I would be interested in hearing about!
Great Job!