Diplomacy In Cold War and Post-Cold War

Damb

Comparing Cold War and post-Cold War Diplomacy

Name

Student

Introduction

Diplomacy refers to the in international relations process in which government and non-government actors engage in negotiations to solve conflicts between different parties. Diplomacy has a long history, but its nature has been changing with time. As such, the nature of cold war diplomacy has significant differences from the nature of post cold war diplomacy, although there are also some similarities. Although there is no universal agreement about the specific period when the cold war existed, it is widely agreed that it occurred between 1947 and 1991 (Friedman, 2007). The term ‘Cold War’ defines the relationship that existed between two superpowers, the US and the USSR, during the period. After the World War II that ended in 1945, the US and the USSR developed nuclear weapons with ability to cause mass destruction. At the same time, the two sides held different political ideologies, with the US supporting capitalism and the USSR supporting communism (Friedman, 2007). Each of the two sides feared the impact of use of the weapons of the mass destruction. The fear deterred them from engaging in direct war.

However, numerous conflicts occurred in other regions, where in most cases, the two sides supported different parties to the conflict. Consequently, the diplomatic intervention efforts of the US were meant to frustrate the efforts of Russia, and vise versa. Various factors, including agreements between the superpowers and the split of the USSR into Russia and other countries, led to the end of the cold war (Gaddis, 2005). As the Cold War ended, the influence of Russia on conflicts around the world reduced. The focus of the US in its diplomatic efforts changed. Since 1991, various aspects of diplomacy have changed, which make its nature different from the Cold War diplomacy. The purpose of this paper is to make a comparison between the Cold war and the Post Cold War diplomacy. In particular, the paper uses various cases to illustrate the differences and similarities in the Cold war and the Post Cold War diplomacy.

Discussion

There are numerous differences between the Cold war and the Post Cold War diplomacy. As mentioned earlier, the Cold war diplomacy largely involved the conflicting political interests of US and the USSR, unlike the Post Cold War diplomacy. During the Cold War period, major conflicts occurred in regions such as Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea and Cuba. As the USSR and the US intervened to the issues, each focused on spreading its own political ideology. The USSR focused on spreading communism and gain more influence than the US (Gaddis, 2005). At the same time, the US focused on spreading capitalism. As the two sides competed, they expanded their diplomatic efforts to include military interventions. In some cases, the military interventions involved supplying weapons, whereas in other cases, the efforts included the intervention of US soldiers. As a result, some of the diplomacy efforts led to the escalation of conflict, rather than ending it (Gaddis, 2005).

The Vietnam War is a good illustration of the case. As a French colony, Vietnam did not experience major conflicts immediately after World War II. In 1950s, the USSR started spreading communist influences in Vietnam, starting from the north. At the same time, the US started spreading capitalism influences starting from the south (Moyar, 2006). With the support of the USSR, Northern Vietnam started fighting Southern Vietnam, with the aim to make the whole of Vietnam a communist state. The Northern government aimed to destroy South Vietnamese government, who they viewed as the ‘puppets’ of the US. On the other hand, South Vietnam’s government, aimed to defeat the Northern Vietnams government. In short, the involvement of the US and USSR in the war led to the escalation of the conflict. The war escalated until 1973 after the two governments agreed to sign a peace agreement and to unite. The war ended after the US stopped its push to influence capitalism (Milne, 2008).

During the post Cold War Era, diplomacy intervention efforts involve many actors, and are not dominated by the drive by the US and Russia to expand their respective political ideologies of capitalism and communism. In the recent Darfur conflicts that started in 2003, many actors have intervened to help in solving the problem. Darfur conflicts started after two rebel groups, Justice and Equality Movement and Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, accused Sudanese government of oppressing non-Arabs living in the southern part of the country (Suleiman, 2011). The non-Arabs formed the rebel groups with the aim to liberate themselves from oppression by the country’s leadership. The conflict invited the mediation of many countries, including the US, China, Russia, Kenya, Qatar, Sudan, Ethiopia, United Nations, European Union and African Union. Remarkably, the decision on the approach to be taken in the mediation process was agreed upon by the different participants. Also, the participants defined the extent to which each actor can contribute or the roles that each participant can play in the mediation process. The diplomatic efforts have culminated into the split of the country into two, making Southern Sudan an independent state. Although the conflicts have not fully ended, the persistence has not necessarily resulted from the influence of the mediating actors (Suleiman, 2011). However, it is essential, to note that some of the actors who have been found to supply weapons to the region such as Russia and China may have small impact to the persistence of the conflict. Unlike during the Cold War period where the US and USSR made the biggest contributions to such conflicts, the progress that has been achieved so far in Sudan is as a result of the contribution of very many mediators. Although the US and Russia may have other interests in their intervention efforts in Darfur, they may their main aims is not to push their political ideologies.

Rather than focusing on spreading capitalist ideologies the US has been increasingly focusing on fighting terrorism in its foreign policy efforts. Significant efforts to fight terrorism started after the attacks that were carried out by Al Qaeda terrorist group on September 9th 2001 in Washington D. C and New York. In response, the US government has been involved in a military campaign aimed at eliminating the Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups (United States Department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security, 2014). The efforts to eliminate the terrorist groups started in October 2001 with airstrikes that were directed at the remnants the Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan. Since then, the US fostering good diplomatic relations with governments in the middle east with the aim to gain support in fighting the terrorists. Currently, the US has developed diplomatic relations with all countries in the Middle East except Iran (United States Department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security, 2014).

Apart from the traditional actors, other actors have become significant in the diplomatic process during the Post Cold War period. In the Middle East, for instance, diplomatic efforts were mainly dominated by powerful countries such as the US, Britain and Russia. However, Qatar has recently emerged as one of most influential actor in the diplomatic processes taking place in the Middle East. Qatar’s diplomatic efforts have been evident in solving the Lebanon conflict. Lebanon has been rocked by a series of crisis since the assassination of its former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005 (Blanchard, 2011). The issue culminated into conflicts with Israel. Several Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia and Western Nations such as the US have intervened to mediate the Lebanon crises and provided support assistance in one way or another but their efforts have not succeeded. Except Qatar, all the other mediators have been accused of being biased against a given party to the conflicts. Qatar’s intervention approach has been unique from that of other countries in the gulf region and other parts of the world due to its added approach of ensuring that it has been providing aid that has helped to win the trust of the conflicting parties as an honest broker. This acted as a source of reconciliation among the conflicting forces, rather than a way of exacerbating the feuds (Oxford Business Group, 2009). Qatar has also emerged as a major actor in solving the conflicts that have occurred recently Egypt, Libya, Darfur and Syria. In other words, the US and Russia have not been the only significant mediators in recent conflicts.

During the post Cold War period, many non-governmental actors have emerged with ability to influence diplomatic efforts, unlike during the Cold War period when diplomatic efforts were dominated by governmental actors. In particular, the non-governmental and civil organizations are increasingly involved in the diplomatic process. Examples of influential non-governmental organizations in diplomatic processes are Greenpeace, Amnesty International and Oxfam, Human Rights Watch and Sans Frontières (Fromherz, 2011). Such organizations focus on protecting the rights of the public, and are very influential to the public. The non-governmental actors usually focus on conducing investigations and preventing the violation of human rights. As such, they have a significant influence in preventing the violation of human rights the governmental actors during the intervention. In the Darfur case, for instance, the Amnesty International has been assessing the intervention efforts of all the governmental actors. The report released by the Amnesty International in 2007 showed that China and Russia supplied ammunitions to the government of Sudan and Militias (Fromherz, 2011). The report also recorded the actions of the government of Sudan, including Aerial bombings by Sudan Air Force that led to the killing of the civilians. The report also showed that Russia supplied air planes that were used for the purpose of bombing. The report was released to the public across the globe, leading to a worldwide condemnation of China and Russia (Kamrava, 2011). Such interventions by the non-governmental organizations help to deter the governmental actors from engaging in acts that may lead to violation of human rights or that lead to the escalation of the conflicts during the post Cold War era.

There is one major similarity between the Cold War diplomacy and the Post War diplomacy; the use of military actions in diplomatic efforts. As noted in the Vietnam War case, the US was using military actions as one of the intervention measures to conflicting parties. Despite the fact that the US diplomatic efforts are more kept under scrutiny by the international community than during the Cold War period, they still use military actions as one of the ways of achieving diplomatic goals. This is can be illustrated using the case of recent Libyan conflict that culminated into a successful revolution. The conflicts started after forces emerged in the country that opposed the governance of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The forces formed an organization called National Transitional Council that sought support from the US and other foreign actors to oust Gaddafi (Hilsum, 2012). The US responded by providing weapons and military support to the forces opposing Gaddafi, leading to a successful bloody coup in 2011. Later in 2012, the US sent troops to Jordan to contain the civil war that was taking place in Syria (Crawford, 2012).

Another similarity in the Cold War and Post Cold War diplomacy is the disregard of the established policies by international organizations by the powerful nations. The United Nations (UN) is the main intergovernmental body that has been involved in peacekeeping missions since the beginning of the cold War period. The body was established at the end of the World War II as part of the agreement between nations never to engage in such a war (Grant, 2009). Despite the allegiance of the US and USSR to the UN agreement, the two nations continued to disregard the body and its policies. As indicated in the Vietnam War case, the two actors engaged in activities that led to the escalation of conflicts between different actors. They allowed the UN to intervene only in conflicts that did not involve their interests. For instance, the US and USSR blocked the UN from participating in the Korea conflict in 1950 (Wistrich, 2010). The powerful nations have continued to disregard the UN policies during their interventions in the post Cold War conflicts (Fomerand, 2009).

Conclusion

In summary, the Cold War period was largely defined by the conflicting relationship that took place the US and USSR. The two superpowers feared that starting direct war between each other would lead to the use of nuclear weapons that would lead to mass destruction of one or both parties. The fear deterred them from engaging in direct combat. Despite this, the two sides conflicted in their diplomatic efforts mainly due to the differences in their interests. While the interest of USSR was to spread communism, the aim of the US was to counter the efforts of the USSR and to spread capitalism. Due to their efforts, their diplomatic efforts sometimes led to the escalation of conflicts between the warring parties. The diplomatic efforts of the two sides during the post Cold War period have not been geared to spread such interests. As Russia has reduced its influence in the international diplomacy, the US has been increasingly focusing on fighting terrorism. A remarkable difference is that other influential actors have emerged during the post Cold War period, meaning that Russia and the US are not the only influential actors in the diplomacy process. Also, influential non-governmental organizations have emerged during the post Cold War period, with a major impact in shaping diplomacy. Among the similarities of the Cold War and the post Cold War diplomacy are the use of military actions as part of the interventions and the disregard for the laid agreements by the powerful nations.

References

Blanchard, C. M. (2011). Qatar: Background and U.S. Relations. Massachusetts: DIANE

Publishing

Cordesman, A. H. & Al-Rodhan, K. R. (2007). Gulf military forces in an era of asymmetric

wars. Massachusetts: Greenwood Publishing Group

Crawford, A. (2012). Colonel Gaddafi’s Hat. London: Collins

David Stasavage. (2004). Open-Door or Closed-Door? Transparency in Domestic and

International Bargaining. International Organization, 58(4), 667-704

Fomerand, J. (2009). The A to Z of the United Nations. Lanham: Scarecrow Press

Friedman, N. (2007). The Fifty-Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War. Naval Institute

Press

Fromherz, A. (2011). Qatar: A Modern History. New York, NY: I.B. Tauris

Gaddis, J. L. (2005). The Cold War: A New History. New York, NY: Penguin Press

Grant, T. D. (2009). Admission to the United Nations: Charter Article 4 and the Rise of

Universal Organization. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

Hilsum, L. (2012). Sandstorm: Libya in the Time of Revolution. London: Faber and Faber.

amrava, M. (2011). Mediation and Qatari Foreign Policy. The middle East Journal, 65(4), 45

61

Leonard, M., Stead, C., Smewing, C. (2002). Public Diplomacy. London, UK: The Foreign

Policy Centre

Milne, D. (2008). America’s Rasputin: Walt Rostow and the Vietnam War. New York, NY: Hill

& Wang

Moyar, M. (2006). Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954–1965. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Oxford Business Group (2008). The Report: Qatar 2008. London, UK: Oxford Business Group

Richmond, Y. (2008). Practicing Public Diplomacy – A Cold War Odyssey. New York, NY:

Berghahn Books

Schulzinger, Robert. A Companion to American Foreign Relations, New York, NY: John

Wiley & Sons, 2008

Suleiman, M. A. (2011). Darfur, a Crisis of Identity & Governance. Bloomington: AuthorHouse

United States Department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security (2014). Diplomatic security

fights security. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/m/ds/

Wistrich, R. S. (2010). A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad.

New York, NY: Random House

Young, J. W. and John, K. (2013). International Relations since 1945. Oxford: Oxford

University Press