When did diplomacy ever work?

[Elind]

In case of misunderstanding, I don't think diplomacy is a waste of time, in principle but I came across another "give diplomacy a chance" comment somewhere recently and I found myself testing my memory to the limits. Maybe it's my limits, but I came up with some rather uncomfortable answers, mainly when it didn't work.

Now it is obviously impossible to say what didn't happen would have happened if not for diplomacy, but I'm curious what really serious bad consequences had very likely been averted by diplomacy?

The cold war had lots of diplomacy, and probably we can say that it worked there, but the anomaly is that it worked under the concept of MAD, and between somewhat sane and evenly matched opponents. That applies to the Cuban missile crisis too.

Where it failed is more obvious, just to name a partial list.

WWI
WWII
Korean War
Iran/Iraq
Iraq/Kuwait
Jugoslavia/Bosnia etc.
Israel/Arabs
Iraq II
Afghanistan
Darfur

(edited: oops. Forgot the Falklands)


There have been more conflicts. Apologies to those missed, but these are prominent in terms of Western involvement where diplomacy is held to a higher esteem.

So, the question is: Can we identify any situations where the consequences of diplomacy clearly seemed to result in the prevention of major conflict, not to mention resolution of such conflict, before it occurs (not the peace after).

I'll suggest Iran and N Korea are in that process now, (but is there historical reason to think it will work?)

Libya worked, maybe, after a bombing or two.

India and Pakistan seems to be working, but at the expense of previous war.

Others?

 

[JamesDillon]

I'm not an expert in this, but I would speculate that there might be a bit of a selection problem here because many times, when diplomacy works, we never hear about it because the conflict is avoided before it becomes front-page news. Perhaps a case could be made that, by the time an incipient conflict reaches the point of open hostilities, it has passed the point of no return at which diplomacy is no longer a viable option? It would certainly make sense to speculate that, when a government feels the eyes of the world watching its every move, it feels more pressure to make a show of not backing down. No one wants to seem like a wimp in the global playground, after all.

That's just speculation on my part, but it seems plausible.

 

[American]

Mainly when a much more powerful third state had selfish interests in matters.

If Stalin told two commie states to knock it off, that probably worked wonders.

 

[Luciana]

ELind,

I'll make it short now but I can expand later.

a) Hits vs misses. You don't remember the cases where diplomacy worked because those conflicts never happened. The cases where it failed are painfully obvious, though.
b) Certain countries have been rivals for centuries but never came to the worst case scenario.
c) War is a tool of diplomacy. Diplomats sit in front of each other knowing fully well their respective military capacities. It's not all about whiskey and pleasantries. The underlying threat is always there and diplomats deal with it all the time. And it's not something they try to avoid if it serves their national interest. It's a myth that wars happen when diplomacy fails. War is a means to an end. They're getting more expensive with each passing decade, in all aspects, therefore it's in the best interest of countries to avoid it most of the times. But the possibility is always there and diplomats keep toying with this idea in every exchange of pleasantries.

I'll think of more tomorrow.

 

[Luciana]

Perhaps a case could be made that, by the time an incipient conflict reaches the point of open hostilities, it has passed the point of no return at which diplomacy is no longer a viable option?

But diplomacy goes on during many wars, not only in the search and keeping of allies, but by keeping negotiations between governments even when at war. Diplomats go back and forth checking intentions, "reading" the mind of key people, trying to keep the communication channel open at all times... during the war is exactly when diplomacy is at top speed.

 

[Elind]

ELind,

I'll make it short now but I can expand later.

a) Hits vs misses. You don't remember the cases where diplomacy worked because those conflicts never happened. The cases where it failed are painfully obvious, though.
b) Certain countries have been rivals for centuries but never came to the worst case scenario.
c) War is a tool of diplomacy. Diplomats sit in front of each other knowing fully well their respective military capacities. It's not all about whiskey and pleasantries. The underlying threat is always there and diplomats deal with it all the time. And it's not something they try to avoid if it serves their national interest. It's a myth that wars happen when diplomacy fails. War is a means to an end. They're getting more expensive with each passing decade, in all aspects, therefore it's in the best interest of countries to avoid it most of the times. But the possibility is always there and diplomats keep toying with this idea in every exchange of pleasantries.

I'll think of more tomorrow.

I appreciate that, and I tried to say so in the OP, but just as an intellectual exercise, what examples do we have where it really did work and the consequences of failure could reasonably have been expected to be outright war?

I think perhaps there are examples in South America, but I'm not good on the history.

 

[Earthborn]

what examples do we have where it really did work and the consequences of failure could reasonably have been expected to be outright war?

The problem is that if it is reasonable to expect outright war, then it usually means that the parties of the conflict have practically already given up on diplomacy. If they hadn't, then there would be no expectation of war but simply a continuation of negotiations.

Nations (and people too) are constantly in conflict. Every war that does not happen was prevented by diplomacy. The only proof that diplomacy works is the fact that the world is not in a constant global war where everybody tries to kill everybody else.

 

[aerocontrols]

It's my understanding that the Suez crisis was resolved via diplomacy.

Considered to be the most significant turning point in post-war British foreign policy, the Suez Crisis refers to the British decision to join with France and Israel in a military intervention to attempt to prevent General Nasser from nationalising the Suez Canal in the autumn of 1956. Nasser was promoting Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East and had become an increasing source of irritation to the British and the French.

The Anglo-French assault upon Egypt, which began on 31 October 1956, provoked a furious response from the USA. President Eisenhower's condemnation of the attack triggered a sterling crisis which forced the government to withdraw from the venture. This angered the French, and further revealed Britain's growing dependence on the support of the US.

Source

 

[Elind]

The problem is that if it is reasonable to expect outright war, then it usually means that the parties of the conflict have practically already given up on diplomacy. If they hadn't, then there would be no expectation of war but simply a continuation of negotiations.

Nations (and people too) are constantly in conflict. Every war that does not happen was prevented by diplomacy. The only proof that diplomacy works is the fact that the world is not in a constant global war where everybody tries to kill everybody else.

Except for the places where that is all they do.....

However I did think of one obvious exmple where it worked. Israel and Egypt. Just because they still don't like each other is not important.

 

[Elind]

It's my understanding that the Suez crisis was resolved via diplomacy.

Source

I suppose it is a valid example, although somewhat of the gunboat diplomacy type, however I was trying to think of those situations where a conflict had not already started at some level.

What about South Africa, and Rhodesia? Not conflicts between nations perhaps, but diplomacy was used to further a settlement, however badly the latter has turned out.

 

[Ryokan]

Where it worked, and worked very well : The Norwegian independence from Sweden in 1905. Nearly came to blows, but didn't.

 

[a_unique_person]

It worked very well in getting the US and Great Britain and the USSR to fight a co-ordinated and supplied war against Nazism.

 

[Crazytree]

Diplomacy probably won us the war in WWII.

Had we [Allies] not delayed our entry until 1939, our militaries would have been far less capable of dealing with the Nazi menace.

 

[American]

Had we [Allies] not delayed our entry until 1939, our militaries would have been far less capable of dealing with the Nazi menace.

Also had we gone "too early", nobody would be saying we had prevented a genocide or anything bad. Only that we had gone to war unnecessarily.

Of course this would have required the build-up that (as you said) was needed, right when Americans were fanatics for disarmament and crying for New Deal and other entitlements. Like in the 1990s.

 

[a_unique_person]

Diplomacy probably won us the war in WWII.

Had we [Allies] not delayed our entry until 1939, our militaries would have been far less capable of dealing with the Nazi menace.

It was important to a lot of people back then to try diplomacy. The "war to end all wars" was still very recent in a lot of people's memory. It was called that name for a very good reason, modern warfare had shown itself to be an amazingly efficient and ruthless machine for killing millions of people to no good end. To not try diplomacy would have been insane.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Diplomacy and espionage grew up together. In Europe they grew into the idea of diplomatic immunity, in the Ottoman (and Napoleon's) Empire(s), diplomats served as hostages to be taken if the other nation(s) misbehaved.

Diplomacy really only works if both parties are evenly matched. Between leaders responsible for large republics (even socialist ones), it can work well.

Why did Qaddafi supposedly "disarm?" Was he scared of Bush because of Iraq or was it that the Italian authorities confiscated his shipment of shiny new centrifuge parts in 2003?

Both sides need something to gain or lose by diplomacy or there is no motive for diplomacy.

Here is something to explore:
What would have been the possible diplomatic solution between Saddam and the US?

What mutual benefit could have been derived? There was no military threat/incentive from Iraq to make the US want to strike a deal. In fact, by waiting, Saddam was certainly going to build his military back up to be an actual threat. The was no incentive for Saddam to cooperate and give up his quest to obtain WMD, he believed it was essential to holding back Iran. His plans to obtain the materials even while under sactions were working, what did he need with cooperation? What does a dictator in an oil rich nation need from some nosey republic across the sea?

Perhaps cheap oil for the US in exchange for world class WMD would have been a viable diplomatic solution to Iraq, but I don't think it would have been an optimal result.

It's true that the US signed into law the Lend-Lease Act to provide war supplies to the UK, Russia and China at about the same time Hitler was having his photo taken in front of the Eiffel Tower. What brought the US fully into World War II was Pearl Harbor, not diplomacy.

 

[egslim]

How about the Cuban missile crisis as an example? Much show of force, but it was resolved without fighting.

 

[Darat]

I appreciate that, and I tried to say so in the OP, but just as an intellectual exercise, what examples do we have where it really did work and the consequences of failure could reasonably have been expected to be outright war?

I think perhaps there are examples in South America, but I'm not good on the history.

Perhaps the uneasy peace that existed between France and Britain after the Napoleonic Wars (I think that was the last major war between Britain & France)? That was two countries that had been at each other throats for about a 1000 years give or take a century.

 

[richardm]

What brought the US fully into World War II was Pearl Harbor, not diplomacy.

But the US had the option of only engaging Japanese forces, they didn't have to declare war on Germany as well. Wasn't it diplomacy that got them to enter the European theatre as well?

 

[egslim]

Actually Hitler declared on the USA, not the other way around.