WSC 2018 – History of diplomacy

Introductory Questions

What is the purpose of diplomacy?

The Encyclopaedia Britannica notes the origin of the word as “The term diplomacy is derived via French from the
ancient Greek diplōma, composed of diplo, meaning “folded in two,” and the suffix -ma, meaning “an object.” The
folded document conferred a privilege—often a permit to travel—on the bearer, and the term came to denote
documents through which princes granted such favours. Later it applied to all solemn documents issued by
chancelleries, especially those containing agreements between sovereigns. Diplomacy later became identified
with international relations, and the direct tie to documents lapsed (except in diplomatics, which is the science of
authenticating old official documents). In the 18th century the French term diplomate (“diplomat” or “diplomatist”)
came to refer to a person authorized to negotiate on behalf of a state.”

It goes on to define diplomacy as “……the established method of influencing the decisions and behaviour of
foreign governments and peoples through dialogue, negotiation, and other measures short of war or violence.
Modern diplomatic practices are a product of the post-Renaissance European state system. Historically, diplomacy
meant the conduct of official (usually bilateral) relations between sovereign states. By the 20th century, however,
the diplomatic practices pioneered in Europe had been adopted throughout the world, and diplomacy had expanded
to cover summit meetings and other international conferences, parliamentary diplomacy, the international activities
of supranational and subnational entities, unofficial diplomacy by nongovernmental elements, and the work of
international civil servants.

The purpose of diplomacy is to strengthen the state, nation, or organization it serves in relation to others by
advancing the interests in its charge. To this end, diplomatic activity endeavours to maximize a group’s advantages
without the risk and expense of using force and preferably without causing resentment.

See Encyclopaedia Britannica

How is diplomacy different than discussion?

Diplomacy is the chief, but not the only, instrument of foreign policy, which is set by political leaders, though
diplomats (in addition to military and intelligence officers) may advise them. The purpose of diplomacy is to
strengthen the state, nation, or organization it serves in relation to others by advancing the interests in its charge. To
this end, diplomatic activity endeavours to maximize a group’s advantages without the risk and expense of using
force and preferably without causing resentment.

A discussion involves exploring all knowledge on a theme/topic/subject, but does not aim to strengthen necessarily
anyone’s position. It is also not associated with politics. A discussion can be between any groups/parties of people.

Does a diplomat always represent one party’s interests to another party?

A diplomat forms and maintains international relations with regards to issues of peace and war, trade
and economics, culture, the environment, and human rights, and are also the ones who negotiate treaties and
international agreements before they are officially endorsed by any politicians. A diplomat also has the ongoing
responsibility of collecting and reporting information that could affect national interests, and is often in a good place
to give advice about how the home country should react. He or she should also do their utmost to represent the
views of the home government to the government of the country in which they are posted, and convince these
governments to act in ways that the home government would prefer. In this way, diplomats are an integral part of the
foreign policy formulation process. (from Career of a diplomat )
So I would say yes they do always represent one party’s interests.

How did modern diplomatic protocols come about—and do these protocols do more to strengthen diplomacy
or to limit it?
Peter Ricketts writes about how he sees the differences in a short article from his experience as the UK ambassador
to France 2012-2016.

A very detailed account can be found at wikipedia at Diplomacy . It can be traced back all the way to Egypt in the
14th Century BC but modern diplomacy takes its roots in Italy from the 14th Century AD in Italy which soon spread
across Europe. From 1715 French started to be used as the lingua franca, and ambassadors appointed (usually
noblemen).

After the fall of Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna of 1815 established an international system of diplomatic rank.
Disputes on precedence among nations (and therefore the appropriate diplomatic ranks used) were first addressed at
the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818, but persisted for over a century until after World War II, when the rank
of ambassador became the norm.

Diplomatic rights were established in the mid-17th century in Europe and have spread throughout the world. These
rights were formalized by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protects diplomats from
being persecuted or prosecuted while on a diplomatic mission. If a diplomat does commit a serious crime while in a
host country he may be declared as persona non grata (unwanted person). Such diplomats are then often tried for the
crime in their homeland. This strengthens the role of a diplomat.

When two countries sign a treaty, what guarantees it will be upheld?

Modern treaties, regardless of subject matter, usually contain articles governing where the final authentic copies of
the treaty will be deposited and how any subsequent disputes as to their interpretation will be peacefully resolved.

An excellent response to the question from James Hsui on Quora:

▪ Generally speaking, for many treaties, especially multilateral ones, signing does not make them fully binding.
There is usually a process of ratification, acceptance or approval that comes after signature.
▪ Treaty obligations are generally kept under the international law principle of pacta sunt servanda — “agreements
must be kept”. However, there is technically nothing that absolutely guarantees that they will be.
▪ The primary reason why a country keeps its treaty obligations is to preserve its own legitimacy. When a country
fails to keep treaty obligations, it weakens its ability to tell other countries to keep their treaty obligations,
and other countries may see it as an opportunity to stop keeping treaty obligations vis-a-vis that country.
Countries that initially backed the country may also be less inclined to do so in the future.
▪ Outside the loss of legitimacy and the threat of suspension or termination of treaty obligations to them, the
mechanisms available to help prompt a country to comply are basically public and private shaming,
unilateral and multilateral sanctions, diplomatic expressions of indignation such as the expulsion of
diplomats, and in the most extreme cases, war.

▪ Is diplomacy inherently political? Are diplomats politicians?

Politicians make policy, including foreign policy. Diplomats work to implement foreign policy. They may, due to
their expertise, try to shape policy, but it is the politicians who make it.
One point of view from Quora: No. Diplomacy isn’t inherently political. It can be found and used in several other
aspects of life that are non-political in nature.

What is the difference between an ambassador and a diplomat?

Diplomat is a general term applied to any person engaged in managing the relations between two countries.
Ambassador is a specific term referring to the individual designated as the chief of a diplomatic mission, accredited
to the head of state and representing the president or head of state.

Does diplomacy need to look different in the 21st century?

A working paper from the German institute for foreign affairs talks about 2 challenges:

“If diplomacy is about the realisation of the enlightened self-interest of politically -organised collectives in
interaction with others, then its prospects in the 21st century do not look promising. There are two major reasons for
this: the trajectory of technological change, and the revolution of rising expectations among peoples.

It goes on to talk about the change from representing only the sovereign nation (one country) in historical times, to
having to represent the interests of a collective of nations (i.e the European Economic Union, NATO, the United
nations, etc) that has arisen particularly since WWII:

“Finally, there also is the issue of who diplomacy actually is to represent. Who is the collective whose enlightened
interests are to be guarded and furthered? The traditional answer is: the collective that the nation-state represents –
that is, the nation. Yet part of that nation now are individuals that carry multiple identities and belong to
transnational elites as much as to their specific politically organised collective. They may hold several passports,
too. Other members of the nation will have a migration background, represent- ing a different culture that needs to
be reconciled and integrated with that of the home nation. A recent comparative analysis of European approaches to
integration of non-European migrants concludes that none of the different approaches taken has been particularly
successful.7 The populist nationalist backlash against a situation in which the question “who are we?” becomes
more complicated to answer is likely to continue.”

How do countries come to diplomatic agreements—and what happens when two nations cannot reach a
diplomatic agreement?
See Diplomatic resolution of problems for a description of mediation/arbitration, conferences and negotiations.

Diplomatic failure is as common as success. So why does it happen? At Quora 3 people put across their points of
view:

1. Bigotry by one party or both in terms of religion, or ethnicity.

2. The two sides have nothing to negotiate. Neither side has room to compromise.
3. On or both seeks conquest. (WWI)
4. Cheating or other dishonest actions on current treaties. (Iraq-2003)
5. Bribes.
6. Assassinations.
7. Propaganda/misinformation.
8. Nationalist sentiment (all from Marcie Smith 2016)
The primary factor for diplomatic failure would be intent. One or both parties aren’t dealing in good faith with each
other. They are just looking for an excuse to do whatever they think is in their best interest and failure provides them
with plausible deniability.
Inability to think of the other country and its people as having equal rights and national interests to one’s own.

Greed.

War is good for business. Sometimes the only reason for war is profit. No concern for the citizens of the country to
be attacked or the citizens of their own country who will fight and die. If you are attacked and you are defending
your own land that may be patriotism. If you are among the forces doing the attacking you’d better be sure that you
know the real reason for war because if you are dying for corporations or empire you should know what you are
really dying for. (Karen Benzene 2016)

Diplomacy is a two way street, both those wishing to achieve a goal diplomatically and those wishing to be part of a
solution must have genuine intent or be open to the process of communication.

In any relationship be it domestic, family, work, sport or international relations there has to be an ability for other
parties to listen and clear communicated and co-ordinated intention by the diplomat and their allies.

Diplomacy recently failed in the South China Sea, at the last few rounds of the Doha Trade Negotiations, the Syrian
Peace talks. (Peter Topping 2016)

What problems has international diplomacy helped to solve in recent years – and what problems has it helped
to create?
The world has now gone 73 years since the last world war ended in 1945, having seen 2 within the space of 22
years. The rise of organisation such as NATO and the UN have helped to improve the efficiency of international
diplomacy. Since WWII major conflicts such as the cold war stand off between the USSR and USA have not
escalated to military action due to diplomacy. There are still major world disputes that remain unsolved such as the
Arab-Israeli conflict, caused by disagreements over the rights to land in the region. This was not helped by a UN
plan to return Jewish people to land in the region, and so can be called a failure of diplomacy.

The current Syrian crisis is a failure of diplomacy to resolve the civil war brought about by the Arab Spring uprise of
2011, and has resulted in millions of Syrians having to flee the country in search of safety. This ongoing
humanitarian crisis is not helped by the failure of organisations such as the UN to agree and act on the necessary
solution to end the war. Sovereign states seem to be putting their own interests in front of those of the innocent
people of Syria.

Is it ever appropriate for a diplomat to express disagreement with his or her country’s leader?
Not whilst in office. They are representing the view of the (elected) politicians and so should not be airing their own
personal views in public. Once they are not in office then it is fine, but not very diplomatic!!

Should diplomats be granted special privileges when they are representing their nations abroad?
Yes – see the section on Diplomatic Immunity from wikipedia.

Do businesses and other non-governmental institutions need diplomats—and if so, under what
circumstances? How about revolutionary movements, or terrorist organizations?
Businesses and non-governmental organisations will often send representatives on trade visits to another country
with visiting politicians, in order to represent their company or organisational views. Trade visits are a common
feature of government policy to promote their countries interests abroad.

In terms of revolutionary movements or terrorist organisations the word “diplomacy” does not really fit with the
spirit of diplomacy very often, as these organisations often use violent means to promote their interests. Diplomats
try to avoid this as a means to resolve conflict. Certainly they need to negotiate for an end to conflict, but diplomacy
is rarely the preferred means.

OR IGI NS O F DIP LOM A CY

Explore the origins of diplomacy in historical civilizations. How different was it than diplomacy today?
An excellent article on a blog from the University of Southern California gives lots of information on this topic, and
I will summarise for the civilisations below:

City-States of Ancient Greece

“Greece was not the birthplace of diplomacy,” as Cohen noted, “but the heir of a very ancient heritage already more
than 2000 years old by the time of Alexander the Great.” Cohen’s observations suggest a wealth of diplomatic
activity in the ancient world, even before ancient Greece. Ancient architecture features open expansive public
spaces for people to gather. The agora in ancient Greece provided a forum for political debates.

Proxeny or proxenia (Greek: προξενία) in ancient Greece was an arrangement whereby a citizen (chosen by the
city) hosted foreign ambassadors at his own expense, in return for honorary titles from the state. A proxenos would
use whatever influence he had in his own city to promote policies of friendship or alliance with the city he
voluntarily represented. For example, Cimon was Sparta‘s proxenos at Athens and during his period of prominence
in Athenian politics, previous to the outbreak of the First Peloponnesian War, he strongly advocated a policy of
cooperation between the two states. Being another city’s proxenos did not preclude taking part in war against that
city, should it break out – since the proxenos’ ultimate loyalty was to his own city. However, a proxenos would
naturally try his best to prevent such a war from breaking out and to compose whatever differences were threatening
to cause it. And once peace negotiations were on the way, a proxenos’ contacts and goodwill in the enemy city could
be profitably used by his city.

Han Dynasty China

One of the earliest realists in international relations theory was the 6th century BC military strategist Sun Tzu (d.
496 BC), author of The Art of War. He lived during a time in which rival states were starting to pay less attention to
traditional respects of tutelage to the Zhou Dynasty (c. 1050–256 BC) figurehead monarchs while each vied for
power and total conquest. However, a great deal of diplomacy in establishing allies, bartering land, and signing
peace treaties was necessary for each warring state, and the idealized role of the “persuader/diplomat” developed.

Byzantine Empire
Byzantine diplomacy drew its neighbors into a network of international and interstate relations, controlled by the
empire itself.[5] This process revolved around treaty making. Byzantine historian Evangelos Chrysos postulates a
three-layered process at work: 1) the new ruler was welcomed into the family of kings, 2) there was an assimilation
of Byzantine social attitudes and values, 3) as a formalisation of the second layer of the process, there were
laws……In order to drive this process, the Byzantines availed themselves of a number of mostly diplomatic
practices. For example, embassies to Constantinople would often stay on for years. A member of other royal houses
would routinely be requested to stay in Constantinople, not only as a potential hostage, but also as a useful pawn in
case political conditions where he came from changed. Another key practice was to overwhelm visitors by
sumptuous displays. Constantinople’s riches served the state’s diplomatic purposes as a means of propaganda, and
as a way to impress foreigners

Renaissance Italy
In Europe, early modern diplomacy’s origins[11] are often traced to the states of Northern Italy in the
early Renaissance, with the first embassies being established in the 13th century. Milanplayed a leading role,
especially under Francesco Sforza who established permanent embassies to the other city states of Northern
Italy. Tuscany and Venice were also flourishing centres of diplomacy from the 14th century onwards. It was in
the Italian Peninsula that many of the traditions of modern diplomacy began, such as the presentation of an
ambassador’s credentials to the head of state.

Ancient India
Ancient India, with its kingdoms and dynasties, had a long tradition of diplomacy. The oldest treatise on statecraft
and diplomacy, Arthashastra, is attributed to Kautilya (also known as Chanakya), who was the principal adviser
to Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the Maurya dynasty who ruled in the 3rd century BC. It incorporates a
theory of diplomacy, of how in a situation of mutually contesting kingdoms, the wise king builds alliances and tries
to checkmate his adversaries. The envoys sent at the time to the courts of other kingdoms tended to reside for
extended periods of time, and Arthashastra contains advice on the deportment of the envoy, including the trenchant
suggestion that ‘he should sleep alone’. The highest morality for the king is that his kingdom should prosper.[7]

Look into the evolution of modern diplomatic institutions, concluding (for now) with the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations in 1961. Have the roles, responsibilities, and privileges of diplomats changed
significantly over time?
As usual Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. has a great answer to this one:

Throughout the history of sovereign states, diplomats have enjoyed a special status. Their function to negotiate
agreements between states demands certain special privileges. An envoy from another nation is traditionally treated
as a guest, their communications with their home nation treated as confidential, and their freedom from coercion and
subjugation by the host nation treated as essential.

The first attempt to codify diplomatic immunity into diplomatic law occurred with the Congress of Vienna in 1815.
This was followed much later by the Convention regarding Diplomatic Officers (Havana, 1928).

The present treaty on the treatment of diplomats was the outcome of a draft by the International Law Commission.
The treaty was adopted on 18 April 1961, by the United Nations Conference on Diplomatic Intercourse and
Immunities held in Vienna, Austria, and first implemented on 24 April 1964. The same Conference also adopted the
Optional Protocol concerning Acquisition of Nationality, the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory
Settlement of Disputes, the Final Act and four resolutions annexed to that Act.

Two years later, the United Nations adopted a closely related treaty, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

YO U S C R AT CH MY B A CK | T HE IN ST RU ME N T S OF DIP LOM AC Y
Diplomatic Institutions
Embassy – a diplomatic mission usually denotes the resident mission, namely the embassy, which is the main office
of a country’s diplomatic representatives in the capital city of another country
Consulate – are smaller diplomatic missions which are normally located outside the capital of the receiving state
(but can be located in the capital, usually when the sending country has no embassy in the receiving state)

Mission – is a group of people from one state or an organisation present in another state to represent the sending
state/organisation officially in the receiving state.

Asylum – In ancient Greece and Rome, an asylum referred to a place where people facing persecution could seek
refuge. These locations were largely religious in nature, such as temples and other religious sites.

Diplomatic immunity – The sanctity of diplomats has long been observed. This sanctity has come to be known
as diplomatic immunity. While there have been a number of cases where diplomats have been killed, this is normally
viewed as a great breach of honour. Genghis Khan and the Mongols were well known for strongly insisting on the
rights of diplomats, and they would often wreak horrific vengeance against any state that violated these rights.

Diplomatic rights were established in the mid-17th century in Europe and have spread throughout the world. These
rights were formalized by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protects diplomats from
being persecuted or prosecuted while on a diplomatic mission. If a diplomat does commit a serious crime while in a
host country he may be declared as persona non grata (unwanted person). Such diplomats are then often tried for the
crime in their homeland.

Diplomatic bags – is a container with certain legal protections used for carrying official correspondence or other
items between a diplomatic mission and its home government or other diplomatic, consular, or otherwise official
entity.[1]The physical concept of a “diplomatic bag” is flexible and therefore can take many forms (e.g., a cardboard
box, briefcase, duffel bag, large suitcase, crate or even a shipping container).[1]

Additionally, a diplomatic bag usually has some form of lock and/or tamper-evident seal attached to it in order to
deter or detect interference by unauthorized third parties. The most important point is that as long as it is externally
marked to show its status, the “bag” has diplomatic immunity from search or seizure,[2] as codified in article 27 of
the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.[3] It may only contain articles intended for official use.[3] It
is often escorted by a diplomatic courier, who is similarly immune from arrest and detention.[2][3]

Rezidentura – a resident spy is an agent operating within a foreign country for extended periods of time. A base of
operations within a foreign country with which a resident spy may liaise is known as a “station” in English and
a rezidentura (residency) in Russian parlance.[1][2] What the U.S. would call a “station chief“, the head spy, is
known as a rezident in Russian.

Diplomatic Offices
Ambassador – is an official envoy, especially a high-ranking diplomat who represents a state and is usually
accredited to another sovereign state or to an international organization as the resident representative of their own
government or sovereign or appointed for a special and often temporary diplomatic assignment.[1] The word is also
often used more liberally for persons who are known, without national appointment, to represent certain professions,
activities and fields of endeavor such as sales.

Envoy – a diplomatic agent of the second rank, next in status after an ambassador.
Minister – A Minister is a head of mission who is accredited to the receiving country’s head of state. A Minister
heads a legation rather than an embassy. However, the last legations were upgraded to embassies in the late 1960s,
and the rank of Minister is now obsolete.[2) An envoy or an internuncio is also considered to have the rank of
Minister.

Consul – In modern terminology, a consul is a type of diplomat. The American Heritage

Dictionary defines consul as “an official appointed by a government to reside in a foreign country and represent its
interests there.” In most governments, the consul is the head of the consular section of an embassy, and is
responsible for all consular services such as immigrant and non-immigrant visas, passports, and citizen services for
expatriates living or traveling in the host country.

Secretary – A managerial or leading position in certain non-profit organizations, such as political parties, trade
unions, international organizations.

Ban Ki-Moon is the current secretary general of the United Nations.

Counselor – A high ranking diplomat, usually just below an ambassador or minister.

Chargé d’affaire – A diplomat, ranking below an ambassador, who heads a diplomatic mission when no
ambassador is present, either temporarily (in the interim between the departure of one ambassador and the
accreditation of another) or for an extended time.

Approaches to Diplomacy
Gunboat – is the use of conspicuous displays of military strength as a means of intimidation in order to influence
others. It must also be stated that since gunboat diplomacy lies near the edge between peace and war, victory or
defeat in an incident may foster a shift into political and psychological dimensions: a standoff between a weaker and
a stronger state may be perceived as a defeat for the stronger one. This was the case in the Pueblo Incident in which
the Americans lost face with regard to North Korea. Trump has not learnt from this, as his current “Rocket
Man”comments on twitter show!

Coercive – or “forceful persuasion” is the “attempt to get a target, a state, a group (or groups) within a state, or a
nonstate actor-to change its objectionable behavior through either the threat to use force or the actual use of limited
force”.[1] This term also refers to “diplomacy presupposing the use or threatened use of military force to achieve
political objectives”.[2] Coercive diplomacy “is essentially a diplomatic strategy, one that relies on the threat of
force rather than the use of force. If force must be used to strengthen diplomatic efforts at persuasion, it is employed
in an exemplary manner, in the form of quite limited military action, to demonstrate resolution and willingness to
escalate to high levels of military action if necessary”.[3]

President John F. Kennedy used coercive diplomacy successfully in 1962 when he was able to bring about a
peaceful resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis and avert possible warfare between the United States and the Soviet
Union. When Kennedy learned of the Soviet Union’s attempt to deploy forty-two medium-range and twenty-
four intermediate-range ballistic missiles into Cuba, he established a naval blockade and threatened an invasion of
Cuba with force to remove the missiles already there. During the 1990–91 Gulf War, coercive diplomacy failed to
persuade Saddam Hussein to exit Kuwait and move his military forces back to Iraq; though the use of deterrence
effectively convinced the Iraqi president that he could not invade further south into Saudi Arabia, it did little to expel
him from Kuwait.[5
Preventive – is action to prevent disputes from arising between parties, to prevent existing disputes from escalating
into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter when they occur.[1] Since the end of the Cold War the
international community through international institutions has been focusing on preventive diplomacy. As the United
Nations and regional organizations as well as global and regional powers discovered the high costs of managing
conflict, there is a strong common perception of benevolence of preventive diplomacy. Preventive diplomacy actions
can be implemented by the UN, regional organizations, NGO networks and individual states. One of the examples of
preventive diplomacy is the UN peacekeepingmission in Macedonia (UNPREDEP) in 1995–1999. It was the first
UN preventive action.

Appeasement – is a policy of making concessions to an aggressor in order to avoid confrontation; because of its
failure to prevent World War 2, appeasement is not considered a legitimate tool of modern
diplomacy. See Wikipedia Appeasement for a more in depth analysis.

Paradiplomacy – is international relations conducted by subnational or regional governments on their own, with a
view to promoting their own interests. With globalisation, non-state regions play an increasingly influential
international role. Regions, federal states, provincesand cities seek their way to promote trade, investments,
cooperation and partnership in a long list of subjects and account for a significant part of today’s cross-borders
contacts. This trend raises new interesting questions concerning Public International Law and opens a debate on the
future of the state system that has provided the grounds for the international political order in the last
centuries. More discussion can be found at Wikipedia Paradipolmacy.

Soft power – sometimes called hearts and minds diplomacy, as defined by Joseph Nye, is the cultivation of
relationships, respect, or even admiration from others in order to gain influence, as opposed to more coercive
approaches. Often and incorrectly confused with the practice of official diplomacy, soft power refers to non-state,
culturally attractive factors that may predispose people to sympathize with a foreign culture based on affinity for its
products, such as the American entertainment industry, schools and music.

Hard power – is the use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political
bodies. This form of political power is often aggressive (coercion), and is most effective when imposed by one
political body upon another of lesser military and/or economic power.[1] Hard power contrasts with soft power,
which comes from diplomacy, culture and history.[1] The United States has demonstrated a ‘hard power’ policy in
regard to the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War and its continued war on the Taliban.[5][6]

Nuclear – is the area of diplomacy related to preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear war. One of the most well-
known (and most controversial) philosophies of nuclear diplomacy is mutually assured destruction (MAD).

Counterinsurgency – or Expeditionary Diplomacy, developed by diplomats deployed to civil-military stabilization

efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, employs diplomats at tactical and operational levels, outside traditional embassy
environments and often alongside military or peacekeeping forces. Counterinsurgency diplomacy may provide
political environment advice to local commanders, interact with local leaders, and facilitate the governance efforts,
functions and reach of a host government.[17]

Public – is exercising influence through communication with the general public in another nation, rather than
attempting to influence the nation’s government directly. This communication may take the form of propaganda, or
more benign forms such as citizen diplomacy, individual interactions between average citizens of two or more
nations. Technological advances and the advent of digital diplomacy now allow instant communication with foreign
publics, and methods such as Facebook diplomacy and Twitter diplomacy are increasingly used by world leaders
and diplomats.[16].
Dollar diplomacy of the United States—particularly during President William Howard Taft‘s term— was a form of
American foreign policy to further its aims in Latin America and East Asia through use of its economic power by
guaranteeing loans made to foreign countries.

Cyber diplomacy is the evolution of public diplomacy to include and use the new platforms of communication in
the 21st century. The development of cyber-diplomacy by the United States is a response to the shifts in
international relations by extending the reach of U.S diplomacy beyond government-to-government
communications.

Zero-sum diplomacy – in game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of
a situation in which each participant’s gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of
the other participants. An example of this would be that for many South Koreans, diplomacy with the United States
and China is a zero-sum game. In other words, strengthening ties with China means weakening the alliance with the
U.S.

Third neighbour policy is a facet of foreign relations of Mongolia referring to its building relationships with
countries other than Russia and China,[1] the two superpowers that historically had a sphere of influence extending
to the country. The economy of Mongolia is dependent on exploitation of the country’s mineral resources, which
include copper, gold, uranium and coal,[1]and thus the country is vulnerable to pressure from foreign countries and
corporations involved in resource extraction.

AD DI T IO NA L T E RM S TO K N O W
Proxenos (Greek: προξενία) in ancient Greece was an arrangement whereby a citizen (chosen by the city) hosted
foreign ambassadors at his own expense, in return for honorary titles from the state. The citizen was
called proxenos (πρόξενος; plural: proxenoi or proxeni, “instead of a foreigner”) or proxeinos (πρόξεινος). The
proxeny decrees, which amount to letters of patent and resolutions of appreciation were issued by one state to a
citizen of another for service as proxenos, a kind of honorary consul looking after the interests of the other state’s
citizens. A cliché phrase is euergetes (benefactor) and proxenos (πρόξεινος τε ειη και ευεργέτης).

Paiza was a tablet carried by Mongol officials and envoys to signify certain privileges and authority. They enabled
Mongol nobles and officials to demand goods and services from civilian populations.

Plenipotentiary (from the Latin, plenus + potens, full + powerful) has two meanings. As a noun, it refers to a person
who has “full powers“. In particular, the term commonly refers to a diplomat fully authorized to represent
a government as a prerogative (e.g., ambassador). As an adjective, plenipotentiary refers to something—an edict,
assignment, etc.—that confers “full powers”.[1]

Peacemaker are individuals and organizations involved in peacemaking, often in countries affected by war, violent
conflict, and political instability.[1] They engage in processes such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation,
and arbitration – drawing on international law and norms. The objective is to move a violent conflict into non-
violent dialogue, where differences are settled through conflict transformation processes or through the work of
representative political institutions.

Non-state actors are entities that participate on the world stage (international theater) or act in international
relations to engage themselves in affairs relative to territorial possession, human rights, social justice, and global
commerce. They are organizations with sufficient power to influence and cause a change even though they do not
belong to any established institution of a state. NGOs are a good example.
Alliance – is a relationship among people, groups, or states that have joined together for mutual benefit or to achieve
some common purpose, whether or not explicit agreement has been worked out among them.[1] Members of an
alliance are called allies. Alliances form in many settings, including political alliances, military alliances,
and business alliances. When the term is used in the context of war or armed struggle, such associations may also be
called allied powers, especially when discussing World War I or World War II.

Summit – is a meeting of heads of state or government, usually with considerable media exposure, tight security,
and a prearranged agenda. Notable summit meetings include those of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill,
and Joseph Stalin during World War II. However, the term summit was not commonly used for such meetings until
the Geneva Summit (1955).[1] During the Cold War, when American presidents joined
with Soviet or Chinese counterparts for one-on-one meetings, the media labelled the event as a “summit”. The post–
Cold War era has produced an increase in the number of “summit” events. Nowadays, international summits are the
most common expression for global governance.[2]

Embargo – is the partial or complete prohibition of commerce and trade with a particular country or a group of
countries.[6] Embargoes are considered strong diplomatic measures imposed in an effort, by the imposing country,
to elicit a given national-interest result from the country on which it is imposed. Embargoes are generally considered
legal barriers to trade, not to be confused with blockades, which are often considered to be acts of war.[7]

Persona non grata – In diplomacy is a foreign person whose entering or remaining in a particular country is
prohibited by that country’s government. Being so named is the most serious form of censure which a country can
apply to foreign diplomats, who are otherwise protected by diplomatic immunity from arrest and other normal kinds
of prosecution.

Extraterritoriality – is the state of being exempted from the jurisdiction of local law, usually as the result of
diplomatic negotiations. Historically, this applied to individuals. Extraterritoriality can also be applied to physical
places, such as foreign embassies, military bases of foreign countries, or offices of the United Nations. The three
most common cases recognized today internationally relate to the persons and belongings of foreign heads of state,
the persons and belongings of ambassadors and other diplomats, and ships in foreign waters.

S AN CT ION S
Self-determination – is a cardinal principle in modern international law (commonly regarded as a jus cogens rule),
binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms.[1][2] It states that a
people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely
choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.[3]

Polarity – is any of the various ways in which power is distributed within the international system. It describes the
nature of the international system at any given period of time. One generally distinguishes four types of
systems: unipolarity, bipolarity, tripolarity, and multipolarity for four or more centers of power.[1] The type of
system is completely dependent on the distribution of power and influence of states in a region[2] or globally.

It is widely believed amongst theorists in international relations that the post-Cold War international system is
unipolar: The United States’ defense spending is “close to half of global military expenditures; a blue-water navy
superior to all others combined; a chance at a powerful nuclear first strike over its erstwhile foe, Russia; a defense
research and development budget that is 80 percent of the total defense expenditures of its most obvious future
competitor, China; and unmatched global power-projection capabilities.”[3]
Realpolitik – is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather
than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical
approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as pragmatism in politics, e.g.
“pursuing pragmatic policies”. The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are
perceived as coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.[1]

Ultimatum – is a demand whose fulfillment is requested in a specified period of time and which is backed up by
a threat to be followed through in case of noncompliance. An ultimatum is generally the final demand in a series of
requests. As such, the time allotted is usually short, and the request is understood not to be open to
further negotiation. The threat which backs up the ultimatum can vary depending on the demand in question and on
the other circumstances.

P EN TO PAP E R | T HE OUT C OME S OF DIP LO M ACY

Notable Pacts and Treaties (examples)
Amarna letters –

are an archive, written on clay tablets, primarily consisting of diplomatic correspondence between
the Egyptian administration and its representatives in Canaan and Amurru during the New Kingdom. The letters
were found in Upper Egypt at Amarna, the modern name for the ancient Egyptian capital of Akhetaten. The tablets
consist of over 300 diplomatic letters; the remainder comprise miscellaneous literary and educational materials.
These tablets shed much light on Egyptian relations with Babylonia, Assyria, Syria, Canaan, and Alashiya (Cyprus)
as well as relations with the Mitanni, and the Hittites.

Treaty of Nerchinsk –

The agreement was signed in Nerchinsk on August 27, 1689.[1] The signatories were Songgotu on behalf of
the Kangxi Emperor and Fyodor Golovin on behalf of the Russian tsars Peter I and Ivan V. was the first treaty
between Russia and China. The Russians gave up the area north of the Amur River as far as the Stanovoy
Mountains and kept the area between the Argun River and Lake Baikal. This border along the Argun River and
Stanovoy Mountains lasted until the Amur Annexation in 1860

Peace of Westphalia –
A series of peace treaties signed between May and October 1648 in the Westphalian cities
of Osnabrück and Münster, effectively ending the European wars of religion. These treaties ended the Thirty Years’
War (1618–1648) in the Holy Roman Empire between the Habsburgs and their Catholic allies on one side, and the
Protestant powers (Sweden, Denmark, Dutch, and Holy Roman principalities) and their Catholic (France) Anti-
Habsburg allies on the other.

Abuja Treaty –

The AEC (African Economic Community) founded through the Abuja Treaty, signed in 1991 and entered into force
in 1994 is envisioned to be created in six stages:

1. (to be completed in 1999) Creation of regional blocs in regions where such do not yet exist
2. (to be completed in 2007) Strengthening of intra-REC integration and inter-REC harmonisation
3. (to be completed in 2017) Establishing of a free trade area and customs union in each regional bloc
4. (to be completed in 2019) Establishing of a continent-wide customs union (and thus also a free trade area)
5. (to be completed in 2023) Establishing of a continent-wide African Common Market (ACM)
6. (to be completed in 2028) Establishing of a continent-wide economic and monetary union (and thus also
a currency union) and Parliament

The Treaty of Utrecht, which established the Peace of Utrecht, is a series of individual peace treaties, rather than a
single document, signed by the belligerents in the War of the Spanish Succession, in the Dutch city of Utrecht in
March and April 1713. The treaties between several European states, including Spain, Great
Britain, France, Portugal, Savoy and the Dutch Republic, helped end the war.

British historian G. M. Trevelyan argues:

That Treaty, which ushered in the stable and characteristic period of Eighteenth-Century civilization, marked the
end of danger to Europe from the old French monarchy, and it marked a change of no less significance to the world
at large, — the maritime, commercial and financial supremacy of Great Britain.[2]

Treaty of Versailles –

The most important of the peace treaties that brought World War I to an end. The Treaty ended the state of
war between Germany and the Allied Powers. It was signed on 28 June 1919 in Versailles, exactly five years after
the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Paris Peace Accords –

a peace treaty signed on January 27, 1973 to establish peace in Vietnam and end the Vietnam War. The treaty
included the governments of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), the Republic of Vietnam (South
Vietnam), and the United States, as well as the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) that represented
indigenous South Vietnamese revolutionaries. It ended direct U.S. military combat, and temporarily stopped the
fighting between North and South Vietnam. However, the agreement was not ratified by the United States Senate.

Antarctic Treaty –

regulate international relations with respect to Antarctica, Earth’s only continent without a native human population.
For the purposes of the treaty system, Antarctica is defined as all of the land and ice shelves south of 60°S latitude.
The treaty entered into force in 1961 and currently has 53 parties.[2] The treaty sets aside Antarctica as a scientific
preserve, establishes freedom of scientific investigation and bans military activity on the continent. The treaty was
the first arms control agreement established during the Cold War. Since September 2004, the Antarctic Treaty
Secretariat headquarters has been located in Buenos Aires, Argentina.[3]

Khitomer Accords –

In about 2223 tensions began rising between the UFP and the Klingon Empire, and in 2267, after efforts by captain
James Kirk and the heavy cruiser Enterprise NCC-1701 at Organia failed to broker a truce, the native energy beings
the Organians imposed an enforced peace and a signed treaty which effectively ended major conflict. Over the next
few decades the two interstellar powers remained in a state of cold war, with occasional minor skirmishes. In 2293,
the Klingons sued for peace after the destruction of their moon Praxis, which led to the eventual signing of
the Khitomer Accords (as depicted in Star Trek VI). The accords not only ended the war — they ushered in seven
decades of relative peace.

Treaty of Tordesillas – The lands to the east would belong to Portugal and the lands to the west to Castile. The
treaty was signed by Spain, 2 July 1494 and by Portugal, 5 September 1494. This treaty would be observed fairly
well by Spain and Portugal, despite considerable ignorance as to the geography of the New World; however, it
omitted all of the other European powers. Those countries generally ignored the treaty, particularly those that
became Protestant after the Protestant Reformation.

Paris Climate Agreement –

an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing
with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. The language of the
agreement was negotiated by representatives of 196 parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the
UNFCCC in Paris and adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015.[3][4] As of November 2017, 195 UNFCCC
members have signed the agreement, and 173 have become party to it.[1] The Agreement aims to respond to the
global climate change threat by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above
pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.[5]
Sugauli Treaty

the treaty that established the boundary line of Nepal, was signed on 2 December 1815 and ratified by 4 March 1816
between the East India Company and King of Nepal following the Anglo-Nepalese War of 1814-16. The Sugauli
Treaty was superseded in December 1923 by a “treaty of perpetual peace and friendship,” which upgraded the
British resident to an envoy. A separate treaty was signed with India (independent by now) in 1950 which
established relations between the two countries.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the
goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.[2]

Opened for signature in 1968, the treaty entered into force in 1970. As required by the text, after twenty-five years,
NPT Parties met in May 1995 and agreed to extend the treaty indefinitely.[3] More countries have adhered to the
NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the treaty’s significance.[2] As of
August 2016, 191 states have adhered to the treaty, though North Korea, which acceded in 1985 but never came into
compliance, announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, following detonation of nuclear devices in violation of
core obligations.[4] Four UN member states have never accepted the NPT, three of which are thought to possess
nuclear weapons: India, Israel, and Pakistan. In addition, South Sudan, founded in 2011, has not joined.

Douglas Treaties – also known as the Vancouver Island Treaties or the Fort Victoria Treaties, were a series of
treaties signed between certain indigenous groups on Vancouver Island and the Colony of Vancouver Island.

I NST I T UT I ONS O F AC CO R D (E X AMP LE S)

Congress of Vienna – was a meeting of ambassadors of European states chaired by Austrian statesman Klemens
von Metternich, and held in Vienna from November 1814 to June 1815. The objective of the Congress was to
provide a long-term peace plan for Europe by settling critical issues arising from the French Revolutionary Wars and
the Napoleonic Wars. The goal was not simply to restore old boundaries but to resize the main powers so they could
balance each other and remain at peace. The leaders were conservatives with little use
for republicanism or revolution, both of which threatened to upset the status quo in Europe. France lost all its recent
conquests while Prussia, Austria and Russia made major territorial gains. Prussia added smaller German states in the
west, Swedish Pomerania and 60% of the Kingdom of Saxony; Austria gained Venice and much of northern Italy.
Russia gained parts of Poland. The new Kingdom of the Netherlands had been created just months before, and
included formerly Austrian territory that in 1830 became Belgium.

Congress of Berlin – (13 June – 13 July 1878) was a meeting of the representatives of six Great powers of the time
(Russia, Great Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Germany),[1] the Ottoman Empire and four Balkan states
(Greece, Serbia, Romania and Montenegro), aiming at determining the territories of the states in the Balkan
peninsula following the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78. The Congress came to an end with the signing of the Treaty
of Berlin, which replaced the preliminary Treaty of San Stefano signed three months earlier between Russia and
the Ottoman Empire.

Conference of Ambassadors – was an inter-allied organization of the Entente in the period following the end
of World War I. Formed in Paris in January 1920[1] it became a successor of the Supreme War Council and was later
on de factoincorporated into the League of Nations as one of its governing bodies. It became less active after
the Locarno Treaties of 1925 and formally ceased to exist in 1931[2] or 1935.[1]
The Conference consisted of ambassadors of Great Britain, Italy, and Japan accredited in Paris and French minister
of foreign affairs. The ambassador of the United States attended as an observer because the United States was not an
official party to the Treaty of Versailles.[1] French diplomat René Massigli was its secretary-general for its entire
existence.

League of Nations –

an intergovernmental organisation founded on 10 January 1920 as a result of the Paris Peace Conference that ended
the First World War. It was the first international organisation whose principal mission was to maintain world
peace.[1] Its primary goals, as stated in its Covenant, included preventing wars through collective
security and disarmament and settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration.[2] Other issues in
this and related treaties included labour conditions, just treatment of native inhabitants, human and drug trafficking,
the arms trade, global health, prisoners of war, and protection of minorities in Europe.[3] At its greatest extent from
28 September 1934 to 23 February 1935, it had 58 members. A forerunner to the:

United Nations – an intergovernmental organization tasked to promote international cooperation and to create and
maintain international order. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was established
on 24 October 1945 after World War II with the aim of preventing another such conflict. At its founding, the UN had
51 member states; there are now 193. The headquarters of the UN is in Manhattan, New York City, and is subject
to extraterritoriality.

ASEAN – a regional intergovernmental organisation comprising ten Southeast Asian states which promotes Pan-
Asianism and intergovernmental cooperation and
facilitates economic, political, security, military, educational and socio-cultural integration amongst its members
and Asian states. Since its formation on 8 August 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia,
the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand,[15] the organisation’s membership has expanded
to include Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam. Its principal aims include accelerating economic
growth, social progress, and sociocultural evolution among its members, alongside the protection of regional
stability and the provision of a mechanism for member countries to resolve differences peacefully.[16][17] ASEAN
is an official United Nations Observer, as well as an active global partner.[18][19][20]

G20 – is an international forum for the governments and central bank governors
from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South
Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and
the European Union. Founded in 1999, the G20 aims to discuss policy pertaining to the promotion of international
financial stability.[3] It seeks to address issues that go beyond the responsibilities of any one organization.[3] The
G20 heads of government or heads of state have periodically conferred at summits since their initial meeting in
2008, and the group also hosts separate meetings of finance ministers and foreign ministers due to the expansion of
its agenda in recent years.

NATO – an intergovernmental military alliance between several North American and European states based on
the North Atlantic Treaty that was signed on 4 April 1949. NATO is an alliance that consists of 29 independent
member countries across North America and Europe. An additional 21 countries participate in NATO’s Partnership
for Peace program, with 15 other countries involved in institutionalized dialogue programs. The combined military
spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the global total. Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty,
requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first
and only time after the September 11 attacks,[8] after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-
led ISAF.

OPEC – Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is an intergovernmental organization of 14 nations

as of May 2017, founded in 1960 in Baghdad by the first five members (Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia, Venezuela), and headquartered since 1965 in Vienna. As of 2016, the 14 countries accounted for an
estimated 44 percent of global oil production and 73 percent of the world’s “proven” oil reserves, giving OPEC a
major influence on global oil prices that were previously determined by American-dominated multinational oil
companies.

Arab League – is a regional organization of Arab states in and around North Africa, the Horn of Africa and Arabia.
It was formed in Cairo on 22 March 1945 with six members: Kingdom of Egypt, Kingdom of
Iraq, Transjordan (renamed Jordan in 1949), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.[3]Yemen joined as a member on 5
May 1945. Currently, the League has 22 members, but Syria‘s participation has been suspended since November
2011, as a consequence of government repression during the Syrian Civil War.

The League’s main goal is to “draw closer the relations between member States and co-ordinate collaboration
between them, to safeguard their independence and sovereignty, and to consider in a general way the affairs and
interests of the Arab countries.”

Commonwealth of Nations – is an intergovernmental organisation of 52 member states that are mostly

former territories of the British Empire. The Commonwealth dates back to the mid-20th century with
the decolonisation of the British Empire through increased self-governance of its territories. It was formally
constituted by the London Declaration in 1949, which established the member states as “free and equal”.[6] The
symbol of this free association is Queen Elizabeth II who is the Head of the Commonwealth, but this role does not
carry any power with it.

APEC – Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation is a forum for 21 Pacific Rim member economies[2] that
promotes free trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region. It was established in 1989 in response to the growing
interdependence of Asia-Pacific economies and the advent of regional trade blocs in other parts of the world; to
defuse fears that highly industrialised Japan (a member of G8) would come to dominate economic activity in the
Asia-Pacific region; and to establish new markets for agricultural products and raw materials beyond Europe.

African Union – is a continental union consisting of all 55 countries on the African continent, extending slightly
into Asia via the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. It was established on 26 May 2001 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and
launched on 9 July 2002 in South Africa,[6] with the aim of replacing the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).

European Union – is a political and economic union of 28 member states that are located primarily in Europe. EU
policies aim to ensure the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital within the internal
market,[11] enact legislation in justice and home affairs, and maintain common policies on
trade,[12] agriculture,[13]fisheries, and regional development. A monetary union was established in 1999 and came
into full force in 2002, and is composed of 19 EU member states which use the euro currency.

The EU traces its origins from the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic
Community (EEC), established, respectively, by the 1951 Treaty of Paris and 1957 Treaty of Rome. The original
members of what came to be known as the European Communities, were the Inner Six; Belgium, France, Italy,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany.

OF F I N PARI S FO R S O LON G | T HE RO LE O F DIP LOM AT S

FAM O US DI P LO M AT S A ND PE AC EM AK E RS (E XAM PL E S)
Niccolo Machiavelli –

3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) was an Italian diplomat, politician, historian, philosopher, humanist, and writer of
the Renaissance period.[1][2] He has often been called the father of modern political science.[3] He was for many
years a senior official in the Florentine Republic, with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. He also
wrote comedies, carnival songs, and poetry. His personal correspondence is renowned in the Italian language. He
was secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence from 1498 to 1512, when the Medici were out of
power. He wrote his most renowned work The Prince (Il Principe) in 1513.

“Machiavellianism” is a widely used negative term to characterize unscrupulous politicians of the sort Machiavelli
described most famously in The Prince. Machiavelli described immoral behavior, such as dishonesty and killing
innocents, as being normal and effective in politics. He even seemed to endorse it in some situations.

Otto von Bismarck – was a conservative Prussian statesman who dominated German and European affairs from the
1860s until 1890 and was the first Chancellor of the German Empire between 1871 and 1890. In 1862,
King Wilhelm I appointed Bismarck as Mi

nister President of Prussia, a position he would hold until 1890, with the exception of a short break in 1873. He
provoked three short, decisive wars against Denmark, Austria, and France. Following the win against Austria, he
abolished the supranational German Confederation and instead formed the North German Confederati

on as the first German national state in 1867, leading it as Federal Chancellor. A recent biographer of Bismarck
wrote that he was

a political genius of a very unusual kind [whose success] rested on several sets of conflicting characteristics among
which brutal, disarming honesty mingled with the wiles and deceits of a confidence man. He played his parts with
perfect self-confidence, yet mixed them with rage, anxiety, illness, hypochrondria, and irrationality. … He used
democracy when it suited him, negotiated with revolutionaries and the dangerous Ferdinand Lassalle, the socialist
who might have contested his authority. He utterly dominated his cabinet ministers with a sovereign contempt and
blackened their reputations as soon as he no longer needed them. He outwitted the parliamentary parties, even the
strongest of them, and betrayed all those … who had put him into power. By 1870 even his closest friends … realized
that they had helped put a demonic figure into power.[6]

Henry Kissinger –an American diplomat and political scientist who served as the United States Secretary of
State and National Security Advisor under the presidential administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.
A Jewish refugee who fled Nazi Germany with his family in 1938, he became National Security Advisor in 1969
and later concurrently United States Secretary of State in 1973. For his actions negotiating a ceasefire in Vietnam,
Kissinger received the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize under controversial circumstances,[2] with two members of the
committee resigning in protest. Kissinger later sought, unsuccessfully, to return the prize[3][4] after the ceasefire
failed.

A practitioner of Realpolitik, Kissinger played a prominent role in United States foreign policy between 1969 and
1977. During this period, he pioneered the policy of détente with the Soviet Union, orchestrated the opening
of relations with the People’s Republic of China, and negotiated the Paris Peace Accords, ending American
involvement in the Vietnam War. Kissinger has also been associated with such controversial policies as U.S.
involvement in a military coup in Chile and U.S. support for Pakistan during the Bangladesh War despite
a genocide.[5]

Eleanor Roosevelt – an American politician, diplomat and activist.[1] She was the longest-serving First Lady of the
United States, having held the post from March 1933 to April 1945 during her husband President Franklin D.
Roosevelt‘s four terms in office,[1] and served as United States Delegate to the United Nations General
Assembly from 1945 to 1952.[2][3] President Harry S. Truman later called her the “First Lady of the World” in
tribute to her human rights achievements. She pressed the United States to join and support the United Nations and
became its first delegate. She served as the first chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights and oversaw the
drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Later she chaired the John F.
Kennedy administration’s Presidential Commission on the Status of Women. By the time of her death, Roosevelt
was regarded as “one of the most esteemed women in the world”; she was called “the object of almost universal
respect” in her New York Times obituary

K. R. Narayanan – was the tenth President of India. He served as ambassador to Japan, United
Kingdom, Thailand, Turkey, People’s Republic of China and United States of America and was referred to by Nehru
as “the best diplomat of the country”.[1] Narayanan is regarded as an independent and assertive President who set
several precedents and enlarged the scope of the highest constitutional office. He described himself as a “working
President” who worked “within the four corners of the Constitution”; something midway between an “executive
President” who has direct power and a “rubber-stamp President” who endorses government decisions without
question or deliberation.

Thomas Jefferson – was an American statesman, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and the principal
author of the Declaration of Independence. He served as the third President of the United States (1801–
1809). Although regarded as a leading spokesman for democracy and republicanism in the era of
the Enlightenment, Jefferson’s historical legacy is mixed. He owned and profited from several plantations which
were worked by slaves throughout all of his adult life. There is evidence that after his wife Martha died in 1782,
Jefferson fathered children with Martha’s half-sister Sally Hemings, who was his slave. Some modern scholarship
has been critical of Jefferson’s private life, pointing out the contradiction between his ownership of slaves and his
famous declaration that “all men are created equal.” He continues to rank highly among U.S. presidents. Presidential
scholars and historians generally praise Jefferson’s public achievements, including his primary authorship of the
Declaration of Independence, advocacy of religious freedom and tolerance in Virginia, and his oversight of the
Louisiana Purchase.

Kim Dae-jung – was President of South Korea from 1998 to 2003, the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, and the
only Korean Nobel Prize recipient in history. He was sometimes referred to as the “Nelson Mandela of South
Korea”. His policy of engagement with North Korea has been termed the Sunshine Policy.[2] He moved to
begin détente with the communist government in North Korea, which culminated in a historic summit meeting in
2000 in Pyongyang with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. This marked a critical juncture in inter-Korean relations,
and the two Koreas have had direct contact with each other since. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for these
efforts. However, the historic event was tainted significantly by allegations that at least several hundred million
dollars had been paid to Pyongyang. His Chief of Staff, Park Ji-Won, was sentenced to twelve years in prison in
2003 for, among other charges, his role in the Hyundai payment to North Korea for the North–South
summit.[15] Also in order to persuade North Korea to attend the summit, several “unconverted long-term prisoners”
kept by South Korea were released and returned to North Korea.[16]

Oscar Arias – was President of Costa Rica from 1986 to 1990 and from 2006 to 2010. He received the Nobel Peace
Prize in 1987 for his efforts to end the Central American crisis.

He is also a recipient of the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism and a trustee of Economists for Peace and
Security. In 2003, he was elected to the Board of Directors of the International Criminal Court‘s Trust Fund for
Victims.[1]

On 1 June 2007, he switched Costa Rica’s diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to
the People’s Republic of China, making Costa Rica the 167th nation in the world to do so. Subsequently, under
diplomatic and financial pressure from Beijing, he induced the Dalai Lama, a fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureate, to
postpone indefinitely a proposed and much anticipated visit during Beijing’s suppression of controversial riots
in Tibet.

Zhou Enlai – was the first Premier of the People’s Republic of China, serving from October 1949 until his death in
January 1976. Zhou served along with Chairman Mao Zedong and was instrumental in the Communist Party‘s rise
to power, and later in consolidating its control, forming foreign policy, and developing the Chinese economy.

A skilled and able diplomat, Zhou served as the Chinese foreign minister from 1949 to 1958. Advocating peaceful
coexistence with the West after the stalemated Korean War, he participated in the 1954 Geneva Conferenceand the
1955 Bandung Conference, and helped orchestrate Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit to China. He helped devise policies
regarding the bitter disputes with the U.S., Taiwan, the Soviet Union (after 1960), India and Vietnam.

Mikhail Gorbachev – Russian and former Soviet politician. He was the eighth and last leader of the Soviet Union,
having been General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1985 until 1991. He was the
country’s head of state from 1988 until 1991 (titled as Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet from 1988
to 1989, as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet from 1989 to 1990, and as President of the Soviet Union from 1990 to
1991). Gorbachev’s policies of glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika (“restructuring”) and his reorientation of
Soviet strategic aims contributed to the end of the Cold War. Under this program, the role of the Communist Party in
governing the state was removed from the constitution, which inadvertently led to crisis-level political instability
with a surge of regional nationalist and anti-communist activism culminating in the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Gorbachev later expressed regret for his failure to save the USSR, though he has insisted that his policies were not
failures but rather were vitally necessary reforms which were sabotaged and exploited by opportunists. He was
awarded the Otto Hahn Peace Medal in 1989, the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990, and the Harvey Prize in 1992, as well
as honorary doctorates from various universities.

Yasser Arafat – was a Palestinian political leader. He was Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
from 1969 to 2004 and President of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) from 1994 to 2004.[3] Ideologically
an Arab nationalist, he was a founding member of the Fatah political party, which he led from 1959 until 2004. In
1988, he acknowledged Israel’s right to exist and sought a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In
1994 he returned to Palestine, settling in Gaza City and promoting self-governance for the Palestinian territories. He
engaged in a series of negotiations with the Israeli government to end the conflict between it and the PLO. These
included the Madrid Conference of 1991, the 1993 Oslo Accords and the 2000 Camp David Summit. In 1994 Arafat
received the Nobel Peace Prize, together with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, for the negotiations at Oslo. At the
time, Fatah’s support among the Palestinians declined with the growth of Hamas and other militant rivals. In late
2004, after effectively being confined within his Ramallah compound for over two years by the Israeli army, Arafat
fell into a coma and died.

Arafat remains a controversial figure. The majority of the Palestinian people view him as a heroic freedom fighter
and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people. Conversely, most Israelis[7][8] came to regard
him as an unrepentant terrorist,[9][10] while Palestinian rivals, including Islamists and several PLO leftists, often
denounced him for being corrupt or too submissive in his concessions to the Israeli government.

Ban Ki-Moon – s a South Korean diplomat who was the eighth Secretary-General of the United Nations from
January 2007 to December 2016. Before becoming Secretary-General, Ban was a career diplomat in South
Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the United Nations. He entered diplomatic service the year he graduated
from university, accepting his first post in New Delhi, India. As Secretary-General, he was responsible for several
major reforms on peacekeeping and UN employment practices. Diplomatically, Ban has taken particularly strong
views on global warming, pressing the issue repeatedly with U.S. President George W. Bush, and on the Darfur
conflict, where he helped persuade Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir to allow peacekeeping troops to
enter Sudan.[3][4]

Dag Hammarskjöld – a Swedish diplomat, economist, and author who served as the second Secretary-General of
the United Nations, from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in September 1961. At the age of 47 years upon
his appointment, Hammarskjöld was the youngest to have held the post. Additionally, he is one of only four people
to be awarded a posthumous Nobel Prize[1] and was the only United Nations Secretary-General to die while in
office. He was killed in a Douglas DC-6 airplane crash en route to cease-fire negotiations. Hammarskjöld has been
referred to as one of the two best secretaries-general of the United Nations,[2] and his appointment has been
mentioned as the most notable success for the UN.[3] United States President John F. Kennedy called Hammarskjöld
“the greatest statesman of our century.”[4]

U Thant – a Burmese diplomat and the third Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1961 to 1971, the first
non-European to hold the position. He held the office for a record 10 years and one month (3,684 days). He was
appointed as Secretary-General in 1961, when his predecessor, Dag Hammarskjöld, died in an air crash. In his first
term, Thant facilitated negotiations between U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet premier Nikita
Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), helping to avert a global catastrophe. Later, in December 1962,
Thant ordered Operation Grandslam, which ended a secessionist insurgency in Congo. He was reappointed as
Secretary-General on 2 December 1966 by a unanimous vote of the Security Council. In his second term, Thant was
well known for publicly criticizing American conduct in the Vietnam War. He oversaw the entry of several newly
independent African and Asian states into the UN. Thant refused to serve a third term and retired in 1971.

Ambassador Spock – (one for Daniel!!) is a fictional character in the Star Trek media franchise. Spock serves
aboard the starship Enterprise, as science officer and first officer, and later as commanding officer of two iterations
of the vessel. Spock’s mixed human–Vulcan heritage serves as an important plot element in many of the character’s
appearances. In his later years, he serves as Federation Ambassador-at-Large to the Romulan Star Empire and
becomes involved in the ill-fated attempt to save Romulus from a supernova,[3] leading him to live out the rest of
his life in the parallel timeline introduced in Star Trek (2009).

Colin Powell – an American elder statesman and a retired four-star general in the United States Army. After
the September 11 attacks, Powell’s job became of critical importance in managing America’s relationships with
foreign countries in order to secure a stable coalition in the War on Terrorism.

Powell came under fire for his role in building the case for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. In a press statement on
February 24, 2001, he had said that sanctions against Iraq had prevented the development of any weapons of mass
destruction by Saddam Hussein. As was the case in the days leading up to the Persian Gulf War, Powell was initially
opposed to a forcible overthrow of Saddam, preferring to continue a policy of containment. However, Powell
eventually agreed to go along with the Bush administration’s determination to remove Saddam. He had often
clashed with others in the administration, who were reportedly planning an Iraq invasion even before the September
11 attacks, an insight supported by testimony by former terrorism czar Richard Clarke in front of the 9/11
Commission. The main concession Powell wanted before he would offer his full support for the Iraq War was the
involvement of the international community in the invasion, as opposed to a unilateral approach. He was also
successful in persuading Bush to take the case of Iraq to the United Nations, and in moderating other initiatives.
Powell was placed at the forefront of this diplomatic campaign.

HOW W ER E DI P LOM AT S ( AN D D IP LOM AC Y) INV O LVE D IN … ( EX A MP LES)

July Crisis – a diplomatic crisis among the major powers of Europe in the summer of 1914 that led to World War I.
Immediately after Gavrilo Princip, a Slavic nationalist, assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir presumptive to
the Austro-Hungarian throne, in Sarajevo, a series of diplomatic manoeuvres led to an ultimatum from Austria-
Hungary to the Kingdom of Serbia, and eventually to war.

Cuban Missile Crisis – was a 13-day (October 16–28, 1962) confrontation between the United States and
the Soviet Union concerning American ballistic missile deployment in Italy and Turkey with consequent Soviet
ballistic missile deployment in Cuba. The confrontation is often considered the closest the Cold War came to
escalating into a full-scale nuclear war. After a long period of tense negotiations, an agreement was reached
between U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Khrushchev. Publicly, the Soviets would dismantle their offensive
weapons in Cuba and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a U.S.
public declaration and agreement to avoid invading Cuba again. Secretly, the United States also agreed that it would
dismantle all U.S.-built Jupiter MRBMs, which had been deployed in Turkey against the Soviet Union; there has
been debate on whether or not Italy was included in the agreement as well.
Fashoda Incident – was the climax of imperial territorial disputes between Britain and France in Eastern Africa,
occurring in 1898. A French expedition to Fashoda on the White Nile river sought to gain control of the Upper Nile
river basinand thereby exclude Britain from the Sudan. The French party and a British-Egyptian force
(outnumbering the French by 10 to 1) met on friendly terms, but back in Europe, it became a war scare. The British
held firm as both empires stood on the verge of war with heated rhetoric on both sides. Under heavy pressure the
French withdrew, securing Anglo-Egyptian control over the area. The status quo was recognised by an agreement
between the two states acknowledging British control over Egypt, while France became the dominant power
in Morocco.

P.M.H. Bell says:

“Between the two governments there was a brief battle of wills, with the British insisting on immediate and
unconditional French withdrawal from Fashoda. The French had to accept these terms, amounting to a public
humiliation….Fashoda was long remembered in France as an example of British brutality and injustice.”
Great Game – a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the nineteenth century between
the British Empire and the Russian Empire over Afghanistan and neighbouring territories in Central and Southern
Asia. Russia was fearful of British commercial and military inroads into Central Asia, and Britain was fearful of
Russia adding “the jewel in the crown”, India, to the vast empire that Russia was building in Asia. This resulted in
an atmosphere of distrust and the constant threat of war between the two empires. Historians consider the end of the
Great Game to be 10 September 1895 signing of the Pamir Boundary Commission protocols,[6] when the border
between Afghanistan and the Russian empire was defined

One China Policy – is the principle that insists both Taiwan and mainland China are inalienable parts of a single
“China”. The One-China Principle is also a requirement for any political entity to establish diplomatic relations
with the People’s Republic of China. The PRC has traditionally attempted to get nations to recognize that “the
Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China… and Taiwan is an inalienable
part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China.” However, many nations are unwilling to make this particular
statement and there was often a protracted effort to find language regarding one China that is acceptable to both
sides. Some countries use terms like “respects,” “acknowledge”, “understand”, “take note of”, while others
explicitly use the term “support” or “recognize” for Beijing’s position on the status of Taiwan.

Middle East Qatari embargo – The 2017–18 Qatar diplomatic crisis began when several countries abruptly cut
off diplomatic relations with Qatar in June 2017. These countries included Saudi Arabia, United Arab
Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt. The severing of relations included withdrawing ambassadors and imposing trade and
travel bans.

The crisis is an escalation of the Qatar–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. The Saudi-led coalition cited Qatar’s
alleged support for terrorism as the main reason for their actions, insisting that Qatar has violated a 2014 agreement
with the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council(GCC).[5] Saudi Arabia and other countries have criticized Al
Jazeera and Qatar’s relations with Iran. Qatar claims that it has assisted the United States in the War on Terror and
the ongoing military intervention against ISIL

Zimmerman Telegram – was a secret diplomatic communication issued from the German Foreign Office in
January 1917 that proposed a military alliance between Germany and Mexico in the prior event of the United
States entering World War Iagainst Germany. Mexico would recover Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. The proposal
was intercepted and decoded by British intelligence. Revelation of the contents enraged American public opinion,
especially after the German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann publicly admitted the telegram was genuine on
March 3, and helped generate support for the United States declaration of war on Germany in April.[1] The
decryption was described as the most significant intelligence triumph for Britain during World War I,[2] and one of
the earliest occasions on which a piece of signals intelligence influenced world events.[3]

South China Sea disputes – involve both island and maritime claims among several sovereign states within the
region, namely Brunei, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of China (ROC), Malaysia, Indonesia,
the Philippines, and Vietnam. An estimated US$5 trillion worth of global trade passes through the South China
Sea[1] and many non-claimant states want the South China Sea to remain international waters. To promote this,
several states, including the United States, conduct “freedom of navigation” operations.

In July 2016, an arbitration tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS) ruled against the PRC’s maritime claims in Philippines v. China.[4] The PRC does not recognise
the tribunal and, its ruling being unenforceable, ignored it, insisting that the matter should be resolved through
bilateral negotiations with other claimants. In 2014, the United States responded to China’s claims over the fishing
grounds of other nations by saying that “China has not offered any explanation or basis under international law for
these extensive maritime claims.

XYZ Affair – was a political and diplomatic episode in 1797 and 1798, early in the administration of John Adams,
involving a confrontation between the United States and Republican France that led to an undeclared war called
the Quasi-War. The name derives from the substitution of the letters X, Y and Z for the names of French diplomats
Hottinguer (X), Bellamy (Y), and Hauteval (Z) in documents released by the Adams administration.

U-2 Incident – occurred during the Cold War on 1 May 1960, during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower and
the premiership of Nikita Khrushchev, when a United States U-2 spy plane was shot down while in Soviet airspace.
The aircraft, flown by Central Intelligence Agency pilot Francis Gary Powers was performing photographic aerial
reconnaissance when it was hit by an S-75 Dvina (SA-2 Guideline) surface-to-air missile and crashed
near Sverdlovsk. Powers parachuted safely and was captured. Before the U-2 incident Khrushchev and Eisenhower
had been getting along well and the summit was going to be an opportunity for the two sides to come together. Also,
Eisenhower had been looking forward to a visit to the Soviet Union and was very upset when his invitation was
retracted. The two sides were going to discuss topics such as nuclear arms reduction and also how to deal with
increasing tensions surrounding Berlin. According to Eisenhower, had it not been for the U-2 incident the summit
and his visit to the Soviet Union could have greatly helped Soviet and American relations.

Christmas Truce – was a series of widespread but unofficial ceasefires along the Western Front of World War
I around Christmas 1914. In the week leading up to the 25th, French, German, and British soldiers crossed trenches
to exchange seasonal greetings and talk. In some areas, men from both sides ventured into no man’s
land on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day to mingle and exchange food and souvenirs. There were joint burial
ceremonies and prisoner swaps, while several meetings ended in carol-singing. Men played games of football with
one another, giving one of the most memorable images of the truce. Peaceful behaviour was not ubiquitous; fighting
continued in some sectors, while in others the sides settled on little more than arrangements to recover bodies.

Pig and Potato War – was a confrontation in 1859 between the United States and United Kingdom over
the British–U.S. border in the San Juan Islands, between Vancouver Island and the mainland. The Pig War, so called
because it was triggered by the shooting of a pig, and with no shots exchanged and no human casualties, this dispute
was a bloodless conflict. As a result of the negotiations, both sides agreed to retain joint military occupation of the
island until a final settlement could be reached, reducing their presence to a token force of no more than 100
men.[6] The “English Camp” was established on the north end of San Juan Island along the shoreline, for ease of
supply and access; and the “American Camp” was created on the south end on a high, windswept meadow, suitable
for artillery barrages against shipping.[8] Today the Union Jack still flies above the “English Camp”, being raised
and lowered daily by park rangers, making it one of the few places without diplomatic status where U.S. government
employees regularly hoist the flag of another country.

The Falkland Islands – is an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean on the Patagonian Shelf. As a British
overseas territory, the ‘Falklands’ has internal self-governance, and the United Kingdom takes responsibility for its
defence and foreign affairs. In April 1982, Argentine forces temporarily occupied the islands. British administration
was restored two months later at the end of the Falklands War. Most Falklanders favour the archipelago remaining a
UK overseas territory, but its sovereignty status is part of an ongoing dispute between Argentina and the United
Kingdom.

In March 2013, the Falkland Islands held a referendum on its political status, with 99.8 percent of voters favoured
remaining under British rule.[94][95] Argentina does not recognise the Falkland Islands as a partner in
negotiations;[96] consequently, it dismissed the Falkland Islands’ sovereignty referendum.[97]

Partition of India – was the division of British India[a] in 1947 which accompanied the creation of two
independent dominions, India and Pakistan.[1] The Dominion of India is today the Republic of India, and
the Dominion of Pakistan is today the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. The
two-nation is the ideology that the primary identity and unifying denominator of Muslims in the Indian
subcontinent is their religion, rather than their language or ethnicity, and therefore Indian Hindus and Muslims are
two distinct nations, regardless of ethnic or other commonalities.[20][21] The two-nation theory was a founding
principle of the Pakistan Movement (i.e. the ideology of Pakistan as a Muslim nation-state in South Asia), and the
partition of India in 1947.

Selected Readings and Speeches (Examples)

▪ The Practice of Diplomacy (“The Art of Negotiation” to “Courage” p. 7-29) | Francois de Callieres
▪ Remarks on Russia | Samantha Power
▪ Blood and Iron (excerpt) | Otto von Bismarck
▪ An Independent Diplomat | Carne Ross (This is a must watch – Brilliant!)
▪ The Fog of Peace (excerpt) | Gabrielle Rifkind and Gianni Picco

Additional Cases & Questions

▪ Should schools teach be required to teach courses in diplomacy and conflict resolution?
▪ If you were a diplomat working on behalf of your school, where would you be sent and what would you
be asked to do?
▪ In first inaugural address, American president Thomas Jefferson called for “honest friendship with all
nations, entangling alliances with none” – a doctrine that guided the foreign policy of the United
States for many years. Discuss with your team: what are entangling alliances, and is it good for
nations to avoid them? To what degree does the United States follow this doctrine today? How
about your own country?
▪ Want to try diplomacy firsthand? Try playing this online version of a famous diplomatic board game,
one ostensibly beloved by figures such as John F. Kennedy and Henry Kissinger. What can we
learn from it?
▪ How do different cultural expectations affect negotiations between countries? Consider the case of Chen
Guangcheng, which required some tricky diplomacy between two countries with very different
approaches to directness.

www.youtube.com</a>, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.</div></div>

▪ To thrive in today’s economy, nations must participate in regional and global trade agreements. Research some of
these agreements—including those that are up for renegotiation, and those that failed. What is the
difference between a bilateral and multilateral trade agreement, and why might one be more difficult to
negotiate than the other?
▪ As you explore how nations attempt to influence one another, consider the difference between “hard power” and
“soft power”. Under what circumstances would you recommend a nation employ one or the other, or are
they always best used in tandem? Discuss with your team: do we have the equivalents of hard and soft
power in our everyday interactions and entanglements?
▪ Amidst all of the bloodshed of World War I, there was one Christmas day when thousands of soldiers on either
side temporarily banded together for the sake of festivity. Are there any lessons we can take from this brief
moment of harmony to apply in diplomatic efforts today—and if so, are they also applicable to
interpersonal situations?

www.youtube.com</a>, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.</div></div>

▪ Sometimes, the little ball moves the big ball. Explore how “ping pong” may have paved the way to
improved relations (and, arguably, economic interdependence) between the United States and
China. Discuss with your team: are there lessons to be learned from this case for other difficult
international relationships in the world today?

www.youtube.com</a>, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.</div></div>

▪ Consider this iconic image of the Yalta Conference toward the end of World War II, then (after researching the
details of the conference) discuss with your team: was this one of diplomacy’s finest hours?

What could have been a wonderful opportunity by the leaders of the three most powerful nations of the time to unite
the world in the aftermath of World War II was spoilt, for the most part, by 3 leaders hell bent on promoting their
own country’s agendas. As Wikipedia states:

“The aim of the conference[1] was to shape a post-war peace that represented not just a collective security order but
a plan to give self-determination to the liberated peoples of post-Nazi Europe. The meeting was intended mainly to
discuss the re-establishment of the nations of war-torn Europe. However within a few short years, with the Cold
War dividing the continent, Yalta became a subject of intense controversy.”

Churchill and Roosevelt (who wanted Russian participation in the UN at any price) in particular were totally
blindsided by Stalin, who went back on all his promises of allowing democratic free elections and imposed a
communist totalitarian regime on Poland and 7 other Eastern Block countries like Hungary, Bulgaria and
Romania. Naive! This sums it up:

“Because of Stalin’s strong promises and admission of guilt over Poland, Churchill believed that he would keep his
word regarding Poland, remarking “Poor Neville Chamberlain believed he could trust Hitler. He was wrong. But I
don’t think I am wrong about Stalin.”[16]
Here is a quite in-depth discussion. I would recommend possibly only for those with a deep interest in History!

▪ Learn about the diplomatic maneuvering behind the signing of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Is it indeed a triumph of
diplomacy, and could similar arrangements be made with other nations?
▪ Consider the practice of “panda diplomacy” by the People’s Republic of China. Discuss with your team: what
makes panda diplomacy so effective, and do other countries use similar tactics? Is it fair to the pandas?