Diplomacy and Deterrence
-
Is diplomacy a more important factor than deterrence for international dispute to be solve?
-
Diplomacy is acting nice even though you don't mean it.
Deterrence is putting the message clearly to stay away, or else.
-
it's obviously diplomacy. for example, we can counter the terrorists by 'being friendly' to them rather then show them 'we are not afraid of u' attitude. no matter how secure our country is, the terrorists got a countless plans to attack us we are helpless in countering it.
-
Both are equally important.Originally posted by Hocklez:Is diplomacy a more important factor than deterrence for international dispute to be solve?
Being nice without power to back it up is useless.
Having the power but getting everyone upset will means everyone is against you. -
Hi!
I am not very sure what you meant but I assume you are asking whether diplomacy is more effective than deterance in settling international dispute.
I think it is really dependent on many issues such as the relative power of the states that are involved in the dispute, the nature of the dispute, the personality of the chief executive etc..
As to skyfoo remarks.. (Sorry, I do not know how to do the quote thingy. Somebody teach me pls)
Dealing with terrorist is another matter althogether. Most of the terrorist are not recongized as 'legitamate player' in the international arena. And if they are not recongized as 'legitamate player', there will no room for diplomacy.
Just my $0.02.
Pardon my spelling... Work has dull my senses.. -
Soviet Union was a powerful superpower once with extensive influence over many parts of the world when it pursued velvet-gloved diplomacy which delivered an unknown but insidiously powerful punch.
However, it took off its glove to deliver its punch exposing its many weaknesses in the process when it went into field conflict in Agfhastan very unfortunately.
From that point, USA was able to cleverly inducing Soviet more into field conflicts to further capitalize on its weaknesses eventually weakening Soviet Union leading to its final collapse.
Had Soviet Union remained in the old game of insidious quiet diplomacy while reserving its military might for coercive extension of its power, it would not have collapsed that fast. Or will it?
Singapore should avoid the Soviet Mistake of trying to go into field conflict or extending itself beyond its control or reach. A quiet diplomacy from behind the scene while reserving its military power as real back-up for protection of vital move will be the best foreign policy for Singapore to adopt.