Padrão de Resposta

Diplomacy lacks a consensual conceptualization and its non-violent character is controversial among scholars and practitioners. In effect, as noted by Marie Julie, diplomacy is centered on the establishment of peaceful contacts and on the peaceful settlement of conflicts in the international system. At the same time, as argued by T.B. Millar, diplomacy also entails the use of threats for political persuasion. These two antagonistic views can be reconciled in the daily practice of Diplomacy, when we accept the two-fold character of diplomacy: a mechanism for promoting peace and an expression of state power, as can be seen in the foundation of the UN and in the Cold War.
After World War II, diplomacy contributed to creating the United Nations, which stems from negotiations and dialogs led by diplomats in their daily effort to promote cooperation and the peaceful conduct of relations. However, diplomats represent the interests of their States and, sometimes, they experience tensions in negotiations with other countries that can lead to threats or to the imposition of their will. Indeed, in the context of the creation of the Security Council, it became clear that Russia, China, France, the UK, and the US would act as the guardians of the international system, even by force, as the Suez episode would demonstrate. The UN is the principal stage for the art and practice of diplomacy, as argued by Marie Julie, in a peaceful manner, and most of the daily practice of diplomats can be conducted in the way prescribed by Liberalism, with focus on trade and absolute gains. However, at times, diplomats use the threat of force to persuade other countries to act according to their interests, as prescribed by Realism, Diplomacy is the combination of these two impulses, which make up the essence of this activity.
During the Cold War, the use of coercive diplomacy did not mean the end of the development of cooperative diplomacy, as these two types of conduct are part of the daily practice of Diplomacy. In effect, in 1962, the US threatened Cuba and the Soviet Union after the Americans had found weapons in Cuba that could be used against the US, which led to the establishment of a direct line between the President of the US and of the Soviet Union and to a more cooperative phase of the Cold War. As these historical examples demonstrate, diplomacy is always acting on a continuum that involves negotiating trade accords, resolving conflicts, and the possibility of the use of force. Even if the West and the East were opposing sides in the dispute for power, there were attempts to negotiate treaties to limit the use of force, such as the START. Diplomacy and its daily practice go beyond simplistic views that separate force and diplomacy, for it lies in peaceful understandings, but also in sharp power. Therefore, Marie Julie's statement and T. B. Millar's quotation are perfectly reconciled in the daily practice of Diplomacy, which consists of peaceful and coercive means to achieve political objectives.
Diplomacy lacks an agreed definition and the attempts to define it have often led authors to draw a clear-cut line between its peaceful nature and its coercive tools. However, the daily practice of Diplomacy reveals that Marie Julie's view can be reconciles with T. B. Millar's, as we understand the two-fold character of Diplomacy: a tool for promoting peaceful relations and an expression of state power, which compels the diplomat to make decisions considering this continuum.