It sounds like yesterday when Genghis Khan, the Mongolian emperor (1162 - 1227) set out his mission of conquest in the name of either failed or successful diplomacy. Genghis Khan’s power of uniting the Confederations of Central Asia Plateau with tribes like Mongols, Merkitsm, Tatars, Naimans and Uyghurs attest to a true diplomatic attribute of diplomacy. Great warriors have immerged and conquered, but the evolution of Diplomacy still stands tall amongst.The Amarna letters corresponded between the great Pharaohs of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty and Amurru rulers of Canaan during the 14th century BC, following a battle of power in Kadesh (c. 1274 BC) where afterwards a peace treaty was signed in stone tablet fragments reflects another evolving nature of diplomacy.
Francesco Sforza illustrated in Renaissance Italy, how diplomacy should take a certain aspect of uniformity when he established permanent embassies in Milan. Different examples of Classical Greece (Proxenos), The Pope’s diplomatic missions through his Apocrisiarii to Constantinople where the Byzantine Emperor ruled, puts forward a supporting fundamental argument of how diplomacy has again changed for the past 1000 years.
I know u might ask your self: ‘why is he not giving the definition of diplomacy first and going about giving historic analyses'. Well, well, well. Diplomacy has no true definition, it preys on historic facts and evolves within theories of international relations where we have scientific interpreters who are much more involved in human nature and its correlation with the international system, whilst positivist sit on the side giving analysis of non scientific reasoning but historical facts. Power, economics, trade, war, culture has always been the key mechanism of balancing theories within this discipline.
There have been fundamental changes in the fabric of diplomacy where we use to have an old model of diplomacy which is contested to have been replaced by new diplomacy. The illustrations giving above from the times of the Pharaohs till contemporary times sums up an ironic thesis that, Aristocrats might have given up their strong opposition to changes in diplomatic circles when commoners where excluded from this upper class club. Another significant change in diplomacy is the open characteristic which has been embraced granting movers and shakers in decision making full access.
Non-governmental organisations are enjoying access to crucial diplomatic engagements where world issues are discussed and are occasionally invited to give assessments on various issues.
I believe changes that are been made in diplomacy will go a long way to strengthen our understanding of various ideas on not just regional level but internationally, However, politics and ideologies within this discipline might slow down the true characteristics of its evolving attribute.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePower don't need diplomacy
ReplyDeleteIt is a misnomer to characterise Genghis Khan and the Mongol leaders as a diplomats and his conquest of Europe right unto the gates of Vienna as anything but diplomacy. The Mongol hordes are a loosely confederated nomadic nation and after establishing his capital at Karakoram his followers swept into the grasslands of Europe bent on conquest, pillage and looting with no established administration but ruled by terror and intimidation. They ruled Russia indirectly for 300 years . If the Mongols do not inflict violence and terror on other nation the Khan’s tribe may turn on each other and start fighting among themselves. Such are the political culture of tribal kingdoms like the Ashanti in Ghana, and Shaka Zulu in South Africa, Attila the Hun from the steppes of Hungary-----all used a form of state terrorism to keep themselves in power. It is a political culture widely used by the Ottoman sultans right up to World War 1.
There are two very recent Russian made DVDs chronicling the rise and conquest of the Mongols, the storm from the east-----MONGOL directed by Sergei Bortov on the rise of Temudgin (1162) and BY THE WILL OF GENGHIS KHAN directed by Andrey Borisov which I recommend students to view so as to understand the real politics of the 12th century . Mongol history is devoid of any diplomacy because they either don’t need it or they don’t know how. It is all about power and how to use it in the realist view ( Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, et al) And this is no different from the realpolitik of today preached by George W.Bush’s NEOCONS. The Second Iraq War initiated by the US and UK to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his sons in 2004 was no different from the Mongol system of political theory and belief system of subjugation.
They ignored Tariq Ali’s Iraqi diplomacy and manipulated various UN Resolutions to suit their own political agenda negotiating from a position of strength( Henry Kissinger, Gearge F.Keenan, et al ) both US-UK was not going to be deterred by world opinion. A shrewd Chinese political leader called Mao Zedong once said that political power emanates from the barrel of a gun continue to hold true today .
The only Mongol leader that has ever used diplomacy was Kubilai Khan emperor of China and established the 12th century Yuan dynasty. He used the Chinese court diplomats to further China’s interest at home and abroad and attempted to invade Japan when she began to assert her independence from the Chinese World . Venetian traveller Marco Polo in his Travels has written widely about the Khan’s realm.
The Mongol conquests of Europe has built an empire greater than the British and in its legacy created the Ottoman state of Turkey, the Tartar-Muslim states of Russian Caucasia , Persia/Iran, Mughal India, and the Russian border states from Uzbekistan to Kirghizstan without any form of diplomacy being practiced .
So Daniel you have erred !!!!!!!! ToraToraTora .
That's an interesting exchange of views which raises the question of how we define diplomacy. Daniel seems to have a definition which equates diplomacy with statecraft generally, while ToraX3 thinks more along the lines I have explored in the lectures, defining diplomacy in terms of processes and structures of communication and negotiation.
ReplyDeleteJust two further points for Daniel to consider:
- It wasn't clear what you consider to be THE SINGLE most significant change to be;
- Some references to the academic literature would be good, espeically when referring to specific arguments.