Vishruth Week 9: War and Diplomacy
What is the line between diplomacy and war? Diplomacy has guided foreign and domestic relations for centuries, but when it fails war is likely to ensue. Take the Civil War, for example. This fight over slavery was the deadliest war in American history with a death toll of 600,000. Yet the North and South were able to resume relations, despite their ferocious disagreement about slavery. This can be attributed to the remarkable diplomacy and willingness to compromise shown by both Union and Confederate leaders. Ulysses S. Grant pushed for conditions that held the Confederate states responsible, but did not alienate them. Slavery was abolished forever, but the respect with which both sides viewed each other never faltered.
Before diplomacy, war was the first and only option. One side won and the other lost; there was no in-between. Through war, we have lost whole populations, religions, and beliefs. They shaped the modern world. Just imagine the state of the United States without the Civil War and the issue of slavery ever being resolved. Would the United States still be the “melting pot” of cultures that it so proudly embodies? But as the human race advanced scientifically and grew secular, it became increasingly evident that the loss of human life should be avoided. Modern diplomacy was born.
Diplomacy became the standard in the early 20th century, providing nations the ability to develop global relationships. Diplomacy strengthened the American economy and ultimately led to its position as a world power. John D. Rockefeller, an American businessman with German roots, pioneered the mass consumption of oil as an energy source and transformed the United States into a global competitor for the first time. Elon Musk is arguably the driving force behind the fourth industrial revolution. Musk was born in South Africa and moved to the United States at age 24.
But as we contemplate the benefits of diplomacy and war from afar, officials are faced with the decision in real time. Personally, I strongly support a diplomacy-first approach. The Russia-Ukraine war strongly influenced my perspective. This brutal war resulted in 500,000 casualties. Is it worth giving up thousands of lives over a power grab in the modern world? Even though a war may make sense politically, it is not ethically reasonable at all. Higher officials should consider the impact of war on the lives of civilians. There may be instances when war is the only reasonable option. But at this point, other nations should seek to maintain the peace. Maintaining standards of diplomacy is a responsibility that every nation should assume.
I agree and personally think that the idea of sacrificing the lives of many people in order to achieve a "power grab" is shallow. I'm glad that we have gotten some kind of development over the past couple of decades, and you make it apparent that this has been occurring for a while through the way you write about these historical events like a story. It may have taken us a while, but for us to go from resorting to war to now relying on diplomacy really displays the sheer power America has, especially economically as you have mentioned. While using your power in the case of a war by appearing as violent and threatening in order to have more control may be somewhat effective, the overall consequences heavily outweigh the pros, especially if initiating a war ends up becoming the first approach.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what happened to this blog, as some of the paragraphs ended up extending outside of the page. But even then, I enjoyed how straight-forward your writing style is. Especially when describing historical events that require a lot of memory in order to write about it accurately, you were able to make them easily digestible for your readers. Although I'd like it if your ideas on power and peace between nations were more combined and form more seamless transitions, (perhaps by recalling previous information you wrote and connecting it to what you are now writing,) I enjoyed reading your personal opinion on how America should go about their use of power.