Tutorial 4: diplomacy and war

European diplomacy

What is the definition of preventive diplomacy?

\
Preventive diplomacy refers to actions or institutions used to prevent political disputes between or within nations from escalating into armed conflicts

What are the three stages of preventive diplomacy?

\

1. Early warning: This involves identifying potential sources of conflict and gathering information about them.
2. Diplomatic action: This involves diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict, such as mediation or negotiation.
3. Deployment: This involves deploying international forces to prevent or contain the outbreak of violence.

Why is preventive diplomacy underrated?

Preventative diplomacy is often underrated because it is not always visible or measurable, and success is often defined by the absence of conflict rather than the prevention of it. Additionally, preventative measures may not receive the same attention or resources as response measures, such as military intervention or peacekeeping operations.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of preventive diplomacy?

\
* The strengths of preventative diplomacy include its ability to address potential conflicts before they become violent and its potential to save lives and resources.
* The weaknesses include the difficulty of predicting conflicts, the potential for preventative measures to escalate the situation, and the lack of political will or resources to support such efforts.

Can preventive diplomacy be effective in every situation? Why or why not?

Preventive diplomacy may not be effective in every situation. Its effectiveness depends on several factors, including the willingness of conflicting parties to engage in diplomacy, the severity of the conflict, the level of international support, and the resources available for diplomatic efforts. Preventive diplomacy may be less effective in situations where there is a lack of political will among conflicting parties to resolve disputes, where there are deep-seated historical or cultural differences, or where there are powerful external forces that benefit from continued conflict. However, despite its limitations, preventive diplomacy remains an important tool for preventing and resolving conflicts.

What are some examples of successful preventive diplomacy?

several examples of successful preventive diplomacy:

Lund mentions several examples of successful preventive diplomacy, including the early warning system established by the UN in Namibia, the UN's role in preventing conflict in El Salvador, the OAS's role in resolving the conflict in Guatemala, and the US-led diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus.

What is the role of political forecasting in preventive diplomacy?

\
According to Lund, political forecasting is an essential part of preventive diplomacy because it can help identify potential conflicts before they become violent. By understanding the underlying causes of tension and predicting how different actors are likely to respond to different situations, policymakers can take proactive measures to prevent conflict. Lund argues that political forecasting is not a gamble but rather a necessary tool for effective preventive diplomacy.

What is a critique of preventive diplomacy?

A critique of preventive diplomacy is that it tends to be overly focused on preventing violent conflicts and ignores the underlying political, economic, and social issues that contribute to instability and conflict. Stedman argues that preventive diplomacy should also address the root causes of conflict and work towards long-term solutions rather than just short-term prevention of violence.

What mix of measures is needed to resolve disputes?

A mix of measures is needed to resolve disputes, including preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping, peacemaking, peace enforcement, and post-conflict peacebuilding.

What is the overall conclusion on preventive diplomacy?

The overall conclusion of preventive diplomacy is that preventive diplomacy is an essential tool for preventing conflicts, and its potential is often underrated. He argues that a mix of preventive measures, including political, economic, and military measures, is needed to resolve disputes effectively. it is also emphasized the importance of political forecasting and early warning systems in preventive diplomacy. While we acknowledges the challenges and limitations of preventive diplomacy, it is a worthwhile endeavor that can save lives and resources.

What is the main argument made in "Getting to Yes with Iran"?

The main argument is that it is possible for the United States to negotiate a deal with Iran over its nuclear program, but this will require a shift in the way that the U.S. approaches negotiations and a recognition of the factors that shape Iran's behavior. we argue that the U.S. needs to offer Iran credible assurances that it is not seeking regime change and that it is willing to recognize Iran's legitimate security concerns in the region. At the same time, the U.S. needs to maintain pressure on Iran through sanctions and other means in order to convince Iran that it is serious about its demands, while also recognizing the limits of this pressure and the need for compromise.

What is the root of the conflict between the United States and Iran?

Jervis argues that the root of the conflict between the United States and Iran is a fundamental lack of trust and understanding between the two nations, which has been exacerbated by a long history of hostility, mutual misperceptions, and missed opportunities for rapprochement. He suggests that both sides must work to overcome this mistrust and improve communication if they hope to resolve their differences and prevent the escalation of tensions.

\

\
How could the United States achieve a negotiated settlement with Iran?

the United States can achieve a negotiated settlement with Iran by pursuing a two-track approach: first, the U.S. should offer Iran incentives to come to the negotiating table, such as sanctions relief or security guarantees; and second, the U.S. should engage in sustained diplomacy with Iran, with a focus on building trust and finding common ground. Specifically, Jervis argues that the U.S. should focus on confidence-building measures, such as exchanging cultural and scientific delegations, as well as making concessions on issues that are not central to U.S. interests, such as Iran's peaceful nuclear program. Ultimately, Jervis believes that a negotiated settlement with Iran is possible, but that it will require both patience and flexibility on the part of the United States.

\

\
 What should we consider on the use of force as a means of dealing with Iran's nuclear program?

while the use of force cannot be ruled out entirely, it should only be considered as a last resort. we believes that the military option would be costly and ineffective in terms of achieving the United States' objectives. Instead, I would advocate for a negotiated settlement that would allow Iran to maintain a peaceful nuclear program while providing assurances that it is not developing nuclear weapons.

\
What role does public opinion play in the U.S.-Iran conflict?

public opinion plays a significant role in the U.S.-Iran conflict. He suggests that U.S. policymakers need to be aware of the domestic constraints on the Iranian government and how public opinion in Iran shapes the government's actions. Similarly, he argues that U.S. public opinion can constrain U.S. policymakers and make it difficult for them to engage in diplomacy with Iran. Jervis suggests that policymakers need to be aware of these constraints and work to build support for a negotiated settlement with Iran.

What are the potential benefits of a negotiated settlement with Iran?

Jervis argues that a negotiated settlement with Iran would have several potential benefits. Firstly, it would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, which could destabilize the region and trigger a nuclear arms race. Secondly, it would reduce the likelihood of a military confrontation between the United States and Iran, which could have severe economic and human costs. Thirdly, it would allow the United States to focus its attention and resources on other foreign policy challenges, such as the rise of China and the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria. Finally, it would improve the United States' standing in the international community by demonstrating its ability to resolve conflicts through diplomacy and negotiation.

What is the impact of a nuclear-armed Iran on the balance of power in the Middle East?

Jervis argues that a nuclear-armed Iran would not fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East. He suggests that other regional powers, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, already possess nuclear weapons or have the capability to acquire them, and that a nuclear-armed Iran would simply create a more complex balance of power. Jervis also notes that a nuclear-armed Iran could potentially act as a deterrent against military aggression, as is the case with other nuclear-armed states. However, he also acknowledges the potential risks of nuclear proliferation in the region and the need for effective safeguards and monitoring to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

\
How can the United States address Israel's concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran?

Jervis suggests that the United States should provide security guarantees to Israel to address its concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran. Specifically, he suggests that the United States should offer to extend its nuclear umbrella to cover Israel, which would mean that the United States would use its own nuclear weapons to deter any nuclear attack on Israel by Iran or any other country. Jervis argues that such security guarantees could help to reduce Israel's anxieties about a nuclear-armed Iran and thus make it more likely that Israel would support a negotiated settlement with Iran.

what should we consider on the prospects for a successful negotiated settlement with Iran?

Jervis is cautiously optimistic about the prospects for a successful negotiated settlement with Iran. He acknowledges that reaching an agreement will be difficult, given the deep mistrust and hostility that exist between the two countries, but he also believes that a deal is possible if both sides are willing to make the necessary concessions. He suggests that the United States should approach the negotiations with a clear understanding of Iran's concerns and interests, and that it should be prepared to offer Iran tangible benefits in exchange for concessions on its nuclear program. He also emphasizes the importance of building trust between the two countries, and suggests that this could be achieved through a series of confidence-building measures.

What is necessary for the United States to successfully negotiate with Iran?

Jervis argues that in order for the United States to successfully negotiate with Iran, it is necessary to have a better understanding of Iran's historical and cultural context, as well as its perceptions and interests. This requires a willingness to engage in sustained and serious dialogue, as well as a recognition of Iran's legitimate security concerns. Additionally, Jervis argues that the United States must be willing to offer Iran significant concessions, including the lifting of sanctions, in order to reach a negotiated settlement. Finally, Jervis stresses the importance of building trust and confidence between the two countries, which will require a significant amount of time and effort.

\
What are some of the challenges of negotiating with Iran?

1. The complex domestic politics of Iran, which make it difficult for any Iranian leader to make significant concessions without appearing weak or being criticized by hardliners.
2. The long history of mistrust and hostility between the United States and Iran, which has created deep-seated animosity and suspicion on both sides.
3. The influence of third-party actors such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, who have their own agendas and interests in the region.
4. The difficulty of verifying Iranian compliance with any agreement, given Iran's history of deception and concealment in its nuclear program.
5. The fact that Iran's nuclear program is seen by many Iranians as a symbol of national pride and technological advancement, making it politically difficult for Iranian leaders to abandon the program entirely.

\
How should the U.S. approach negotiations with Iran?

Jervis suggests that the U.S. should approach negotiations with Iran by taking a realistic and pragmatic approach. This involves recognizing Iran's interests and concerns, as well as acknowledging the historical grievances that Iran has with the United States. Jervis also emphasizes the importance of building trust between the two countries through small, incremental steps, and he advocates for the use of "confidence-building measures" to help establish a foundation for future negotiations. Additionally, Jervis argues that the United States must be willing to make some concessions in order to achieve a negotiated settlement with Iran.

\
What is the effectiveness of sanctions against Iran?

Jervis argues that while economic sanctions can be effective in pressuring Iran to negotiate, they are unlikely to force Iran to completely abandon its nuclear program. He suggests that sanctions can be most effective when they are part of a broader strategy that includes diplomacy and negotiation, and when they are designed to encourage Iran to come to the negotiating table rather than simply punish it for its behavior. Additionally, he notes that sanctions can have unintended consequences, such as strengthening hardliners in Iran and damaging the Iranian economy, which could ultimately make it more difficult to reach a negotiated settlement.

\

\
What is your view on the role of domestic politics in U.S.-Iran negotiations?

Jervis acknowledges the role of domestic politics in shaping U.S. policy toward Iran, but he also argues that domestic factors are not the only factors at play. He emphasizes the importance of recognizing the complexity of the U.S.-Iran conflict and the need for a multifaceted approach that takes into account both domestic and international factors. In his view, policymakers must strike a balance between addressing the concerns of domestic constituencies and pursuing a foreign policy that serves U.S. interests in the broader context of international relations.