Diplomacy, Henry Kissinger PDF

Preview

Summary

DIPLOMACY1-- The new world order In each century, a country seems to emerge with the power to modify the entire international system. In the twentieth century, no country had had as much influence as the United States. American thinking has oscillated between isolationism and compromise, although si...

Description

DIPLOMACY 1-- The new world order In each century, a country seems to emerge with the power to modify the entire international system. In the twentieth century, no country had had as much influence as the United States. American thinking has oscillated between isolationism and compromise, although since the end of the Second World War the realities of interdependence have prevailed. Unfortunately, the American ideal of international politics (based on democracy, free trade and law) is utopian. At the end of World War II, the United States was so powerful that it seemed that this country was destined to model the world according to its preferences. However, other countries have come into the category of great powers. Europeans have a much more pessimistic view of international politics. The United States is the only superpower in its hemisphere, but Europe’s historic superpowers concentrated in a relatively small space, creating a widespread sense of insecurity. In this way, Europe became involved in the politics of the balance of power. It was believed that, when this system worked properly, it limited the ability of some States to dominate others while reducing the scope of conflicts. Their goal was not so much peace, but stability and moderation. These systems have rarely existed in human history. For most of humanity, empire has been the usual form of government. The purpose of the separation of powers was to avoid despotism, not to achieve harmonious government. Each State was supposed to contribute to progress in pursuing its own selfish interests. The balance was broken at the beginning of the twentieth century, leading to the destruction of European civilization in two brutal world wars. As a result, the United States jumped to world fame, avoiding the balance of power in favour of an ideological crusade against its adversary, the Soviet Union. The relative military power of the United States will gradually decline. In this way, the functioning of the new international system will move towards a balance, including in the military sphere. The international system of the twenty-first century will be marked by an apparent contradiction: on the one hand, fragmentation; on the other hand, increasing globalization. There will be at least six major powers, as well as a large number of medium-sized and smaller countries. At the same time, international relations have become truly global for the first time. The two most stable international systems had the advantage of having uniform perceptions, but the emerging order must be built by statesmen representing vastly different cultures. The rise and fall of previous world orders founded in many States, from the Peace of Westphalia 1

to our time, is the only experience we can rely on to try to understand the challenges facing contemporary statesmen, as none of the most important countries to build a new world order has had any experience in the emerging multi-State system. Never before has a new world order had to be formed from so many different perceptions, not on such a global scale. That is why building this new order will be difficult. This is how, in the future, American leaders will have to adapt to be a superpower among many in a new world order, and would do well to consider the lessons of past superpowers and their efforts to build the world order.

2-- The hinge : Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson The Hinge: Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson The American foreign policy before the 20th century was based on isolationism and the Monroe doctrine, after the beginning of the 20th century America abandoned its isolationist politic through 2 main political figures that we are going to see next, they are Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosvelt, two presidents that wanted to see America have a greater role in the world but through different focus.

On the one hand Theodore Roosevelt based his doctrine on the premise that the Balance of power was inconceivable without America, on the other hand he brought the Monroe doctrine to its most interventionist interpretations as well as he state that America was a power like any other not a special incarnation of virtue. As a summary of his ideas we can define the Roosevelt Doctrine which was based on the conception of peace as the normal condition between nations as well as that it was no difference between the personal and public morality and that at the end America was safely insulted from the negative changes that affected the rest of the world. The concept of natural order that Roosevelt had passed through the the Spheres of Influences, which relied on a power dominating other countries in one region, that was the case of America in the Western Hemisphere. On the other hand we have Woodrow Wilson which didn’t pursued the balance of power, but instead his approach was the spread of American principles through the world, those principle were that peace depends on the spread of democracy, that status should be judged by the same ethical criteria as individuals and the the national interests consists in adhering to a

2

universal system of law. This principles led to the creation of the League of Nations which pursued the peace through collective security rather than alliances. Now regarding the Wilsons Ideology we can state that it was based on the following ideas: America as the guide to liberty of the rest of the mankind, the state and the individual have the same morality, the foreign policy of a democracy is superior and the security os America was inseparable from the security of the rest of the mankind. To finish we can say that the most important thing that Wilson has created was Wilsonianism, his doctrine that stated national trustworthiness instead of national self assertion and universal law instead of balance. Enlace con esquema sobre el capítulo: PDF

3-- From university to equilibrium : Richelieu, William of Orange, and Pitt · ·

·

· ·

·

·

·

European balance of power emerged in the 17th century because of the collapse of universality (ancient Europe based on that principle) Collapse of universality: mixture of the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church that represented the world order with one god in Heaven and one emperor on the secular world, and one pope on the Universal Church. Holy Roman emperor had central control in medieval Europe except for most of the medieval period because of the lack of transportation and communication systems that did not tie the territories and because of the separated controls of the Church and government, unlike other regions outside Western Europe. Conflict between pope and emperor established constitutionalism and separation of powers (basis of modern democracy). With Charles V (Hapsburg dynasty) imperial authority raised to a Central European empire, a very strong power to prevent the emergence of anything resembling the European balance of power. The Reformation gave princes a new freedom of action. Break between the religion and the emperor. New states emerging. They found regulations in their relations through the Raison d’état and in the balance  of power (each depended on the other). France was one of the First Nation-states in Europe. They benefited from the weakening of the Holy Roman Empire (more security and more good fortune and cable to expand eastward). Biggest agent= Cardinal Richelieu (1st France Prime Minister from 1624 to 1642). He was the father of modern state system (promulgated the concept of raison d’état =it was the operating principle of the French policy. He wanted to prevent Habsburg domination of Europe. Failure of this, a balance of power emerged and the system for organising International Relations. 3

·

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

·

· ·

Richelieu came with Ferdinand II (Spanish Hapsburg) when he was attempting to revive Catholic universality and stamp out Protestantism. This led to the Thirty Years War. Though Richelieu was a Catholic, he supported the Protestants to diminish the Spanish Habsburg domination and defend France’s interests. Scholars like Jansenius critique balance of power without protecting religion/ Mathieu de Morgues Strengthening the French states was in the interest of the well-being of the Catholic Church. After 1648 (Peace of Westphalia) the doctrine raison d’état grew into the guiding principle of European diplomacy. Richelieu feared a unified Central Europe and prevented it from coming about. He delayed the unification of Germany for some 200 years. New world: stronger states would seek to dominate and the weakest to form coalitions to resist Primary goal of balance of power was to prevent domination by one state and preserve international order, just to limit conflicts, not prevent them. Philosophers of the Enlightenment like Voltaire described a Christian Europe as a great republic divided into several states Montesquieu: States in Europe depend on each other. Europe is a single state composed of several provinces Emmerich de Vattel in 1758: members in Europe are independent but bound in a common interest (maintenance of order and preservation of liberty) HOWEVER, a lot of wars fought in the 18th century New powers emerged (Prussia and Russia) others declined (Spain and Sweden). A lot of wars happened (the war of Austria and the Seven Years War) When any state threatened to become dominant its neighbours formed a coalition to block the ambitions of the most powerful. England’s policy was based on maintaining the balance With Louis XIV (France), and William of Orange (UK), France wanted to conquer the Spanish Netherlands. Th greater alliance that modern Europe had ever seen emerged: Sweden, Spain, Savoy, Austrian Emperor, Saxony, Dutch Republic and England- the Grand Alliance. In England the Whigs (thought they had to maintain balance of power to preserve the integrity of the Island- wait and see policy) and the Tories (not only to protect but also shape the balance of power). Two attempts of France for dominating Europe: with Louis XIV and with Napoleon. The Concert of Europe (Congress of Vienna) for the last one The emergence of the European balance of power in the 18 and 19th centuries parallels certain aspects with the post-cold war era. Now also a lot of states pursuing national interests

4

·

After the Napoleonic wars, Europe was ready to design an international order based on the principles of balance of power

4-- The concert of Europe : Great Britain, Austria, and Russia Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia joined together in Vienna in 1814 to build a new arrangement known as the Concert of Europe. While the emerging system relied on the balance of power to keep the peace, it also relied on a common set of legitimating assumptions, which calmed conflict in a way that the earlier balance based on power hadn't. Although the concert system was not perfect, it was relatively effective in maintaining the peace and for almost a century Europe suffered only a single war: the Crimean War (1853–56). The central problem for the statesmen gathering in Vienna was how to organize the region of Central Europe. In order to establish the new balance, the German principalities were consolidated into larger states. The four victorious powers also entered the Quadruple Alliance to prevent further French expansion. In exchange, the victorious powers agreed to negotiate further disputes in a series of European congresses, in which France participated. Led by the Irish statesman Lord Castlereagh, British leaders hoped this new system of congresses would keep the peace between the states of Europe. The Austrian statesman Klemens von Metternich (1773–1859) was worried because a system with no commitment to shared values would be weak. Metternich especially worried that with France so weakened and Britain withdrawing from continental affairs, Austria would be left alone to face Russia's power. As such, Metternich sought to ground the new world order in a set of shared values. Metternich was a conservative, who believed in natural law and the divine right of sovereigns. Fortunately, this was a perspective he shared with Tsar Alexander I of Russia, providing an opportunity for legitimating the new order. Together, Metternich and Alexander built the Holy Alliance, a combination of Austria, Russia, and Prussia designed to maintain monarchies in Europe and head off liberal revolutions like the one that had occurred in France. The genius of the Holy Alliance was its ability to tame Russian

5

power, by convincing Russian leaders to turn their power toward a common goal with Austria and Prussia, instead of seeking to dominate them. Metternich wanted the Holy Alliance with Russia to prevent liberalism and a close relationship with Britain to contain Russian power, but British leaders didn't want to cooperate. Castlereagh (the Irish statesman mentioned above) recognized Austria as Britain's key ally in containing both France and Russia and sought to produce some sort of compromise that would keep Britain and Austria aligned; when he failed, Castlereagh took his own life in 1822. Absent British support, Metternich's system still kept Russia and Austria as close allies, but after Metternich left government in 1848, his successors failed to keep alive his vision of conservative legitimacy. Austria's foreign minister Count Karl von Buol (1797–1865) ultimately sided with Britain and France against Russia in the Crimean War, ruining Austro-Russian relations in the process. For their part British leaders after Castlereagh remained staunchly devoted to the detached balance of power, failing to recognize the importance of legitimating principle in buttressing their world order. 5-- Two revolutionaries : Napoleon III and Bismarck The collapse of Metternich system produced two decades of conflict, and a new balance of power emerged in Europe. France lost its predominance to Germany. The new European order was the handiwork of two arch-adversaries( Napoleón III and Otto Von Bismarck). Both based their policy on Realpolitik ( The notion that relations among states are determined by raw power and that the mighty will prevail) Napoleon hated the Vienna system because it had designed to contain France. And Bismarck hated because it locked Prussia into Being Austria´s junion partner. Napoleon was called “ Sphinx of the tuileries” because he believed to be hatching vast and brilliant designs. He was obsessed with the lack of legitimate credentials. Napoleon was better prepared to suit domestic policy, which bored him, so he took foreign adventures. Napoleon during all his mandate, tried to hold an European Congress to redraw the map of Europe. He opposed the Vienna settlement as an affront to France with no understanding that this was the best available security guarantee even for France, any nation agreed to redraw its borders, that is, Napoleon could never hold a congress. Napoleon made his first move In Italy in 1859, if it succeed, it would create a state in much a stronger position to block the traditional French invasion route. If it failed, the humiliation would be compounded by vagueness of the objective. Napoleon kept open two contradictory options in the move; In the better , Napoleon could play European Statesman but in the worse case, the war would reach a stalemate and Napoleon would play the machiavellian 6

manipulator of Raison D´etat. Prussia and Austria went to war which Prussia won very quickly, after the war, the treaty of Prague of 1866, forced Austria to withdraw with Germany. So Franco tried to alliance with Austria. But this also failed. His foreign policy collapsed because he was unable to establish any order among his multitude of aspirations or any relationship between them and the reality emerging all around him. Napoleon saw the Metternich system as humiliating to France. He was successful in disrupting the Holy Alliance by driving a wedge between Austria and Russia during the Crimean War, but he did not know what to do with the triumph. In the end, international politics came to be based on raw power, there was a inherent gap between France´s image of itself as the dominant nation of Europe and its capacity to live up. Napoleon called for a congress after the Crimean war, before the Italian war, during the Polish revolt, during the Danish war and before the Austro-Prussian war. To sum up, Napoleon relied on public opinion to bridge that gap, he conducted his foreign policy in the style of modern political leaders who measure their success by the reaction of the news. He had revolutionary ideas bur recoiled before their implications. The destruction of Vienna sytem was completed by Bismarck, he was also the first leader to introduce universal male suffrage to Europe. Under Bismarck´s realpolitik, foreign policy became a contest of strength, we wanted an internal german equilibrium between Austria and Prussia, The balance of Europe and a system of alliances based on the unity of conservative values. Bismarck´s attack on liberalism was an application of Metternich philosophy. Bismarck´s policy marked a return to the principles of Richelieu. He considered Prussia less vulnerable than Austria to either French expansionism or revolution. I have to underline a situation between Bismarck and Leoplod Von Gerlach. Leopold was the one who taught everything to Bismarck, and by letters, he asked him why Bismarck wanted to be an ally of Napoleon, if he was the natural enemy of Europe. The break between Gerlach and Bismarck became irrevocable in 1860, the war had eliminated all doubt that Napoleon true purpose was to set the stage for aggression in the style of Napoleon. Bismarck challenged the conventional wisdom which identified nationalism with liberalism, he rejected Metternich system, he just wanted to gain the influence of state and reorder Europe. In time, turning power into the inly criterion induced all nations to conduct armament races and foreign policies of confrontation. Within five years of coming to power in 1862, he eliminated the Austrian obstacle to German unity by implementing his own advice of previous decade. In 1850, Bismarck had considered the French option so essential that he broke his relation with Gerlach. Bismarck analyzed the reality and Prussia´s opportunity, he built so well that the Germany he created survived two world war. Where he failed was in having doomed his society to a style of policy which could only have been carried on a man emerged in every generation.

7

Finally, Napoleon´s tragedy was that his ambitious surpassed his capacities, but Bismarck´s tragedy was that his capacities exceed his society´s ability to absorb them. The legacy of Napoleon was paralysis, Bismarck´s was greatness.

6-- Realpolitik turns on itself Realpolitik is the foreign policy based on calculations of power and the national interest. It brings the unification of Germany, which at the same time caused Realpolitik to turn on itself: With this unification, Germany became the strongest country. In order to achieve balance the European countries tried to make alliance, to what Germany answered with alliances jointly with other countries. Anyway, the most of the 5 Great Powers were throw hard times, so thus, the relationship between Germany and Russia became key to the peace of Europe. And once Russia enters the international arena, it stablished a dominant position with astonishing speed. It become one of the two superpowers of the moment and even was compared with the Roman Empire. This dominant position, and all the conquers that it entails, bring vulnerability to Russia. At that point, when the Great Powers viewed each other, they no longer saw partners in a common cause but dangerous, even mortal rivals. Confrontation emerged as the standard diplomatic method. Bismarck was therefore the dominant figure of European diplomacy and he practiced the Realpolitik with such moderation and subtlety that the balance of power never broke down. Two events demonstrated that Realpolitik had become the dominant trend of the period: the first one, was the f...