International Affairs Security Studies

¶ … diplomacy is more likely to work in the de-escalation than the escalation phase. If we have a brief look at the definitions of the two phases, escalation is a phase where "adversaries begin to make greater threats and impose harsher negative sanctions." It is obvious that this phase has left the field of constructive diplomacy.

We are no longer talking about negotiations, but about "threats" and "negative sanctions." The de-escalation phase "involves changes within each of the adversaries as well as new forms of interaction between them." The stalemate that has occurred till then makes them more willing to negotiate, so this would be an adequate phase to solve the conflict in a diplomatical manner. The diplomacy in the de-escalation period should be characterized by small steps towards reducing the tension and towards a gradual normality of the relations between the two parties.

Mistrust between the adversaries is another condition that should be taken into consideration. If this hurdle is overcome, the adversaries would find it easier to negotiate because they will be able to trust that the concessions accorded on a diplomatical channel will be carried out. A third thing that should be taken into consideration is a conciliatory gesture that one of the adversaries needs to make. This will move the conflict form the tension area to a more amiable atmosphere and create the premises for a diplomatic meeting. 2.

I think the main question that is to be addressed here is whether diplomacy and the other crisis management instruments are complementary or whether they reciprocally exclude the others. Even if ideally, we would like to believe that they exclude each other, they seem to be rather complementary. In theory, diplomacy is associated with a peaceful solving of the conflicts and, in this sense, it excludes the other means which tend to be conflictual and to attempt a solving of the crisis not necessarily peaceful.

However, we should consider the fact that diplomacy is often the channel by which the use of other instruments is communicated to the adversary. In many cases, diplomacy is an extremely powerful tool as a communication channel for the threatened use of retaliation measures. The most practical example that comes to mind is in the case of economic crisis. The two parties that are in conflict threaten each other during the diplomatic negotiations with the use of different retaliation measures, such as increased custom taxes or other protectionist measures.

As we see here, diplomacy comes together with conflictual instruments and is used with them. Thus, we may admit that often diplomacy tends to be a communication channel by which other instruments, their use and threatened use, are passed on to the other parties. 3. An excellent example of a crisis that was indeed solved by diplomacy was the Cuban missiles crisis. I have chosen to discuss this particular case because of the possible consequences that this crisis could have had.

If we refer to crisis and attempt a classification, there are low priority crisis (like, for example, a crisis between two small states, with an insignificant number of inhabitants and with reduced consequence), medium priority crisis and high priority crisis.

The missiles crisis is, of course, of highest priority, not only because the two powers involved were nuclear powers (and this amplified considerably the consequences of the crisis), but also because the two powers were in fact the two world super powers and perhaps the only states capable of destroying life and the Earth. From my point-of-view, the successful management of such a crisis was the greatest achievement of modern diplomacy.

Even if the differences between the two adversaries were considerably large and even if the situation itself (the presence of nuclear missiles so close to the.