THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD

DEBATE THE USE OF DIPLOMACY OVER ARMS

 

The Pen is Mightier than the Sword Debate the Use of Diplomacy over Arms

The pen is mightier than a sword, a phrase that is universally used to demonstrate the effectiveness of communication in dispute resolution compared to the use of arms. War is a more aggressive and destructive approach that when adopted to resolve existing conflicts creates not just tension but destruction as well. In today’s globalized setting, where countries rely on each other socially, economically and politically, conflicts are inevitable. Diplomacy, therefore, refers to the act of dealing with individuals tactfully and sensitively. Diplomacy involves managing foreign relations typically through a nation’s representatives in international settings. The practice involves negotiations between the affected countries with respect to addressing specific issues. It also means the use of administrative procedures to solve issues more effectively than violence. In general, diplomacy entails the use of non-aggressive approaches specifically communication to persuade the opponent in order to come to a common understanding.   The approach discourages measures that might lead to any form of destruction whether psychological, physical, economic, political, or social[1]. Countries are able to convey critical information through the use of diplomacy since it promotes peace and encourages efficiency. Hence, this report argues that diplomacy is a more effective deterrence than the use of arms as it promotes positive international relations, which encourages social, economic and political stability.

Diplomacy unlike the use of arms is more effective since it is highly valuable in maintaining healthy relationships[2]. Globally, states prefer to using diplomacy since it enhances their ability to guard their reputation with regard to integrity and transparency and this in return enhances their ability to deal with future disputes without the engagement of force[3]. The use of diplomacy creates a move toward peace by encourages people between the affected countries to interact both socio-economically and politically. The use of arms encourages countries to exercise excessive use of force to demonstrate their power and dominance which affects peace and leads to instability[4]. War deters the ability to think in a logical manner while diplomacy allows the affected parties to discuss, negotiate and come to an understanding about the issues affecting them. The use of diplomacy helps in creating alternatives that align with the needs of the party and allows them to settle for a solution that is mutually benefiting hence promoting better relationships[5]. The approach persuades the states to accept the measure for a particular benefit.

Diplomacy helps in ensuring a solution is designed and implemented, thus resulting in the durability of the results, unlike war. The effective use of this approach requires the application of tactics to ensure that the parties negotiate the interest that each desires. Unarguably, not all international issues deserve the use of force to resolve them[6]. Most conflicts between states emerge due to misunderstandings which can be addressed by enhancing communication. In the past war between states has resulted in destruction rather than benefit with some countries still struggling to recover from the hurt they encountered[7]. Arms were not developed to help manage conflict but protect a country from an enemy. Diplomacy offers little to no room for errors that are facilitated by major misunderstandings. The results are desirable and are experienced in the long-term across generations.

The results achieved through the use of diplomacy are generally agreeable and pleasant when compared to warfare. The use of arms supports the notion that it is only the most powerful nation that will survive[8]. One it is definite that the powerful state will win by overwhelming the weaker opponent the results are not agreeable. The state that has been defeated will remain bitter for a long-term owing to the suffering that it bears during and after the war. In warfare involved parties suffer greatly in terms of loss of resources, destruction, political instability, deaths, and irreversible injuries[9]. The case is however different when it comes to diplomacy where the only threat is verbal and this helps in mitigating destruction.

Diplomacy is a cheaper and less time-consuming alternative than the use of arms. Violence is an expensive approach that not only demands the states to invest their resources but also time. The military is often deployed in engage in the warfare and this means that the states incur losses as its resources are used to the maximum to fight the enemy and deaths are unavoidable[10]. The time spent in the war can be used in dealing with more valuable activities such as trade and this, therefore, disables the states. For instance, the United States invested heavily in its search for the infamous Osama Bin Laden who had terrorized its territories for years. Also, it is worth noting that war destroys the ability of countries to maintain economic relations. Through negotiations, this would have helped the country to save heavily and not waste as much time in the warfare that partially affected its foreign relations with Saudi Arabia[11]. In the globalized setting today, each state depends on the other for resources, services or selling its produce. It is these relationships that help in promoting the stability and sustainability of a nation.

Diplomacy is an ethical and feasible solution for enhancing foreign relations. Communication, as supported by diplomacy, supports states in settling for an alternative that supports the greater good for everyone rather than causing harm. Ethically speaking, the utilitarianism theory holds that the most ethical option is the one that generates the greatest good for the largest number of people. In other words, there is a need for differences between the right and wrong choices by mainly concentrating on the results[12]. An action that results in deaths, destruction and life-lime scars such as war cannot be considered as ethical given that it affects the welfare of the people[13]. On the other hand, diplomacy usually considers the well-being of all the involved parties and this is an ethical measure. Decisions should be guided by the anticipated consequences, if at any given time the alternative would hurt the states then it should be discouraged. Diplomacy helps in strengthening relationships and this serves the needs of the greatest number of individuals from all the involved parties.

Diplomacy helps in eliminating misunderstandings and fosters growth. Parties can present their grievances on the table and also highlight their interests. The approach helps in determining the source of conflict and creates an opportunity to develop solutions that align with the grievances of every party[14]. Communication goes a long way in understanding the views of each other and enabling states to compromise where possible to develop powerful relations.

Diplomacy has an immediate effect when it comes to resolving conflict than the use of arms. The form of communication that is supported by diplomacy involves the use of written and verbal approaches[15]. The measure is comprehensive since it covers all the aspects of the conflicts and helps in avoiding violence. Diplomatic activities spread faster in terms of addressing conflict and this has an immediate impact in terms of transforming the entire society. Due to the simplicity of the process, this allows the countries in reaching the set objectives. On the other hand, the use of arms takes time since there is no time negotiation and this affects the ability to attain the desired objectives in the short-term.

Moreover, diplomacy helps in changing the attitudes, perspectives, and wounds, which are created by warfare. The use of arms encourages retaliation in general, while diplomacy promotes better understandings[16]. Diplomacy can successfully assist in solving both major and minor issues that are likely to affect foreign relations. The use of arms goes against human rights, which normally discourages the use of excessive force leading to the death of innocent individuals.

                 However, while the use of diplomacy is critical in resolving a dispute, arms might prove to be effective where a party violates the rights of the other[17]. If a written agreement is violated by one party, the other might respond through the use of arms as a means of protecting its population and deterring the other from destroying it. Also, in the situation of invasions such as terrorism the use of arms is feasible over diplomacy since such situations demand urgent responses. Consequently, the approach to be used depends on the situation and the expected outcome of each conflict[18].

In conclusion, diplomacy is a more effective approach to solving disputes and enhancing foreign relations than the use of arms. Diplomacy is a cost-effective, time-saving, efficient, simple approach that results in desirable results. Warfare disadvantages weaker states by allowing those with more resources to win and the results are not agreeable since they favor one party over the other. Diplomacy provides an opportunity to solve issues peacefully without violence and therefore, promoting peace and discouraging retaliation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

The Hague Institute for Global Justice. "Modern Diplomacy as a Tool For Conflict Prevention? – The Hague Institute for Global Justice, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.org/latest-insights/latest-insights/commentary/modern-diplomacy-as-a-tool-for-conflict-prevention/

Al-Muftah, Hamad, Vishanth Weerakkody, Nripendra P. Rana, Uthayasankar Sivarajah, and Zahir Irani. "Factors influencing e-diplomacy implementation: Exploring causal relationships using interpretive structural modelling." Government Information Quarterly 35, no. 3 (2018): 502-514.

Ann, Sartori, A. E. Deterrence by diplomacy. Princeton University Press. 2013.

Ashraf, A., 2020. Deterrence and Diplomacy. In Deterrence (pp. 35-56). Springer, Cham.

Cohen, Dale J., and Minwoo Ahn. "A subjective utilitarian theory of moral judgment." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 145, no. 10 (2016): 1359.

Gee, A. (2015). "Who First Said 'The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword'?". BBC News, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30729480

Jönsson, C., 2018. International Relations Theory and Diplomacy. The Encyclopedia of Diplomacy, pp.1-16.

Mead, Walter Russell. Power, Terror, Peace, And War. Reprint, New York: Vintage Books, 2013.

Muldoon Jr, James P. Multilateral diplomacy and the United Nations today. Routledge, 2018.

Nye, Joseph S. Soft Power. Reprint, New York: PublicAffairs, 2009.

Winger, G., 2017. Soft power by other means: defense diplomacy as a tool of international statecraft (Doctoral dissertation).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Gee, A. (2015). "Who First Said 'The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword'?". BBC News, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30729480.

[2] Ashraf, A., 2020. Deterrence and Diplomacy. In Deterrence (pp. 35-56). Springer, Cham.

[3] "Modern Diplomacy As A Tool For Conflict Prevention? – The Hague Institute For Global Justice". Thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.Org, 2020.

[4] Mead, Walter Russell. Power, Terror, Peace, And War. Reprint, New York: Vintage Books, 2013.

[5] Ann, Sartori, A. E. Deterrence by diplomacy. Princeton University Press. 2013.

[6] Nye, Joseph S. Soft Power. Reprint, New York: PublicAffairs, 2009.

[7] Winger, G., 2017. Soft power by other means: defense diplomacy as a tool of international statecraft (Doctoral dissertation).

[8] Mead, Walter Russell. Power, Terror, Peace, And War. Reprint, New York: Vintage Books, 2013.

[9] Jönsson, C., 2018. International Relations Theory and Diplomacy. The Encyclopedia of Diplomacy, pp.1-16.

[10]"Modern Diplomacy As A Tool For Conflict Prevention? – The Hague Institute For Global Justice". Thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.Org, 2020. 

[11] Gee, A. (2015). "Who First Said 'The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword'?". BBC News, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30729480.

[12] Cohen, Dale J., and Minwoo Ahn. "A subjective utilitarian theory of moral judgment." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 145, no. 10 (2016): 1359.

[13] Nye, Joseph S. Soft Power. Reprint, New York: PublicAffairs, 2009.

[14] Al-Muftah, Hamad, Vishanth Weerakkody, Nripendra P. Rana, Uthayasankar Sivarajah, and Zahir Irani. "Factors influencing e-diplomacy implementation: Exploring causal relationships using interpretive structural modelling." Government Information Quarterly 35, no. 3 (2018): 502-514.

[15] Gee, A. (2015). "Who First Said 'The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword'?". BBC News, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30729480.

[16] Nye, Joseph S. Soft Power. Reprint, New York: PublicAffairs, 2009.

[17] Ann, Sartori, A. E. Deterrence by diplomacy. Princeton University Press. 2013.

[18] Muldoon Jr, James P. Multilateral diplomacy and the United Nations today. Routledge, 2018.