Same Old Politics and Diplomacy

The end of the cold war and the formation of the United Nations set the stage for a new international relations and diplomacy. In it was a rejection of the old politics and diplomacy which were often characterised with wars. However, this new international system has in contemporary diplomacy been undermined by USA. The aftermath of 9/11 terror attack on USA, shows their unilateralism in their decision to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

The failure to use diplomacy shows they have been the main beneficiary of the international system that was developed to be the alternative to violence and armed conflicts after the cold war. However, they made the argument that other countries should not have "veto power" over matters of U.S. national security. The so called "threat of terrorism", and Iraq’s "weapons of mass destruction" were used to further USA aggressive agenda towards Iraq which dates back to the 90s. Iraq had their sovereignty restricted before the war in areas of military, economic development and sanctions imposed for an indefinite period. Whilst many countries favoured the use of diplomacy to afford war, President Bush was adamant that Iraq was a threat to world peace and security. So in hindsight was Iraq a threat to world peace and after championing the formation of the United Nations, what is justification for USA to use the same old politics and wars? The new diplomacy, it appears, has been accepted, but has it really. President Obama's have tried to use 'soft power and new diplomacy’ to repair USA tarnished image in the world and restore some of their lost power.



http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/19/content_11212165.htm