The end of the cold war and 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 in contemporary diplomacy has always been undermined by USA and other permanent members of the UN security counicil. The aftermath of 9/11 terror attack on USA, shows US 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. Their may argument was that other countries cannot have "veto power" over matters of U.S. national security,as result war was the only option and not new diplomacy.
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 which were 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. 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.
After championing the formation of the United Nations, what then is justification for USA to use the same old politics and wars?
No comments:
Post a Comment