The Central Goal of Diplomacy

Question: What is the most important aspect of World Politics?

It seems as though I never can quite prepare myself to answer a question like this. To ask for such a blunt statement, that being the single most important facet of an entire field of knowledge, seems almost impossible given that the field itself has taken centuries to develop, attracting the best and brightest minds who, of anyone, should have found the answer to such a problem before. It doesn’t help that the field in question happens to be the one which most of us, me included, have chosen to devote the best years of our lives to, one which we must take absolutely seriously, and as such cannot simply brush off with a grand generalization as we would any other field. No, in order to pinpoint the single most important aspect of World Politics, we must attempt to answer such a root question with a similarly root explanation. Anything less would serve to minimize the extraordinary scope of the field and threatens to take away the intrigue with world affairs that has led us to this point. As the business of world politics is done between the world’s independent states, the first question, as I see it, is “What is a state?”

The definition of a state itself is not universally agreed upon. Though it generally consists of a tract of land and its corresponding independent governing body, the concept of diplomatic recognition tears this asunder. Any independent power is allowed to recognize whichever states they choose, regardless of political reality. Most widely-recognized countries, including the United Nations organization, recognize at least 193 independent states. However, there exist many cases where a piece of land under de-facto control of a rival government is recognized only by a small number of other bodies. Turkey is the only universally-recognized country to recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, despite the fact that it functions as if it were independent. A similar situation now exists in the Caucasus region, where Russia now officially recognizes Abkhazia and South Ossetia, despite the rest of the world’s refusal to do so. The countries of the world seem split on the issue of whether or not to recognize Kosovo as independent, regardless of who is actually in charge in Pristina. Louis XIV of France famously recognized himself as a state. I personally recognize over 800 independent countries, despite the disconnect from what most would deem the political reality. Yet, despite what may or may not actually exist in these places, to lack international recognition is to also lack any automatic leverage in world affairs. Without any partners with which to trade or communicate, the concept of foreign relations is rendered useless.

Of course, the ideological grounds on which a state is to be created must be fertile enough to garner international support. They generally fall into one of a few categories, and study of each reveals much about the priorities of those who recognize them. The first ideology supporting independence comes from a legal standpoint. Those in this category take the view that the state is essentially a legal entity, and can only be modified through appropriate treaties and charters. Such believers in this idea include the United Nations. When a problem of sovereignty is presented to the United Nations, the dispute is usually settled in accordance with past treaties and agreements. While this is probably the right direction to take, it often ignores the passions of the groups involved, which is the basis of the second ideology. The second ideology of separatism involves ethno-cultural differences, which have historically been the vehicles of state creation. This is the view that tends to be taken by those without the political juice, that countries are expressions of cultural identity. And while there is historical truth to that, it seems that the world’s governing bodies have largely abandoned this view in favor of the first, much to the chagrin of separatist groups worldwide.

These two competing theories represent a clash of ideology that has been consistently present since the dawn of time: modernity vs. tradition. The world’s major governments, including the United Nations, have all adopted the view that a state is a legal and sovereign entity charged with caring for its citizens and appropriating funds for the betterment of their societies (though in practice, this has not always been the case). Despite changes in demographics, a state’s borders tend to remain the same, since the idea of defining a state based solely on it’s resident ethnic group could be taken as racism. This often conflicts with the traditional view, that states represent a separate cultural group and serve to affirm its place in the world. On more than one occasion, these ideologies have squared off against each other. Take the Balkans, for example. When Bosnia-Herzegovina was embroiled in war, the Bosniaks, the Croats, and the Serbs were at each others throats, with each accusing the others of genocide. The Bosnian Serbs made national heroes out of men like Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, who ordered the killing of Bosniak civilians. It would, therefore, seem unthinkable for these three groups to live together in the same country. However, the United Nations, as well as most of its member states, was determined to keep Bosnia-Herzegovina as a single territorial unit, for fear that separation would only enhance the cause of other separatist regions. After the Dayton Peace Accords, Bosnia-Herzegovina remained a single country, but was split internally into two completely autonomous entities (including one small region in both places at once), with each of the three ethnic groups abiding by its own laws. Although peace has so far been more or less kept, it seems silly to allow for such extensive autonomy without allowing straightforward separation. Alternatively, in nearby Kosovo, the opposite happened: rather than operate entirely within the legal system, Kosovo was allowed to secede outright from Serbia. This is, of course, understandable; with a 9:1 Albanian-to-Serbian ratio, and a history of violence between the two groups, separation seemed like a necessity. However, in the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo had a similar status to other regions that have made attempts at independence, and granting it to Kosovo was, admittedly, a breach in existing protocol. For this new precedent to be accepted, a new legal statute must be created, which will undoubtedly have major effects on politics worldwide.

This rambling explanation ultimately brings me to what I believe is the most important aspect of World Politics: lending an authoritative legal framework to organized world powers, with the eventual purpose of establishing and facilitating channels of communication through which ends can be achieved without resorting to force. By granting a certain quality of legitimacy to the world’s greatest powers, politicians have been able to effectively transcend the anarchy which had formerly been the rule of law. Now that the players have been confirmed, relations between them can be conducted on multilateral terms, and this, in and of itself, is what world politics is all about.