Diplomacy in its essence is the art of communicating effectively with a target audience in mind. It employs language, images, symbols and various other artifacts to mobilize public opinion. Briefly, it is to create persuasion through a range of modes and methods letting individuals think or act in ways very different from what they would otherwise.
In ancient time, the influence of it was confined as the means to sustain its longevity and durability to the larger audience was, technically speaking, limited.
However, in the light of the 21st century and all the advances that have been made, diplomacy has grown to become a tool…a power that affects decision making process of the establishment.
Further, diplomacy goes lethal and acts as a catalyst if combined harmoniously with what we call ‘rhetoric’ in modern time.
Diplomacy is the ‘subtle and skillful handling of a situation’ or ‘the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations’, and thus carries countless shades of meanings depending upon the context being used. It has led to such variants as dollar diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, power diplomacy and so forth to reach agenda of specification.
Diplomacy further takes two different courses to meet its end…the first is known as ‘diplomacy of words’ while the second is referred to ‘diplomacy of actions’.
What is happening at global level with policies concerning Iran and Israel has a direct relevance to the art of diplomacy of ‘words’ as well as diplomacy of ‘actions’.
While nuclear proliferation of Israel as a finished ‘product’ exists as a threat to Arab nations is downplayed, the aspiration of Iran having a ‘product’ of nuclear technology in the process is posed as a grave danger to fellow Muslim nations.
While Israeli history of Arab carnage is diplomatically termed as an action in self- defense against looming threat of terrorism, the trivial ruffle along Yemeni and Saudi Arabian border is flared up as a making of Iran’s ambition to devour the Arab world.
‘Diplomacy of words’ is a strategy to safeguard Israeli interest despite aggressive record of its disobeying international injunctions, Iran’s humbleness to exist with dignity is demonized resulting into ‘diplomacy of actions’ by global power to downsize its emerging status.
All assistance to Israel is on its way to appear even stronger and slaughterer; Iran is pushed to the brink of vulnerability.
While access to nuclear technology by Pakistan is labeled as a balance of power in conflict with India, Iran’s diplomacy to balance the same equation with Israel is construed as a rebellious obsession.
The upsetting side of diplomacy is that even some of the Arab nations have been cajoled into false belief of Iran’s nuclear existence as a danger shielding Israel’s aggressiveness in the background.
Recently, a debate ‘Should Iran like Israel be allowed to have a nuclear program?’ was telecast by the BBC World Service under the platform known as Doha Debate. Though the motion was narrowly defeated, yet it left viewers with a conclusion of Iran’s ambition of nuclear technology as a disturbing phenomenon… a ploy of diplomacy to exaggerate points against Iran’s interests in the garb of promoting democratic values and freedom of speech in the Arab world.
The truth is painted as false and the otherwise is reflected as truth. What is happening with Iran as a part of diplomatic aggressiveness was executed in practice against Iraq in the identical perception of imagined threat.
Whether Arab’s security lies in the balance of power in the region with Iran as a nuclear state side by side Israel or vice versa is open to further critical analysis but what is needed at the moment is that ‘the diplomacy of actions’ being directed against Iran, should be advanced to neutralize Israel’s nuclear hegemony in the region to balance the deal. But will that ever happen? Well! The diplomacy of politics has different yardstick .The words of Randolph Bourne, ‘Diplomacy is a disguised war’ are very much true to the conflict.
How can the possession of same weapon in one’s hand (Israel) is regarded as a defense mechanism, while in another’s hand (Iran) as an evil apparatus knowing both see each other as enemy?
The fact is that the decency of diplomacy has gone far beyond the lowest level of reason in pursuit of individual national interest. Can we deny Ambrose Bierce’s quote ‘Diplomacy is the patriotic art of lying for one’s country?”
It is time for the world community to resist favoritism and prejudice in allowing the course of diplomacy to reach its own logical conclusion and strengthen the institution of it to promote the larger goal of ‘diplomacy for humanity’.
