Diplomat Magazine Netherlands Bordercrossing Academic Supervised by Eugene Matos De Lara by Diplomat Magazine Netherlands

Volume 1, Issue 14

Lessons of Diplomacy

April 2016 October 2016

October 2016

Letter from the Editor

Chief Publisher Eugène Matos De Lara

Dear Readers, Chief Editor Eric Wilkinson

Director

This month in Border Crossing our contributors tackle a diverse array of topics and issues. Some articles are unified by their exposition of Asian approached to diplomacy, particularly that of China, Japan, and India. Other authors instead focus on specific types of diplomacy and the forces that shape them.

Jillian Fernandez

Academic Advisors Arne Ruckert Dave Van Ginhoven Jennifer Haire Joseph Roman

Associate Publisher Amelia Baxter

Associate Editors Mete Edurcan Guillaume Lacombe-Kishibe Kristina R. Proulx

This month's issue opens with a useful outline of Japanese and Chinese diplomatic policy in Africa prepared by Seifudein Adem. Illustrating the historical epochs in diplomacy and changes in policy among the two Asian powers, Adem traces the changes in their respective diplomatic policies. Succinctly situating these changes in terms of the events that instigated them, Adem's chronology is an excellent starting point for those looking to build an understanding of Japanese and Chinese diplomacy in Africa. Following up Adem is Dr. Cecillia Lynch's piece “Christianity and Western Diplomacy: Strange Bedfellows?” contemplating the Christian roots of Western diplomacy and the practical implications of these roots today. Next is Ilan Kelman's work on the emerging field of disaster diplomacy, and Paul Sharp's exposition on international theory and diplomacy. Finally, this month's issue concludes with Umesh Mukhi's reflections on Yoga diplomacy. In Yoga, traditionally understood, Mukhi finds a powerful instrument of Indian soft power, one with an ever increasing scope as yogic practices spread throughout the world. The practices described by Mukhi promote precisely the mindfulness useful for reflection on the nature of diplomacy.

By email: bordercrossing.info@gmail.com (submissions)

Enjoy! Eric Wilkinson

In person: 19 rue le Gallois, Gatineau, Quebec, J8V 2H3 Canada

www.diplomatmagazine.nl

October 2016

Contents 6

AFRICA IN SINO-JAPANESE DIPLOMACY Seifudein Adem

CHRISTIANITY AND WESTERN DIPLOMACY: STRANGE OR OBVIOUS BEDFELLOWS? 9

Cecelia Lynch

A DIPLOMATâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S GUIDE TO DISASTER DIPLOMACY Ilan Kelman

INTERNATIONAL THEORY AND DIPLOMACY CURRENT TRENDS AND PRACTICAL VALUE 15

Paul Sharp

YOGA DIPLOMACY Umesh Mukhi

October 2016

Africa in Sino-Japanese Diplomacy

Dr. Seifudein Adem joined Binghamton University in 2006. He has more than two decades of teaching and research experiences in Africa, Japan and the United States.A political scientist by field of training and interest, with a special focus on Africa and Asia, Seifudein Adem is also Professor Ali A. Mazrui's intellectual biographer. Dr. Adem has received grants and fellowships from the US Government (USIA, 1990) and from the Government of Japan (Monbusho, 1996-98; JSPS, 2008-2010) as well as from private institutions in both countries (including from Tokyo Electric Power Company, 1992-1994; and Ford Foundation, 2008). He is a member of the Executive Board of International Studies Association (ISA)—Global South Caucus, and was the President of New York African Studies Association, 2010-2011. Professor Adem speaks Japanese, Russian, Amharic, Oromo, English and (basic conversational) Chinese. https://www.binghamton.edu/igcs/faculty-and-staff/sadem.html

Seifudein Adem A daughter of Chinese civilization. That was how Edwin Reischauer, the American diplomat-historian, once described Japan. He had in mind the ethno-cultural ties between China and Japan. But, apparently, neither side sees that fact as relevant today as a bilateral hostility has become the defining and recurrent feature of Sino-Japanese relations. In December 2015, China’s leader Xi Jinping was in Johannesburg, South Africa, for consultations with Africa’s leaders about Africa’s economic development. In August 2016, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was also in Nairobi, Kenya, and for the same reason. In the background, Chinese and Japanese diplomats argued over who has Africa’s interest at heart. This means China and Japan are now ready to compete not only for raw materials and markets but also for respect and love in Africa. Keeping that in mind, let us review the distinct phases in Sino-Japanese diplomatic thought on Africa. China and Africa There have been three stages in China’s diplomacy in Africa. Bandung Diplomacy:-The first phase (1955-1978) began in Bandung (Indonesia) at the conference of Afro

Asian countries. In the subsequent years, China supported national liberation movements in Africa, and forged relations with independent African countries so long as they were not close friends of the US. Later, the ideological litmus test became the Soviet Union. This phase of China’s diplomacy was conducted in the shadow of Mao’s ideologicallyinspired experiments at home, which included the Hundred Flowers Experiment (1956), the Great Leap Forward (1958-60) and the Cultural Revolution (1965-67). After Mao’s death in 1976, the role of ideology in China’s diplomacy and domestic politics waned, running its course in 1978. Deng Diplomacy:-Deng Xiaoping’s “Four Modernizations” heralded the beginning of the second phase of China’s diplomacy in Africa (1979-1989) which also coincided with the end of the liberation project in the continent, except for Southern Africa. Ideology ceased to be a major consideration. China thus established relations with countries like Zimbabwe, Angola and Ivory Coast. The Tiananmen incident in 1989 sealed the end of the second phase of China’s diplomacy in Africa, while heralding the third phase. The incident brought China and many

African countries closer even as it led for a while to China’s global isolation. So, to the extent Sino-African relations are concerned, it could be said that this phase ended on a high note. Resource Diplomacy: The third phase (1990-Present) of China’s diplomacy in Africa has been marked by the end of the Cold War globally and the triumph of market socialism in China. It saw accelerated economic and diplomatic interactions between China and African countries. China’s trade with Africa grew by leaps and bounds in this period, and its leaders became frequent guests of their African counter-parts. Japan and Africa Japan’s diplomacy in Africa began in 1961 when Africa Division was created in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It has passed through five phases. Cold War Diplomacy:-In this phase (1961-1973), Japan seriously took upon itself the role of supporter of America, vowing to curb the spread of Communism in the continent by ensuring its diplomacy was in lockstep with America’s overall Cold War strategy. But Japan’s Cold War Diplomacy in Africa was to come to an abrupt end in 1973, when the

October 2016

Organization of Petroleum Producing Countries (OPEC) decided to raise the price of oil. Resource Diplomacy:-One effect of the OPEC decision was therefore to usher in the second phase of Japan’s Africa diplomacy (1974-1992) in which the nation realized more than ever before that it must diversify sources of energy and other raw materials critical to its industries. So, Japan paid attention to Africa, too, sending its Foreign Minister (Toshio Kimura) for the first time to visit the continent in 1974. That relatively small Arab states in the Middle East could cause such an anxiety in the mighty Japan was therefore enough to add a new dimension in the latter’s relations with the primary producers in Africa, and elsewhere. TICAD Diplomacy:- In 1993, Japan’s emphasis shifted from a single-minded focus on resources to its global aspirations. The nation displayed greater independence in its Africa diplomacy, took of certain initiatives such as the launching of the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) in the same year. Japan became a leading Official Development Assistance donor. The first-ever visit to Africa by a Japanese prime minister also took place when Yoshiro Mori visited Kenya, South Africa and Nigeria in 2001. Mori’s successor, Junichiro Koizumi visited Ghana and Ethiopia in 2006. We can therefore say that Japan’s diplomacy in Africa from 1993 to 2006 was full of energy and dynamism, and reflected the nation’s international status. Just like Japan’s Cold War Diplomacy came to an end before the end of the Cold War itself, however, Japan’s TICAD Diplomacy also began to fade away while TICAD structure was still in place. Post-TICAD Diplomacy:-Between 2007 and 2013, Japan’s diplomacy in

Africa looked less vigorous, partly reflecting the drastic changes in the conditions which had inspired a vibrant diplomacy in the previous phase. The new international realities included the fact that China became the largest trading partner of Japan in 2008 and of Africa in 2009. Globally, China overtook Japan as the second largest economy in 2010. No Japanese prime minister visited Africa in this period, including Mr. Taro Aso, who had lived in Sierra Leone for two years. Extraordinary though it may seem, I think the PostTICAD phase of Japan’s African diplomacy ended in 2013 at TICAD V in Yokohama, Japan. Abe Diplomacy:-The current phase in Afro-Japanese diplomacy began with Prime Minister Abe’s visit to Africa in January 2014. The culmination of Abe Diplomacy so far has been Japan’s holding of TICAD VI in Nairobi, Kenya, in August 2016, as a quest for new identity and mission for TICAD in the shadow of the growing influence of China in Africa. Africa’s imports from China grew from 2 per cent in 1995 to 13 per cent in 2012. Africa’s imports from Japan fell from about 7 per cent in 1995 to 3 per cent in 2012. In 2013, 13.5 per cent of Africa’s trade was with China. The comparative figure for Japan was only 2.5 per cent. In 2014, only 1 per cent of Japan’s trade was with Africa, which translated into $27.5 billion. Comparatively, China-Africa trade in the same period was worth more than $200 billion. China, too, is closely watching Japan’s renewed interest and moves in Africa. That was precisely what Mr. Zhang Ming, China’s Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, was doing in Nairobi, Kenya, in the last week of August 2016. For better or worse.

October 2016

Christianity and Western Diplomacy: Strange or Obvious Bedfellows? Cecelia Lynch works on religion and ethics in international affairs, social movements and civil society organizations, and interpretive/qualitative methods in social science research. She is currently completing a book on tensions in Christian ethics over the use of violence in the twentieth-century, and is researching another, "Islamic and Interfaith Religious Ethics in World Crises" on interfaith, Christian, and Islamic humanitarianism, for which she has conducted thus far 140 interviews in West/Central and East Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and the U.S. Her articles address how we analyze religion in world politics, Islamic NGOs in Kenya, Christian diplomacy, the role of social movements and civil society actors on peace, globalization, humanitarianism, and religious/secular ethics, the relationship between contemporary theological constructs and international relations, constructivist ethics in international politics, substantive issues in qualitative and interpretive research methods, and the use of E.H. Carr and Immanuel Kant in international relations theory.

http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=4537

Cecelia Lynch Christianity, Sovereignty, and Universalism The relationship between Christianity and diplomacy in the modern Western world is a very old and very important one, but it rarely gets the attention it deserves. Yet, if we dig underneath the secularist assumptions of international politics, we can easily see the degree to which religious and in particular Christian ethics, actors, and thought have always been and continue to be an integral part of diplomatic practices. In order to understand contemporary diplomacy, it is useful to understand its roots in a Christian history of conflicts between universalism and particularism, from the early modern period through the creation of global organizations to the present, post-Cold War era. This history also enables us to see how Christian actors – despite the fact that they do not speak with one voice –continue to be influential as negotiators and humanitarians in diplomacy today. Additionally, exposing the symbiotic relationship between Christianity and diplomacy in the West also brings to the fore how both Christian actors and Western diplomats must increasingly take into account the ethics and practices of other parts of the world to achieve goals of order and peace among states and peoples.

The Paradox of Christian Diplomacy: 16th Century Foundations A major paradox underlies the relationship between Christianity and diplomacy . Christian lenses on the world tend to proffer a universalist ethic and approach to the “common good,” while diplomacy is based on difference – drawn by boundaries between sovereign states. Yet, to complicate matters further, there are numerous differences among various forms of Christianity regarding the form and content of universalist ethics and ( perhaps paradoxically), among sovereign states there are also numerous pressures in favor of sameness or universalist “rules of the game.” This includes pressures for states to democratize in particular ways, pressure to follow international law, etc. This paradox has produced numerous ethical tensions between and among Christians and Western diplomats in the past over practices such as: the colonization of “nonChristian” areas of the world; the conduct of “just wars” by sovereign states; designing global international organizations to achieve peace; and, in the present over issues such as providing social, economic or humanitarian aid to suffering populations while promoting particular kinds of human rights (some of these tensions will be explored below).

This paradox and the tensions it produces are not so surprising, however, if we understand them as part and parcel of the symbiotic development of Christianity and diplomacy in the modern West. International relations scholars return to the wars of religion, the Reformation and CounterReformation, and the Treaties of Augsburg (1555) and Westphalia (1648) to understand the impact of the conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism on modern state sovereignty. Augsburg and Westphalia determined the rule of cuius region, eius religio – the ruler chooses the religion of the land – which broke the monopoly of the Catholic Church’s temporal power in Europe. The sovereign state was a part of the challenge of Protestantism in a formerly Catholic Europe. Yet, while the Church’s temporal power was displaced, it was never eliminated, nor was the growing power of Protestant ethics in politics. Christian clerics and sovereign monarchs worked together (albeit sometimes uneasily) to extend their power to new areas of the world through conquest, mission, and colonization. The so-called “secular state” only developed very gradually and scholars today question whether it ever fully developed at all, even in Western Europe. The layers of international legal thinking from Augustine to

October 2016

Aquinas and Vitoria merged with that of Protestants such as Grotius and Pufendorf, each adding to the international legal canon that is still very present today in debates on war, peace, trade, commerce, human rights, humanitarianism, paternalism and equality. Twentieth-Century Christian Diplomats and the Development of International Organization By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, trends in favor of global international organization (in particular, European union) were initiated by Christian diplomats who based their policies at least in part on their faith. These included Alfred Zimmern, David Davies and Norman Angel, who worked strenuously for the establishment and continuation of the League of Nations; John Foster Dulles and the U.S. Federal Council of Churches’ Commission for a Just and Durable Peace, who spearheaded U.S. plans for the United Nations; and Jean Monnet, Robert Schumann and Konrad Adenaur, who initiated the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), eventually to become the European Union. Both Protestants (primarily in discussions for the League and the UN), and Catholics (for the ECSC) participated in conceptualizing and designing such universalist diplomatic architectures, which for them would promote order, peace and universal values, mirroring the transcendent aspirations of Christian ethics in the world. Each of these efforts was carried out at “official” diplomatic levels. But all Christians did not think alike on either the official or unofficial levels. Zimmern’s universalism differed considerably from that of Dulles, and both contrasted in important ways with the influential theology of Reinhold Niebuhr, whose distinction between individual and state morality

became perhaps the most significant justification of just war theory in the 20th century. On the “unofficial” level, right-wing clergy such as the Catholic Father Coughlin lent legitimacy to anti-universalist campaigns such as “America-first.” Many Protestant and Catholic Christians on the left – the members of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation, Pax Christi, and numerous others –engaged in their own forms of activism and “citizen diplomacy” to pressure governments to condemn imperialist wrongs, engage in meaningful disarmament, reject the march to war in both 1918 and 1939/41, and the nuclear buildup of the Cold War period. These debates over the nature of sovereignty versus universalism, the purpose and ethics of multilateral governance in maintaining order, preventing war, and enhancing justice provide the backdrop for Christian ethics and actions in diplomacy today. The line between universal ethical aspirations and sovereign particularism has never been definitively decided, but debates about both reflect the tensions within and tight relationship between Christianity and diplomacy. At the same time, global and regional governance organizations are now taken for granted as sites of engagement that diplomats must traverse on a daily basis while attempting to advance the interests of the sovereign states they represent. Contemporary Christian Humanitarians At the beginning of the twenty-first century, these multilateral organizations are concerned with how to maintain order and create peace in conflict zones and how to cope with the suffering of populations (displacement, famine, disease) that results from conflict and environmental disasters. State,

regional, and UN diplomatic agencies channel large amounts of humanitarian aid in attempts to relieve suffering and rebuild war-torn areas of the world. They do so, however, in a context in which they must rely on increasing numbers of non-governmental organizations, including numerous Christian faithbased NGOs, many of which were created out of long-time mission networks of social services, health clinics, and schools. The Christian foundation of humanitarianism, grounded in these mission activities as well as the 19th century work of people like Henri Dunant and Florence Nightengale, is extremely powerful. It finds expression today in attempts to prevent, reduce, or resolve conflict, address refugee flows, ensure humanitarian aid deliveries, and promote some human rights over others. The actions of Christian humanitarians take as a foundation the relief of suffering and the Christian call to help one’s neighbor, but they also become bogged down in debates about personal morality, especially regarding sexuality. The Sant’Egidio Community based in Rome began out of local attempts to heal and help the marginalized in its Roman neighborhood, but found as it spread to other parts of the world that it could employ its contacts abroad for “healing” in conflict zones. It eventually made headlines by bringing a resolution to the civil war in Mozambique, and today it continues to engage regularly with “official” diplomats to act as mediators among adversaries. The Jubilee Campaign in the 1990s, which demanded that international financial institutions and governments in the Global North forgive “developing” countries’ debt, was another such effort to engage directly with diplomats in both western and non-western countries, to institute Christian (and Jewish) conceptions of economic justice as

October 2016

part of the international financial architecture. Other forms of Christian activism are less conventional and more controversial, both among Christians themselves and others. Christian activists engage in advocacy campaigns to pressure governments to develop specific policies, such as the role of some socially ultraconservative U.S. Christians in promoting harsh measures against homosexuality in Uganda, to the role of the Catholic and evangelical churches in promoting the ABC (abstinence, be faithful, use condoms only if necessary) policy of the Bush Administration on international HIV/AIDS prevention between 2000 and 2008. Christian groups’ pressure on governments on each of these issues provoke or require additional diplomatic actions, such as specific actions on the part of hospitals and clinics that received USAID funds to allow condom use only as a last resort in the fight against HIV/AIDS, or the diplomatic scramble to protest against the antigay bill introduced in the Ugandan Parliament. It should be noted that many Christian groups, as well as even some Catholics on the ground, strenuously disagreed with the ABC policy; numerous Christians also condemned the conservative Christian activism in Uganda. Clearly, these actions, campaigns, and goals represent a wide range of ethical positions, and Christians who collaborate on one can vociferously disagree with one another. There is not “one” Christian position on these issues of sexuality, health, and economic justice, just as there is not one diplomatic position. The point here is that these tensions in Christian ethics and activism are played out in tandem with processes of western diplomacy. They frequently require diplomatic action on both the national and multilateral/ global levels, in part because they target national laws and international

conventions and because their funding is tied into state, EU, and UN donor mechanisms. The Future of Christian Diplomacy Increasingly, Christians and Western diplomats understand that they are not the only actors in either religious or diplomatic domains, and this recognition of the power of other practices and other ethics adds to the tensions in diplomatic practice and ethics that remain unresolved. Christians and Westerners no longer hold a monopoly on ethical universalism, even while they regularly carry out old and new diplomatic tasks. Christian ethics and actors – and the tensions they bring –will undoubtedly remain significant in future diplomatic configurations, especially with the rapid growth of Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity in non-western parts of the world. But Christianity and diplomacy in the West must also take into account how these forms of Christianity – as well as other religions and other ideas about diplomacy – represent both complementary and competing sources of authority and ethics. Both Christianity and Western diplomacy are founded on tensions between universalism and particularism, both have developed while negotiating these tensions in tandem with each other, and both will have to continue to negotiate these tensions with each other as well as with increasingly vocal actors who have their own ethics and practices in other parts of the world.

October 2016

A Diplomat’s Guide to Disaster Diplomacy

I co-ordinate the IRDR module GEOLGR05 "Risk and Disaster Reduction Research Tools". I also give lectures, seminars, and workshops around and outside of UCL on topics such as island sustainability, disaster diplomacy, vulnerability and resilience, disability and disaster, climate change, and interdisciplinary research for sustainability. Dissertations which I have supervised include local knowledge for climate change impacts on small islands, post-disaster response in the Philippines, ecosystem-based adaptation, child health and climate policy, and gender-based violence in post-earthquake Haiti.

Ilan Kelman Disasters place diplomats in the spotlight. In the face of body counts, rescues, and rapidly changing information, diplomats must support their own citizens caught up in crises while being sympathetic to the people suffering. That is not easy in the best of times. As the toll from the 26 December 2004 tsunamis mounted in the days after, politicians in the US, the UK, and Scandinavia, amongst others including the UN Secretary General, were lambasted for their lackadaisical response. While some leaders chose to remain on holiday, many diplomats on the ground were left to fend for themselves in caring for their citizens and helping the countries in need. What if the diplomat serves in an unfriendly country? Should we hope that the humanitarian imperative would supersede enmity, that hostilities would be set aside to assist disaster-stricken people? Research into “disaster diplomacy”

shows us that the answers to these questions are not so simple. Disaster diplomacy Disaster diplomacy investigates how and why disaster-related activities do and do not influence conflict and cooperation. ‘Disasterrelated activities’ refers to (i) predisaster efforts including prevention, preparedness, planning, and damage mitigation, as well as (ii) post-disaster actions including response, reconstruction, and recovery. Disaster diplomacy case studies are not just about what happens when a volcano erupts in a war zone or when enemies consider sending and accepting humanitarian aid. They also examine the situation before disaster manifests, such as how a flood or tsunami warning system could potentially bring together communities or generate lasting ceasefires. Dozens of disaster diplomacy case studies reveal that disaster-related activities do not create new

initiatives in achieving peace or reducing conflict. A diplomatic process with pre-existing conditions, though, can be catalysed or supported. If that catalysis occurs, then the disasterrelated activities may influence diplomacy in the short-term but not in the long-term. In the short-term over weeks and months, all forms of disaster-related activities have the potential to affect diplomacy. This can include spurring it on or by providing a space in which peace efforts can be pursued. For that to occur, a preexisting basis must exist for the reconciliation. Examples include ongoing negotiations, formal or informal cultural connections, and trade links. Even over the short-term, disaster diplomacy is not necessarily successful since disaster-related activities can sometimes foment conflict and reduce diplomatic opportunities. Additionally, dealing with disaster might have no impact at all on peace and conflict.

October 2016

Irrespective of what happens over the short-term, over longer time periods non-disaster factors have a more significant impact on diplomacy than disaster-related activities. Examples of non-disaster factors are leadership changes, mutual distrust, belief that a historical grievance should supersede current humanitarian considerations, or a desire for conflict due to the advantages gained from it. In summary, diplomats must navigate disasters and political conflict simultaneously, even if the former does not always mitigate the latter. Examples Disaster diplomacy case studies can be divided along three main lines: geography, disaster type, and transboundary longer-term disaster topics. First, a specific geographic location. This category includes such cases as ceasefires by armed groups and the military in the Philippines following volcanic eruptions and typhoons. No case in this category has ever led to lasting conflict resolution. Second, a specific disaster type or incidence. This category includes, for example, tsunami diplomacy. These cases showed much potential in many countries following the December 26th, 2004 tsunamis, most notably in Indonesia and Sri Lanka. In Aceh, Indonesia,

the successful post-tsunami peace deal had pre-tsunami origins and was not created solely by the calamity. In Sri Lanka, the tsunami and humanitarian aid were used as excuses by many parties to perpetuate the conflict, which eventually ended through military means. Other conflicts in tsunamihit locations, such as Somalia, were not affected extensively. Third, longer-term transboundary disaster-related topics. This category includes dealing with epidemics through health diplomacy. Efforts to eradicate diseases globally (such as smallpox and polio), to use health interventions to bring people together, to monitor and control transboundary diseases (such as SARS), and to enact vaccination campaigns in war zones (including Afghanistan, Liberia, and Sudan) have all been used for conflict reduction efforts. Effectiveness beyond the specific health topic has always been limited. Perceived historic wrongs and domestic politics can outweigh accepting assistance, as shown by Cuba’s refusal to accept American aid during the 1998 drought and the USA’s refusal to accept Cuba’s, Venezuela’s, and Iran’s offers of aid following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Gaining and retaining political power can supersede peace, demonstrated by Ethiopia’s and Eritrea’s intransigence to link drought relief to conflict resolution from 1998-2000.

Such examples as are explored above emerge from national governments, but diplomacy is not only conducted by politicians and diplomats. Cuban and American weather and climate scientists have a long history of collaborating over hurricane monitoring and tracking even while Fidel Castro led Cuba. The media and vociferous grassroots expectations fuelled earthquake diplomacy between Greece and Turkey in 1999 after each country experienced disaster within a month. This push from below nearly derailed the careful, measured approaches towards rapprochement which the elites in each country had been following before the disasters. Despite the wide variety of disasters, conflict circumstances, and parties involved in diplomacy, the main conclusion holds. Disaster-related activities sometimes catalyse diplomacy in the short-term, but never in the long-term. Ultimately, disasterrelated activities are not always a high political priority as greater importance is assigned to other diplomatic interests. A Complex Web of Actors and Choices In spite of the disaster diplomacy case studies and conclusions explored above, hope remains. The complex web of interactions involving all disaster and diplomacy activities means that disaster diplomacy outcomes are not always predictable or simple.

October 2016

Disaster diplomacy is best viewed as a long-running process with multiple parties interacting on many levels, rather than as a snapshot of immediate success or failure. Disaster-related activities are an influence on all forms of diplomacy —sometimes providing opportunities for peace, sometimes supporting conflict, and sometimes being neutral—but are ultimately just one of numerous factors interacting with diplomacy. Although a leader’s choice of actions can change the outcome— and those actions might extend far into the past and be relevant far into the future--it is important to remember that disaster diplomacy is not just about politicians and formal processes. Civil servants, the media, business leaders, movie and sports stars, and grassroots movements, amongst others, sometimes support diplomacy as well as inhibit it, and can sometimes have a limited influence. These actors can sometimes choose longterm diplomatic goals.

activities should be stopped altogether. This is a distinct possibility, since public attempts at reconciliation that are rebuffed by the other side can become a political embarrassment.

sought, diplomats should be aware that disaster diplomacy has as many pitfalls as advantages and they should proceed with caution.

On the other side of the spectrum, disaster diplomacy may be accepted with too high expectations. An overarching challenge to disaster diplomacy is that it might be attractive because it appears to be a quick fix for solving conflict. It is naïve to expect that decades or centuries of differences could be overcome overnight, simply because a tornado destroyed a town or a multinational building code was promulgated.

The Risks of Advising Disaster Diplomacy

In contrast, a truism is that successfully dealing with both disaster and diplomacy are longterm processes, requiring thoughtful, careful steps. At least, in theory. In practice, however, diplomacy and disaster-related activities are too often engaged in reactively, with limited planning meaning that a disaster diplomacy case study might potentially succeed through luck as much as anything else.

In light of this complexity and the potential for unintended consequences what should a diplomat advise? One major risk is that a leader, upon being informed about how to implement disaster diplomacy, could decide that linking disaster-related activities and conflict resolution is not wanted and, consequently, disaster-related

In the end, although no successful examples of new diplomacy based only on disaster-related activities have yet to be identified, options remain for one to emerge. Many historical archives have not been explored while future disasterrelated activities could generate new forms of conflict resolution. Until that happens or is actively

October 2016

International Theory and Diplomacy Current Trends and Practical Value Paul Sharp is Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota Duluth and Senior Visiting Fellow at Clingendael, the Netherlands Institute of International Relations. He is co-founding editor of The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, and co-editor of Palgrave-Macmillan's Diplomacy and International Relations series. He is the author of Diplomatic Theory of International Relations(Cambridge: 2009) and Thatcher's Diplomacy (Basingstoke: 1997). Most recently, he co-edited American Diplomacy (New York: 2012) with Geoffrey Wiseman and is currently working on The Sage Hand Book of Diplomacy (London: 2016) with Costas Constantinou and Pauline Kerr.

Paul Sharp International Theory 101 International relations theory is an important subfield in the study of International Relations (IR). Those engaged in it are interested in how and why things happen as they do international relations, as well as how international actors ought to act as a consequence if they want to be good, wise, successful or all three. IR theorists tell us that all claims about international relations and diplomacy rest on some sort of theory. As a result, two questions become relevant: are the theoretical assumptions upon which a claim is based explicit and tenable, and do the inferences and arguments which are subsequently made follow logically from the starting assumptions? Behind these questions, however, great differences exist on very basic issues. Some IR theorists see themselves following the classical scientific model of inquiry: generating data to test hypotheses which allow them to explain and predict what is likely to

happen at high levels of generality when specified conditions hold. For example, they ask questions about how a state’s behaviour in an international system may be related to the distribution of power in that system and to the state’s own internal arrangements. Other theorists, in contrast, reject this approach to human affairs by claiming that rather than discovering patterns and regularities immanent in the world such an approach imposes frameworks upon it. Is the claim that states are the most important international actors to be understood as empirically verifiable or part of a politically significant but empirically irresolvable argument? In this approach, the relationship between a world “out there” and the ideas and language in which people seek to describe that world is complex. Indeed, some theorists argue that there may not even be an “out there” beyond our ideas about it in any meaningful sense. These theorists take people’s understandings of the world and their places within it as the point of departure for theoretical inquiry.

The irrelevance of Diplomacy? Despite the differences, most IR theorists have agreed that diplomacy—understood as the processes and institutions by which states represent themselves and their interests to each other—is not important to an understanding of what happens in international relations. A range of possible reasons exists for this. IR has been a social science and thus at pains to uncover the great patterns and regularities which are assumed to lie beneath the narratives of individual heroes and villains that people tell themselves about how peace and security are safeguarded or threatened. It is biased towards structure—the apparently gravitational forces exerted by a distribution of military power or the logic of a particular form of economic accumulation—and against agency—the wise statesmen and wicked dictators who claim to be in control. Diplomats may be necessary since someone has to deliver the messages, but most theorists agree that they are unlikely to account for

October 2016

much variance in outcomes. Secondly, those IR theorists who actually have been interested in agency have done diplomacy few favours. Whether working in the classical tradition (Hans Morgenthau and Henry Kissinger) or employing behavioural and psychological insights (Thomas Schelling or William Zartman), their focus has remained steadfastly on the men at the top. The hero statesmen with vision and courage remain the focus. Diplomats have remained ephemeral and diplomacy invisible. Finally, IR has largely been an enterprise of North American, and in particular United States provenance. As a consequence, claims that IR’s neglect of diplomacy is related to America’s historic suspicion of diplomats, their reluctance to distinguish between diplomacy and foreign policy, as well as their preference for military and economic forms of influence have intuitive appeal. On this view, dominant powers extend their influence to the leading ideas of their time. France elevated diplomacy. Britain defended it. The US depreciated it. The “Practice Turn” Since the end of the Cold War and the start of US’s relative decline, interest in diplomacy has increased among international theorists. In spite of claims that it is out of date and irrelevant, diplomacy persists in the face of existential challenges and domestic asphyxiation. The new states created after the Cold

War all established new diplomatic services, and newly influential actors in international relations sought ways to achieve some level of diplomatic representation. As a result, what diplomacy does and why it needs to be done have been revisited, especially by scholars who adhere to what is known as the “practice turn” in social theory (such as Sending, Pouliot, Neumann, and Adler-Nissen). Social structures may exert a profound influence on how people act, but where do these structures come from? They are produced and enacted on a daily basis by people and especially by diplomats. Critical approaches to practice stress the gap between what is supposed to be going on in diplomacy and what diplomats actually spend their time doing. For example, diplomats espouse the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention, while enacting a practical hierarchy among states that often results in countries meddling in each other’s internal affairs. More sympathetic approaches explore the extent to which diplomacy generates distinctive views of international relations and how to handle them, both of which are undervalued and should be promoted (Sharp, Jonsson, and Hall). Diplomacy’s Transformative Potential Other theorists examine diplomatic innovation and its potentially transformative consequences for international relations generally. The revolutions in information and

communication technologies have profound effects that inhibit certain established diplomatic practices like secrecy while enabling new ones like building temporary coalitions for particular ends. Indeed, it appears possible that anyone who can maintain a website can also be a diplomatic actor. Public diplomacy has received the most attention, not least because governments interested in exploiting soft power and research foundations interested in democratizing international relations have been willing to finance this sort of work. In addition, the European Union has provided an extended opportunity for examining what happens to diplomacy when the distinction between the world inside states and the world outside them begins to break down. When, for example, do diplomatic relations give way to political relations? Finally, the rise of new/old great powers has facilitated a renewed interest in the way both their leaders and scholars understand international relations. China, for example, purports to be interested in a very conventional form of state, foreign ministry, and embassy-based diplomacy, even in regard to public diplomacy which it sees almost exclusively in terms of the opportunities it provides for strategic communication. Chinese IR scholars tend to anchor their work in the constitution of relationships, rather than the distribution of power and interests. As a consequence, they assign far more importance to the study of diplomacy in both its conventional

October 2016

and novel forms than do most of their Western counterparts. Conclusion What then does international theory have to offer those who actually practice diplomacy? In the past, diplomats, and more often their managers and trainers, had to work hard to uncover useful insights and techniques: game theory’s attempts to capture the logic of bargaining situations; democratic peace theory’s attempts to demonstrate that the relations between representative governments are more peaceful than with nonrepresentative governments; foreign policy theory’s attempts to capture and harness structural power and soft power; and above all, managerial theory’s advice on how to set up complex organizations as well as act effectively within and between them. What they did not look at was what international theory had to tell them about diplomacy. Diplomats interested in IR tended to look at foreign policy, grand strategy, and international history, or else they became diplomatic raconteurs, telling their stories to students. Accordingly, the discovery of diplomacy by international theorists was welcomed, along with books, courses, and other resources. Nevertheless, that anticipation has generally been followed by disappointment. The academic literature seems to tell diplomats what they already know about themselves, only at great length and in unnecessarily complex

language. It often joins the chorus of those who say diplomacy must adapt or perish with the latter being no great loss to anyone but diplomats. And sometimes it deals with matters which diplomats barely recognize as diplomacy: the presentation of relations between indigenous peoples in film, the organization of global sporting events, and the recounting of introspective voyages of selfdiscovery. This should not be surprising. IR scholars and international theorists in particular, do not seek to be useful to diplomats in narrowly instrumental terms, even when they study diplomacy. Some of them are profoundly suspicious of state-based diplomacy for reasons which are familiar even if they do not elicit general consent. Others are much less critical and even supportive, but their work is not directed at making sense of diplomacy to diplomats. Their target is a broader audience composed of their colleagues and society at large. Their work may seem to spell out what diplomats already intuitively know from experience. Diplomats, however, are notoriously ineffective in their own defence, in part because they are impatient with those who do not easily grasp the value of what they do. In an era when technological developments, popular expectations, and financial exigencies conspire to call the value of professional diplomacy into question, diplomats should look to those best placed to make an old argument for new times.

Bibliography Rebecca Adler-Nissen, “Late Sovereign Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 4, 2, 121-141. Henry A Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York: 1994). Hans J Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (New York: 1948). Ole Jacob Sending, Vincent Pouliot and Iver B. Neumann, “The Future of Diplomacy,” International Journal, Summer, 2011, 527-542. Paul Sharp, Diplomatic Theory of International Relations (Cambridge, 2009).

October 2016

YOGA DIPLOMACY

Umesh Mukhi has a diverse profile with active interest in Business, International Relations and Youth affairs. He is the co-founder of an international initiative titled Sustainable Leadership Initiative; it aims at mapping new leadership models required for resolving challenges of 21st century. He was also awarded with the title of Honorary Cross Cultural Ambassador of UNESCO Club, Sorbonne University, and Paris for his inter-cultural contribution between India (spirituality and Indian culture) and World. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/umesh-mukhi

Umesh Mukhi Recently, we must have witnessed the hype in Press about the International Yoga Day celebrations led by India all over the world. The event evoked mélange of reactions, while some highly appraised the initiative there were also some criticisms as well. Moreover analysts didn’t fall short to offer their own analysis by analyzing the ancient Indian scriptures and offering their analyzing in the context of present government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership. What is the essence of Yoga? How is it related with Religion? Is it a way to exercise India’s soft power? How is Yoga entering the arena of Diplomacy and International Affairs? With an intention of offering a holistic view, I will lay down some perspectives from different angles to enlighten our reader’s attention. What is Yoga? The contemporary analysis of Yoga by journalists and certain teachers has been limited only to the

postures. Of course as we see that the west has adopted the more physical form of yoga which has been a billion dollar business so far. The flagship film of Yoga Day clearly states that the object of Yoga is Samadhi, by traditional means one has to perfect the asanas to achieve a healthy body, mind and spirit, then he has to internalize the process by focusing more on meditation which will lead to the state of Yoga. Essentially, Yoga is Sanskrit word, it means the union and connection with the divinity thereby achieving self-realization. Thus at the out the outset it is the process of self-realization which is an outcome of Yoga. A Yogi is a person who practices Yoga, he has to obtain the state of Yoga, i.e. achieving the state of Nirvikilpa Samadhi, and it means that a Yogi enters into the dimension of thoughtless awareness which means connection of ones soul with the divinity. This state is more or less like an ecstatic experience of vibrations which a yogi feels after having attaining the state of Samadhi. Therefore practicing only physical posture may present us certain benefits but they won’t offer

us the spiritual bliss and peace which is the ultimate aim of Yoga. This is where philosophy of Saint Kabir enlightens us, in his poetry he mentions "Pothi Padh Padh Kar Jag Mua, Pandit Bhayo Na Koye, Dhai Akhshar Prem Ke, Jo Padhe So Pandit Hoye." Which means "Reading books hasn't made anyone wiser. But the One who has experienced even the first flush of love, knows more about Life than a learned man. This leads us to conclusion that one doesn’t becomes a Yogi by analyzing or mere practicing, one actually becomes a Yogi by achieving the state of Yoga. Another confusion created by analysts is about whether Yoga is the part of Hinduism. It is true to some extent that the science of selfrealization was first expounded in India in prehistoric era, but the emphasis of yoga on scriptures in no way leads to conclusion that yoga is a part of Hindu philosophy. Firstly Hinduism was never a formalized religion, Secondly, it acknowledges the incarnations of realized souls who descent on earth to alleviate the human lives. Thus

October 2016

every soul who walked on the earth to propagate the message of divinity is promoting Yoga in other words, all the prophets spoke about it, For example Jesus Christ did mention about connection with Holy Ghost and Supreme Father, Prophet Mohammad did emphasized that the Islam is surrender to Allah and that one has obtain divinity by completely surrendering to the formless and omnipresent god, similarly Buddha in his quest for liberation founded eight fold path for Nirvana. All of them are essentially speaking of the same connection in different times of history but the purpose is same, i.e. to uplift the consciousness of humans and to establish the process of self-realization within humans. Another beautiful example about unity of purpose in religions could be found in a classic titled Majma-Ul-Bahrain or The Mingling of the Two Oceans, written by King Dara Shikoh who was the eldest son and the heir-apparent of the fifth Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan. In this explores the interconnection and similarities between Sufism and Vedanta traditions. We may also turn our attention towards Sahaja Yoga which is unique from other branches of Yoga, Sahaja Yoga claims to be the Yoga promoting universal harmony by emphasizing about the role of sacred masters hailing from different religions. Most of the time it is assumed that Yoga Gurus are mostly male, but it is also interesting to note that this global movement was founded by Shri

Mataji Nirmala Devi who was the wife of late Dr. Sir C.P. Srivastava, International Maritime Organization Secretary-General Emeritus. In fact back in 1990 she conducted a Sahaja Yoga session at United Nations New York on the topic of Self Realization. Due to the diplomatic career of Sir C.P. Srivastava, Shri Mataji often spent her time out of India, travelling different countries, this further on acted as a catalyst for her to understand the western culture and thereby introducing them to Yoga which is simple and spontaneous. Yoga and Diplomacy The French case of promoting the French Culture and Language is a very interesting example of pursing diplomacy of preserving and promoting the heritage, art and culture. The role of France in creating International Organization La Francophonie in 1970 shows that it is assuming its authority in preserving the language, and through its means it would exercise its soft power in francophone countries. According to the organizations website, the member countries “also share the humanist values promoted by the French language. The French language and its humanist values represent the two cornerstones on which the International Organisation of La Francophonie is based.” In the same way, France is promoting French Language and culture through Alliance française. French Language, Wine and Cheese Tasting, Art, Culture and Education

are one of the key activities promoted by Alliance française across the world. Throughout the course, India managed to embrace the influx of different cultures but has still managed to retain the essence and the crux of divinity imbibed in its pluralistic traditions. At the times where British and French took pride in having colonies, India was still keeping its values and traditions alive. Being more than 5000 years old, Yoga as a science of selfrealization has still managed to survive, neither India exercised its power to control it nor it promoted it. It played a vital role in creating state of art kings who would seek the guidance of yogis, moreover the fame of India and its philosophy spread across the world which dragged the attention of mystics, traders, monks and even philosophers and even colonizers. However India, since its independence hasn’t exercised cultural diplomacy as a part of its main stream diplomacy. The complexities within the Indian Culture and the diversity in makes it more complicated for India play a legitimate role on promoting its own heritage and culture. At the same time India takes pride of its rich past, from the science of Ayurveda to the secular values of Emperor Akbar and monuments like Taj Mahal, India cherishes it all, but it fails to endorse it. Moreover India is one of the largest contributor of UN Peace Forces as well. So Logically, India has all right to promote Yoga, just like France does for French

October 2016

Language, this is essentially important because of two primary reasons. Firstly, why didn’t previous governments undertook such step, were they ignorant or yoga was not on their agenda. Secondly, the west adopted yoga much faster than India did, that’s the reason why so many gurus settled out of India. The Yoga also flourished as a business where various forms of yoga were introduced which are completely opposite to the original philosophy. It is at this time, India had to reassume its position by sharing the true knowledge and true purpose of yoga which is to achieve peace and harmony. On the 21st June, a record was created where millions of people practiced Yoga, which was even a rare fact for Indian to cherish its own heritage. I am not sure except any victory in sports if an Indian can recall when was the last time the world followed India’s footsteps? When was the last time they saw a Head of State appealing UN to adopt a Yoga day and himself practicing Yoga? Those practicing Yoga on yoga day across the world didn’t come for showoff, they rather came because they saw hope, because they are seeking the peace within and because it’s worth trying. Although analysts may accuse government’s agenda and may find out loop holes in organization of mass event, they miss out the bigger picture of a massive country which has been at the epicenter of spirituality for the world and its role to lead the world by example. Of course Modi may

find it inevitable to avoid criticisms, however some of his remarks do strike a chord with ancient wisdom. During his speech at UN General Assembly, he said that Yoga could help to tackle climate change and in recent International Conference of Yoga, he mentioned that Yoga could play a vital role in developing peaceful societies, responsible leaders so that we may leave planet in good conditions for future generation. This adds a new dimension of Spirituality in order to achieve Sustainability in every sector. Of course given the state of the world so far, we can make out that neither does industrialization nor investment helps us in tackling with emergent issues, if the mind of the person is not ready to absorb the change. It only through the process of sustainable transformation inside each one of us the society by its collective effort will be able to raise its own consciousness level, this in turn will bring mass change across the civilization. So far we have seen a glimpse of Modi’s vision, but how far it will lead to tangible results is still to be seen. Future of Yoga “Besides the Yogacara, …esoteric teachings of paticcasamuppada are considered a core of Buddhism. Applying the extensive philosophical interpretation to this teaching, it remarkably fits to the astrophysical theory of the so-called dependent origination, as it well supports basic laws of both quantum mechanics and

evolutionary biology – a selforganizing system in an ever selfexpanding dynamic, non-directional but dialectic, equilibrium” – reminds us on these pages prof. Anis Bajrektarevic about the huge (forgotten or disregarded) potentials. Indeed, many companies across the world have recently integrated Yoga in their HR practice, whereas there are many who practice it on daily basis for spiritual or physical benefits. Certain amount of research is also indicating that it can help us to deal with stress and emotions, Thus it is clear that irrespective of criticisms, Yoga is all set to pave its path for growing popularity. More importantly, it can play a vital role in creating Sustainable Leaders, who have higher level of insights into the issues of the world and which in our definition have capacity to work at intergenerational level and to lay the foundations for next generation. At the Sustainable Leadership blog you can see from the interview of change makers on how they are transforming ideas into action. At the heart of the Sustainable Leadership, the spiritual consciousness plays a vital role in developing a mindset of the leader which allows him to connect the dots between international affairs, entrepreneurship, business and civil society. Through this mindset he is uniquely positioned to offer a novel perspective to deal with issues compared to traditional leaders working in disciplinary silos.

October 2016

Finally, it needs to reiterate that Yoga is not a fashion, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s an invaluable asset which is open to humanity, it is up to member states and people across the world to realize its worth and how it could contribute in health care, education, sustainable development issues. It should provoke an internal change which could bring in positive transformation, As Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi says "Divinity is not a fashion. It is the way of Life. It is the need of your being. You have to become that."

October 2016