Zardari's trip to Europe fuels resentment as Pakistan reels from deadly floods

Diplomacy

By

Jennifer Aiken

Eric Brahm

January 2005

"A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip." - Caskie Stinnett

"Diplomacy is to do and say the nastiest things in the nicest way." - Isaac Goldberg

"He who walks in the middle of the road gets hit from both sides." - George P. Shultz

The art of diplomacy has a long-storied history. It is the practice of verbal discussion with the intent to influence, transmit a position or negotiate on a given issue or situation for a mutually acceptable outcome. It is often called an art because each situation requires a unique mixture of empathy, persuasion, bluster, and cajoling amongst other things. The sentiment expressed in the Stinnett and Goldberg quotes above is typical of how diplomacy has often been viewed. It has traditionally been a method of conducting interstate relations involving discussions and negotiations between heads of state or their representatives in order to advance national interests. As one may imagine, these efforts may not always be sincere. More broadly, however, diplomacy often involves efforts to keep channels of communication open between different sides of a dispute in the hopes that tension can be diffused and violence averted. Modern diplomacy is in many ways more complicated with intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved and the globalization of communication and transportation opening up new avenues for the conduct of diplomacy and helped new participants get involved.

Much of modern diplomacy continues to involve the interaction of state and/or official actors in what has become known as Track I diplomacy. These diplomats are acting in an official capacity with the authority and on behalf of the state or IGO they are representing. The entity they are representing may have a direct stake in the dispute or they may be acting as an intermediary. The goal, if a disputant, is to realize an outcome as favorable to one's side as possible. Third parties often become involved in the discussion in order to find ways through stalemates or to even get the parties talking in an effort at peacemaking. This being said, much of diplomacy is routine in order that issues do not reach crisis level.

There has been recognition that high-level official engagement is not always effective. Animosity and distrust may be too prevalent. The sides may question the motivations of representatives from third party states or from IGOs. In other instances, these third parties may lack a strategic interest or deem it too risky to get involved. Particularly in these circumstances, informal channels of communication can be effective at maintaining dialogue. These instances of Track II diplomacy are more subtle and personal, involving conflict resolution professionals from non-governmental organizations engaged in activity often through back channel measures. Track II diplomacy is important in maintaining support at the local level for negotiated agreements and terms to a peace settlement. Track II diplomats are also more often engaged "on the ground" in peace building efforts in addition to their back channel peacemaking efforts.

With increased internationalism and globalization, the sphere of participants in inter-communal conflicts is expanding. Participants include not only state actors but also the opposition parties and adversaries within the conflict itself, not to mention regional, multinational and non-governmental organizations. Third parties in Track I and Track II diplomacy can provide several different roles in conflicts and in their de-escalation. They can fill the role of supporter or mediator during the peacemaking process. A third party supporter or mediator can provide space for and initiate negotiations or discussions, gather information, help penetrate emotional barriers, help expand the negotiable pie, represent absent persons or views, provide resources, create pressure to reach an agreement, and generate support for an agreement. They do this with the intent to de-escalate conflicts, reach and sustain agreements and prevent future conflicts from occurring.

There is continued debate about the particular roles played by Track I and Track II actors in conflict management. Track I and Track II cooperation can be an issue. While it is generally recognized that both actors fill useful functions, boundary issues and other role-related issues continue to create tensions between the two tracks. In fact, the interests and actions of those involved in different levels of diplomacy may often be at cross-purposes. If done effectively, however, Track I and Track II diplomacy can be mutually reinforcing processes in conflict management. Each track is effective in unique ways and, despite some overlap in methods used by both tracks, the role of Track I and Track II diplomacy cannot be entirely filled by the other.

A number of practitioners and scholars have suggested that talking about Track I and Track II is, in fact, inadequate. What we often see is what Louise Diamond and John McDonald refer to as multi-track diplomacy where a whole range of actors with varying interests in the situation are involved at different levels to keep channels of communication open and hopefully de-escalate the conflict.

Aiken, Jennifer and Eric Brahm. "Diplomacy." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Posted: January 2005

1. Find the definition of the term and give Russian equivalents of the following words and phrases using the text and context given above.

Official capacity; entity; stalemates; actor; direct stake; inter-communal conflict; cross-purposes; de-escalation; negotiable pie; animosity; adversary; conflict management; IGO; NGO

1. Decide whether the following statements True or False.

1) The diplomacy was traditionally considered as a method of conducting interstate relations in order to promote the interests of the third country.

2) Globalization of communication and transportation changes the opportunities of international diplomacy in a bad way.

3) The diplomats are acting on behalf of the NGO or international corporations conducting Track I diplomacy.

4) The mediator can press upon neither of both sides during the conflict resolution.

5) Track II diplomats mostly use their back channel and don’t act anyhow in the “centre” of the conflict situation.

1. Answer the questions.

1) What’s the understanding of the diplomacy from the classical viewpoint?

2) Which “channels” does the modern diplomacy include?

3) Describe Track I and Track II diplomacy. Please, specify the differences between them.

4) Why do the participants of the diplomacy process need the third party?

5) Consider the authors’ opinion about the modern day diplomacy.

6) How would you explain the term multi-track diplomacy?

7) Give some examples of IGO and NGO.

1. Translate the following extracts.

1) С понятием дипломатия связывают искусство ведения переговоров для предотвращения или урегулирования конфликтов, поисков компромиссов и взаимоприемлемых решений, расширения и углубления международного сотрудничества.

2) Международная неправительственная организация - международная организация, не учрежденная на основании межправительственного соглашения. Отличительным признаком международной неправительственной организации является признание ее по крайней мере одним государством или наличие консультативного статуса при международных межправительственных организациях.

3) Дипломатическая переписка - переписка государства, правительства, ведомства иностранных дел с соответствующими иностранными государствами, дипломатическими представительствами этих государств, международными организациями, а также переписка дипломатических представительств между собой. Все документы дипломатической переписки носят официальный характер.

4) Дипломатическое представительство - постоянный орган внешних сношений государства (посольство или миссия), находящийся на территории другого государства. Дипломатическое представительство выступает от имени учредившего его государства по всем политическим и иным вопросам, возникающим во взаимоотношениях государств.

LISTENING COMPREHENSION

Listen to the report on the Diplomatic Meeting of American, Afghanistani and Pakistani Leaders from the Voice of America news block. You will listen to the record just once. Be ready with the following tasks.

Give the definitions of the following words from the report with help of a context.

Extremist allies, civilians, militants, to dispute, to make gains, Defense Secretary, displaced, to flee (fled), insurgency.

Answer the questions.

1) What was the main goal of this diplomatic meeting of three leaders?

2) What were the other goals?

3) What is happening on the territories of Pakistan and Afghanistan?

4) What’s the policy of the US government towards those countries?

5) What’s the position of the US Congress?

6) Were any goals achieved?

Tick the statements True or False.

1) The result of the meeting is not satisfactory for the US officials.

2) There is tension between Afghanistani and American government on the question of civilians casualties.

3) Some positive out come of the anti-terroristic operation is expected within the period of one year.

4) The US government is planning to reduce the number of troops down in Afghanistan this year.

5) The population centers of Pakistan are no longer in danger because Taliban militants were withdrawn back to the tribal areas of North-west.

6) The US and the UN provide enough military and humanitarian aid for displaced people in Pakistan.

7) The US provides some financial aid for the Pakistani Government to help fighting the insurgency within the borders of the country.

8) President Obama supports the measure of 4 billion dollars for 5 years.

Discussion:

1) What is the way the diplomacy conducted prior, during and after this meeting? Could you thoroughly describe the process?

2) How do you imagine the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan?

3) Is there any place for the diplomacy in fighting the terrorism? (as the Pakistani government tried to reach some peace deals with Taliban militants)

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS QUIZ

International Relations and Diplomacy are general terms which include numerous aspects dealing with ideology, elections, governmental policies, political institutions, treaties etc. Do you have any opinion on some of the aspects. Here is the small quiz which will help you evaluate some of the most disputable. Be ready to give reasons for your answer.

1) How do you feel about Nuclear Technology?

a) that’s CLASSIFIED information. On an unrelated note…I got this great new land mine made with Uranium

b) Nukes…the best medicine when fighting someone else

c) I might invest in nuclear investors…and that’s it. Maybe a couple of warheads for blowing asteroids up

d) I don’t even want to talk about it

2) What about caring for the environment?

a) We should obey the Kyoto accord.

b) I am busy with making other plans, don’t bother me with unimportant subject matter.

c) I don’t care, I’ll just go dump my garbage off of another nations coast.

3) Human rights…

a) What about them?

b) Should be granted, I want lesser races in my army for cannon fodder.

c) No, anyone not agreeing with me or my religion will suffer and be discriminated against!

d) Every man, woman, and child are equal. Freedom in what you believe in shall be supreme.

4) War on terrorism?

a) Yah, invade other countries that I think have people that don’t like my oppressive rule.

b) Should be dealt with in the best, fastest, and least damaging way.

c) I am very busy here, chap. I gotta make some (cough)payments to some friends…

5) Genetic Research?

a) It’s against the will of God!

b) Yes, it should be conducted for the well-being of mankind. Especially the stem cell stuff and cloning.

c) Hell yah! I would love to have Genetically Modified Soldiers!

d) Hmm… Biological weapons…a Doomsday virus sounds fun…

6) Free Trade

a) Yes I support free trade

b) No

c) Doesn’t matter to me…soon I will own it all anyway

FURTHER READING AND LISTENING

Zardari's trip to Europe fuels resentment as Pakistan reels from deadly floods

By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, August 6, 2010; 11:05 AM

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN -- A politician with a 20 percent approval rating might not appear to have much to lose.

But Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, his standing already seemingly at rock bottom, elicited a new level of public scorn this week.

With much of his nation under water following the worst flooding to hit Pakistan in living memory, Zardari has been touring Europe. As helicopters rescued stranded residents from the surging river waters, Zardari choppered to his family's chateau in France. After riots and a suicide bomber wreaked further havoc, Zardari dined in the English countryside with British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Zardari is a critical U.S. ally who came to power just two years ago on a wave of public sympathy following the assassination of his wife, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

Long dogged by corruption allegations, Zardari had already been struggling with a perception that he is out of touch. With Pakistan's aggressive new private television channels airing split-screen shots of Zardari's European travels on one side and Pakistani villages being swept away on the other, that view has solidified.

The president's trip has also come to symbolize a government response to the floods that victims say has been disorganized and slow off the mark. Zardari's critics have compared his behavior since the floods began to U.S. President George W. Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina.

"It was disgusting to see Zardari going on a joy ride when people here expected the president to stand with the nation at its hour of grief," said Ahsan Iqbal, a lawmaker from the country's main opposition party, which is led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. "That is what people expect at a minimum from their leaders."

Zardari's backers say the criticism is politically motivated, and that under Pakistan's parliamentary system, the task of running the government falls to the prime minister. Indeed, parliament this year passed a constitutional amendment that makes the president, at least on paper, little more than a figurehead.

"The whole government is here. It's looking after the crisis," said Fozia Wahab, spokeswoman for the ruling Pakistan People's Party. "This is just an excuse to malign the president."

But residents whose lives have been turned upside down by the floods say Zardari's presence, if nothing else, would have been symbolically important.

"Traditionally when there is mourning, the elder is supposed to be there to console the people," said Mahmood Riaz, a 35-year-old teacher from Pakistan's northwest. "But unfortunately our president is busy on his personal world tour."

Zardari, as leader of the PPP, is widely believed to have vast influence over Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani and other government ministers. Despite Zardari's unpopularity, Gillani has developed a relatively favorable reputation and his coalition government enjoys a comfortable majority in parliament. New elections are not slated until 2013, and for the moment at least, there is little talk that the government could fall.

But it is undoubtedly under great pressure as the cost of the floods in both lives and resources continues to rise. The government has said it is doing the best it can to deal with the floods but has admitted it is overmatched by the scale of destruction.

Initially concentrated in the battle-scarred northwest, the floods have already killed at least 1,500 people. Government disaster officials said Friday that another 12 million had been affected, up sharply from previous estimates.

Heavy rains on Friday grounded aid flights and caused even more devastation, as swollen rivers overflowed their banks and surged south toward crucial agricultural areas. The U.N. humanitarian chief in Pakistan has called the flooding "a disaster of major proportions," and the government has asked the world for help.

Even before the scale of the flood damage became clear, Zardari was under pressure to cancel his trip. Last week, Cameron infuriated Pakistanis by referring, during an appearance in arch-rival India, to Pakistan's "export of terror." Many in Pakistan called on Zardari to scuttle his visit to London in protest.

But Zardari aides said the president needed to meet with European allies and would go ahead with the trip as planned.

The military, which has long been at odds with Zardari, seemed to undermine that decision when its powerful spy service leaked word that its chief would cancel his own visit to London. But on Thursday, the prime minister told journalists that the chief of Inter-Services Intelligence had never scheduled a trip to London -- suggesting that the leak had been calculated to embarrass the president.

Zardari's trip has been a mix of state business and party politics. His son and party co-chairman, 21-year-old Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, has joined him both in France and Britain.

The younger Zardari, who is seen as being groomed to follow his parents into politics and who recently graduated from Oxford, was widely expected to make his debut with a speech to the People's Party faithful at a rally in Birmingham.

But on Thursday, Bhutto Zardari dispelled that notion with a statement suggesting he recognized the pitfalls of giving a political speech from abroad at a time of tragedy at home.

"In fact I will not even be attending the event," the statement said, "and instead I will be opening a donation point at the Pakistan High Commission in London for victims of the terrible floods."

Special correspondent Haq Nawaz Khan contributed to this report from Peshawar.

1. Make sure you can explain the meaning of all the unknown words for you in this article.

2. Imagine you have to write a commentary on this article. What would it be like? For example, some people left the commentaries like this on the Washington Post online:

Fjet2020 wrote:

Watch this nuclear power play into the hands of the extremists because the leadership is corrupt and useless. Zardari is not Benazir Bhutto. This is our next major crisis - Al Qaeda controlling nuclear weapons and the Pakistan government.

8/7/2010 2:33:14 AM

ctenwith wrote:

Well, would you sacrifice hobnobbing with the PM at 10 Downing, noshing on Beef Wellington and swigging brandy to go back to a flood-ravaged Pakistan? Some trade that is, eh! He also needs some time to confer with Musharraf on where to stash his green-back graft.

8/7/2010 2:16:33 AM

mtrqa213 wrote:

President Zardari should have postponed his visit and be present in Pakistan. The people are suffering from the worst floods since 1929, while their President was visiting his family owned Chateau in France. This is criminal apathy. As if this was not enough the PM was busy campaigning for by-elections. Corruption is no longer an issue for this government, nor is target killings of over 90 innocent persons in Karachi. The credibility of this government is as worse as the Musharraf junta.

8/7/2010 12:51:12 AM

3. Register at one of English language newspapers, wire services, magazines and journals:

the Washington Post, the New York Times, International Herald Tribune, the Guardian, the Independent, the Economist, the Financial Times, Newsweek, New Yorker, Interfax Russia, Russia Journal etc. and leave a commentary on the article connected with the international relations. Use the new vocabulary you’ve learnt. Post the link to your commentary.

PRE-LISTENING

1. What do you know about the current state with nuclear affairs in the world today?
2. What is the role of our country in the development of nuclear affairs in the world?
3. What is the recent news on the development of nuclear affairs in the world?

COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS

1. According to president Obama what’s the main aim of the international summit in Washington?
2. Why is the problem of nuclear security so important?
3. Why is it difficult to come to any common agreement in order to create the world’s safety?
4. What’s the importance of the new treaty with Russia according to the analysts?
5. What are the three groups in the Senate which have their own opinions on non-proliferation treaty?
6. What are the chances of the new treaty ratification in the Senate?
7. Do any terroristic organizations possess even the materials for nuclear weapons at the moment?
8. How about the state of the nuclear affairs with India and Pakistan?
9. What’s going on with the Iranian nuclear problem?
10. How does the situation with sanctions on Iran depend on China?

MATCHING EXSERCISE

Match the words with their definitions:

PERSONAL OPINION

1. In your personal opinion what’s the meaning of all this START treaty?
2. Do you think that when we had had this very important treaty signed which showed the level of our relations development the 10-spies case was sort of presented to the public as a means of the president’s discredit?
3. In your personal opinion having heard the analytical point of view can there be anything done in order to improve the situation with the world security and nuclear non-proliferation?

Unit 2. International Organizations.

Part 1. (Inter-) Governmental organizations.

Intergovernmental organizations, also known as international governmental organizations (IGOs): the type of organization most closely associated with the term 'international organization', these are organizations that are made up primarily of sovereign states (referred to as member states). Notable examples include the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU; which is a prime example of a supranational organization), and World Trade Organization (WTO).

PREVIEW

As you look at the flags below, discuss the following with your group mates:

a) Which international organization do these flags belong to?

b) What’s the aim of these organizations’ activities?

c) What’s their role in the modern world and what was the goal for them originally?

STRATEGIC VOCABULARY

Multilateral action – is the action/act of or involving more than two nations or parties

Common defense - is the protection of a whole country against foreign attack.

Collective security – the maintenance by common action of the security of all members of an association of nations

To adopt a strategy/programme – to choose and follow; to take on; assume

To urge – to advocate or recommend earnestly and persistently; plead or insist on

An appeal to – an application or resort to another person or authority, esp. a higher one, as for a decision or confirmation of a decision

A standing military force – permanent military presence

To refrain – to abstain (from action); forbear

To maintain the truce – to keep an agreement to stop fighting, esp temporarily in force

Endorsement – 1) the act or an instance of endorsing 2) something that endorses, such as a signature or qualifying comment 3) approval or support

Under the Charter – according to the Charter

LISTENING COMPREHENSION

Listen to the report about the history of European Union twice. And do the tasks.

II. Answer the following questions:

1) What was the main point of the speech by the French Foreign Minister – Robert Shuman?

2) The Treaty of Paris outlined some new economic benefits and organized new community. Which were they?

3) What were the main ideas of the Treaty of Rome in 1957?

4) What defined the general European policy in during the 60s and 70s?

5) Which programs did the EU start?

6) What’s the way the EU functioning today?

III. Decide whether the following statements True/False.

1) Originally the EU was organized as a means of struggle against the Soviet Union.

2) The first trade program comprised the market of food supplies.

3) The first member states of the European community were France, Italy, Spain and the Benelux countries.

4) In the beginning of 60s the European community set up a fund in order to help their former colonies in Asia and Africa.

5) The European Agency for Cooperation from 1965 on end has been dealing with the internal developmental issues.

6) The Customs Union “opened” the borders for goods in 1968.

7) The building of the Berlin Wall helped to define the Security and Defense policy of the EU.

8) The aim of Europe’s military or police forces in areas of crisis is to keep peace and fulfill the humanitarian operations.

9) The European Neighborhood Policy emerged in order to help each member to benefit from being the part of the Community.

10) The European Union consists of 29 member states including Switzerland and Turkey.

IV. Match the words from column A with those from the column B as they were used in the text.

V.Translate the following phrases.

Права человека; концепция; угроза; сохранять мир; миротворчество; защищать; урегулировать конфликты; безопасность; ассоциированные страны; верховный представитель.

For exploring Europe the most interesting way go to:

http://europa.eu/europago/explore/quiz.jsp

http://europa.eu/europago/explore/chapters.jsp

Questions For Analysis and Discussion.

1. What’s the ideological basis for the Europe’s integration: yesterday, today, tomorrow?
2. Do you think the existence of European Union beneficial for Russia? Do you know anything of Europe’s political, economic and diplomatic ties with Russia?

READING COMPREHENTION

1. Read the article and look up the meaning of the underlined words and phrases in the dictionary.

NATO concept

NATO's essential and enduring purpose set out in the Washington Treaty, is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Based on common values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, the Alliance has striven since its inception to secure a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe. The achievement of this aim can be put at risk by crisis and conflict affecting the security of the Euro-Atlantic area. The Alliance therefore not only ensures the defense of its members but contributes to peace and stability in this region.

The fundamental guiding principle by which the Alliance works is that of common commitment and mutual cooperation among sovereign states in support of the indivisibility of security for all of its members. Solidarity and cohesion within the Alliance, through daily cooperation in both the political and military spheres, ensure that no single Ally is forced to rely upon its own national efforts alone in dealing with basic security challenges. Without depriving member states of their right and duty to assume their sovereign responsibilities in the field of defense, the Alliance enables them through collective effort to realize their essential national security objectives.

To achieve its essential purpose, as an Alliance of nations committed to the Washington Treaty and the United Nations Charter, the Alliance performs the following fundamental security tasks:

Security: To provide one of the indispensable foundations for a stable Euro-Atlantic security environment, based on the growth of democratic institutions and commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes, in which no country would be able to intimidate or coerce any other through the threat or use of force.

Consultation: To serve, as provided for in Article 4 of the Washington Treaty, as an essential transatlantic forum for Allied consultations on any issues that affect their vital interests, including possible developments posing risks for members' security, and for appropriate co-ordination of their efforts in fields of common concern.

Deterrence and Defense: To deter and defend against any threat of aggression against any NATO member state as provided for in Articles 5 and 6 of the Washington Treaty.

Не нашли, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском: