Twesh Mishra attempts to explore into the reasons for the threats that diplomatic agents face in these conflict rigged areas
Diplomacy, the art of portraying dismay with gratitude, the act of resolving supposed conflict or rather the process of ensuring that a preconceived agenda is fulfilled. Such is the perception of international diplomacy in minds of the majority stakeholders in conflict rigged areas.
From Somalia to Burma (Myanmar), Congo to Syria and from Libya to Egypt, the perception of the United Nations is synonymous with an institution which is instrumental in enforcing regime change and is primarily responsible for militarization of their beloved lands.From a rather objective opinion while keeping in mind the various conspiracy theorists abuzz, it is believed that the ‘western Zionist powers’ are responsible for the instability prevailing in a majority of these areas. It is not that these opinions are mere rants; the regime change in Iran during the 1940s and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 are attributed to the historical interference of the western powers.
Instilling a further notion of interference in the internal matters of nations, the NATO intervention in Libya and sustained criticism of the Syrian government has further generated much distress. It is interesting to note how the thirst for capitalist expansion and need for sustaining pressures on oil rich Middle East has been reflected as being the reason for such prying. Though the United States of America led Western powers have been referring to the cloak of war against terrorism for the oppressive policies adopted, history has borne witness to the previously mentioned opinion as the core reasons.
Renowned historian and socio anarchist thinker, Noam Chomsky reflected upon President Eisenhower’s belief of the Middle East being that Middle East oil resources “are one of the greatest material prizes in world history” and “hold stupendous sources of strategic power.” Chomsky has consistently argued that American Foreign policy is driven by a ruthless desire to control this oil, protect their strategic interest and to ensure free flow of capital.
In reference to the currently prevailing disorder in world order, Chomsky opinion stands tall as being the only logical one. He argues that these protests are a mere reaction to the oppressive policies adopted by the developed and oil thirsty nations. A number of questions do arise over the moral obligations of a state, but from a realist perspective such notions fall short of gaining any strong ground. It is no longer intriguing for an unbiased observer to study the anti-diplomatic intervention opinion of the masses in these conflict rigged nations.
Before the attempts of world powers to ensure that democracy prevails in the Middle East, a need for introspection in their own foreign policies is of paramount importance. Though there are facts of sustained attempts to oust supposed autocratic regimes of Syria and other Arab nations, a stark contrast is adopted when the same western nations support military regimes in Pakistan and Myanmar.
In the words of Noam Chomsky, talks of democracy promotion ‘are a province of idealist and propagandists’ rather than of politicians. And international diplomacy is resorted to only when one of their ‘favoured dictators’ starts losing control. So prior to attempting further security for these diplomats, the reasons for the threats they face need to be eliminated.
Written during Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology Model United Nations as a member of the International Press while covering the General Assembly.