The author of the source is questioning to what extent should nations respond with diplomacy to the aggression of other states? A modern government has a responsibility, pointed out in the source, to protect its citizens and national interest. There are many ways for a government to carry out this responsibility through their foreign policy, such as diplomatic or military actions. This author believes that force is the best and only way to defend a nation. In the past, using force was seen as the only way to defend a nation’s citizens and national interest, largely because there was no diplomatic framework to operate under. Autocratic governments of the past were unable to see defence in any other way because they took the demand to defend
…show more content…
Given these circumstances, some, such as Neville Chamberlain, would argue that military force should never be used to protect national interest. Force used by a government to protect their interests creates countless casualties and, seeing as this is no longer the only option for defence, these fatalities should be avoided at all costs. Indeed, since the advent of democracies, the use of force in the international community has decreased dramatically. Advocates of diplomacy would point to these factors as reasons for diplomacy over violence in all circumstances. Yet, there is a middle road that draws on the best of diplomacy and the best of military action. Both the source and those opposing it go too far in their responses to aggression from other states. As a first defence in a modern world, diplomacy should be used in order to prevent civilian casualties and because it has been proven to work. If a nation is not responding to diplomacy and becoming increasingly hostile, it is the responsibility of a government to protect its citizens using …show more content…
France in Vietnam)
Lots of ppl died here, use of Agent Orange, brutal treatment
Kind of sort of stopped communism
Eventually, they did talk and settle things peacefully, but they should have tried first to stop death
Argument #2: Democracy and diplomacy are effective at reducing & resolving conflicts, given that their nature promotes friendship, compromise and peace. So, when the option is available, diplomatic tactics should be used instead of trying to force your will on another nation. Demonstrating how effective the use of democracy can be, is the modern-day diplomatic interaction w/ N. Korea
Aggressive actions which threaten global stability
Nuclear proliferation
Refuse to cooperate w/ the international community
Economic sanctions helped raw him out
Early meeting btw Kim Jong-un and S. Korea gov’t were hopeful
Maybe a summit btw Trump and Kim which proves how you don’t need to shoot ppl to protect global
Given these circumstances, some, such as Neville Chamberlain, would argue that military force should never be used to protect national interest. Force used by a government to protect their interests creates countless casualties and, seeing as this is no longer the only option for defence, these fatalities should be avoided at all costs. Indeed, since the advent of democracies, the use of force in the international community has decreased dramatically. Advocates of diplomacy would point to these factors as reasons for diplomacy over violence in all circumstances. Yet, there is a middle road that draws on the best of diplomacy and the best of military action. Both the source and those opposing it go too far in their responses to aggression from other states. As a first defence in a modern world, diplomacy should be used in order to prevent civilian casualties and because it has been proven to work. If a nation is not responding to diplomacy and becoming increasingly hostile, it is the responsibility of a government to protect its citizens using …show more content…
France in Vietnam)
Lots of ppl died here, use of Agent Orange, brutal treatment
Kind of sort of stopped communism
Eventually, they did talk and settle things peacefully, but they should have tried first to stop death
Argument #2: Democracy and diplomacy are effective at reducing & resolving conflicts, given that their nature promotes friendship, compromise and peace. So, when the option is available, diplomatic tactics should be used instead of trying to force your will on another nation. Demonstrating how effective the use of democracy can be, is the modern-day diplomatic interaction w/ N. Korea
Aggressive actions which threaten global stability
Nuclear proliferation
Refuse to cooperate w/ the international community
Economic sanctions helped raw him out
Early meeting btw Kim Jong-un and S. Korea gov’t were hopeful
Maybe a summit btw Trump and Kim which proves how you don’t need to shoot ppl to protect global