Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Diplomacy of ConnivanceA Precarious Polarization

Diplomacy of Connivance: A Precarious Polarization [All major clashes bring in tow their share of lasting transformations. Multilateralism was certainly invented by the winners of World War II and was quickly stoked with the ambiguities accumulated up to that point: old-style diplomacy was far from extinct. But the context was no longer the same: the swift rise in East-West tensions, the construction of “blocs”—and later decolonization—and the development of globalization produced new causes, barriers, and meanings, to use Gary Goertz’s classification (cf. infra). A logic of polarization was taking shape for the first time, but in a rather contradictory, imprecise, and equivocal manner. Oligarchic diplomacy did not really vanish: it was dormant and sometimes came back to life elsewhere. Polar logics gradually took hold, but in a rather peculiar way: under the effect of power, but just what power? With a pretension that had universal ambitions, but how far could it really carry its inclusiveness? By engaging in a confrontation reminiscent of Hobbes and his gladiators, but in a complex arena containing a fluctuating degree of connivance that made its return in another form. Polarization laid down its law, but less clearly so than is believed.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/diplomacy-of-connivance-a-precarious-polarization-iWmbOqWK3Z
Publisher
Palgrave Macmillan US
Copyright
© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Nature America Inc. 2012
ISBN
978-1-349-43504-3
Pages
37 –55
DOI
10.1057/9781137006431_3
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[All major clashes bring in tow their share of lasting transformations. Multilateralism was certainly invented by the winners of World War II and was quickly stoked with the ambiguities accumulated up to that point: old-style diplomacy was far from extinct. But the context was no longer the same: the swift rise in East-West tensions, the construction of “blocs”—and later decolonization—and the development of globalization produced new causes, barriers, and meanings, to use Gary Goertz’s classification (cf. infra). A logic of polarization was taking shape for the first time, but in a rather contradictory, imprecise, and equivocal manner. Oligarchic diplomacy did not really vanish: it was dormant and sometimes came back to life elsewhere. Polar logics gradually took hold, but in a rather peculiar way: under the effect of power, but just what power? With a pretension that had universal ambitions, but how far could it really carry its inclusiveness? By engaging in a confrontation reminiscent of Hobbes and his gladiators, but in a complex arena containing a fluctuating degree of connivance that made its return in another form. Polarization laid down its law, but less clearly so than is believed.]

Published: Mar 5, 2015

Keywords: Security Council; Atomic Bomb; International Politics; Middle Power; Polar Logic

There are no references for this article.