Traditional diplomacy

The roots of diplomacy were set in the ancient world. Moreover, the emergence of countries inevitably caused need to be maintained an active foreign policy on the international stage. It was necessary to establish forms of external contacts and relationships, to negotiate and conclude agreements. This is the sphere of diplomacy – to uphold the international affairs.
In addition to this, diplomacy occurs together with the emergence of foreign relations. It is constantly improving and has improved many centuries earlier before the creation of the term to be determined. Besides, at different stages of history diplomacy has been going through in diverse forms and ways that were consistent with the current conditions, and therefore they do not always coincide with the current ways and forms. Nevertheless, many basic principles of diplomacy and diplomatic skills and activities specific to the time treat distant past, have not lost their importance in our days. Now, a truly efficient diplomacy could be only the one, which is based on traditions, national and historical values and events, as well involving the problems of the modern days. Consequently, this allows the countries to optimally develop their line of foreign relations and successfully ensure their national and state interests.






In order to substantiate the validity of the idea that the ‘old’ diplomacy is contemporary applicable, we can adduce historical examples which aspire to find the solution to certain political affairs and problems of the modern time, since they are concentrated on what is happening in reality. For example, during the cold war nuclear weapons helped make competition between the US and USSR safer than it would have otherwise been if the superpowers had had only conventional arms on their disposal. Both were aware that if each of them had pushed the other too far, the conflict might have escalated to nuclear war engendering the obliteration of many towns and cities. The civil casualties would have been countless. Thus, because they used the diplomatic activities effectively and were aware of the probable aftermaths, they never actually fought a war with each other. So, from this historical paradigm we can perceive that the ‘old’ diplomatic methods and decisions are not only contemporary relevant, but also can be utilize very successfully on the political field nowadays.
Incontrovertibly, the diplomatic actions of the US and the Soviet Union were different during the cold war from those which take place at the present time. Notwithstanding, the history of the cold war implies that what matters is not the character of the countries that have nuclear weapons but the fact that they have them. Therefore, we do not need to look at the state level of analysis, which examine the regimes of the countries, their economic systems and domestic factors, in order to predict the relationship between the countries. Hence, we can witness that the fact that the US and the USSR have nuclear weapons makes the situation between them stable during the cold war, which can be scrutinize as some way of diplomacy to keep the relationships between those countries in tranquility.
On the whole, we can observe that the ‘old’ diplomacy is not outdated because what is happening currently in the international arena is not unique, but is rather reminiscent of events that took place in the past.
Web Links:
1) http://www.coldwar.org/

2) http://www.funfront.net/hist/europe/coldwar.htm

3) http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=66

The New Diplomacy C: The Old and New Diplomacy related to Bilateral and...

The New Diplomacy C: The Old and New Diplomacy related to Bilateral and...: "Diplomacy occurs as a dialogue between independent states. When talking about diplomacy, one must understand that there are Old and New dipl..."

The New Diplomacy C: The Old and New Diplomacy related to Bilateral and...

The New Diplomacy C: The Old and New Diplomacy related to Bilateral and...: "Diplomacy occurs as a dialogue between independent states. When talking about diplomacy, one must understand that there are Old and New dipl..."

The New Diplomacy C: The Old and New Diplomacy related to Bilateral and...

The New Diplomacy C: The Old and New Diplomacy related to Bilateral and...: "Diplomacy occurs as a dialogue between independent states. When talking about diplomacy, one must understand that there are Old and New dipl..."

Western Hypocrisy and Diplomacy

This is a reply to Mam

On the debate about Human Rights there had always been a double standard practiced by the West and  the UN Human Rights Commission in league with Western powers namely the US and her vassal states------the UK, Australia,New Zealand, Israel,  apartheid South Africa, Central and South American countries, and the EU-----all have appalling human rights record from the Second World War to the Cold War years to the torture and murder of Steve Bikko, Sharpville, Soweto, imprisonment of Nelson Mandela for 30 years in Robbins Island to the Iraq's Abu Ghraib torture pictures, the Gaza massacre, and all these have been confirmed by the recent Wikileak revelation on 27 October 2010 exposed such atrocities to be standard practice so much so that our study of international relations can never be the same again .

Why blame China for all the Western economic failures and financial crisis ???During the 19th and 20th century when both Britain and the US had their economic power through exploitation of the Third World resources and were prepared to use gun boat diplomacy and warfare against the LDC people with little regard for their human rights ( see John Pilger, Caroline Elkins et al) and put nothing back into the third world development. But when China moves into these areas and offered to build schools,roads,railways,hospitals the West starts to point to the country's poor human rights record . But as far as China, Malaysia, Singapore,Vietnam are concerned western idea of human righs is not importat because the West don't believe in it themselves and is only using HR to beat and point an accusing finger on countries whom they don't like. What are the basic HRs which Asian countries considers most important are good clean water, a roof over your head, free schools to college level, good roads, productive farm practice  and cultivation to produce food, a free health and welfare system, look after the aged , etc...one could go on . Feedong and education the 1.4 billion Chinese is more important then the polemics of HR . And all these were invested on the Chinese people since 1960 under the communist regime and today the Asian peoples are harvesting  these rewards invested by their government with an average annual economic growth of 8% compared to the Western hemisphere of 0.3% . The govrnment policy is that you can get rich in China but the State decides and today China produced more $ billionaires a year  than the entire EU countries  combined according to Forbes 2010 riches people publication . So it is educational to compare what are the best priorities for the Third World ???  comments please........ToraToraTora

Multilateral Conspiracy

Multilateral diplomacy is about talk and argument and involve a highlevel of conspiracy according to Jeniffer Mitzen (2005) . The Multilateral diplomacy that surrounded NATO's intervention in Kosovo is widely perceived as legitimate base on humanitarian intervention consideration but when compared to the American-led coalition's Second Iraq War is widely perceived as illegitimate (Johnstone,2004) because of the way the US conducted its multilateral diplomacy without UN sanction (Rubin,2003) and under the pretext of going after Iraq's WMD . The late Dr. David Kelly had already argued and presented his findings and confirmed that there were no WMD in Iraq, so to shut him up he was bumped off, claimed to be a suicide by the establishment .
Where legitimation is accomplished through argument, future disagreement must always be possible, but it must not devolve into violence that can destroy the social order ( J.Mitzen) ,and one would add avoid concerted efforts by interested parties to mislead UN member states in multilateral diplomacy and loses all credibility in international relations.

Jennifer Mitzen : Multilateral Diplomacy and Global Public Spheres, in American Political Science Review, vol.99, No.3. August 2005

Ian Johnstone (2004), US-UN  Relations After Iraq : The End of the World (Order) as we Know It ?, in European Journal of International Law  15(December) :813-38

James Rubin (2003),  Stumbling Into War  , Foreign Affairs (September/October) :46-66

ToraToraTora

NGO's are a Liability :Diplomatic Quangos

NGOs are a creation of powerful vested interests like e.g. the World Bank and the IMF to ensure that they have  a monopoly of Third World finances, markets and trade, and they are one of the causes of perpetual underdevelopment in some Third World countries in dependency theory and structural adjustment programmes(SAPs) .  NGOs are also the cause of crippling debts in poor countries and perpetuating what Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal ( in Asian Drama ) termed the vicious circle and spiral of of never ending poverty.

It has its early history during the Green Revolution in agriculture pioneered by Norman Borlaug in the 1960s on dry rice cultivation without needing much water but tons of fertilizers that has to be imported from Monsanto, ICI,etc under a loan- aid  agreement for these new rice strain to survive and grow . Many underdeveloped countries  had to borrow heavily from the IMF and World Bank during the Cold War years and this serve the interest of the West, especially the USA .

The NGO diplomacy is generally seen as a body to market western products in the developing world .  Although superficially they are seen to be helping and aiding the Third World   like for example the fight against malaria  in Africa. But after 30 years the parasitic illness remain dormant in 2010 and new western medicines and other ineffective control reccommendation has failed to eradicate the plague but continue to be dumped on these countries at a price .
There has also been accusation that some NGO's  are using the Africans as live human  guinea  pigs to test western drugs in disease detection, birth control pills among the hill peoples of Thailand and the deadly   ebola virus  as WMD experiments . And possibly HIV/AIDS, a genetically engineered virus that appeared in 1982 is within the WMD programme tested on Africans first but soon got out of control ,cross the human ethnic barrier and swamped the world  .

NGOs are generally seen as both  a liability and a marketing tool of  Western interests and to keep redundant diplomatic bureaucrats in a job at great expense to Third World countries receiving aid from the First World.

However the same cannot be said of medicin sans frontier which is a highly respected independant organisation, but the same cannot be accredited to the Red Cross which has been tainted in the past and strongly connected with the Swiss banks and government during the Cold War years .It was used as a cover for Swiss banks in their shady activity with dictators in the Third World to embezzle millions of dollars out of their country into Swiss bank accounts .

My Face can you name one NGO that has been really successful in helping Third World countries to grow better crop yields or to eradicate disease . We are in the 21st century now and all the NGO particpation in the last century continue to be with us, why  ????? ToraToraTora

Evolution Of Diplomacy

Old diplomacy as we know we know it, is slowly but surely dying out. The old "hush hush" mentality and sneaking behind each others back facade is cracking up.

The innovation and evolution of technology has certainly shed a new light on the whole context of diplomacy. Behind closed doors and the elitist diplomatic society has taken a tumble.

The liberation in society, or at least western society leaves the "old" diplomats hanging by a thread. I am not arguing against t

he old diplomatic agenda, but it is inevitable not to adapt to modern society.

The new diplomacy is an outcome of the development or our society. This is no longer a one man race where people travel hundred of miles just to deliver a classified document. Technology has broken boundaries far beyond what we could ever imagine. Not only us as individuals, also how states interact with each other.

The rise of NGO's, Human Rights groups and environmentalists are also a key factors in the change of diplomacy. The have risen so high that their impact is so significant to the ongoing processes in world diplomacy. They represent the new powers of diplomacy and international affairs. The economic, cultural and commercial even individual are regarded as the "new" key components. States have become so dependent on their backing to make up for their own mistakes and losses.

Richard Langhorne makes a very interesting argument in his book " History and the Evolution of Diplomacy " about the connection between states and non-state actors.

This website: (http://www.diplomacy.edu/books/mdiplomacy_book/langhorne/regular/langhorne-5.htm)

has an excerpt from his book. For a example. In an ongoing financial crisis when states experience confusing and difficult times and they loose power and money in relation to other states. The role or impact of non-state actors such as humanitarian organisations has increased to make up for states own poor governmental structure. This has evoked a new pattern in international affairs. Increased participation gives the the opportunity to influence. There are no longer afraid of the stabbed in the back after they "saved" them. Its a bit confusing I know. Please feel free to read (http://www.diplomacy.edu/books/mdiplomacy_book/langhorne/regular/langhorne-5.htm)

Another interesting point Langhorne makes out is the fact that non-state actors are becoming so powerful. They create their own diplomacy. It is an interesting point of view because evolution has no ending.

With power and influence comes greed and all of a sudden they are more powerful than the state itself.

They move on to greater and better things. Borders and boundaries become more diffuse and we loose even more of our integrity and sovereignty.

I am not sure whether i agree or disagree with Langhorne on this matter. If they create a diplomacy so vast that it overtakes the diplomacy as we know it, should we be afraid? Will they pose a threat to world securtity? This maybe seem as ridiculous questions, but I am only speculating.

Evolution has no ending

Power don't need diplomacy

It is a misnomer to characterise Genghis Khan and the Mongol leaders as a diplomats and his conquest of Europe right unto the gates of Vienna as anything but diplomacy. The Mongol hordes are a loosely confederated nomadic nation and after establishing his capital at Karakoram his followers swept into the grasslands of Europe bent on  conquest, pillage and looting with no established administration but ruled by terror and intimidation. They ruled Russia indirectly for 300 years . If the Mongols do not inflict violence and terror on other nation the Khan’s tribe may  turn on each other and start fighting among themselves.  Such are the political culture of tribal kingdoms like the Ashanti  in Ghana, and Shaka Zulu in South Africa, Attila the Hun from the steppes of Hungary-----all used a form of state terrorism to keep themselves in power. It is a political culture widely used by the Ottoman sultans right up to World War 1.

There are two very recent Russian made DVDs chronicling the rise and conquest of the Mongols, the storm from the east-----MONGOL directed by Sergei Bortov on the rise of Temudgin (1162) and BY THE WILL OF GENGHIS KHAN directed by Andrey Borisov which I recommend students to view so as to understand the real politics of the 12th century . Mongol history is devoid of any diplomacy because they either don’t need it or they don’t know how. It is all about power and how to use it in the realist view ( Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, et al)   And this is no different from the realpolitik of today preached  by George W.Bush’s NEOCONS. The Second Iraq War initiated by the US and UK to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his sons in  2004 was no different from the Mongol system of political theory and belief system of subjugation.

They ignored Tariq Ali’s Iraqi diplomacy and manipulated various UN Resolutions to suit their own political agenda negotiating from a position of strength( Henry Kissinger, Gearge F.Keenan, et al ) both US-UK was not going to be deterred by world opinion. A shrewd Chinese political leader called Mao Zedong once said that political power emanates from the barrel of a gun continue to hold  true today .

The only Mongol leader that has ever used diplomacy was Kubilai Khan emperor of China and established the 12th century Yuan dynasty.  He used the Chinese court  diplomats to further China’s interest at home and abroad and attempted to invade Japan when she began to assert her independence from the Chinese World . Venetian traveller Marco Polo in his Travels has written widely about the Khan’s realm.

The Mongol conquests of Europe has built an empire greater than the British and in its legacy created the Ottoman state of Turkey, the Tartar-Muslim states of Russian Caucasia , Persia/Iran, Mughal India, and the Russian border states from Uzbekistan to Kirghizstan without any form of diplomacy being practiced .

So Daniel you have erred !!!!!!!! ToraToraTora .

Diplomacy in the Age of Information Technology

The invention of new technological devices, mostly in the field of transportation and telecommunications, has significantly affected the process of diplomacy (Melissen: 1999, p.171). Technological developments have started to mold the old conception of space and time, the invention of the printer and the railways have constituted a paramount symbol of cultural expansion and decentralization of information. Traditionally information was limited to a priviledged group that belonged to the central power and the people without economic capacity lacked of access to information of the government activities, consequently the interference of public opinion was null.

Although the new rising power of the media has interfered the process of communication that is the main pillar of diplomacy, it does not affect the very nature of diplomacy. Diplomacy does not maintain intact but conserve its essence as an indispensable institution that manages with responsibility the public interest. Traditional diplomacy continuos valid regarding the importance of diplomats' direct presence for a most effective communication, precision of concepts, responsibility, representation and interest of real information such as language, tradition and custom.

International representation must coexist with modern technology's challenges and maintain the essential characteristics of traditional diplomacy in which individuals must be chosen to represent the state, collect relevant information, take advantage of communications and IT resources and negotiate on behalf of the state that they are representing. However, as this important development has encouraged groth to access to information, careful must be taken with spying networks, hackers and the leaking of a report that can filter contradictory information on web-sites of ministers and diplomats, "a clear result of the growing use of the web in diplomatic practice is that it throws into question the validity of paragraph 2, Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which specifies that 'all official business...shall be conducted with, or through, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' (Melissen: 1999, p.180-181).

The End of an Era?

What do you consider to be the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy?

Most scholars agree that the “new” diplomacy has a number of key features which distinguish it from the classical form of diplomacy.

Most cite its openness and transparency in contrast to the secrecy of negotiations behind closed doors, the rise of new technologies enabling real-time communication around the world, the focus on multilateral conferences and international organizations as opposed to the bilateral agreements of the past and its inclusiveness compared to the highly elitist notion of “diplomats only”.

While all of these changes can have a major impact on the way diplomacy is conducted, it is the new concept of inclusiveness that challenges the very foundation of the Westphalian order: the primacy of sovereign states.

Brown takes it to the extreme in exclaiming “The era of sovereign states is dead”, referring to the states’ struggle to control the international economy, the financial system and the flow of information over the internet on their own. And to the rise of NGOs on the international diplomatic scene: Suddenly, states are no longer the only driving powers to bring issues on top of the diplomatic agenda.

Unsatisfied with the slow and lengthy processes of the “old” diplomacy, tired of protests which were being ignored and losing trust in the way states represent them, civil society, supporting NGOs in vast numbers, emerged at the head of a “new” diplomacy.

It is driven by the power of ideas, which are marketed in large campaigns, rather than by military or economic might and a resolute “take it or leave it” (Brown, p18) approach in negotiations, unwilling to compromise on content to suit the Great Powers; as well as working with compressed timeframes and 2/3 majorities rather than aiming for unanimity, a novelty in consensus-based International Law.

The Ottawa Process resulting in the Mine Ban Treaty of 1997 and the Statute of the International Criminal Court, crafted in Rome, 1998, are named by Kofi Annan as two of the great successes of this “new” diplomacy “under the impulse of the tireless work by NGOs” (Brown, p1).

This development has truly been extraordinary. NGOs have taken issues already on the international agenda, and moved them into a faster track (Davenport), by rallying the support of smaller, “like-minded” nations, which offered the necessary state leadership. By focusing on innovative methods and speed, NGOs provided the key leadership in lobbying for, advising on and drafting some of the language of two treaties which have been ratified by 156 states (Mine Ban Treaty) and 114 states (ICC). Achieving all this disregarding the usual diplomatic channels, without US support and generally detached from the state-centric past.

However, as revolutionary as this sounds, one should not forget, that NGOs alone did not create those treaties. They triggered interest, relentlessly lobbied for support and exerted strong pressure on the delegates to come to a decision fast. However, the votes on the treaties were still cast by nations, not by NGOs or “the civil society” and nations signed and ratified the treaties – or decided not to, for they were overwhelmed by the fast pace of the "new" diplomacy and could not achieve the desired amendments.

Still, I believe that the element of inclusiveness is the most important change to the nature of diplomacy, but it is not a momentum that will overturn the concept of state sovereignty.

Nation states will have to learn to cooperate with NGOs, in order to create a mutually supportive relationship: States will be able to profit from the ideological power of NGOs to lobby for issues on the agenda, can learn from the NGOs flexibility, as well as their expertise on a variety of matters; while NGOs which ultimately do lack legitimacy can become partners to nations rather than opponents, as the “new” diplomacy will develop further. Further, towards a willingness to lift issues from normal decision-making forums to the creation of new processes, which include states as well as non-state actors.

A video of the UN NGO Conference 2010 - They are here to stay

21st century: the era of new diplomacy?

Diplomacy. We often use this term under various circumstances and in different situations. But when we start thinking, it is not so easy to define what diplomacy exactly is - especially in its practical sense. We read in ‘A dictionary of diplomacy’ that: ‘diplomacy is the conduct of relations between sovereign states through the medium of officials based at home or abroad, the latter being members or states’ but it could be also ‘diplomatic missions to foreign states’ or ‘communications system of international society’ (Berridge G. R. James A. 2003 p. 69-70). Perhaps ‘diplomacy’ contains all of them and even more. However, the question now arising is: when and how did it actually start? Is diplomacy still the same as hundreds of years ago?

As I see it the most visible change in diplomacy is that rather than typical bilateral treaties states prefer multilateral conferences. Therefore they even created platforms to do it. Those are international organisations such as European Union or United Nations with all of their associations. The international conferences create good opportunity to discuss many important issues. Additionally those issues are more and more often not as significant as for instance a hundred years ago. They are concerned for example with trade, health care, human rights, people’s safety or environment. Moreover they claim that universal values are the most important issue nowadays. Loads of conferences about world peace or human rights have been taking place.

Additionally, other actors arrived to the scene: NGOs and international companies. The position of NGOs on the foreign policy scene has already moved from episode to supporting actor. A good example is Ottawa Convention of 1997 about banning antipersonnel mines which was created because of the pressure from International Campaign to Ban Landmines (Brown, B. 2001, ‘What is the New Diplomacy?’ in American Foreign Policy Interests, Vol. 23, p. 3-4). The Organisation was formed to achieve this task and succeeded. Thousands of NGOs were involved. The Mine Treaty was such a big and valuable success that the Campaign and their founder (Jody Williams) received a Nobel Peace Prize in 1997.

At present times the difference between contemporary and traditional diplomacy can be easily detected. First of all, diplomacy in traditional terms was mostly concerned with political and military issues. It was bilateral and nearly all of the discussions between diplomats were secret. To show how it all worked we could mention Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. It was secret arrangement signed by foreign ministers of Third Reich and Soviet Union that included detailed division of Central Europe between those two countries before Second World War (Biskupski M. Wandycz P. 2003 p.147). Only they knew about it. Nowadays it is unthinkable that two countries could just share third one between them without any notice.

In conclusion, modern diplomacy is more flexible than traditional one. It tends to adapt to the new world order.

However, whether the ‘New Diplomacy’ works and to what extend is debatable. The world became multipolar and the academics have the right to hesitate over the higher moral aim of diplomacy as opposed to the individual states’ interests.

What is the most significant change in the nature of diplomacy?

Ronaldo; Brazilian United Nations Development Programme Representitive first, World Class footballer second.

The most significant change in the nature of diplomacy must be the use of celebrity status. A month ago at the UN summit in New York, celebrities including Ricky Martin, Gisele Bundchen and Mia Farrow pushed for Action on the Millenium Development Goals. Models, sporting heroes, actors and actors wives made their way down the red carpet, stopping only to strike a pose for Hello magazine, to an international conference aiming to tackle issues that require global participation.
In this day and age I believe the majority of issues and problems that bring global representatives together are considered that of 'low politics', for example, environmental issues. In order to persuade a government to support a convention an organisation such as the UN needs to use a familiar personality with whom the public can relate to because public opinion is vital to how a government will then tackle international concerns.
Fundamentally diplomacy has to involve communication, negotitation and representation and this remains true of modern diplomacy as it was a century ago. However they all take the form of different methods due to technological changes and the use of celebrity. For example, feature films highlighting the issue of illegal wars and video appeals for floods in asia can be made to draw attention to the problems, taking full advantage of the way we now use the mdia to communicate in order to bring diplomacy out in the open, in full view of the public rather than behind closed doors.
I think organisations such as the UN are very clever to see how they need to draw attention to the gaps governments around the world are failing to fill by using famous faces to bring their countries together to organise solutions; celebrities are the new diplomats puppeteered by NGO's.

The evolution of diplomacy

As everything in life, diplomacy has evolved too during the centuries and the processes of its changes through time have outlined two main ‘periods’ in its evolution. These two stages are recognized today under the terms ‘traditional’ and ‘new diplomacy’. The traditional diplomacy had its classical and most recognizable characteristics in the 19th century. Furthermore, in these ages the most relevant characteristics, features and roles of the traditional diplomacy were formed and outlined. Later on, in the first half of the 20th century the First World War gave place to the rising and forming of the ‘new’ diplomacy which had to adapt the post-war world to the new demands of people, states and governments. These two stages in the evolution of the diplomacy have many differences. However, seen the fact that the new form has derived from the traditional one, they have various characteristics in common too.

In addition to this, the most considerable change in diplomacy can be shown as the tendency of higher openness; this is raising public security and control. In the ‘new’ diplomacy the public was given more information about the world of politics and the processes and issues that take place on first hand. This led to imminent public interest in politic matters and people started to express their own opinion about the current situations and the extent to which politics and diplomats were able to deal with them. This change in the ‘new’ diplomacy led to a public ‘control’ but not in the sense that people had the authority to control directly the politics. They were able to express their opinion out load and this rising ‘public voice’ eminently had its consequence in the concert of modern politics about the public opinion regarding their actions and decisions. Moreover, dissimilarity from the ‘new’ diplomacy, in the ‘traditional’ one we are able to witness excessive secrecy and restriction and limitation of the circle of people who were initiated in the secrets of the diplomatic world. In the 19th century it was desirable to choose aristocrats for diplomats. Utter secrecy was required in order to keep successful negotiations with the other states and people were not devoted to the current issues. All in all, from this main disparity between the

‘traditional’ and the ‘new’ diplomacy, we can recognize the ‘traditional’ one as a process of communication only between states and diplomats who were charged to represent them; and the “new” one as a process of negotiation which can be seen as an open process for the public sphere.

Web Links:

1)http://books.google.co.uk/booksid=RjvTgpLoXqUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=diplomacy&source=bl&ots=FD6mVKyg0g&sig=gbQASqu55UiaeBiYA2gaM8OHS9o&hl=bg&ei=gJohTbSBMNLB8QP9sbDXBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CGUQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q&f=false

2) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11876423

3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0Z2WUF-x9M

4) http://www.scribd.com/doc/7227162/Evolution-of-Diplomacy