Socialized Diplomacy: Its Relevance to Eritrean Experience

Warm greetings between longtime friends and former freedom fighters, Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki and his South Sudanese counterpart, Salva Kiir Mayardit


Socialized Diplomacy: Its Relevance to Eritrean Experience

By Haile Bokure

For some, diplomacy it is an art of give and take, and for others it is mere act of making things possible. The main protagonists in this political game are expected to be flexible and well-versed in diplomatic cunning. The main dictum is the end justifies the means in satisfying the rugged materialism or utilitarianism. That is why we are suffering social pathology in an age of degrading humanity.

Currently, we may be stunned to see how the civilized art of diplomacy manipulated by “socialized diplomacy” that does not promote the interest of majority. I remember in the late sixties, Israel and Egypt had a series of diplomatic conferences brokered by the U.S. It was unnegotiable state of affairs between the rival powers in the Middle East. But in ensuing period, a cordial relationship evolved among the diplomats by crossing the ethical standard of diplomacy. In the process, President Anwar Sadat invited Dr. Henry Kissinger who was the Secretary of the State during Nixon administration for his daughter’s wedding. In a bid attempt to exploit this happy event, Kissinger the crafty diplomat said privately to Sadat, “Thank you for your official invitation. But we would like to dramatize your daughter’s wedding by signing a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.” President Sadat yielded to his will; right at the spot without consulting his staff members.

The rest is history.

In this connection, the socialized diplomacy (ብዓርከይ-ዓርክኻ) that the US employed by way of its delegates in dealing with Ethio-Eritrean conflict is clear in the words of Henry Kissinger:-

“Since there was no geopolitical basis for the Versailles order, the statesmen were driven to invoking their PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP as a means of maintaining it – a step none of their predecessors had ever taken. The aristocrats who had conducted foreign policy in the nineteenth century belonged to a world in which intangibles were understood in the same way. Most of them were comfortable with each other. Nevertheless, they did not believe that their personal relations could influence their assessments of their countries’ national interest. Agreements were never justified by the “atmosphere” they generated, and concessions were never made to sustain individual leaders in office. Nor did leaders address each other by their first names as a way of understanding their good relations with each other for the sake of their public opinion.”

Such abuse of politics which is anti-thesis to the  interest of DEMO (people) is a bankrupt in the eyes of Eritreans who are very assertive in case  justice and truth are denied.

Their long struggle reflects this. Period!

Note:-

Kissinger, Henry ( 1994). Diplomacy. Page 276.

Sponsored Ads