A theory has been advanced for what is called “Disaster Diplomacy.” Its premise is that international disaster response can be a form of diplomacy. Its primary feature is that disaster aid can serve to overcome political differences and create an atmosphere of cooperation between countries that previously were adamantly opposed on most issues. Do you feel this is a realistic concept? Or is it idealistic wishful thinking that, at best, produces only temporary, transitory benefits?
Do you feel this is a real concept?
I feel the concept is real.
Disasters tend to happen unexpectedly in an unforeseeable future. Disaster occurs in both developed countries and undeveloped countries. The degree of adversity of the disaster tends to affect the social and economic status of the country (Kellman, 2018). Catastrophes also have an impact on the political environment of nations. In regards to the scope, magnitude and location of the catastrophe will significantly affect the potential influence of diplomacy in the country. The susceptibility of countries which are at loggerheads with each other can reconcile with each other due to negative impacts of the disaster that have affected their nations. The natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunami, and drought, hunger and famine have significantly changed most nations political structure and environment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Greece and Turkey were at loggerheads with each other for an extended period. However, earthquakes hit both countries at the same time in 1999 (Kellman, 2018). Greece and Turkey conflicted for years due to the Cyprus issue. The two countries were forced to reconcile their differences due to consequences that were brought about by the earthquake disaster. The political atmosphere of the states was forced to change for them to get over the catastrophe. The two nations engaged in extensive dialogue for a year which resulted at the end of their conflict. For that reason, the concept of tragedy as a tool or platform for diplomacy is idealistic and workable as the two countries have proved it.
However, disaster diplomacy has attracted both pros and cons in nations all over the globe. The first diplomacy benefit is the fact that disaster diplomacy creates a platform of countries which conflict to make peace. The idea behind disaster diplomacy is that states can avoid going to war for them to settle conflicts. Disaster diplomacy has played a significant role in strengthening the international ties of most countries. War attracts loss of lives and misuse of economic resources that can be used to for development purposes. Third world countries which may be going through economic hard times may positively be affected by the disaster diplomacy method. Disaster diplomacy has positively affected developing countries to gain financial support that has helped upgrade the lives of its citizens. Third world countries have had access to grant provided by other countries and not to forget loans that which attract low-interest rates have been given to developing countries by other economically developed countries.
However, the idea of disaster diplomacy has not gone down well with some developed countries. For instance, a country like the United States through its president has not supported the idea of disaster diplomacy. Most countries tend to think in the line of what they will get in return in case of international diplomacy and how the diplomacy efforts will benefit its nation.
A derivative of the Disaster Diplomacy concept holds that debt forgiveness is an increasingly important element in US foreign assistance policy that can influence foreign government behaviour. The theory is that countries are facing an “unsustainable debt burden which cannot be managed with traditional means.” Should either have their debt forgiven or be given low-interest loans to reduce their debt payment levels. Critics assert that this rewards poor and corrupt management and provides an incentive for countries to default. What do you think?
America and other great nations play an essential role in matters that relate to disaster diplomacy. The United States and other developed countries in the world have been the primary game players in giving a helping hand to countries that considered to be third world countries. Most of these third world countries are unable to support their budget (Hollis, 2018). Insufficient funds by the developing nations have significantly affected how they handle their nations disasters. The leaders of these developing countries tend to rely on the financial aid from countries which are considered as world superpowers.
However, the financial aids which are offered by the United States and other developed countries have always tend not achieve the projects that they are allocated (Hollis, 2018). A case is that of Somali where the United States has been giving out grants to counter the terror war on the land. However, this has not been the case as the war in Somali land has never ended since its commence in 1992. However, the funds have not been used to fight the terror. The funds have just supported corruption as the funds usually end up being pocketed by greedy leaders
America and other great nations play an essential role in giving a helping hand to developing nations. The United States tend to give out funds to finance projects in African countries. The funds offered by the United States are considered as grants as the African countries are not required to pay back the funds. The United States does not benefit economically from such kind of diplomacy. The United States can benefit from diplomacy that strengthens its trade ties and not diplomacies that tend to bring a negative impact on the economy of the nation. However, it has been proved that most of these funds that are donated to African countries to help curb disasters have ended up in the wrong pockets. The funds have been used to develop corruption instead of dealing with the tragedies that are affecting their nations. Leaders tend to pocket these funds for their gain and as a result, should not be given the funds.
Over the years, African nations have been receiving funds from developed countries. The lending out of these funds to most of these African nations have led to most of these countries in being economically lazy. In the context of the statement is that these African countries have developed the habit of receiving foreign aids such that they cannot step up and start financing their projects. Most developing countries rely on foreign subsidies to finance nearly a third of their budgets. Surprisingly, the majority of the funds given by the United States and significant nations do not finance their budget but instead finances corruption. The laws in most developing countries are not that strict to deal with corrupt leaders. For this reason, the United States should not indulge in diplomacies that they don’t economically benefit. Loans offered to these nations are at high risk of being defaulted as critics have also suggested.
References
Hollis, S. (2018). Bridging international relations and disaster studies: the case of disaster–conflict scholarship. Disasters, 42(1), 19-40.
Kelman, I. (2018). Connecting theories of cascading disasters and disaster diplomacy. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction.
