Common or competing interests put the onus on governments to form and strengthen partnerships, or peacefully resolve differences, in the form of open exchange and negotiation between diplomats and high-ranking civil servants. Often the preferred alternative to war, conflict resolution--either bilateral or mediated by a neutral, third party--is the strongest case for vigorously and carefully applied diplomacy. Dyalogues in this section will discuss success and failures in the diplomatic arena, and how countries can resolve problems and further their own interests by sitting down and talking.
Recent Dyalogues in International Relations & Diplomacy
Apr 2009
Should Obama have used the term "genocide" about the Armenian Genocide?
Type:
DebatesStatus:
CompletedUpdated on Apr 30, 2009During his campaign for President, Barack Obama said repeatedly that he would officially recognize the Armenian Genocide as such if he became president, something no previous president had done (despite promises to the contrary). Turkey, a key US ally, vehemently denies the Armenian Genocide, and has threatened other countries who have recognized the Genocide with diplomatic, business and other repercussions.
However, in today's announcement commemorating the event, Obama avoided the term "genocide" and instead used the Armenian term medz yeghern ("great calamity/disaster"). Was this capitulation in the face of Turkish threats?
Topic suggestions
Start off a new dyalogue with one of these current hot topics!
-
Should the US sell arms to Taiwan?
Category:
International Relations & Diplomacy -
Will a new climate deal work without clear CO2 reduction commitments?
Category:
International Relations & Diplomacy
