Diplomacy of Solidarity
Diplomacy of solidarity requires a special kind of commitment from governments and state leaders. They need to stand together in everything concerning their states; the support needs to be all rounded not just in politics, but also in human rights, sovereignty, religion, culture among other aspects that make up a state. For the service of solidarity to be effective, the efforts must be directed to mostly pursue peace.
This is whereby each individual’s rights and integrity of every human being are jealously protected, nurtured and guaranteed. This task of diplomacy of solidarity demands that leaders work together in an efficient and coordinated way. Encouraging the citizens of the various nations to also pursue peace, social justice and respect for human rights.
In my opinion this is a little difficult seeing that the international society is indifferent and selfish. States want to pursue their own interests against other states and some even go to war to force their interests into being. The international system is anarchic; meaning that the injustices committed to states in the international arena cannot be out rightly addressed because there is no international police. So the diplomacy of solidarity is only applicable to non-selfish state actors in this present day.
The world is fragmented and classified into states that have power and influence (developed states) and states that are weak and poor (third world countries), this is the sad reality but the diplomacy of solidarity requires that we overlook these differences and help each other as states to preserve the human rights; up to and including rights of migrants who might be mistreated due to the present day terrorism which is quite something to be understood but not above the rights of a human life.
THE PLIGHT OF PEOPLE WHO NEED THE SUPPORT OF DIPLOMACY OF SOLIDARITY
There are still people who suffer the tragedy of violence and forced migration from state to state. No one hears their cry, and nothing is done about their plight. These cries should be amplified by the state governments and they should come together to understand that woman, that orphaned child, that widower who lost his whole family in a genocide, that woman who was raped and misused by the very people she ran to for help; the states should be coming together to help these voices.
Otherwise, they shall surely come to haunt the state in the future. But because of fear and violence due to extremists and radical terror groups, states have been forced to be ruthless to these focus groups yet it is them who need the diplomacy of solidarity to work in their favor. It is these groups that need to be heard the most.
Diplomacy puts human rights at the epitome of its practice yet there are certain groups that are mistreated by the very government that has diplomacy and even some rule by democracy. Diplomacy is meant to amplify and convey the voice of the voiceless by trying to seek solutions for their situations.
To add on that it should also be finding answers as to why there are conflicts all over and to try and remove the weapons from those who perpetrate violence. To also end the scourge of things like human trafficking and the drug cartels that supports these injustices. The diplomacy of solidarity should be present and efficient if only states put aside their interests for once.
The fear of being misunderstood by other states for caring for human rights should be overcome because the international system should be able to create a culture of dialogue whereby everyone can be heard and considered as dialogue partners.
AFRICAN SOLIDARITY FROM PAN-AFRICANISM
Solidarity is no small thing; it depicts unity of purpose, interest or sympathy. African international relations has become an important field of study and this is because of the initial pan-Africanism from the founding Fathers like Kwame Nkrumah. When sub Saharan Africa broke out with independence movements African countries had a lot of unity and in the speeches of the late Kwame Nkrumah shows how much he wanted Africa to be one large nation so that Africans can unite and become a force to reckon with.
Due to the phase of colonialism they faced together, he wanted Africa to rise and use its resources together to form a stable economy; also, he wanted a unified defense and militarized system that would protect the emerging micro-states that gained independence after “Gold Coast” Ghana and lastly, he wanted a unified Foreign Policy and diplomacy for Africa which would amplify political coordination in the areas of defense and economic development.
This was very important and if I were present in that time I would totally support this initiative because the colonial powers were nothing without Africa’s resources. Due to hunger for power by the other emerging states; they wanted to govern their own systems which led to misuse of resources “soft” colonialism by the leaders who took over their newly found independence and implemented the Westphalia system into their states hence there is stagnation in Africa to date.
If they had diplomacy of solidarity today Africa would be very far in terms of growth and development. Many other leaders at the time had supported Kwame Nkrumah but the present day “mannequin” for that solidarity of African states is the African Union. It’s not what was envisioned by the founding fathers of Pan-Africanism but it is somewhere trying to improve Africa despite the high poverty levels at least there’s no stagnation either.
EMPATHY IN DIPLOMACY OF SOLIDARITY; FOCUS TERRORISM
Diplomacy of solidarity requires empathy. How is it that states want to be in cohesion yet they have refugee camps whereby the people are inhumanly treated by the military systems? The states should put themselves in the shoes of these refugees and try to understand their hardships. Some of the problems being encountered today in states is lack of dialogue; yet diplomacy of solidarity cannot exist without dialogue.
A good case study of lack of empathy and dialogue is the terrorism state in most countries today. Certain religions and communities of people are being marginalized just because they look like some Islamic terrorist groups. This is extreme and can also be termed as terrorism to these minority groups by the state.
The military and police government systems have certain motions and slogans such as never NEGOTIATE with a terrorist; which in my opinion are very hard lines taken, considering these terrorists are human and are ready to gravely commit violence up to and including deaths of thousands of people they deserve a listening ear too. Why do they do this? What can be done to ease their situations?
No state has ever tried negotiating with a terrorist because they don’t consider them as a minority group that deserves the right to dialogue. Most of these terror groups feel marginalized and they want their religions to be forcefully recognized or spread no matter what the cost is. If some states like the US and the UK and even Asian countries came to an agreement with them to give them a few states that can become purely islamicized and in exchange stop attacking states violently to reduce violence related deaths.
They might be willing to negotiate certain terms, but without giving them a listening ear and trying to forcefully wipe out terrorists, this only greatly and strongly brews their anger and cause to continue terrorizing states. Diplomacy of solidarity in my opinion should apply to all focus groups. In the event that they don’t want to agree to any terms of the negotiations then force can be used for the sake of the safety of the citizens, but acting against them without knowing their cause terms and plights might be a little dangerous for any state that is trying to fight terrorism. Diplomacy of Solidarity should apply empathy and most of all dialogue which is indeed the backbone of its practice.
“Agents of change”
Writen by Vanesa Vinya
Check out Afromun.com for more information
Innovation postdoctoral fellow of National Research Foundation Aug 23 (2016)
Volume 21, 2014- issue 4: transnational Solidarities and the Politics of the Left, 1890–1990
Diplomacy initiatives and Responses, Rs.25 (2005) India