This book tells the story of English relations with Russia, from the 'strange and wonderfull discoverie' of the land and Elizabeth I's correspondence with Ivan the Terrible, to the corruption of the Muscovy Company and the Elizabethan regime's censorship of politically sensitive representations of Russia. Focusing on the life and works of Giles Fletcher, the elder, ambassador to Russia in 1588, it explores two popular themes in Elizabethan history: exploration, travel and trade and late Elizabethan political culture. The book draws together and analyses the narratives of travel, the practicalities of trade and the discourses of commonwealth and corruption that defined English encounters in late sixteenth century. In the early stages of English mercantile contact with Russia, diplomatic negotiations took shape in the wake of developing trade relations and were made up of a series of ad hoc embassies by individuals. The embassy of Giles Fletcher in 1588, however, represented a change in diplomatic tack. Fletcher's writing of Russia reveals some shared Elizabethan images of the land on Christendom's periphery and fundamentally how Russia was used as a site to reflect on themes of cultural development, commonwealth, trade and colonisation. The extensive use in Fletcher's text of the language of anti-popery points to resonances with the anxieties that riddled the political and religious consciences of late Elizabethan England. His work engaged in cajoling the commonwealth to think with the image of Russia.
The fourth chapter examines the establishment of extraterritorial jurisdiction in Xinjiang (1880–1918). There, no treaty existed defining consular rights in the province. As a result, the consular official George Macartney carved out his rights through adjudicating Sino-British cases and by diplomatic negotiation with the Chinese authorities. As Macartney worked for the Indian government and, after 1908, was also a China consular official, he therefore bridged the colonial and semicolonial world. From 1918, his legal powers were derived from consular frameworks, but he could apply colonial laws from British India. He also sent suspects and convicts to India, creating an administrative and judicial fusion between the consular and colonial system.
The Arab–Israeli conflict has been at the centre of international affairs for decades. Despite repeated political efforts, the confrontation and casualties continue, especially in fighting between Israelis and Palestinians. This new assessment emphasizes the role that military force plays in blocking a diplomatic resolution. Many Arabs and Israelis believe that the only way to survive or to be secure is through the development, threat, and use of military force and violence. This idea is deeply flawed and results in missed diplomatic opportunities and growing insecurity. Coercion cannot force rivals to sign a peace agreement to end a long-running conflict. Sometimes negotiations and mutual concessions are the key to improving the fate of a country or national movement. Using short historical case studies from the 1950s through to today, the book explores and pushes back against the dominant belief that military force leads to triumph while negotiations and concessions lead to defeat and further unwelcome challenges. In The sword is not enough, we learn both what makes this idea so compelling to Arab and Israeli leaders and how it eventually may get dislodged.
called for the promotion and
intensification of diplomacy to end the conflict. This faction has sided,
at times fervently, with normalization between Israel and its neighbours,
and regarded the democratization of the Arab world as dependent on
peace with Israel. The opposing liberal faction, the ‘refusal camp’, has
rejected the terms of the diplomaticnegotiations between Israel and
its neighbours and resolutely opposed normalization with Israel. This
faction has perceived the democratization of Arab societies as the necessary precondition for posing
OBAMA’S FOREIGN policy on
Syria put the chemical weapons taboo front and centre of
international politics. This has always been a prominent feature of
international discourse. But now, where the taboo constituted (a) an
imperative for, and justification of, US foreign policy, and (b) the
basis of key diplomaticnegotiations, so the norm came to dominate
because he felt he
could not use the Gazette more effectively, since it was a recognized official mouthpiece of the French government (and, as such,
might jeopardize diplomaticnegotiations if it embraced propaganda assaults on foreign governments), he had to look to other
outlets. Torcy’s problem was a classical propaganda dilemma: how
to boost domestic morale by disseminating one set of anti-foreign
sentiments while taking due account of the sensitivities of foreign
governments to such domestic attacks that might hinder the path
to better diplomatic relations. No
has proved counter-productive. Third, this same belief in force
has resulted in missed diplomatic opportunities.
I do not mean to suggest that military force and diplomaticnegotiations are wholly separate. Governments may be pursuing
both pathways simultaneously. Some overlap between different
tactics is inevitable. Rather, my concern is about the emphasis.
Which one is primary in their thinking? Which one do officials
view as more likely to produce national security and other
important outcomes they seek?
There are already many excellent histories of the
In 1987, in Bellagio, Italy, the possible problem of global warming
was discussed for the ﬁrst time at the political level since the
notion of the human-induced greenhouse effect was suggested at
the end of the nineteenth century. Then, after only two years of
extensive diplomaticnegotiations, more than 150 world leaders
signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) at
the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
held in Rio de Janeiro (the Earth Summit or Rio Summit) in 1992.
The signiﬁcance of the Convention goes
to establish diplomatic relations with
Moscow. Given the fact that diplomaticnegotiations in politics take place in order
to achieve certain objectives, such as the ‘identification of common interests and
agreement on joint or parallel action in their pursuit; recognition of conflicting
interests and agreements on compromise; or, more often than not, some combination of both’, the Ankara government’s decision reveals the new dimension of
its transitional foreign policy.42 The following analysis of Ankara–Moscow correspondence will show that the diplomatic
force. Second, the focus on
diplomaticnegotiation not only increased the status of military leaders
but usurped the momentum of popular struggle during the occupation era
and the Palestinian uprising when women were prominent at the grassroots
level. Women have responded in two major ways to the gender boundaries
underlying diplomacy, national security and state building in Israel. On
the one hand