Cheap Talk, Mediation and Diplomacy
CASE 252: Coercive Diplomacy Before the War in Kosovo: America's Approach in 1998
Introduction
The concept of “cheap talk” focuses on the analysis of how much information can dependably be forwarded when the communication is direct and costless. Biased experts tend to share noisy information with the decision makers. One way in which the decision makers can enhance the exchange of information is to extend communication. Additionally, he or she must try to seek advice from additional experts. Ultimately, writing contracts with the expert can further increase the credibility of the informational transmission. Theoretically, cheap talk is costless and therefore is not expected to have a major impact on the outcomes of interstate communication. As opposed to the cheap talk model, standard “costly signalling” is predicted to provoke a more fluid transmission of information between two actors in the international system. It is precisely the cost of signalling what gives validity to the information provided. As suggested by Farrell and Rabin, authors of previous literature on cheap talk are divided in opinion. Some scholars argue that cheap talk is rather useless, while others believe that it it is helpful in interstate communication and can actually improve the advantages of both sides. While examining the literature on cheap talk, it is important to highlight additional tools of international communication, such as diplomacy and mediation. The analysis of these issues provides a close insight into the credibility of arguments regarding cheap talk. Several historical cases serve as examples of costly signalling and its outcomes, one of the most recent ones being NATO's show of strength prior to the...
... middle of paper ...
...heoretical arguments on cheap talk, mediation and diplomacy are applicable to the 1998 crisis in Kosovo. Prior to military intervention, the mediator that was NATO attempted to communicate a peaceful agreement between the Yugoslav government and the Kosovars. Following the failure of coercive diplomacy formulated by the U.S. National Security Council, we observed the defender who opted for military intervention in the Balkan region. In other words, after its willingness to use military capabilities had been perceived by Slobodan Milošević as bluffing, the U.S. executive led NATO into a violent campaign that was organized to end the Serbian aggression in Kosovo. Theoretically speaking, what caused the military intervention by NATO was the combination of the challenger's incredulity in the threats of the defender and the defender's bias position against the challenger.
President Clinton addressed the people of the United States on June 10, 1999 over the United States’ mission in Kosovo. Kosovo is a province of Serbia, which makes this war a civil war. Highlights of his speech outline the goals that he wanted to obtain in this Humanitarian intervention, as he called it. The mission had flaws innate to it from the beginning. The three-tiered goal of the President was clearly stated. The first is to allow the Kosovar people back into their homes. The second is to require Serbian forces to leave Kosovo. The last thing was to deploy an international security force, with NATO at its core, to protect all the people that troubled the land, Serbians and Albanians alike. The message was clear, but was not followed in regards to international law, and NATO’s Charter, and even the three clearly stated missions. The involvement in Kosovo’s war is illegal, and the President of the United States has pushed NATO into committing wartime crimes and has used the Powers-of-Office in an unconstitutional manner, which resulted in the illegal intervention of a sovereign state.
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
...he Balkan region, and neither force stepped in to help resolve it. A common theory is that NATO will greatly benefit from Kosovo if it becomes detached from Serbia. NATO will benefit from this because Kosovo is in a prime area in which a base for NATO forces would allow them to "keep tabs" on the area. To the Serbs, U.S. involvement is seen strictly as a way for president Clinton to make his time in office memorable militarily as well as historically, and help to cover up his sex and money scandals (Thompson, 1). The Kosovo conflict is growing with each day. New information is being given and different countries are becoming involved. The countries that are involved need to finish what they have already started. Nobody knows what the future will hold for the people of Kosovo. In the upcoming weeks and months, many decisions will be made, and history will be written.
...perts agree that the air strikes against Kosovo by NATO were illegal because they were never authorized by the security council. However, libertarian expert cite humanitarian international law to justify NATO's actions. For example the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that NATO was justified and its actions were legitimate and that a new form of intervention was emerging- for cases involving repression of minorities that will and must take precedence over other concerns of the law of states. Thus any fragrance violations of humanitarian law, be it crimes against humanity, violations of human rights in the Geneva convention or ethnic cleansing, may provide a legitimate basis for action on the part of international community because all of these have international consequences and go well beyond sacred principles of the domestic jurisdiction of state.8
M. E. McGuinness (Eds.), Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict (pp. 293-320). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
“International Agreements.” The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Third Edition. 1994: Columbia University Press. Lanouette, William. A. “Why We Dropped the Bomb.”
Kent, J. and Young, J.W. (2013), International Relations Since 1945: A global History. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Sarajevo assignation of Austria-Hungarian archduke Franz Ferdinand was all that was needed to plunge the European nations in to war. The assassination lead to powerful nations drawing lines in the sand and provide unwavering support of their allies in the event of conflict. German support if Austria-Hungary provides a strong example of offensive minded states that is using the situation to instigate a clash between its enemies. The evidence that no nation made significant attempts to diplomatically solve the problem and that militaries were mobilizing before war had even been declared, proves that offensive minded strategy was being implemented.
International Relation By Name: Presented to Institution Instructor Course Date International Relation Outline I. Introduction A. Setting of the speech B. The time and period when the speech was made C. Audience II. Content A. Europe is Divided B. Communist Fifth Column C. War is Not Inevitable III. Insight of the Speech IV. Conclusion V. Bibliography Introduction
... has been providing a military there to ensure safety, trying to return displaced persons to their homes, and making an effort to reconcile the armed forces of Bosnia-Croat Federation and the Republika Srpska. NATO also created the Security Cooperation Program (SCP) which helps strengthen stability and promotes reconciliation in the Bosnian community, like the UN,. NATO has also been involved with the complications in Kosovo. In October of 1998, NATO threatened air strikes to force the Milosevic regime in Kosovo to withdraw their forces, help bring an end to the violence, and to let the refugees return to their homes. President Milosevic agreed. The next year, after months of continued threats NATO began to bomb Yugoslavia on March 24th 1999, because Milosevic refused to make peace. The war in Kosovo has killed more than two thousand people and forced more than four hundred thousand from their homes.
Hosmer, Stephen T., The Conflict Over Kosovo: Why Milosevic Decided to Settle When He Did. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2001
The American foreign policy paradox is that the country is too powerful to be challenged by others but not powerful enough to achieve its goals by going at it alone. In a time where the international system is complex, the notion of the American hegemony can be dangerous. The U.S. is unparallel with its military power, but equal in terms of economic powers. Considering the increase in transnational communications, a unilateral foreign policy will fail to accomplish preserving its interests. Soft power enables the U.S. to achieve its goals through allies.
Diplomacy is often one of the last steps taken by two nations before a war
Mediation is a way to solve a dispute without having to resort to court procedure which sometimes could turned out to be rigid, formal and time consuming especially when it needed a lot of paperwork and the possibility of adjournment which could consume years. Besides that, unlike in court, mediator as a third impartial party did not acted as a judge who decides on the resolution however, the mediator will help the parties to explore the needs and issue which before preventing them from achieving a mutual resolution and settlement. The mediation process gave the authority towards the parties to agree with each other and open up the chance for the parties to meet with a resolution at the end of the mediation session.
Other than that, military diplomacy also can introduce transparency into military relations between the states. It may introduced and create understanding between states about their national interest. It will change the mind set of the countries if before this they have misunderstaning that can create any problems.