Diplomacy and Global Security: A Historical Narrative of the Post-Cold War Era Henry B. Ogunjewo, Ph.D Department of History & Strategic Studies, University of Lagos, Nigeria Email: hogunjewo@unilag.edu.ng drogunjewohenry@gmail.com Tel: 0802 331 2247, 0907 848 5658 Abstract Immediately after the Cold war, there was a general optimism of an international system that will enable the component nation-states to pursue economic growth and greater independence. Despite the various strategies by the component nation states in the international system to attain self-sufficiency in economic terms and thus reduce dependence on other nation states for their needs and survival thereby weakening bilateral relations, the contemporary realities of the international system in the face of global security challenges pose a compelling sustained cooperation and collaboration among the nation states in the international system. Global security includes military and diplomatic measures that nations and international organizations such as the United Nations and NATO take to ensure mutual safety and security. It also includes the regional and sub-regional collaborative strategies at combating security challenges. Diplomacy and global security are among the most pressing issues facing the world today. Success or failure can have huge implications for the international community and society as a whole. This paper submits that global security will remain a compelling factor in diplomatic relations in the twenty-first century. KEY WORDS: Global Security, Diplomacy, Cold War, Collaborative Strategies, Sustained Cooperation mailto:hogunjewo@unilag.edu.ng mailto:drogunjewohenry@gmail.com Introduction Global security in the contemporary international system includes military and diplomatic measures that nation-states and international organizations such as the United Nations and NATO as well as regional organizations like the EU, AU, OAS etc take to ensure mutual safety and security. It also includes the collaborative efforts and regional organizations corporate efforts which provide analyses that help policymakers understand political, military and economic trends around the world; the sources of potential regional conflict; and emerging threats to the global security environment (Buzan, B. and L. Hansen 2009). Global security, refers to the amalgamation of measures taken by nation states and international organizations, such as the United Nations, European Union, and others, to ensure mutual survival and safety. These measures include military action and diplomatic agreements such as treaties and conventions. International and National security are invariably linked and mutually dependent. As a matter of fact, International security is national security or state security in the global arena. Diplomacy and international security are among the most pressing issues facing the world today. Success or failure of global security can have huge implications for the international community and society as a whole. That is why this paper presents an opportunity for diplomats, politicians, academics, state and non-state actors to think strategically reflect historically and plan properly. The content of international security has expanded over the years. Today it covers a variety of interconnected issues in the world that affect survival. It ranges from the traditional or conventional modes of military power, the causes and consequences of war between and among states, economic strength, to ethnic, religious and ideological conflicts, trade and economic conflicts, energy supplies, science and technology, food, as well as threats to human security and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_security the stability of states from environmental degradation, infectious diseases, climate change and the activities of non-state actors.( Buzen, B., O. Wæver, et al.. 1998) The international system as presently constituted is very fragile and demands sustained cooperation and collaboration. This paper submits that global security will remain a compelling factor in diplomatic relations in the twenty-first century. Diplomacy Diplomacy as a concept and practice is as old as man. However, the origin of organized diplomacy may be traced to the relations among the city-states of ancient Greece. By the fifth century BC, Nicolson stated, "special missions between the Greek city-states had become so frequent that something approaching our own system of regular diplomatic intercourse had been achieved."(Harold Nicolson, 1946) Thucydides reported about diplomatic procedure among the Greeks, as, for instance, in his account of a conference at Sparta in 432 BC in which the Spartans and their allies considered what action to take against Athens.(Harold Nicolson, 1946) The Romans contributed in a way to the advancement of the art of diplomacy by negotiation. Their representatives became skilled diplomats and trained observers. This extended the practice of diplomacy to include observation and reporting along with representation.(Kishan S. Rana, 2011) Modem diplomacy as an organized profession arose in Italy in the late Middle Ages. The rivalries of the Italian city-states and the methods, which their rulers used to promote their interests, are described in masterful fashion in Machiavelli's “The Prince”. Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan, established the first known permanent mission at Genoa in 1455. (Kishan S. Rana, 2011) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_degradation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-state_actors In the next century, Italian city-states established permanent embassies in London, Paris and at the court of the Holy Roman Emperor; a British Ambassador was assigned to residence in Paris; and Francis I of France "devised something like permanent diplomatic machinery"(O. Akadiri, Diplomacy, 2003) After the peace of Westphalia of 1648 formalized the state system (O. Akadiri, Diplomacy, 2003), permanent missions became the rule rather than the exception. Diplomacy became an established profession and a generally accepted method of global intercourse. As diplomacy became more formal, its rules became more standardized. The 1815 Vienna Congress con- tributed in this respect, placing diplomacy on a formal basis, with standardized rules of pro- cedure and protocols, embodied .in the Regalement of March 19, 1815 and in regulations of the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. (O. Akadiri, Diplomacy, 2003) Harold Nicolson, whose delightful little book, Diplomacy, has become a classic on the subject has called attention to three developments in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which have greatly affected the history, the theory, and practice of diplomacy and which have impacted significantly on foreign policies. These are: (l) The "growing sense of the community of nations," (2) The "increasing appreciation of the importance of public opinion" and (3) The "rapid increase in communications” (H. Nicholson, Diplomacy, 1969) The first two enlarged the diplomat's functions and enhanced his importance. The foregoing process stimulated the evolution of the five traditional roles of diplomacy; Representation, Negotiation, Reporting, Interpretation and Protection. These five pillars of diplomacy now extend into trade, investments, security, sports and cultural exchanges. However, by far, the most critical factor that will define international relations in the twenty-first century is global security. Therefore, while three developments have greatly affected the history, the theory, and practice of diplomacy and have impacted significantly on foreign policies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, only one dominant factor will determine, define and shape the twenty-first century: Global Security. The post-cold war era will witness compelling sustained cooperation and collaboration among the nation states in the international system. Global Security up to the Cold War Global Security had always been a cause of concern since the advent of the modern state. The traditional security paradigm refers to a realist construct of security in which the referent object of security is the state. The prevalence of this theorem reached a peak during the Cold War. For a very long time, major world powers entrusted the security of their states to a balance of power among nation states. In this sense, global stability relied on the premise that if state security is maintained, then the security of citizens will necessarily follow.(Bajpai, K,. 2000) Traditional security relied on the anarchistic balance of power, a military build-up between the United States and the Soviet Union (the two superpowers), and on the absolute sovereignty of the nation state.(Owen, T., 2004) States were deemed to be rational entities, national interests and policy driven by the desire for absolute power.(Bajpai, K,. 2000) Security was seen as protection from invasion; executed during proxy conflicts using technical and military capabilities. Indeed, since the previous centuries till date, one of the greatest challenges to statecraft is the task to establish an international framework that would contain international violence and prevent future wars with their devastating consequences (Gordon, G. and Alexander G. 1995) This is against the background that violent conflict is an intrinsic and inevitable phenomenon in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_in_international_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_in_international_relations human society. Hence as interactions occur and interests coincide, conflicts are likely to occur. For as long as this is so, then the need to devise an international system that would guarantee peace will always be there so that mankind can realize one of its major preoccupations on how to ensure social, political and economic development. This is hanged on quality diplomatic relations both at the bilateral and multilateral levels. Global security has come to strengthen the course of diplomacy across centuries and continents. This paper reiterates that global security will continue to be a compelling factor in diplomatic relations in the twenty-first century. The need for peace among states and nation states was what necessitated the creation of balance of power in world politics. To realists, balance of power is the most reliable strategy to maintain peace and order in the international system. No wonder the trade finance relations among states are often explained in terms of balance of power. On a general note, balance of power is as old as the human society. According to David Hume, the notion prevailed even in ancient Greece, (Hume,1990) Kissinger’s discussion of the origin of the balance of power concept has traced it to the city states of ancient Greece, renaissance Italy and European state system which arose out of the peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648 (Kissinger, H., 1994). Dougherty and Pfiltzgraff also argue that the concept was implicitly in ancient India and in ancient Greece even though it was not formalized (Kissinger, H., 1994). The quest for corporate global security is evident from time. Yet, in spite of the old nature of the concept of balance of power, the concept does not enjoy universally acceptable definition as there are as many definitions as there are many scholars in the field. Hans Morgenthau, a well-known exponent of this theory, refers to balance of power as the refund state of affairs in which power is distributed among several nations with approximate equality (Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff,1990) In the words of Quincy Wright, “It is a system designed to maintain a continuous conviction in any state that if it attempts aggression, it would encounter an invincible combination of others”. In other words, it implies such a distribution of power in a multi-state system that no single state would be able, with impunity, to overrun the other states (Quincy,1994). The history of the application of balance of power in interaction among states dates to the emergence of the international system itself. This was in 1648, when the treaties of muster and Osnabruck were signed which granted sovereignty and full independence to European states. The peace treaties collectively called the peace treaty of Westphalia recognized the need to maintain a measure of equilibrium in the power of the newly recognized sovereign states that were emerging across Europe. In 1713, after the end of the Spanish war of succession, the treaty of Utrecht was signed and balance of power was significantly maintained which signifies peace among European states. Similar trend also existed in the treaty of Paris which was signed after the seven years’ war in 1763. Under this treaty arrangement, France was allowed to keep much of its territories so as not to alter the balance of power arrangement which already existed among European powers during this period. During this period, efforts were maintained to keep the balance by ensuring that territorial compensation of the expense of the lesser states did not tilt the balance in favour of one particular state. This was maintained until the mid-18th century following the rise of Prussia to a big power status. This development was at the expense of Austria and France which resulted into disequilibrium in central Europe. At the same time England had attained naval supremacy at the expense of Holland and entered naval rivalry with France. In the last quarter of the 18th century, the structure of power distribution in Europe became dislocated in favour of France and this condition became prominent in the course of the Napoleonic wars. France was able to challenge all of Europe and resisted the entire continent combined successfully for over a decade. It is therefore easy to understand why the leaders of Europe that gathered at Vienna in 1814 and 1914 tried and re-instated the balance of power. At the Vienna Congress, territories were accordingly redistributed with the principle of balance of power in mind. This structure remained in place until the outbreak of World War I in 1914. Before the outbreak of the First World War, the unification of Germany and Italy also upset the existing balance of power in Europe. Austria, which lost northern Italy, was not compensated elsewhere in Europe. This signalled her decline from big power status. In the same vein, France lost Alsace and Lorraine to Germany unification and was not compensated elsewhere in Europe. The principal reason for this was the phenomenon of militant nationalism which pervaded Europe from the late 19th century and the outbreak of World War I. The inter war years era (1919-1939) was a major turning point in the development of international relations and the issue of world peace in the other hand. More importantly, during this period World leaders thought that the League of Nations being the first universal multipurpose international organization since the history of mankind would be a proper replacement for the balance of power security strategy. This was basically because the League was to promote the concept of collective security and dissuade nation states that intended to impose their hegemony on global politics. However, since the study of balance of power in contemporary time has an unending dialogue with the past, it is therefore critical to examine how the concept of balance of power had been operated as a security strategy before the inter war years and beyond (Carr, E. H 1946). At the Paris peace conference in 1919 and 1920, the leaders of the post-World War I period were convinced that balance of power system especially the alliance system established in the late 18th century caused the First World War. In the new structure of the post-world war I period, therefore, balance of power was totally abandoned and rejected. Alternatively the World leaders led by the American president, Woodrow Wilson, established the system of collective security under the auspices of the League of Nations. The League began to function with high hopes. Indeed, the preamble to the League documents stated that the organization was established to end wars forever(The League documents stated that the organization was established to end wars forever). The League of Nations’ life span is divided into four distinctive period, namely from 1920-1923, 1924-1931; 1932-1936 and 1936-1945 when the League eventual collapsed (Plowright, 2007) Indeed between 1920 and 1923, the League made some tremendous successes. For example, the fallout between Germany and Poland in the German-Polish border was resolved. Apart from that, the League intervened between France and Germany especially when France hastily occupied Ruhr in attempt to collect the war indemnity or reparation imposed on Germany. As it should be recalled that the victorious powers were unanimous to put the war guilt on Germany which was carefully crafted in the Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty. The League, within this period also put in place mechanism of operations for the collective security system which replaced the concept of balance of power that was jettison at the Paris peace treaty. In the second period of the League of Nations, Germany applied and joined the League, and the organization equally faced international issues that could bring about world peace. Indeed, the organization got involved during the second period in the issue of disarmament as it was thought that accumulation of arms was a major factor that led to the outbreak of World War I. (Plowright, 2007) The third period of the League existence marked the beginning of the end of the organization. During this period, numerous developments in the international system created problems the League was unable to handle. The first of the major crises started in 1931 when Japan invaded Manchuria and China and refused to abide by the League’s intervention. Germany later withdrew from the League and attacked Czechoslovakia and Poland, which culminated into the outbreak of World War II. During the final stage of the League’s life span, Italy under Benito Mussolini invaded the Greek Island of Corfu and in 1935 conquered Abyssinia, the Ethiopian capital to avenge the humiliation of the Italian forces at the battle of Adown in 1896. In all these, the collective security system put in place by the League of Nations could not serve a balance principle established in 1919. Indeed, recourse to war as an instrument of state policy in the inter war years convinced world leaders and scholars of the period that the post-World War I structure of the international system that was based on collective security and the democratization of the conduct of global politics was grossly inadequate to prevent wars among states (Plowright, 2007) Accordingly, at the end of World War II in 1945, balance of power quickly returned as a way of checking aggression among states. THE COLD WAR GLOBAL SECURITY APPARATUS The Allies were concerned with the brutal leadership of Joseph Stalin as well as the spread of communism. The Cold War was fought between the superpowers of the United States and the Soviet Union in something called a proxy war. Cold War was the open, yet restricted rivalry that developed between USA and erstwhile USSR and their respective allies after World War II. https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-II The war was waged on political, economic and propaganda fronts and had only limited recourse to weapons. The term was first used by the English writer, George Orwell, in an article published in 1945 to refer to what he predicted would be a nuclear stalemate between “two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a few seconds.” It was first used in the United States by the American financier and presidential adviser Bernard Baruch in a speech at the State House in Columbia, South Carolina, in 1947. Although not consciously designed, the arms racing, alliance seeking and assertive interventionism of the rival camps during the Cold War ensured that balance of power became prominent from the late 1940s and 1989 (Aworawo, D. 2005). During this period, balance of power became balance of terror in an international atmosphere of mutual assured destruction (MAD). The development of Thermo nuclear weapons and the intercontinental Balistic missile in the late 1940s and during the 1950s with capacity to annihilate humanity, ensured that balance of power occupied the centre stage of global politics from the end of the Cold War to the 21st century (Aworawo, D. 2005). As Cold War tensions receded, it became clear that the security of citizens was threatened by hardships arising from internal state activities as well as external aggressors. Civil wars were increasingly common and compounded existing poverty, disease, hunger, violence and human rights abuses. Traditional security policies had effectively masked these underlying basic human needs in the face of state security. Through neglect of its constituents, nation states had failed in their primary objectives.(J. Baylis, 1997) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Orwell https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bernard-Baruch https://www.britannica.com/place/South-Carolina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_wars In the historical debate on how best to achieve national security, writers like Hobbes, Machiavelli and Rousseau tended to paint a rather pessimistic picture of the implications of state sovereignty. The international system was viewed as a rather brutal arena in which states would seek to achieve their own security at the expense of their neighbors. Inter- state relations were seen as a struggle for power, as states constantly attempted to take advantage of each other. According to this view, permanent peace was unlikely to be achieved. All that states could do was to try to balance the power of other states to prevent anyone from achieving overall hegemony. This view was shared by writers such as E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau. (Baylis, John. 2001) More recently, the traditional state-centric notion of security has been challenged by more holistic approaches to security. Among the approaches which seek to acknowledge and address these basic threats to human safety and global security by extension are paradigms that include cooperative, comprehensive and collective measures, aimed to ensure security for the individual and, as a result, for the state and the international system at large. To enhance international security against potential threats caused by terrorism and organized crime, there have been increases in international cooperation, resulting in transnational policing. (Arcudi, G..2004) The international police (Interpol) shares information across international borders and this cooperation has been greatly enhanced by the arrival of the Internet and the ability to instantly transfer documents, films and photographs worldwide. Thus, both diplomacy and global security have been greatly enhanced by the persistent improvement in communication technology. Investing in armed forces is back in fashion. Since the end of the Cold War, the foreign policy of many West European countries, including the Netherlands, seemed to be based on three https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Carr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Morgenthau https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police#International_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol assumptions: wars between European countries were something of the past, wars outside Europe were of no direct concern to Europe and, anyway, the United States would come to the rescue if things would go wrong. These assumptions were built on wishful thinking, but they provided the Netherlands government a welcome excuse to focus its diplomacy on economic interests, to economize on international cooperation and to neglect its armed forces. Indeed, when one believes that foreign policy is mainly about promoting economic interests, why invest in armed forces? The Russian military involvements in Ukraine, the flood of refugees from the South, the terroristic threat in Europe and ominous remarks of the President of the United States, have disproved all three assumptions. Threat to global security is real. As a result, the requirements of an effective army are taken seriously again. This makes sense (although it remains to be seen whether the necessary funds will indeed be made available), but it is not sufficient. First of all, a well-trained and well-equipped army is an instrument of security policy, not a substitution for diplomacy. On the contrary, an arms build-up can be destabilizing, unless it is combined with a simultaneous investment in diplomacy and arms control. The stronger the forces, the greater the need is of cooperation with potential adversaries to prevent brinkmanship and misunderstanding with potentially grave consequences. Cooperating with non-likeminded countries is probably the most difficult part of diplomacy, but also the most essential part. It cannot be handled as a footnote to economic diplomacy. It requires long-term investment in personal relations, in knowledge and in institutions. Secondly, increasing the defence budget will do little to address the root causes of international insecurity. To address poverty, bad governance, corruption, climate change, etc, it is essential to increase investments in international cooperation and regional collaboration. In the course of the 1960s and ’70s, however, the bipolar struggle between the Soviet and American blocs gave way to a more-complicated pattern of international relationships in which the world was no longer split into two clearly opposed blocs. A major split had occurred between the Soviet Union and China in 1960 and widened over the years, shattering the unity of the communist bloc. In the meantime, Western Europe and Japan achieved dynamic economic growth in the 1950s and ’60s, reducing their relative inferiority to the United States. Less- powerful countries had more room to assert their independence and often showed themselves resistant to superpower coercion or cajoling. The 1970s saw an easing of Cold War tensions as evinced in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) that led to the SALT I and II agreements of 1972 and 1979, respectively, in which the two superpowers set limits on their antiballistic missiles and on their strategic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. That was followed by a period of renewed Cold War tensions in the early 1980s as the two superpowers continued their massive arms buildup and competed for influence in the Third World. However, the Cold War began a gradual but progressive break down in the late 1980s during the administration of Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev. He dismantled the totalitarian aspects of the Soviet system and began efforts to democratize the Soviet political structure. When Communist regimes in the Soviet-bloc countries of Eastern Europe collapsed in 1989–90, Gorbachev acquiesced in their fall. The rise to power of democratic governments in East Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia was quickly followed by the unification of West and East Germany under NATO auspices, again with Soviet approval. Gorbachev’s internal reforms had meanwhile weakened his own Communist Party and allowed power to shift to Russia and the other constituent republics of the Soviet Union. In late 1991 the https://www.britannica.com/place/Japan https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynamic https://www.britannica.com/topic/economic-growth https://www.britannica.com/topic/economic-growth https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cajoling https://www.britannica.com/event/Strategic-Arms-Limitation-Talks https://www.britannica.com/event/Strategic-Arms-Limitation-Talks https://www.britannica.com/topic/Third-World https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mikhail-Gorbachev https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acquiesced https://www.britannica.com/place/Poland https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/auspices https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constituent Soviet Union collapsed and 15 newly independent nations were born from its corpse, including a Russia with a democratically elected, anticommunist leader. The Cold War had come to an end. Diplomacy, Global Security and the New World Order Immediately after the cold war, diplomacy assumed a more critical role in the international system especially in the face of global security which necessitated a compelling sustained cooperation and collaboration among the nation states in the international system. Diplomacy indeed has remained a veritable instrument of sustaining global security. As a matter of fact from the popular “9/11”, The September 11 attacks (also referred to as 9/11) in which there were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000 others, and caused at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage. (Matthew J. Morgan,2009) Additional people died of 9/11-related cancer and respiratory diseases in the months and years following the attacks (Matthew J. Morgan,2009). The other records of eventual deaths and infections as a consequence of the attacks are still being compiled. America was livid with national rage; suspicion of possible source(s) of such dastardly attack in no distant time fell on al-Qaeda. The United States responded by launching the War on Terror and invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had failed to comply with U.S. demands to extradite Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. Other states in the international system strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded the powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent terrorist attacks. Although Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda's leader, initially denied any involvement in the September 11 attacks, in 2004 he claimed responsibility for the attacks (Moghadam, Assaf 2008). Al-Qaeda and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_diseases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_diseases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_agencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and sanctions against Iraq as their motives for the attack. After evading for almost a decade, bin Laden was located in Pakistan and killed by SEAL Team Six of the U.S. Navy in May 2011. It is instructive to note, that the September 11, 2001, came to be a defining phenomenon for the diplomatic architecture of the international system. President George Bush clearly began to view the diplomatic international relations with the lens of September 11. Within hours of the September 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington D.C., American commentators were already comparing the event to a “new Pearl Harbor.” The 60th anniversary of that transformative event was coming up later in the year, and had been the subject of a major Hollywood movie over the summer. The comparison of September 11 with Pearl Harbor was natural because both were surprise attacks that killed many Americans, but most interesting about it was its implication: that an age of innocence and isolation had passed, and that American invulnerability was gone. Just as was the case after the Japanese attack (and again in a different way when the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik satellite some 16 years later), September 11 seemed fated to change radically and permanently the degree to which, and the way in which, the United States engaged with the rest of the world. It was indeed a defining moment and phenomenon with tremendous impact on diplomacy and global security. It is probably too soon to say for certain whether September 11 will prove to be such a “paradigm shift” along the lines of 1941 (when America abandoned isolationism), 1947 (when containment became the lens through which foreign policy was seen), or 1989 (when the “post- Cold War era” began). Much will depend on how the Administration responds, and whether it is able to maintain the level of focus and commitment on terrorism since the initial emotion and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAL_Team_Six https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy anger about the attack has substantially subsided. The fight against terrorism has become the defining issue for the American foreign policy makers since the Bush presidency. The political and psychological impact of the September 11 attacks will have long term implications for the ways in which the United States engages in the world. Even recent meetings of the US President with North Korean leader are informed by diplomacy and global security. The end of the Cold War led to new security challenges, because of changing notions of military force and the new sources of security threat (Smith, 2006; Shaw, 2005). The first one is related to the rise of nuclear power. With the demise of the USSR, the simple bipolarity of the Cold War world was replaced by a multipolar world, where the centrality of power was no longer clearly defined (Brown, 2005; Jackson & Sorensen, 2003). The rise of the Asian economic powers, the advance of nuclear and biological weapons in countries such as Iran, Israel and Iraq challenged the stability of the mutual deterrence principle, comfortably sustained during the Cold War (Hammes, 2005). Another source of security threat after the Cold War was related to terrorism, and the rise of sub- state actors (Smith, 2006). The War on terror, embedded in the Bush doctrine, was a clear demonstration of the changing nature of war, and the elusive image of the new enemy (Shaw, 2005). After 9/11, it became clear that terrorism was not a war against an enemy, but against tactics (Baylis & Smith, 2007). Its manifestations and capacity to destroy were as much the result of political construction, as of historically embedded perceptions about the East and the West and their manipulation by mass media and policy-makers. In the post-Cold War era, non-state actors, such as Al Qaeda and Hamas, became a new source of security threat because of their ability to operate internationally but at the same time to exist inside the state (Shaw, 2005). Also, the controversies, around states labeled as rogue and unable to comply with the international standards for peace and democracy such as Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Syria necessitated new means for meeting the challenges to threat and security. Conclusion It has become obvious that only by developing a new security concept and establishing a fair and reasonable new international order can world peace and security be fundamentally guaranteed. Several Research Institutes, academic circles, professionals, diplomats and practitioners provide analyses that help policymakers understand political, military, and economic trends around the world; the sources of potential regional conflict; and emerging threats to the global security environment as well as possible mitigating strategies including greater diplomatic engagements and continuous collaborative strategies to combat the dynamic global insecurity apparatus. . As NATO finalizes its new political guidance designed to shape future military forces, it has the chance to both strengthen Europe’s commitment to burden-sharing and relieve American concern about the creation of a new European Army. Building an enhanced European capacity within NATO entails some risk, but the benefits may outweigh concerns. Global security is a serious business. This short paper and International Studies in general provide knowledge of world affairs, develop an understanding and appreciation of other cultures, civilizations and societies, illustrate possible frictions and threats to global security and world peace and promote informed analysis of global interdependencies. References 1. Buzan, B. and L. Hansen. The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. (2009) 2. Buzen, B., O. Wæver, et al.. Security: A new frame work for Analysis. Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner Publishers.; Doty, P., A. Carnesale, et al. (1976). "Foreword." International Security 1(1) (1998) 3. Harold Nicolson, The Congress of Vienna, A Study in Allied Unity: 1812-1822 (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1946), 46. 4. Kishan S. Rana, 21st Century Diplomacy - A Practitioner's Guide, Key Studies in Diplomacy (England: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011), 67. 5. O. Akadiri, Diplomacy, World Peace and Security, (Akure: Ondo State Government Printing Press, 2003), 240. 6. H. Nicholson, Diplomacy, (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), 44. 7. Bajpai, K. (2000). "Human Security: Concept and Measurement" (PDF). University of Notre Dame, Kroc Institute Occasional Paper no. 19. Accessed on 2018-06-28. 8. Owen, T., "Challenges and opportunities for defining and measuring human security", Human Rights, Human Security and Disarmament, Disarmament Forum. 3, 15–24 (2004) 9. Gordon, G. and Alexander G. Force and State craft: Diplomatic Problems of our times (New York: Oxford University Press), 1995 p. 43. 10. Hume,1990 11. Kissinger, H., Diplomacy, (New York: Simon and Schuster), 1994 p. 56. 12. Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff,1990 13. Quincy,1994 14. Carr, E. H. The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919-1939 (London: Macmillan), (1946) p. 40. 15. Aworawo, D. “The Affirmation of Things Past: Trends and the Structure of the International System since Potsdam” in Nigeria Journal of Policy and Development Vol. 4, (2005). 16. J. Baylis, "International Security in the Post-Cold War Era", in John Baylis and Steve Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 1997 17. Baylis, John. The Globalization of World Politics (fifth edition). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. p. 234.2001 https://web.archive.org/web/20120628150032/http:/www.hegoa.ehu.es/dossierra/seguridad/Human_security_concept_and_measurement.pdf 18. Strategy and Ethnic Conflict and Path to Peace (ISBN 1590337328) among many others) (ISBN 027597636X) 19. Arcudi, G.. "Forces de police et forces armées, sécurité et défense: où sont les frontières?", Cahier du GIPRI (2): (2004) 17–64. 20. Matthew J. Morgan (August 4, 2009). The Impact of 9/11 on Politics and War: The Day that Changed Everything?. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 222. 21. Moghadam, Assaf (2008). The Globalization of Martyrdom: Al Qaeda, Salafi Jihad, and the Diffusion of Suicide Attacks. Johns Hopkins University. p. 48. 22. Smith, 2006; Shaw, 2005 23. Brown, 2005; Jackson & Sorensen, 2003 24. Hammes, 2005 25. Smith, 2006 26. Shaw, 2005 27. Baylis & Smith, 2007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1590337328 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/027597636X http://www.gipri.ch/publications/cahiers/cahier2/ http://www.gipri.ch/publications/cahiers/cahier2/ https://books.google.com/books?id=JDEfUCll7DcC https://books.google.com/books?id=JDEfUCll7DcC