How should nations handle diplomatic relations with enemies?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rootX
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relationships
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
7 replies · 3K views
rootX
Messages
480
Reaction score
4
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8080239.stm

The decision to invite Iranian diplomats to an American reception is a symbolic gesture but it puts an end to almost 30 years of a US policy discouraging even informal contacts with Iranian officials.

The two countries have no diplomatic relations and the ban on substantive discussions remains in place, but this 4 July American diplomats will be allowed to go beyond the courtesy handshake and engage in small talk with their Iranian counterparts.

Does this implies that US (or any other nation) thinks that its diplomats should even talk (informally/formally) with their counterparts who are from enemy nation?

This looks quite immature to me that if I find some differences with someone in one or two things, I would completely stop talking with that person. I am trying to understand how one nation should act with its enemies (nations that has differences) particularly in the situations like described in the linked news (July 4, festivities, or any other occasions that are not related to current differences).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Informal conversation can still lead to a diplomatic incident. Also you would expect policy require no informal contact, it doesn't necessarily mean diplomats adhere to it.

I don't know anything about it, of course
 
Last edited:
I believe such prohibitions are generally symbolic. They are afraid of how it will look.
 
neu said:
Informal conversation can still lead to a diplomatic incident. Also you would expect policy require no informal contact, it doesn't necessarily mean diplomats adhere to it.

I don't know anything about it, of course

People (especially those at home) tend to blow all kinds of things out of proportion, even when you're just saying hello:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Israeli...with_leaders_of_Syria,_Iran_at_Pope's_funeral

Or, even when you're leaning over to the king of your country's ally (Obama vis a vis King Abdullah).
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I think one also has to remember that the last time the US had a diplomatic relationship with Iran, they imprisoned their diplomats and their families for more than a year. That may explain the US's wariness of repeating this.

There doesn't need to be an embassy in Iran for the US to have diplomatic relations with them.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I think one also has to remember that the last time the US had a diplomatic relationship with Iran, they imprisoned their diplomats and their families for more than a year. That may explain the US's wariness of repeating this.

US is then justified in its policies for Iran. But, was it essential for Iran to imprison US diplomats? Did it achieve anything? Was it in the interest of Iran (or any country) to take those actions when considering that they are going to be here for another thousands of years (long term)?

This is not just Iran or US. But I think most nations just try to over symbolize their differences or take immature actions.