Diplomatic correspondents

Bondarenko Tanya

Summery by Collision course.

Nowadays, the issue of relations between Iran and the United States is particularly acute. Every year, their relationship is getting worse. At the beginning of 2020, the world was on the verge of a third world war. Four years ago America and Iran were on a different path. After Barack Obama offered to extend a hand if Iran’s leaders “unclenched their fist”, the two sides came together, leading to the nuclear deal. But President Donald Trump pulled America out of the agreement, calling it a “disaster”. It is not, but that damage is done. Renewed sanctions on Iran and the threat to punish anyone who trades with it have wrecked what is left of the agreement. Instead of reaping the benefits of co-operation, Iran has been cut off from the global economy. The rial has plummeted, inflation is rising and wages are falling. And now it is probably too late to save the nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Because American aircraft-carrier strike group is steaming towards the Persian Gulf, joined by b-52 bombers, after unspecified threats from Iran. John Bolton, the national security adviser, says any attack on America or its allies “will be met with unrelenting force”. In Tehran, meanwhile, President Hassan Rouhani says Iran will no longer abide by the terms of the deal signed with America and other world powers, whereby it agreed to strict limits on its nuclear programme in return for economic relief. 

In both countries policy is being dictated by intransigents, who risk stumbling into war. Mr Bolton and Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, believe in using economic pressure to topple the Iranian regime and bombs to stop its nuclear programme. On the anniversary of America’s exit from the agreement, on May 8th, he said that Iran would begin stockpiling low-enriched uranium and heavy water, which would in sufficient quantities breach its terms. Without economic progress in 60 days, he said, Iran “will not consider any limit” on enrichment. On May 7th the front page of an ultraconservative newspaper declared: “Iran lighting match to set fire to the JCPOA.”

Predictably, rather than bringing Iran’s leaders to their knees, America’s belligerence has caused them to stiffen their spines. All this suggests that Iran will start moving closer to being able to build a nuclear bomb.

Iranian leaders have long seen the nuclear programme as their best bargaining chip with the West. The threat of obtaining a nuclear weapon is useless if it does not seem credible. And if it is credible, it risks provoking military action by America or Israel.

Doing deals, though, is a Trump trademark. The president has shown an ability to change direction abruptly, as with North Korea. A new war is not in his interest, even if being hard on Iran is part of his brand. Bombing would not destroy Iranian nuclear know-how, but it would drive the programme underground, making it impossible to monitor and thus all the more dangerous. I see only one way out of this situation is renewed negotiation. Mr Trump needs to keep the likes of Mr Bolton in check.

2. 1. Which models of international relations were described by Ole Holsti to describe and explain different properties of discordant and accommodative relations in world politics? What are their differences?- Какие модели международных отношений были описаны Оле Холсти для описания и объяснения различных свойств диссонирующих и адаптивных отношений в мировой политике? В чем заключаются их различия?

2. Because of what classical realism is the most venerable and persisting models of international relations? What it provides? - Из-за чего классический реализм является наиболее почтенной и сохраняющейся моделью международных отношений? Что это обеспечивает?

3. What premise unites the classical realists? – Какие пункты объединяют классических реалистов?

4. Can the question of relative capabilities be regard as a crucial factor? - Может ли вопрос относительных возможностей рассматриваться как решающий фактор?

5. If human nature explains war and conflict, what accounts for peace and cooperation, according to classical realism? - Если человеческая природа объясняет войны и конфликты, что объясняет мир и сотрудничество в соответствии с классическим реализмом?

6. How Marion Kaplan described several types of international systems? - Как Марион Каплан описала несколько типов международных систем?

7. Which of Kenneth Waltz`s theory the most prominent effort to develop a rigorous and parsimonious model of modern realism and grounded in analogies from microeconomics? - Какая из теорий Кеннета Вальца является наиболее выдающейся попыткой разработать строгую и экономную модель современного реализма, основанную на аналогиях из микроэкономики?

8. Waltz uses his theory to deduce the central characteristics of international relations. What characteristics can be distinguished? - Вальц использует свою теорию для определения основных характеристик международных отношений. Какие характеристики можно выделить?

9. Robert Gilpin shares with Waltz the core assumptions of modern realism, but his study of War and Change in World Politics also attempts to cope with some of the criticism leveled at Waltz`s theory. What are the main differences between these two points of view? -Роберт Гилпин разделяет с Вальцом основные предположения современного реализма, но в его исследовании «Войны и перемены в мировой политике» он также пытается справиться с некоторой критикой, направленной на теорию Вальца. Каковы основные различия между этими двумя точками зрения?

10. How the expansion of actors whose behavior can have a significant impact beyond national boundaries? - 10. Как образом происходит расширение субъектов, поведение которых может оказать существенное влияние за пределы национальных границ?

Diplomatic correspondents.

1. One major and, in fact, increasingly important aspect of diplomatic work is the drafting of diplomatic documents. There are many different forms of official diplomatic documents. A considerable proportion consists of documents that are of a purely intradepartmental nature. Another category of diplomatic documents are those through which official international intercourse goes on in written form.

2. Until recently diplomatic practice distinguished the following five forms of written official communications: (1) personal notes, (2) verbal notes (notes verbales), (3) aides-memoire, (4) memoranda, and (5) semi-official letters.

3. A personal note takes the form of a letter drawn up in the first person on behalf of its signatory. It begins with a salutation and ends with a complimentary phrase, that is, a standard expression of polite respect. A verbal note is considered to be the most commonly used form of diplomatic communication. It is drawn up in the third person and is not usually signed. It begins and ends with standard formulas of courtesy.

4. The aide-memoire. Diplomatic practice knows two types of aides-memoire: (a) handed over personally and (b) delivered by a courier. The purpose of transmitting an aide-memoire is to facilitate the further progress of a transaction and to prevent the subject of a personal conversation or an oral statement from being misinter-preted or misunderstood.

5. A memorandum may be a separate and independent document or it may be appended to a personal note or a verbal note. In the latter case the memorandum elaborates and justifies the subject matter dealt with in the note. The distinguishing feature of a memorandum is a detailed exposition of the factual or legal aspects of a particular question. Interoffice memoranda are used for correspondence within the Secretariat. They are appropriate for correspondence both within a given duty station and with other duty stations. They are used to record facts, decisions or opinions to which reference may be necessary later, to make or respond to proposals or to convey information. They are incorporated in the official files kept by individual departments or offices.

 6. As the name itself suggests, the purport is the principal part of a diplomatic document. In extent it may be very short as compared with the other parts. Yet it is the purport that carries the main idea of the document and is, in fact, a concentrated expression of a state's position on the main issue under discussion. To point out the purport correctly means to correctly grasp the meaning of n diplomatic document.

7. By their content diplomatic documents, whatever their form (notes, declarations, aides-memoire, etc.), may be classified as follows:

a) documents containing proposals;

b) documents registering a protest;

c) documents warning of possible measures of retaliation;

d) documents establishing a political or international legal position in respect of an act committed by another state or states or in respect of an international event;

e) documents announcing measures contemplated or implemented, which are of international significance;

f) documents recording an agreement or a degree of accord reached.

 

2. Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Of Spain

September 2, 2010

Dear Mr. Secretary General,

I have the honor to notify you of the adoption by the Government of Spain of the European Agreement on International Main Railway Lines of May 31, 2010 with the following reservation:

«Spain does not consider itself bound by the article of the European Agreement on Main International Railway Lines dated May 31, 2010 and declares that, to submit to arbitrators, any dispute between the Contracting Parties regarding the interpretation or application of the European the agreement requires, in each individual case, the consent of all parties to the dispute, and that only persons appointed by the parties to the dispute by common consent may be arbitrators."

In accordance with Article 13 of the European Agreement, I inform you that proposals for amendments to the annex to this Agreement should be addressed to:….

I should like to request You, Mr. Secretary General, to consider this letter as an official document of acceptance of Spain of the above Agreement.

Yours faithfully,

Minister of Foreign

affairs of Spain

His Excellency

Mr....

To the Secretary General

The organization

United nations

New York, USA