Diplomacy and Harassment
Max Pollack
One of the most complex and stress-producing international conflicts is the cold war between the nuclear armed India and Pakistan. International rivalries are nothing new. From the Cold War between the USA and USSR to the long-standing historic rivalry between France and Britain, cold wars have led to the development of new tools of diplomacy, intelligence gathering, and war. India and Pakistan (along with China) have been fighting over the Kashmir region of South Asia since partition. To today there are still skirmishes and diplomatic standoffs between the two nations, however since both countries developed nuclear missiles, direct fighting has died down. Instead, Pakistan has been using insurgents to target India.
Diplomacy has come in many forms: gunboat diplomacy, high-level negotiations, policies of neutrality towards all conflicts, etc. But one form that is probably as old as diplomacy itself is that of pranks and harassment. Diplomats are people and can succumb to harassment. Since negotiations need to be exact, harassment can be a way to throw them off their game (while getting them made at you). In 2018, diplomats in India and Pakistan complained about the other’s diplomats ding dong ditching them as part of a harassment campaign that also included harassing phone calls, shutting off utilities, and surveillance. Because of its obviousness, the type of surveillance seems less likely to yield intelligence results and more likely to just show that one side can spy on the other. Pakistan ended up recalling their diplomatic staff and both sides complained about the other side.
The Soviet Union and the United States were known to do similar things to mess with and spy on each other. China is also known to call up diplomats for 2 am meetings just so they won’t sleep and half to go through the city at night. Diplomacy is a careful process and although ding dong ditching might be amusing, it represents the worst in democracy. World society needs to treat diplomats with respect because the alternative to diplomats is soldiers.