The hard task of diplomacy

The term negotiate involves contracts, adjustments, agreements, treaties, implying the capacity to do so. Adjustment, in turn, involves combination, regulation and ipso facto conformation. The act of combining and / or regulating presupposes an end to contradictions and disagreements, which inevitably includes the possibility of adjustments or a loss.

Generally, the agreements signed between representatives of any government bring more the promise of compliance with the agreements than the commitment even to fulfill them, considering the specific interests of each party; it would be a kind of "hidden curriculum". Nevertheless, the alleged losses, even if previously calculated, would be subject to unpredictable demands.

The curious thing is that in any negotiation there is a hint of “negligence” of the parties involved; it would be something close to an already consolidated margin of error; "A previously forgiven sin"; await you for the violation.

Thus, in the case of signed agreements, although the parties are signatories, these “gaps” are somehow present. The constant need to relate to this rule of "carelessness", however, does not enable the State to use military force, established power or something like that, but impels it to a specific skill. This skill is a matter for diplomacy. Diplomacy would have a kind of gift for living soft and similar constraints, diligently interposing some postures. Diplomatic skill, in short, would be the appropriate mechanism to interact, to reconcile interests and regulate excesses, thus seeking a conformation, a negotiated adjustment.

Therefore, you ask me “What about the UN?” I answer you: It is very similar to Alice in Neverland.