Search

What does it mean to say a state is angry? To answer this question, this paper theorizes a diplomacy of anger. Specifically, the diplomacy of anger involves a vehement and overt state-level display of anger in response to a perceived violation. Although the diplomacy of anger threatens precipitous escalation in the face of further violations, it can be ameliorated by conciliatory gestures and will subside over time absent new provocations. What is more, the diplomacy of anger can also exercise a reciprocal influence on the emotional dispositions of those that practice it. The diplomacy of anger thereby contributes to constructing particular issues as sensitive and volatile, and thus outside the realm of standard bargaining interactions. To examine the analytical purchase of this approach vis-à-vis standard accounts of coercive diplomacy, this paper looks in-depth at the 1995–96 Taiwan Straits crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In the 1990s, Taiwan and China conducted over twenty rounds of negotiations through the semi-official Strait Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Association for Relations across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) concerning the following issues: notarized papers, registered mail, illegal immigration, fishing disputes, airplane hijacking, and post-1997 shipping links between Taiwan and Hong Kong. Regrouping these issues into rights, law-and-order, and shipping, this study analyzes the differences in the negotiation processes and outcomes through variations of value-interest alignments and their perceived impact on future policy objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]