INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
issue back to the forefront: even the most liberal advocates of a diplomatic solution continue to operate from a Western unilateralism that
its traditional forms to 21st-century practices
The underlying problem is far more profound and structural: it is a theory born in the West, for the West, that seeks universal application
without critically examining the cultural and epistemological biases that underpin it.The Eurocentric perspective that dominates diplomatic
theory perpetuates epistemic injustice by ignoring the voices, experiences, and knowledge of non-Western societies
In other words, diplomacy has been complicit in sustaining a colonial worldview that continues to shape international discourses and
practices today.The origin of this bias lies in global coloniality, a power structure that emerged in the 15th century with European
expansion and established hierarchies based on culture, race, gender, and knowledge
Within this system, the West positioned itself at the apex of all categories, from religion and language to the construction of knowledge
itself.However, it is essential to distinguish between colonialism and coloniality
Colonialism refers to the territorial occupation and political-administrative reorganization carried out by European powers
Coloniality, on the other hand, is a deeper, more persistent organizing principle that extends across various spheres of social life, from
economic structures to gender dynamics and knowledge systems.Coloniality permeates economic relations, political structures, gender and
sexual dynamics, knowledge systems, and even intimate spaces such as households and spiritual practices
It represents the hidden dark side of European modernity, a project that, since the Renaissance, has shaped the world through interwoven
power hierarchies that continue to endure today.This matrix of domination goes beyond the imposition of colonial political structures; it
also extends to the construction of identities and the very notion of humanity
Categories such as civilized vs
irrational, and modern vs
backward have been built on a Eurocentric foundation that dictates who is given a voice and who is condemned to silence.From this logic
emerges the concept of coloniality of power, coloniality of identity, and coloniality of knowledge
Under this framework, other knowledge systems and ways of thinking have been marginalized and delegitimized, perpetuating an epistemic
injustice that continues to shape how we interpret and organize the world today.In this context, the diplomatic theory presented by Richard
Nephew in his article is nothing more than a monologue among Europeans about what they already agree on: diplomacy as a Western narrative
that asserts its own role in the modernization of the world.This approach perpetuates the idea that diplomatic practice and its theoretical
foundations arise exclusively from Western experiences, effectively erasing other ways of managing political affairs throughout history
From this Eurocentric perspective, diplomacy is presented as a universal manifestation of modernity, disregarding the knowledge and
diplomatic practices of non-Western civilizations.However, forms of negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution have existed in numerous
cultures and historical moments: from diplomatic agreements between Asian empires to African tribal councils or community diplomacy
practices in Latin America
Incorporating these experiences would not only enrich diplomatic theory, but also help break the epistemic hegemony that the West has
imposed for centuries.Building a plural and global dialogue does not mean discarding Western contributions, but rather situating them in a
broader context, recognizing that modernity and its institutions are not a single destination, but rather the result of multiple historical
international thought remains, in essence, a closed conversation centered around the West: a narrative focused on its achievements, its
voices, and its historical archives
observed, analyzed, or civilized, but not as full-fledged actors in diplomatic history.This perspective stems from the epistemic West, a
locus of enunciation that not only confines Westerners within their own categories of thought, but also entraps those from other cultures
These individuals are often forced to adapt to the tools of Western rationality, such as "objective" analysis, floating signifiers, or the
so-called zero-point thinking, which is presented as a neutral and unquestionable scientific method.The imposition of these categories has
led to the acceptance, even outside of Europe, of the premise that Western discourse is universal
Within this framework, European historical experiences are presented as global experiences, while knowledge from other cultures is either
marginalized or forced to be internationalized according to those same parameters, sacrificing its richness and diversity.From this
viewpoint, diplomatic theory continues to be a narrative centered on the West: a discourse that prioritizes what great European men did, the
achievements of Western powers, and the ideas of its most influential thinkers
However, this narrative adopts a universalizing tone that conceals its geopolitical and cultural roots, presenting itself instead as a
neutral and dislocated language.Richard Nephew's article fits within an international political framework where diplomacy seems
fundamentally aimed at containing Iran
foreign, threatening actor, outside the international community
In this sense, diplomacy, far from opening spaces for understanding, seems to function as a tool to manage fear.However, this fear is not
merely an emotional reaction
determining their place in the world
which not only fuel fear but justify the need to contain it
This process goes beyond a simple political response and defines international relations in terms of distrust and hostility.In his analysis,
Nephew reproduces this dominant narrative, fully adhering to traditional Western diplomatic theoretical frameworks
His text lacks alternatives or questions that invite rethinking international relations beyond hegemonic power logics
It fails to consider other ways of managing conflicts and diplomatic relations that do not depend solely on the Western worldview.As noted
earlier, the Foreign Affairs article has a clear objective: the containment of Iran and control over its nuclear program
However, this approach completely omits the political desires of the Islamic Republic and its agency as a global actor
internal tensions or its legitimate aspirations as a sovereign nation.Nephew's perspective, by focusing exclusively on managing the
perceived threat, does not open the debate towards an inclusive diplomacy that seeks cooperation and understanding between nations, but
rather seems to perpetuate a logic of confrontation
By doing so, it blocks the possibility of genuine rapprochements between global actors and reinforces an international order where voices
and agency outside of the West remain subjugated to a one-dimensional narrative.
