"When two elephants fight it is the grass that suffers." (African Proverb). When two nations are at war, the entire global community is affected by their actions. Negotiation between nations helps strengthen bonds between nations, and prevent conflict that can have global consequences. Negotiation between nations is primarily effective in solving conflict, but there are times when force is necessary. When deciding the extent to which negotiation should be employed to promote peace in the global society, there are several questions that must be answered first. These matters include: Does the threat of force increase the effectiveness of negotiation? What are the consequences of force? When should force be justified? The answers to these questions demonstrate the need to examine different facets of force and negotiation. A nation whose foreign policy justifies force is often viewed as aggressive, because the use of force causes death, and collateral damage. Nations with a propensity to use force unilaterally can compromise the sovereignty of other nations, and often suffer economically from the cost of supporting a foreign war.
Conversely, effective use of force can stop aggressors, and protect the sovereignty of a nation by doing so. If there is an eminent threat towards a nation, the defensive use of force preemptively can be a great advantage to the nation's defense. Readiness to use force on dissenting nations can greatly increase their willingness to cooperate for peace with the global society and by doing so encourage constructive negotiation improving international relations. Contrasting force is negotiation, which is compromising to avoid conflict. Dependence on negotiation and appeasement is not effective in stopping aggressors. Negotiation can lead to the formation of treaties that are ineffective because signatories may not ratify them or abide by their content. Negotiations can also be slow to reach decisions between nations.