[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Lost Art of American Diplomacy The US has lost the art of diplomacy. American foreign policy can go one of two ways – threatening sanctions, or threatening invasions. Meanwhile, even before their next armed conflict starts, Washington has no clue what will happen when it eventually ends. The cause of this situation is the poor standard of the US diplomatic corps. In normal countries, top-level Foreign Ministry positions are awarded to high-flight professionals who have trained for many years. However, in the USA, ambassador posts are dished-out as rewards to people who played an active role in getting the President elected. The journal “Russia in global politics” has run an article – titled “Diplomacy – a lost art?”- on this topic by a former US diplomat and Pentagon aide, Chaz Freeman. Lenta.ru offers its readers an abridged version of Freeman's article. The business of diplomacy lies in finding common ground — by listening to what the other side say, and to what they don't say – and devising reasonable responses. Diplomacy enables countries to further their interests and smooth the path with other nations, while practically never resorting to force. Diplomacy aims at finding mutually acceptable ways of achieving temporary, but binding agreement between differing cultures. Diplomacy translates national strategy into a tactical dimension in order to achieve political, economic and military benefits without resorting to aggression. Diplomats are an outpost who guard national security and defense. If a diplomatic mission fails, the result can be the horrors of war. [...] The rapture of power, and the militarization of consciousness Since the time that the implosion of the USSR released Americans from the fear of nuclear Armageddon, American foreign policy has been effected exclusively through economic sanctions and military deterrents. Such measures, however, are not the only weapons in a government's arsenal. But Americans are not in the business of winning the respect of other countries by example or charm offensives. They won't be persuaded away from their chosen course, they set little value on their own prestige, they do not watch over weaker nations or help them in nation-building – nor do they offer incentives for 'good' behavior. Washington has always believed in shooting first, and asking questions afterwards. For the majority of representatives of our political elite, the US's supreme military might and economic domination justify any possible objections from bumptious foreigners when their subservience is demanded. When challenges arise, we habitually rattle our sabers rather than looking into solving the problems that have arisen. This way of operating actually chips away at our safety-levels. Such tactics put our allies on edge without quelling our foes – they destabilize entire regions, create fresh enemies, and build a wall of alienation with our friends. Beyond our own borders there are few who doubt the military abilities of America, or our readiness to resort to “shock and awe.” Yet despite this, we still feel the need to give ourselves, and others, a display of how “tough” the US is. [...] The militarization of our culture and consciousness has caused us to view the rest of the world through missile-sights. The reaction of the majority on Capitol Hill to the repeatedly-demonstrated failure of military intervention has simply been that success would have been guaranteed if only American had gone in with an even tougher military assault in the first place. But the use of force in the resolution of conflicts still does not prevent dynamic changers in the global and regional distribution of economic, military and political power. There is no basis for believing that an even greater military force would yield better results. This is something which most Americans understand. Ordinary people view the military-industrial set-up in the USA with great cynicism, and look askance at Congress's wish to impose their neo-conservative agenda on America's populace. The American people have no wish to stake their nation's future on the rapidly-collapsing status-quo of a post-war world. The Limits of Exceptionalism American security strategy has traditionally been based on utterly baseless prejudices which are based on elements of our national history. These are assumptions Americans hold at a subconscious level, that have formed a dogma enshrined in doctrine. Today there is a whole battalion of scientific researchers earning their daily bread in researching ways to put this dogma into practice for the Pentagon. They've developed an entire intellectual rationale for the military-industrial complex, in the shape of an endless number of different scenarios predicated on the use of force. The American right believes their country is “exceptional.” Amongst many other things, our experience of armed conflicts, along with our understanding of the interrelationships between war and diplomacy can be called “unparalleled” – perhaps even “abnormal.” [...] America has had no recent experience in ending a war by negotiation with the countries who were defeated. Our habit is to rate success in terms of the degree to which we have annihilated the enemy, so that no danger remains, crushing their dignity by refusing to respect them, or involve them in any serious attempts at a peace process. American wars are planned a campaigns that pursue a purely military objective. Habitually we never draw up any objectives for our wars, nor do we have any plan for negotiations to make our defeated enemies agree to our terms for the cessation of hostilities. When a military campaign lacks clearly-defined objectives, it permits politicians to introduce mission creep along the way. Fighting is almost inevitably prolonged this way. Since the conditions for victory were never clearly set, none of our soldiers, marines, airmen or naval captains can ever say for sure if their mission has been accomplished. This habit of not giving the armed forces specific goals to achieve results in war that is to a lesser extent “the continuation of politics by other means,” and to a greater extent, the brutal punishment of American enemies. And as we punish them, we have no idea whatsoever what lessons they are supposed to be learning from the pounding that we're meting out. Our armed forces are highly professional, and extremely effective in encounters against our enemies. But our forces hope that politicians will achieve something from their attacks on the enemy — something which rarely happens in practice. Today, almost all of our non-military politicians are non-specialists, who have been given their positions in return for their aid to their parties. Their inexperience, their theories of coercive diplomacy (which they studied in college), the traditional distance American politicians maintain from real military activity, and our already highly militarized political culture are all contributory factors to the inaction of diplomacy, exactly when it ought to be more active… when military campaigns come to a close. [...] The idea for using strategies is to force their target country to obey us. But once they are rolled-out, they become an end in themselves. Their success is measured in terms of the hardship and woe we've cause to the recipient country, rather than the level to which that country has changed its unwanted policies. I can't think of a single case in which sanctions, or the threat of sanctions, has helped in changing policy without a negotiating process – in which the acceptable offers could have been made. [...] The drop in professionalism The US is the only world power which does [not] practice diplomacy on a professional basis. In other developed countries, diplomats are people who have gained a special combination of expertise and methodology, who have a firm grasp of international relations, and who enjoy ongoing training in both the theoretical and practical aspects of the art of diplomacy. Diplomats hone their skills through the study of relevant and illustrative historic examples – they benefit from periodic training courses, and from the advice of experienced colleagues. They complete their knowledge and abilities through critical analyses of past scenarios and their flaws. The US, however, believes that the advancement of its foreign policy is best entrusted to self-promoting dreamers and theorists – amateurs and dilettantes, whose training has not been wasted on professional skills, knowledge, practice or experience. [...] Once the Cold War was over, there was a noticeable increase in the numbers of low-ranked officials who had received their jobs as political thank-yous. This squadron of officials filled the ranks of almost the whole foreign policy establishment. Another place they found posts was on an already-bloated Security Council. The result was a steady decline in professionally-trained diplomats entering the diplomatic service at all levels – both in Washington, and at our embassies overseas. The US military are often required to take on diplomatic missions for which they have no training at all. This is yet a further step in the militarization of American foreign policy. Unless a drastic change is made to the way in which diplomatic posts are assigned, the chances for making any improvements in the quality of the diplomatic corps are pitiful. Our ambassadors, consuls and amateurish diplomats are unequipped to provide career models for new entrants to the service. There is still no basic course, which would give the principles and examples of good practice for diplomats seeking to defend the interests of state. There's no course from which young diplomats could learn the arts of negotiating, compiling analytical reports, or the protection of Americans who live overseas. Nor has any professional approach been adopted for assessment and analysis operations. Since “debriefings” can impinge poorly on the careers of those who got their jobs as a political gift, or even worse, upon the administration itself, there's no development of this practice. Overall, people who choose a diplomatic career have no opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the past. There is no attempt to teach diplomacy at any of our national universities in the United States. [...] It's well overdue that the administration of foreign policy was rid of the venality of job appointments made because someone was owed a favor after the election campaign. We need to start recruiting a diplomatic corps which is made up of professional, highly-trained staff, just the same way as our army is staffed – and expect that these staff will give of the best that they are able, for their nation's good. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A Pole (#0)
(Edited)
To paraphrase a great line from the conversation among salesmen in "The Music Man," You've got to know the territory. Too many of our appointed diplomats don't know the territory and/or are carrying out instructions from mindless or subversive bull shitters in high pubic office who don't know the territory.
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|