ICAR News Network - Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution

ICAR News Network

Now is the Time for the U.S. to Find its Diplomatic Focus and Footing
By Mark Jansson, ICAR Certificate Student
Posted: 08/10/07

Last week Washington scoffed in unison at the Iraqi Parliament’s decision to adjourn for the entire month of August. Many inside the beltway were quick to point out that American troops are forced to deal with the same summer heat as everyone else in Baghdad, and underneath one-hundred pounds of combat gear no less. But rather than hiding behind facile comparisons involving politicians and soldiers, our executives and legislators should be working together to assist politicians and soldiers alike by redefining and reinvigorating the U.S.’s diplomatic purpose.

Although Iraq’s pace of political progress is discouraging, the larger problem is the weakness and ongoing dysfunction of the U.S. diplomatic apparatus. The decision by the Iraqi Parliament to adjourn for August was much less about degrees of Fahrenheit than it was about degrees of frustration; but the U.S. had little to say about any of it because it has virtually no diplomatic power and, worse yet, no diplomatic vision. Indeed, to benefit Iraq by effectively engaging its neighbors, Iran and Syria, the U.S. needs to do more than increase its diplomatic effort; it must redefine its diplomatic purpose – and in terms that distinguish diplomacy from public confrontation on the one side, and mere public relations campaigns on the other. Otherwise, the diplomatic effort, no matter how intense, will be misplaced.

But thus far with Iran, the U.S. has consistently followed a patently undiplomatic strategy of confrontation while claiming a desire to resolve various points of contention peacefully. Yes, it is true that the U.S. has thus far resisted the neoconservative predilection for attacking Iran. But if imposing economic sanctions, announcing work on a missile defense system in their neighborhood and equipping their Sunni rivals with $20 billion in arms is the U.S.’s idea of diplomacy, then clearly it needs a new understanding of what diplomacy is all about. More of this kind of diplomacy takes us nowhere.

Sadly, the U.S. has not done much better with Syria. The embarrassing April spat between the Vice President and Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the appropriateness of the latter’s visit with Syrian President Bashar Assad sent a clear message to Syria that the Administration intends to continue barking orders at Damascus, and without any interference from those meddling politicians in Congress. But as with Iran, the confrontational posture is paying few, if any, dividends for Washington.

At the other extreme is the work of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Karen Hughes. Ms. Hughes has put together the U.S. National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communications, which suggests, among other things, encouraging “the development of documentaries, reality shows, soap operas and other television shows that feature American families living in the Middle East and Middle Eastern families living in America.” Surely this would be loads of fun and interesting to market, but there is no reason to believe that it will have any meaningful impact.

The point of course is that the U.S. must find its diplomatic footing somewhere in between confrontation and public relations, and identify palatable yet meaningful terms of engagement with countries of strategic importance - the same idea that brought Khrushchev to the U.S. and led Nixon to China. For the sake of Iraq, this will require the Bush Administration and Congress to reprogram the U.S.’s diplomatic approach, as neither our bullying nor our charm is irresistible anymore. Thus, it would behoove the U.S. to scrap the arms buildups and reality television and start talking sense about Iraq’s security needs.

To that end, instead of resigning the nation to the fact that August will be a regrettable month in the history of Iraq, President Bush and Congressional leaders should tell the Vice President to buzz off and spend some of their own scheduled vacation time in the Middle East trying to give the Iraqis a reason to come back to work early.

In clearer terms, the choice before the Administration and Congress is basically this: they can spend the rest of August complaining about Iraq, or they can step up and start working together as diplomats to give both Iraqis and U.S. troops their best possible chance for success. By choosing the latter, Washington leadership can help stabilize Iraq and can keep its brooding over vacation schedules to a minimum.

News Network Homepage / Armenia / 2008 Elections / Afghanistan / Diplomacy/ Egypt / Environment / Global Peace Index / Health / Immigration / Iraq / Iran / Islam / Kosovo / Nuclear Proliferation / Pakistan / Palestine-Israel / Russia / Somalia / South America / Turkey /




ICAR News Network Now is the Time for the U.S. to Find its Diplomatic Focus and Footing By Mark Jansson, ICAR Certificate Student Posted: 08/10/07 Last week Washington scoffed in unison at the Iraqi Parliament’s decision to adjourn for the entire month of August. Many inside the beltway were quick to point out that American troops are forced to deal with the same summer heat as everyone else in Baghdad, and underneath one-hundred pounds of combat gear no less. But rather than hiding behind facile comparisons involving politicians and soldiers, our executives and legislators should be working together to assist politicians and soldiers alike by redefining and reinvigorating the U.S.’s diplomatic purpose. Although Iraq’s pace of political progress is discouraging, the larger problem is the weakness and ongoing dysfunction of the U.S. diplomatic apparatus. The decision by the Iraqi Parliament to adjourn for August was much less about degrees of Fahrenheit than it was about degrees of frustration; but the U.S. had little to say about any of it because it has virtually no diplomatic power and, worse yet, no diplomatic vision. Indeed, to benefit Iraq by effectively engaging its neighbors, Iran and Syria, the U.S. needs to do more than increase its diplomatic effort; it must redefine its diplomatic purpose – and in terms that distinguish diplomacy from public confrontation on the one side, and mere public relations campaigns on the other. Otherwise, the diplomatic effort, no matter how intense, will be misplaced. But thus far with Iran, the U.S. has consistently followed a patently undiplomatic strategy of confrontation while claiming a desire to resolve various points of contention peacefully. Yes, it is true that the U.S. has thus far resisted the neoconservative predilection for attacking Iran. But if imposing economic sanctions, announcing work on a missile defense system in their neighborhood and equipping their Sunni rivals with $20 billion in arms is the U.S.’s idea of diplomacy, then clearly it needs a new understanding of what diplomacy is all about. More of this kind of diplomacy takes us nowhere. Sadly, the U.S. has not done much better with Syria. The embarrassing April spat between the Vice President and Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the appropriateness of the latter’s visit with Syrian President Bashar Assad sent a clear message to Syria that the Administration intends to continue barking orders at Damascus, and without any interference from those meddling politicians in Congress. But as with Iran, the confrontational posture is paying few, if any, dividends for Washington. At the other extreme is the work of Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Karen Hughes. Ms. Hughes has put together the U.S. National Strategy for Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communications, which suggests, among other things, encouraging “the development of documentaries, reality shows, soap operas and other television shows that feature American families living in the Middle East and Middle Eastern families living in America.” Surely this would be loads of fun and interesting to market, but there is no reason to believe that it will have any meaningful impact. The point of course is that the U.S. must find its diplomatic footing somewhere in between confrontation and public relations, and identify palatable yet meaningful terms of engagement with countries of strategic importance - the same idea that brought Khrushchev to the U.S. and led Nixon to China. For the sake of Iraq, this will require the Bush Administration and Congress to reprogram the U.S.’s diplomatic approach, as neither our bullying nor our charm is irresistible anymore. Thus, it would behoove the U.S. to scrap the arms buildups and reality television and start talking sense about Iraq’s security needs. To that end, instead of resigning the nation to the fact that August will be a regrettable month in the history of Iraq, President Bush and Congressional leaders should tell the Vice President to buzz off and spend some of their own scheduled vacation time in the Middle East trying to give the Iraqis a reason to come back to work early. In clearer terms, the choice before the Administration and Congress is basically this: they can spend the rest of August complaining about Iraq, or they can step up and start working together as diplomats to give both Iraqis and U.S. troops their best possible chance for success. By choosing the latter, Washington leadership can help stabilize Iraq and can keep its brooding over vacation schedules to a minimum. News Network Homepage / Armenia / 2008 Elections / Afghanistan / Diplomacy/ Egypt / Environment / Global Peace Index / Health / Immigration / Iraq / Iran / Islam / Kosovo / Nuclear Proliferation / Pakistan / Palestine-Israel / Russia / Somalia / South America / Turkey /		About ICAR Student Information Prospective Students Faculty and Staff Alumni Career Services Academic Programs Library ICAR In The News Events Technology Resources ICAR Publications Point Of View Center Center for World Religions, Diplomacy & Conflict Resolution