Archive for ‘National security’

May 22, 2018

The Costs of Neglecting Diplomacy

From the start, the Trump administration has not taken diplomacy seriously. Or maybe that is an understatement; from the start, the Trump administration has been hostile toward diplomacy as a tool in the US foreign policy toolbox. Now we are starting to see the impact on real issues like in trade talks with China and on options for dealing with Iran.

If we think of diplomacy as seeking negotiated outcomes, being willing to make mutual concessions, and building the organizational capacity to pursue the first two points, this administration is not keen on diplomacy. Perhaps the idea conflicts with Pres. Trump’s bullying nature and Art of the Deal bravado. The Trump administration has gutted the main US diplomatic agency, the Department of State. The administration has been slow to fill State positions and multiple senior State professionals have resigned (e.g. Feeley). Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s isolation from the professionals and their expertise and the proposed budget cuts at State sent a clear message of disinterest and neglect.

President Trump may not care. Recall he told an interviewer that in terms of foreign policymaking, “I’m the only one that matters.” That attitude + twitter put US negotiators in a tough position, not knowing if and when they will be undercut or US policy will suddenly shift.

Frequently, however, we see the need for a functioning diplomatic apparatus that helps determine US policy (internally) and then negotiates with other parties. Trump is fine at unilateral policy but that doesn’t require diplomacy. He can withdraw from treaties (TPP, Paris climate accords) or move an embassy to Jerusalem, for example. But he has not had any successful negotiated agreement, nor signs that one is on the way. (And note that even when Trump took a step that an ally, Israel, welcomed, he did so unilaterally and thereby forfeited the possibility of getting an Israeli concession in return for moving the embassy.)

Two recent items suggest the problems with neglecting your diplomats. The first example is that even as Michael Singh applauded the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the JCPOA (the Iran nuclear agreement), he highlighted the power of multilateral sanctions. Singh himself noted the centrality of diplomacy in a campaign of “maximum pressure” against Iran: “As a senior U.S. official responsible for Iran policy from 2006 to 2008, I know from personal experience that even when the United States was strategically aligned with its diplomatic partners, sanctions required relentless diplomacy in order to be effective.” (emphasis added) Or, Singh, adds: “Diplomacy, not just market signals, will be required to amplify whatever pressure the United States can generate alone, and translate that pressure into policy outcomes.”

Especially given that the US is now NOT strategically aligned with its diplomatic partners on Iran, on what basis should we believe the US can practice relentless diplomacy? All the evidence suggests the opposite. Trump is an inattentive president not open to studying up on issues. The administration lacks a strong inter-agency foreign policy process. etc.

Given that the US is juggling multiple issues with China including trade, North Korea, and Iran, Singh writes, “Diplomacy will also be required to manage the policy tradeoffs looming on the horizon.” Yet on what international issue has the Trump administration set out clear priorities in the face of competing needs and demands?

Singh does write that “Conducting such diplomacy today will be difficult,” but, in his eyes, only because Washington’s European allies are unhappy with US policy. He makes no mention of the US administration’s hostility toward and neglect of diplomacy as an obstacle to its effective use.

In a second example, Ilan Goldenberg builds on a New York Times article about China-US talks to detail Trump administration diplomatic weakness in action. In short, the very things that worry me about Singh’s reliance on relentless diplomacy we learn have led to a mess for the US delegation to China-US negotiations. Some of Goldenberg’s thoughts:

Being part of the international system, let alone the leader of much of it, requires extensive consultation, information sharing, policy coordination, dispute management and resolution, priority setting, and the like with both friends and enemies (not to mention friends you treat like enemies and enemies you treat like friends). If the United States ignores those steps and, in some cases, even lacks the qualified personnel in place who would do such things, I fully expect this China-US example to serve as a template for what we should expect when the Trump administration negotiates.

 

Advertisements
March 1, 2012

Misperceptions, Foreign Policy, and Iran

A new post at the Monkey Cage, co-authored with my colleague Stephen Benedict Dyson:

In an article in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Michael Cohen and Micah Zenko rightfully draw attention to the way in which threats to U.S. national security appear overblown today. But because they understandably focus on demonstrating the relative safety of the United States, they do not give as much attention to research on the question of why threats get overblown. When they do turn to the cause, they underplay the central role of psychological factors.

MORE HERE….

December 30, 2011

The Idea of American Exceptionalism & US Intervention

The push for a much more restrained US foreign policy, whether in the Middle East (as Gregory Gause argued) or around the world (as Stephen Walt would have it) makes eminent sense.  But if pundits and policymakers are serious about moving the United States in that direction, it is going to require challenging two core beliefs: American exceptionalism and conditional sovereignty. Without challenging these pillars of American interventionism run amok, any shift toward restraint will be shallow and temporary.

The rise of the United States as a global power may have come about because of economic might, technological innovation, and military prowess, but it has also been intimately linked to a can-do attitude and a perception of inherent superiority. While a realist might emphasize that growth in US material power and what the US can do (see Monteiro here), we need to recognize that it has been married to an ideational commitment to using that power. From the moment the colonists prevailed over the mighty British Empire, this was a country that could overcome great odds and re-make the world in its image. We are the city on a hill, the arsenal of democracy, the indispensable nation. The American way is the best way.

History seemed only to add further proof of American supremacy.  US forces crushed the native population and gathered the survivors in reservations. Territory, whether through war or dealmaking, led to the great expansion west – the Louisiana Purchase, Texas and the southwest, Alaska, and even faraway islands in the Pacific Ocean. Our doughboys helped turn the tide in WWI, and we vanquished Nazi Germany in WWII. With Europe in tatters, America saved the day with the Marshall Plan and NATO.  Just 20 years ago, the United States won the Cold War, a massive accomplishment. In short, history is seen as proving that American expansion and intervention was good, necessary, and effective.

For U.S. political candidates, the idea of questioning America’s ability to be number one, to effect change, and to influence others remains a risky strategy. For the GOP presidential candidates this year, it has been an attack line against President Barack Obama. In the 2008 campaign, one thinks of the brouhaha when Michelle Obama said, “for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” Critics pounced because expressing doubt about the United States was seen as unacceptable.

Of course since the United States has been a full-fledged superpower, the record has slipped in a way that you might think would lead to the “judicious” use of the U.S. military that then Gov. George W. Bush preached during the 2000 campaign. The military struggled in Korea and then more so in Vietnam. After the seeming redemption of the first Gulf War in 1991, the last decade has brought back the questions; Iraq and Afghanistan were and are a difficult slog. On the economic front, the 1950s and 1960s gave way to energy crises and the rise of other economic powers, whether Japan in the 1980s or China and India today.

Now if we were strict about sovereignty, we might have a problem meddling in countless countries. So hand in hand with American exceptionalism has been a commitment to the conditional nature of sovereignty. If Washington feels it needs to intervene, it does.

To be fair, sovereignty is not an impenetrable roadblock. International law makes exceptions for genocide, for example, and R2P is carving a much larger hole in sovereignty. Moreover, if the United States gets multilateral, regional, and/or UN blessing for proposed meddling, the sovereignty question fades even more from the debate.

The problem is that violations of sovereignty may come with a heavy price, a price far worse than the initial benefits. The US invasion of Iraq created a political vacuum that al-Qaeda exploited to the detriment of Iraqis and Americans. What is blowback, after all, if not US meddling coming back to bite Washington? When the United States kills 24 Pakistani soldiers or when a US drone crashes in Iran, we should all recognize the fluid take on sovereignty that such incidents represent and worry about the future implications of such behavior.

Aggressive internationalism, whether of the neoconservative or liberal variety, relies on a belief in U.S. effectiveness, on a missionary zeal (nicely captured by Dominic Tierney), and on the ability to waltz into and out of countries. So if the grand strategy needs rethinking, it will not be enough to simply table an alternative built on humility and restraint. It is going to take a much deeper debate about how we see ourselves in relation to the rest of the world and whether we are willing to reformulate our ideas. Is that a debate our polarized political system is ready to have?

 

 

September 8, 2011

September 11: Ten Years After (Panel)

On Friday, September 9, 2011, I will be moderating a panel at UConn on “September 11: Ten Years After.” The event will be streamed live. The event will take place from 12-1 pm EST.

Prof. Stephen Dyson will speak about how Bush, Blair, and Rumsfeld reacted on the day and what it meant for the next ten years of foreign policy.
Prof. Shareen Hertel will address the human rights origins and implications of 9/11.

July 29, 2011

Protests continue in Israel: 3 Lines

As the protests continue in Israel, I was intrigued by three lines from Aner Shalev’s op-ed in Ha’aretz:

At last, the social struggle in Israel has a chance, as the government cannot divert the public’s attention with a peace process. There is no peace process. There’s not even the appearance of one.

National security has always been center stage. It, not economics, provided the main dividing line between Israel’s largest political parties. Just recently a friend was saying why it made the idea of forming a truly social democratic party in Israel so difficult.

At last, the leaders of the struggle are the privileged classes, those known here as “the salt of the earth.” Those living in the center of the country and making double or triple the minimum wage have suddenly discovered that they, too, cannot buy an apartment or afford to spend half their wages on rent. At last, the social struggle in Israel has a chance, because the privileged classes are themselves downtrodden.

The Tel Aviv bubble (the State of Tel Aviv) as the vanguard of social change?

It’s not true that the government does not interfere in the economy, and that it operates according to the rules of supply and demand, competition and a free market. First of all, true competition is impossible when 10 families hold sway over most of the market. Rather than American-style capitalism, this is more like a Russian-style oligarchy following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

When consumers rose up against cottage cheese prices earlier this year, the struggle emphasized that a few companies control the dairy market. But Shalev broadens the point. With a small Israeli market, a few companies can choke off competition.