Diplomacy 101
Notwithstanding all the hype about public diplomacy, the Administration is still managing to be a global bad press machine. As Ivo describes, we have managed to generate still more global animus by apparently refusing to take the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review seriously, even though Iran and North Korea are front-burner issues and there is general consensus that the NPT needs amending to prevent states from getting to the edge of nuclear capability in complete conformity with the treaty and then legally withdrawing and making a bomb.
Nor is there any lack of proposals out there. IAEA director Mohammed el-Baradei has proposed a five-year moratorium for all uranium enrichment and plutonium production for all 188 signatories of the NPT. The U.S. and Iran both opposed that -- as did France, Brazil, Japan, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands -- on the grounds that it would limit their future nuclear fuel options. But what about a one-year moratorium? Or making all nuclear fuel generating facilities part of multinational consortia, so they are not controlled by a single state?
The larger point is that the Administration has not mastered the basic diplomatic art of making a positive proposal and putting other countries on the defensive, rather than always being the naysayer, or, as in this case, ignoring the multilateral proceedings and going our own way, thereby uniting everyone else in opposition to our unilateralism. Worse still, the Administration has ideas and initiatives worth expanding in the non-proliferation area. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which is now a very loose and ad-hoc network of states committed to stopping shipments of WMD and delivery systems, is a promising start. According the State Department:
PSI participants are committed to the following interdiction principles to establish a more coordinated and effective basis through which to impede and stop shipments of WMD, delivery systems, and related materials flowing to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern, consistent with national legal authorities and relevant international law and frameworks, including the UN Security Council. They call on all states concerned with this threat to international peace and security to join in similarly committing to:
Undertake effective measures, either alone or in concert with other states, for interdicting the transfer or transport of WMD, their delivery systems, and related materials to and from states and non-state actors of proliferation concern. "States or non-state actors of proliferation concern" generally refers to those countries or entities that the PSI participants involved establish should be subject to interdiction activities because they are engaged in proliferation through: (1) efforts to develop or acquire chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and associated delivery systems; or (2) transfers (either selling, receiving, or facilitating) of WMD, their delivery systems, or related materials. http://www.state.gov/t/np/rls/fs/23764.htm
Given that the PSI purportedly conforms to existing international law and treaties, why couldn't the Administration propose expanding its membership and connecting it to the NPT treaty? Why are we so afraid to suggest that other states join with us to identify "state actors of proliferation concern"? Fellow members of the PSI include France, Australia, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugual, Spain, the UK, Norway, Canada, Russia, and Singapore, with some 40 other states indicating support.
Would it be so terrible actually to show up at an international conference as the leader of a coalition of states seeking to institutionalize an ad-hoc arrangement? At the very least, we would be the proposer rather than the nay-sayer for a change. I think Ivo isright about the basic reasons that the Administration shuns the NPT, but I thought that part of Bush's "new look" was to rediscover the art of diplomacy.
Comments (11)
Speaking of the administration's ineptitutde when it comes to handling world opinion, its continued support for Islam Karimov in Uzebkistan is obviously sending a mixed message on its commitment to actual democratic reform. The First Lady's comments in Egypt last week supporting Mubarak's moves toward sham reform also didn't help, especially when Mubarak's people went and assaulted women protestors almost directly following. Its disinterest in the NPT review is, sadly, not surprising and just another misstep in a long history of diplomatic missteps.
It's all ad hoc policy with a shiny facade that suggests there is some underlying meaning to it all when there most definitely isn't.
May 31, 2005 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
appeals to the bubba vote. all those white males with big ass trucks like to stick it to the foreigners. i am constantly struck by how many Americans' view of world politics is much like their view of football games. it's all about winning the game at hand - never a thought about how this might affect "next season"
of course, most Americans have no view of world politics at all. hell, they dont even know where Chicago is.
May 31, 2005 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a bit foolish to try to predict the future, but it's not unreasonable to assume that, sooner or later, there will be other successful 9/11-type strikes inside the United States.
This, I think, is the biggest Joker in the deck. Even Bushco may realize on some level or other that they need such a strike to further consolidate their power.
As long as we breed enemies and plutonium, it seems inevitable anyway.
Obviously, I don't know what form such a strike will take - it could range from low-tech IRA-like bombings or suicide bombers to something more grand, involving dirty bombs or even nuclear explosion a la 24 -- as hard as that may be to achieve, surely it's not entirely impossible.
I believe that the US will then respond in kind, and I think the probabilities of a limited nuclear strike (using tactical nukes or so-called bunker-busters) is actually fairly high.
Taking into account the economy, the looming energy crisis and the political divide, I don't think the US can make it in its present form. Massive changes are on the way.
The model that strikes me as the most likely to apply to the US is the Fall of the USSR -- primarily because bothy countries suffer from the same problems.
Best case scenario: a "smooth" Brezhnev/Andropov/Gorbachev transition (Kerry was arguably a Gorbachev figure without the charisma); worst case scenario: a nukular nightmare (see above).
I'll end this by saying that Iraq no longer matters (on a geopolitical scale). The harm is done, the plane is plumetting down, we're on autopilot now.If this was SIMEARTH you'd come to the conclusion you're fucked and there is very little you can actually do at this stage (within realistic settings)that would save your planet.
As I have written before on other blogs, we must now think beyond the inevitable collapse of the Empire and plan the transition beyond.
May 31, 2005 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're either understating or ignoring the differences between the PSI and the NPT. The former is a counterproliferation act used against those smuggling WMD materials, and the latter is a nonproliferation act used to discourage such actions from even taking place. Not to lecture, but the NPT is an international treaty that requires buy-in from all signatories to move forward. There's the IAEA to inspect and validate the honesty of the participants, but only if the country being inspected wants to.
Now the PSI is a more active, US-led (the rest of you countries just fall in line) initiative to forcefully board and seize WMD materials. No question as to the might-makes-right rule here, and although it might be stated that it follows international law and treaties, I think there is some question as to whether that is really true in both cases of sovereign states and international waters/air. Do not make the mistake of thinking the PSI reflects anything but the Bush administration's "National Strategy to Combat WMDs" - in short, screw the treaties, don't trust anyone, and act before thinking. Use of force is authorized.
And Bush administration rediscovering the "art of diplomacy?" Yeah, and I'll bet John Bolton's got a real good answer for you in that regard...
May 31, 2005 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush would be as hated here as he is everywhere else
the corporate propaganda machine masquerading as news in the US does a great jub of providing flack the obfuscates the bald faced criminality of Bush Inc.
without this corporate lens, giving Bush his rosy appearance, foriegn press reports on the facts- a sure fire way to make bush look bad
PM Toner
May 31, 2005 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
From http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/PSI.asp :
Lovely. An interdiction initiative that exempts trade from certain WMD actors based soley on perceived alliances rather than actual threat estimates.
In Bolton speak, this would require interdiction of all Cuban cigars; green lights to anything entering/leaving Pakistan.
May 31, 2005 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, one would think that any anti-proliferation organization or treaty (whether aimed at nuclear or other WMDs) would be embraced by the Administration: whether under its "anti-terror" guise or some other reason. But they don't seem to be all that interested. Most likely because the thought of having to deal with such as an important issue as WMD-non-proliferation in any multilateral situation just goes so much against their inbuilt go-it-alone attitude - exacerbated since the Iraq invasion. They just seem simply unable to deal with the notion of international cooperation outside of "with us or against us". A shame, since American leadership might be able to accomplish so much in the world, that we have an Adminstration which seems able to define "leadership" only as "Follow our orders in pusuit of our policy goals - or get lost".
May 31, 2005 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This administration doesn't believe in diplomacy from what I have seen. The last 4 years we have acted very uni-laterally in our foreign policy. Instead of looking for international consensus Washington says, "this is our policy and we don't care what any other country thinks". I am not holding out hope that we will try taking seriously the views of the rest of the world on global security issues. The John Bolton nomination and elevating Condeleeza Rice to Sec'y of State tells me that. Bush said at his 2nd inauguration that he wanted to rebuild relations with our european allies but Rice and Bolton would like to see the influence of the UN marginalized.
We are engaged in "gunboat diplomacy". If we don't like what is happening internationally we go in, uni-laterally, with guns blazing or threaten to do so. That is no way to conduct diplomacy and destabilizes the world because what will keep other countries from doing the same if they feel their "national security" is at risk. Instead of putting international (UN) pressure on Iran our reaction was, "dismantle the program or you run the risk of a US invasion". Thank goodness the UN is taking the lead on Iran. But I am not holding out hope that the neocons will put more emphasis US diplomacy and international consensus building.
May 31, 2005 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. The US has always been a bit leery of international entanglements that limit unilateral control/action. Prior to 2000, we were perhaps backing away from treaties and agreements, but the Bush Administration is running away at full speed.
2. The US interest in controlling resources, especially oil, in order to maintain at least a percieved hegemony is going to prevent us from being a leader in this case. We couldn't play the 'get out of NPT free' card for Pakistan, etc, when they play ally of the week for us in the US media.
3. Because of these economic interests, the US has been remarkably short-sighted and unwilling to expend political capital on a notion that doesn't give corporations short term profit. Securing former Soviet nukes, etc, should have been our first goal in the 90s, and it still hasn't been done at the rate it should be.
It's easier to use 'security' as an excuse to secure economic advantage and remove civil rights than to actually seek long term security. Our leaders neither think long term nor do they have the courage to act on vision.
May 31, 2005 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the Bush administration wants the international security situation to deteriorate.
The worse things get the easier for the Neo Cons to consolidate power domestically.
Their goal may be to create a true war of cultures between the West and Islam. Then the Neo Cons would gain power over the Europeans too.
It's a theory that consistent with the Bush administration's actions.
May 31, 2005 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Administration's reluctance to play ball in the NPT negotiations, or on any other arms-control initiative for that matter, derives from the "Full Spectrum Dominance" mentality that infects those NeoCons and Pentagon bureaucrats who do any strategic thinking. This group of people will not countenance give up any weapons system or strategic policy option no matter how odious (hello Guantanamo Bay) out of fear that America's sovereignty will somehow be eroded by it, or that America will somehow be unable to respond to some future military eventuality as a result. It's precisely the same blinkered thinking that led to the U.S. rejection of the land mines treaty, but that is now happening with weapons systems that pose far greater risks to global security.
June 6, 2005 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink