The End of Diplomacy?

Once up a time, Americans achieved great things abroad. No longer.

BY AARON DAVID MILLER | FEBRUARY 3, 2010

Back in the day, there was a time when American diplomacy did big and important things.

No more, it seems. The world's gotten complicated, America is a good deal weaker, and the U.S. administration is handicapping itself with a dysfunctional bureaucratic setup that makes it harder to focus and find its footing. 

Effective American diplomacy may well be going the way of the dodo, and the sad fact is there may be little Barack Obama can do about it.

Lamenting the absence of great men years before his own shining moment, Winston Churchill wrote that in England, once upon a time, "there were wonderful giants of old." There's always a danger in idealizing what once was or seemed to be in order to make a point about the present. Still, looking back over the last 60 years, you really do have to wonder whether America's best diplomacy and foreign policy are behind it.

America never ran the world (an illusion the left, right, and much of the third and fourth worlds believe; but there were moments (1945-1950, the early 1970s, 1988-1991) when the United States marshaled its military, political, and economic power toward impressive ends.

There were, or course, disasters and plenty of dysfunction during these years, including the Vietnam War and out-of-control CIA operations. But there were also brilliant achievements: the Marshall Plan, NATO, effective Arab-Israeli diplomacy, détente with the Russians, opening to China, a competent American role in the acceleration and management of the end of the Cold War, and the first Gulf War.

For most of the last 16 years, however -- under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- America has been in a diplomatic dry patch. In the face of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, wars of choice, and nasty regional conflicts, conventional diplomacy has either not been tried or not been very successful. The image of the shuttling secretary of state pre-empting crises or exploiting them to broker agreements, doggedly pursuing Middle East peace, achieving dramatic breakthroughs with spectacular secret diplomacy seems a world away.

The Obama administration wants to do this kind of stuff. And it has done pretty well in managing the big relationships with Russia and Europe, though it has had its share of problems with China. But frankly, these are the easy ones. It's not from the big that the president's problems come; it's from the small.

In garden spots like Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, the problems are four parts military, five parts nation-building, and maybe one part diplomacy. And America is unlikely to prevail in any meaningful sense of the word where corrupt, extractive regimes are unable to control their own territory and cut deals with anti-American elements and place their security and political concerns first.

Even in areas where diplomacy might seem to work on paper -- Kashmir, Arab-Israeli peacemaking -- the United States is hampered by conflicts driven by deep ethnic and religious hostility and by internal politics in which its own allies (Israel, Pakistan, and India) can't be of much help. And in one of the cruelest ironies of all, the U.S. president who has gone further to engage Iran than any of his predecessors is watching any hope for diplomacy being ground up by a regime under siege in Tehran.

MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images

 

Aaron David Miller is a public-policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, where he is working on his forthcoming book, Can America Have Another Great President?

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

TYRTAIOS

12:02 AM ET

February 4, 2010

The Birds Sing, the Wind Blows, and Time Passes

The World grew up around us as we played, self absorbed with cheap oil and imports. Now it's time we grow up and take reponsibility for our actions, and understand we need to seek cooperation not dictate it.

 

A_RUS

5:14 AM ET

February 4, 2010

Let me know what is the big and important things

of American Diplomacy? To suppress nasty regional conflicts or to rouse them for possessing an advantage? Is it not obvious that the peacemaking means the perceptible income, both money and geopolitical one? Why to deny that? Doing democracy the same.

 

MARIKO

7:04 PM ET

February 5, 2010

Sweeping health legislation

Sweeping health legislation to extend medical coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans passed the House and Senate last year and was on the verge of completion — though there were still disagreements between the two houses and few universities . Since then it has been in limbo, and Obama has not publicly offered specifics to help lawmakers move forward tanning beds.

 

FREETRADER

6:26 AM ET

February 4, 2010

Boo Hoo...

Ah, yes, when all the world and love were young, and truth in every shepard's tongue...

The world is a rough place. Any analysis of the 'triumphs' Mr. Miller lists would reveal that none of them was viewed as such at the time, but merely as expedients to make it through to the next day. Regimes like Iran's can only be contained until they either start a war, or by some miracle manage to collapse. It took 72 years for the Soviet Union to collapse, and even then there was a lot of luck involved in its demise. When Reagan left office, it was to the snickers of Ivy League crowd for 'failing' in Iceland. Nobody knows what current events will be viewed as triumphs by future historians -- but I am willing to bet that the peaceful rise of the third world, particularly China and East Asia, will be one of them, and that rise has been orchestarted, or at least helped along greatly, by the policies of the US. And who knows -- maybe 30 years from now removing Saddam Hussein will look like a great turning point. The real point is, no one knows.

That said, I don't necessarily disagree with the image presented of an overly beauracritized Executive Branch, with Hillary Clinton as Firewoman in Chief. George Bush had probably only one strength, but it was one that Obama could use right now, for both foreign and domestic purposes. He was willing to piss people off. Rather than, say, cowering in fear at China's threat to punish the US for arms sales to Taiwan, he should make it clear that any sactions will be met with counter sanctions or at least, an acceleration of the sale of those F-16s the Taiwanese have been hankering for. As the writer implies trying to partner diplomatically with the PRC has given the US nothing in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, with the currency peg, and with climate change. But they have a lot more to lose from a deterioration of the relationship than the US does. The same is true of almost all of our frenemies around the Globe.

 

VALWAYNE

12:24 AM ET

February 5, 2010

Arrogance and Incompetence

The article edges right up to the problem, but doesn't quite have the courage to say what needs to be said. American diplomacy isn't capable of great things because we have a President who isn't cable of leading the nation to doing great things. Obama purposely doesn't give Hillary any power, and Hillary just as assiduously avoids a high profile to avoid being tarred with Obama combination of inexperience, incompetence, naivete, and insanity! Nobody can figue out what his bowing reflex is all about! Its clear the American people in 2008 made the greatest mistake since at least Jimmy Carter, and it grows more and more likely that the mistake is worse. We can only hope that as in times past when the need of the nation is greatest another FDR, or Reagan, will answer the call.... in 2012!

 

GRANT

2:18 AM ET

February 5, 2010

Frankly I'm not sure how we

Frankly I'm not sure how we could expect much more. Contrary to popular opinion it isn't as though the United States had a greater amount of power or ability in 1970. It's simply that for the most part the world has gone into a state of semi-peace. The vast majority of fighting is inside a state and not between states, indeed I can only think of one potential war between two states that could realistically alter international relations (the Indian/Pakistani tensions). Our relations with the other major powers are currently either friendly or peaceful (albeit distrustful) rivals. Economically many other nations have prospered from the current system and see little reason to change it too much, probably the only great change would be nations such as China developing a domestic market for their products instead of relying on exports.

To put it another way, with the entrenched position of the world in a strange state peace there really aren't many opportunities for great changes to foreign policy or breakthroughs in diplomatic deadlocks. I'll admit that I hoped the Obama administration would be able to do so on Israel and Iran but A. the domestic situation prevents him from being a foreign policy president and B. I underestimated both the pro-Israeli sentiment here and the Iranian suspicions of U.S ambitions.

 

MARKABRAHAMS2

7:44 AM ET

March 4, 2010

Time is required

The current president is as you say "the U.S. president who has gone further to engage Iran than any of his predecessors is watching any hope for diplomacy being ground up by a regime under siege in Tehran". We should however remember that diplomacy must play the long game.

The current Iranian regime is constrained by its weakness at home and it sees that it must act tough to regain favor with its electorate. Its behavior seems autistic and disjointed, one message one day and a contrary message the next day. This will change over time but unfortunately it may take longer than the normal term of a presidency.