It’s the Diplomacy, Stupid!
Groans were audible and eye-rolling barely repressed when my graduate school professor announced that we were discussing realism, liberalism and constructivism one day. These three schools of thought form part of the discussion in any international relations course you might take, so the subject matter seemed pedantic at the graduate level. And yet, given the current political landscape I was reminded of how much power our worldview can have on shaping our relationships both politically and personally.
That day’s lesson took a subject generally given a semester to discuss and squeezed it into a quick crash course (much as I will do here: read more). With a full disclaimer that I am oversimplifying the argument, realism is grounded in the idea that nations act primarily to consolidate and maintain power over other states – so military strategy is the most obvious and effective form of communication. In comparison, liberalism places value in cooperation through international organizations and constructivism seeks the best course of negotiations through the lens of history, culture and language. These last two theories assert that nations can exist peacefully and derive power from negotiation and mutual benefit. The United Nations, NATO, and other multi-lateral organizations are efforts at using liberal and constructivist solutions to resolve global disagreements.
That day back with my professor, the discussion was dry and hackneyed: Bush had recently snubbed the UN, adding Bolton’s nomination as insult to the injury of rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. My professor highlighted the Iraq war as a perfect example of using realist measures to solve a complex international problem, with negotiations and diplomacy underutilized. By shutting out other nations or turning them off by not including them, we all agreed that Bush had not handled our security dilemma well and that there was a need for the UN, etc. However, this didn’t change the disturbing fact that our government seemed not to agree.
Having traveled and lived abroad I, like most of my American colleagues, have often felt frustration at being lumped in with this mentality. Realism certainly plays a role in our understanding of how the world works. Yet, it’s dismaying how little diplomacy and international inclusion has been displayed, leading to the default stereotype that the US is a nation of cowboys not interested in peaceful negotiations or thinking beyond our own needs. The profound impression that Bush has left on the world is that we are a nation of realists - caring only to increase our own power at whatever cost. The cowboy image resonates soundly and will continue to affect how other countries think of us; our declining ability to influence the behavior of other nations (power) is evident and our lack of control over the various countries where our troops are deployed and inability to coerce other countries into our mess is scary.
Furthermore, the Bush administration will have the legacy of struggling with nuclear weapon development and security threats from countries such as Iran and North Korea. Sanctions and threats were the main arms of his diplomatic arsenal. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Columbia University in 2007 and the University was severely criticized as giving legitimacy to terrorists. Engaging in dialogue was interpreted as weakness, rather than trying to promote dialogue to resolve political problems. But if Iran is the new Iraq, perhaps we should try to employ more diplomatic means to peace rather than repeating what happened with Vietnam!
Fast forward less than a year and we are living during a historic moment. The general change promised by Democratic nominee Barack Obama, would alter our international relations style dramatically. The fact that he has stated that he would engage in conversation with “terrorist” leaders marks a significant break with the past administration. It signifies a commitment to communication and diplomacy. It admits that our policy of hard-line realism and military negotiations is flawed. It posits that brokering agreements, encouraging understanding and stimulating good will among other nations will make us more powerful because we will have engaged countries with whom we disagree in respectful communication that will help to regain the respect and cooperation of allies.
I believe this stance will truly alter how countries behave towards our nation, for the perception that Barack Obama will bring change extends beyond our nation. He would be a break from the old-guard style of power. Whereas McCain tows the line of maintaining the silent treatment towards the leaders of certain countries, Obama represents those of us ready to communicate. McCain represents the army and proudly speaks of his experience there; on the other hand, Obama is untainted by the military establishment.
As I write these words, I realize how idealistic and naïve they might sound. Yet, like most the informed world, I can see how interdependent global nations are in terms of economics and security and I am ever more nervous about our political state. At the heart of this is my understanding of the power our choice of leader will play in how other countries will perceive us and therefore how willing they will be to ally themselves with us. Barack has the power to change not only how we employ our diplomatic tools but also how we are greeted at the table. Diplomacy is the power of speech, not silence – and I feel confident in my desire to hear this change in power soon.
