Diplomacy - should it be uniform

[KafirChobee]

This of course is a hypothesis, an exercise in futility.

From one President to the next there has not been any consistancy on world affairs, or the conduct, goals, perceptions, even the needs of other nations or our relationship to others. Atleast not when one political party's choice followed anothers - that is, Dem to GOP to Dem, etc. We are at the mercy of our own electoral whimsy. Atleast it seems so to me.

I recall being taught the unity of diplomatic doctrine back in the 70's - seemed a bit weird because all the stuff was pre-'Nam. But, one went along with it or (as an undergrad) failed the course. After all, America had a path and all Presidents followed it (that is ... the Ike plan).

Reality. Ike ignored everything that Harry had done, and ignored all his warnings. After all, Ike went to Korea and there by kept the only promise he made as a candidate ("I WILL GO TO KOREA"). Ike then went about to prove that America was in fact the Worlds' policeman. He sent US troops into no less than 12 nations without being invited - mostly in Central and South America (installing dictatorships as he went, that he thought we could control). But, he did promise to support any nation that opposed Stalin - the Poles were idealistic enough to believe him - and 10s of thousands died without dear old Ike saying so much as ... "what were they stupid?" Reminds me of Bush41 and his bravado to the Iraqis' if they attempted a coupe - when they did .... Bush41 said, "what you can't take a joke?".

Now, remember, that the McCarthy Hearings (which began in 1948 and continue today in one form or another) were going on - so diplomacy with anyone was pretty much out of the question. Is much easier to simply invade a backward country (or impose sanctions, or starve their people - as we do today), than to reason with its leadership - regardless of the rhetoric of their leaders.

All this aside. Because it just gets worse when looks at the diplomatic strides Carte made and the back stepping Reagan made, or the advantages Clinton left for Bush that Bushy determined were "dumb" ("We have no interests in the MiddleEast", Bush43 2001, pre-911). When one views the necessity of a consistant political-diplomatic policy for a nation of our stature (e.g. "only superPower") to that of a hodge-podge or whimsical fantasy (as we have today), shouldn't the USA have laws that inforce the principles we supposedly propound?

Or, should we simply continue to allow one man (President) to ignore the efforts his predicessor put forth to create a better peace?
_____________________________________________________________
Rant .... please ignore from the discussion.

Most of us know, that the GOP needs an enemy. It somehow became their creed, their mode operendi, their way of showing us how threatening the rest of the world is. How, if we are not dilligent (that is the middle and working class going into the military) the 3rd world will steal all our privileges. Rather than, if we spread "unionism" and enforce equality for the masses of our enemies which would only encourage Communism.

See, that's the problem. The GOP is still fighting Communism - while at the same time embracing China. What be that? Oh, I get it .. if they say some Capitalism is OK (as long as they say who them capitalists can be, and as long as they allow our goodbuddys' in), then they must be swayed to our principles.

Fact is: all the major nations (except us and France) have 20-30-100 year plans in diplomacy. The reason we can't is because ours changes every 4 - 12 years.

We need a plan. We need consistancy in diplomatic policy. Can it be legislated? Remember, it was illegal for a Prez to talk to China without Congressional approval - Nixon did it and got away with it. But, he told the leading Dems what he was doing. See Nixon was an evil man, but he weren't stupid.

[Lemur]

We need a plan. We need consistancy in diplomatic policy.

Just so that I understand where you're coming from, why do we need consistency? The messy, ugly democratic process is what we're all about. Changing politicians and legislators is what we're all about. Why fidget with it? And what possible criteria could you assign to our diplomacy that would somehow be "above" politics?

I understand your frustration, believe me. But isn't the instinct to put something beyond the reach of elected officials the same instinct that leads to paralyzed debating clubs like the U.N.?

[KafirChobee]

Actually, no.

When one considers that other nations adjust to world events while maintaining their path to achieve future goals, versus our own knee-jerk reaction to them. It seems reasonable that guide lines be established that would entail what our goals are in the various regions of the planet.

Take for example Carter and the Clinton's efforts to bring stability and peace to the MiddleEast by encouraging Israel to negotiate with its enemys (and vice-versa). Where as, Reagan and Bush43 both pretty much said it is their problem - not ours. So, by taking sides as opposed to attempting to hold a middle-of-the-road policy of peacemaker, we end up identifying with one side and ignoring the other side. That is, 'til it bites us in the arse (as it did on 9/11/01). Then of course we do our knee-jerking and generally come to the wrong conclusions and begin firing our guns in what ever direction seems popular at the moment.

An example of bad planning is how we (Reagan) supplied weapons to the Taliban and Alqada to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Once the Soviets withdrew - so did we. We lost interest in what occurred there and decided it was not apart of our "sphere of influence" or of any real import to our national security. We of course whined and lamented on how backwards the Taliban regime was making Afghanistan, and were upset that they were a breeding ground for terrorists - but, we did nothing. ['til Clinton tried to take out Osama by blowing up a tent]. So, did we have a plan? No, we simply wanted some pay back against the Soviets for their support of the NVA during Vietnam.

The only consistancy we have in our diplomacy is its lack of purpose, aside from promoting and protecting our corporations' interests.

We are a Super-Power that lacks a defined message or purpose. Our influence has been severly diminished - even many of our allies ignore us today, or take our suggestions about as serious as they would some 5th world nations.

To me this is because our message changes with the advent of a new messanger every four years. This alone encourages our enemys' and despairs our allys.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Take for example Carter and the Clinton's efforts to bring stability and peace to the MiddleEast by encouraging Israel to negotiate with its enemys (and vice-versa). Where as, Reagan and Bush43 both pretty much said it is their problem - not ours.

You realize Bush 43 was the first to call for a palestinian state?

That is, 'til it bites us in the arse (as it did on 9/11/01). Then of course we do our knee-jerking and generally come to the wrong conclusions and begin firing our guns in what ever direction seems popular at the moment.

Are you saying we were attacked because we didn't support the suicided bombers of Palestine as much as Israel? Was attacking Afghanistan the wrong conclusion?

Finally - how would you achieve this concept of long term diplomatic goals? Legislating our policy for a certain period, meaning we are unable to react if the situation changes? Our policy is dictated by elected representatives, and so express a sentiment of the people; you can't have democracy and set policies regardless of what people think.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kafir is correct that the foreign policy of the USA has never been as consistent as those of the European powers or the big players in the Western Pacific.

Our only lasting period of consistent foreign policy goals was from 1789-1898. Following GW's advice to avoid the entanglements of the Old World, the USA pursued a largely consistent (with some variations) policy of standing for free trade, a minimization of European involvement in the New World, and Westward expansion at the expense of the Amerind aboriginals.

Following the Second World War, it can be argued that the "strategic goal" of US foreign policy remained consistent from 1947 through 1989 -- thwart communism in general and the Soviet Union in particular -- but the "tactics" employed by each administration were often strikingly different. Nixon & Kissinger's power politics of playing the Chinese and Soviets off against one another and Shuttle Diplomacy in the Mid-East could not have been more different than Carter's Human Rights strategy and bilateral face-to-face negotiations for Israel/Palestine. Both administrations would probably argue that they were pursuing the same larger objectives of peace, freedom, and stability -- as would Bush 43's administration.

How do we bring in a greater degree of stability? Longer Presidential terms of office would decrease the pendulum effect. Alternatively, we could modify the constitutional basis for Presidential primacy in foreign policy by enshrining the Secretariat of State into the Constitution and shifting that cabinet position to one that is for a ten-year term and not at the sufferance of the sitting President -- maybe ieven make it a committee (Like the Fed Chairmanship).

Lemur is asking the best counter-question, however. Should we try to inculcate a greater stability in foreign affairs? Is it possible that this inconsistency is the price we must pay to avoid coalescing too much power in any one area of government?

[Mithrandir]

Is there a site on which I can read about such strategic plans from other countries which work ?

[rory_20_uk]

Isn't the price paid as there is too much power in the hands of one person? The President sets the tune, and everything follows. The mess in Iraq was mainly because Bush decided he was going in and teh reasons altered to justify the actions. Now we hear that the Brits were for keeping the Iraq army intact, but the USA was having none of it... and thus helped increase the anarchy.

Although it seems odd to apply a mental state to a country, America does appear to be one with boundless energy, but no patience and little desire to think through actions. There is also the desire to "sort out" problems that have been ongoing for hundreds of years, and annoyance when the 6 month "fix" doesn't work.

One reason for this problem is that the American President is shielded from most interaction with other politicians and the public. Whereas the Prime Minister in the UK needs to be able to think on his feet in the weekly Prime Minister's Question Time, Presidents never have to go through this. Thus whereas we've got a intelligent Lawyer, America has an average rich kid.

In America the heads of the Civil Service are uprooted and replaced with the current incumbent's people, allowing quite speedy changes to establishment thought. Here in the UK the Civil Service is almost autonomous. Nothing happens that quickly as most of the Manderins have been around for ages and aren't going anywhere. So, whereas the USA is a yacht, the UK has an oil tanker.

For the USA to develop a consistent foreign policy the voters would need a greater awareness of the world so that politicians were more wary of changes in directions of policy.

[yesdachi]

There are a few things that jump out at me regarding uniformed diplomacy…

1) For the US to have consistency would require a long term plan of some kind, I don’t think we have one. And with the quick paced changes the world makes I am not sure we should have one (although reducing the national debt wouldn’t be a bad one) and with our hot and cold population, our ever changing government and the unpredictable actions of our enemies, I don’t think if we had a “plan” we would follow it very well.

A nice question would be what should our plan for the next 30 years be? I’ll bet every American will give you a different answer, thus the difficulties in creating a plan and having a popular elected official.

2) IMO one of the main reasons the Dems were so successful this past election is because they had an enemy… Bush and the GOP. Lots of people/groups rise to, hold on to or gain power because they leverage an enemy.

Most of us know, that the GOP needs an enemy.

[macsen rufus]

I think Rory has his finger right on the pulse (sorry, couldn't resist ) when he points out the differences between the Civil Service in UK and US. THAT is where we derive our long-term stability.

Our Foreign Secretary is advised by people who have been dealing with foreign affairs for decades, under administrations of every colour. I've always found the US system of political appointment to be somewhat suspect, where the advisors are put in place because of their political "correctness" to the appropriate party currently in power. This destroys stability, removes personal relationships and understanding built between individuals in different nations' administrations and just generally gums up the works while the foreign powers "measure up" the new guy. OK political level contact is important, but the real donkey work is done by civil servants, diplomats etc (are US diplomats politically appointed, too?)

But Lemur has a point, too. Governments express the will of the people (allegedly) so changes in policy are to be expected. BUT foreign affairs I believe are too sensitive, long-term and complex to be driven by the voters' "concern of the moment". The average Joe is likely to jump from one knee-jerk to the next without really comprehending all that's going on (as indeed can Ministers, which is why they need their advisors!) A t

Rather than making Secretary of State a 10-year appointment, a more professionalised and permanent civil service is IMHO a better route to take, but the point about it not being at the suffrance of the incumbent president is the crux of the issue. A week might be a long time in politics, but geopolitics needs a perspective of decades, if not centuries.

Of course, a less interventionist policy would also help to keep things on an even keel, less willingness to prop up the ugly buddy of the hour, or to bomb the bete-du-jour into the stone age. The USA is still a young country - that's where its energy and can-do attitude come from, but it can also lead to short-termism and an ignorance (or optimistic misreading) of consequences. Whereas of course the Old World is -- well old, tired, and cautious

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rule by bureacracy may well represent stability but it has its own draw-backs.

1. Structural Violence (Hannah Arendt's term, not mine) -- the inability of anyone interacting with/using the bureacracy to LOCATE someone to actually make a decision that isn't already formatted into the SOPs.

2. Bureacratic Politics -- bureacracies will often pursue their own political agendas completely regardless of the needs of those whom they were established to serve. How often will MI5 do something/allow something to happen just to spite MI6. I assure you that US bureacracies play this game, our CIA folks are often happy at the malf-ups of State and vice versa.

3. The general tendency for bureacracies to hope any non-standard problem and/or cirisis will go away -- do nothing-ism.

[macsen rufus]

@Seamus: I don't disagree about bureaucracies. But it will be a bureaucracy regardless of whether it's professionalised or politically appointed, and conflating intelligence services - which by their very nature are devious and double-dealing - with civil administrative bodies is not valid IMHO. Nonetheless you made my point for me - US bureaucracies, with their political appointees - still engage in in-fighting. I think it's more to do with a multiplicity of similar agencies with close, if not overlapping, bailliwicks all competing for "turf", which no doubt equates to influence and funding....

[Lord Winter]

Removing the presidential term limit would be an alternative to increasing the actual term of the president. That way the president would still have to face the voters every four years but still have a chance of guiding the U.S. over the long term and thus keeping its diplomacy and policy somewhat consistent?

I don't really see how increasing the appointment time of the secretary of state would help. Wouldn't it just serve to create more partisan politics, when the president that had made the appointment is replaced by a member of the opposite party? Surly the secretary of state would still be loyal to the first presidents party, or else they wouldn't have been appointed in the first place. Besides dose the secretary of state have any real power? Are they not there to advise and carry out the policy of the president?

[IrishArmenian]

I think the U.S.'s new diplomatic goal is to stay in good favor with the U.K. (government, not the people). That seems all that they are concerned about.

[Pannonian]

I think the U.S.'s new diplomatic goal is to stay in good favor with the U.K. (government, not the people). That seems all that they are concerned about.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[KafirChobee]

Thank you, all. Or, as i would normally say it, Thanx y'all.

Two things that stuck out were the extention of Presidenial terms - from 4 years to 6 (I seriously doubt Mr. Bush43 could make a second term under those conditions .... gah, 2 more years?), and that the Secratary of State be given a minimum of 10 years - why not make a committee of say 7 for life?

Most that answered this post responded responsably, and with enough insight to realize that America is a drift. America has no clue what it will do from one Prez to the next - dplomatically. Does it care? Maybe, but most Americans are content with a knee-jerk reactation. Which is the reason that a consistant and more appropriate form of directing the diplomatic path of a great (SUPER POWER) nation is needed.

Or, we can continue to change our path every four years .. and lose. ULTIMATELY.

Call out the Crusaders! Er, I mean we must defend ouselves against .... "insurt enemy name here".

[rory_20_uk]

Here we have the civil service that are basically there for many years, and do have a massive effect on policy as they are the ones that impliment directives.

Making political ranks there for life isn't the way forward IMO.