Why diplomats matter

before our eyes

I approach this column as I would approach teaching: trying to use examples of why things get us to desired ends or why various consequences of our actions prevent that. That is what I can bring to conversations and believe it matters.

Over the years of teaching national security strategy from various angles, I became fascinated by our assumptions—far too often with absolutely no serious annalysis—about how instruments of statecraft achieve (or fail to) the outcomes we desire. I wrote, but did not publish, a book several years back on how the Obama administration used instruments for the initial years of the ‘rebalance to Asia’, announced in November 2011.

My research began after hearing 2016 presidential candidates blithely proclaiming with no detail that they would use the military, the economy, and our diplomats to achieve their goals. These assertions were often actually juvenile because the candidates too often assumed their individual desires were synonymous with the instruments as if that guaranteed desired ends. Instruments simply don’t work that way, most especially because thinking something does not equate to using a tool.

Instruments are not pixie dust dropped randomly when we feel like using it. Whether it is trade negotiators, cyber types, Marine Corps infantry, or cultural cone types at State, Those we deploy to advance our national interests are skilled professionals who know specific ways to apply the means of the state. We tend to belittle professionalism these days but it is vital to achieving our long terms goals—period.

Perhaps our expectations of success are overly high, to be clear. Decisive conclusions to conflict such as an Appomattox moment in April 1865 with unconditional surrender are rare which troubles Americans. We still see anything other than an unconditional surrender, a.k.a. a ‘clear cut conclusion’, as failure. Most of the world sees things as more nuanced. Oh, boy.

Over the last several weeks we have seen diplomacy at work, even if we did not see the negotiators at a huge table talking. Americans tend to hate diplomacy, in fact. We find it frustrating, we find it slowwwwwww, we find it too deliberate, and we find it unsatisfying in its measured steps. This is again perception difference for us from others.

Americans prefer quick and seemingly decisive actions; the military all too often is the tool we like because it creates blunt and apparently immediate outcomes. Certainly for the past five decades, our preferred method to addressing the world around us is deploying the omnipotent defense tools we have cultivated. The post-Carter presidencies prefer hard power to answer international needs.

The problem is that few problems in the international system actually have a firm conclusion. Instead, actions create consequences which may not reappear for centuries, even though hints resurface periodically. Serbian history from the medieval period became a justification for many of the actions plaguing the Balkans thirty years ago yet the ‘original sin’ event had happened literally tens of generations back. The Middle East, as we know, is even more prone to cite history from two millennia.

The relevancy is that governments can resolve few problems through using decisive, one-time responses which is our image of what the military does. Diplomats, today a far broader cadre than the pin-stripped white men of old, see micro conversations as advancing understanding by laying out perspectives from all sides of a dispute. These conversations are not all resolving everything in every conflict but they are incremental and necessary steps forward at times.

The sense of security the Jewish state created over seventy-five years almost evaporated on that early October day as Hamas seemingly out of thin air infiltrated the vaunted IDF positions and the nation’s parameters. This unthinkable attack affected so many across the world and certainly in Israel but especially those whose family members became hostages; Israelis, Thais, and Americans were among those hostages.

The complexity of how to prosecute future actions is incredible. Retribution and retaliation in pursuing deterrence is obvious for future protection but does not satisfy those wanting their loved ones home. It’s a dilemma of incredible importance and pain.

The diplomacy which has led to the release of Israeli hostages is an exceptionally clear example of why some outcomes demand conversation with third parties mediating between hating sides, distastefully perhaps. Diplomacy requires listening patiently to the positions of all sides, even when heinous acts led to the negotiations themselves. Diplomacy means knowing something about the motivating factors on both sides, as unjust as any negotiator may find them. Listening does not mean endorsing.

Diplomacy requires acquiring and using intelligence in conjunction with history. Knowing the motivating priorities is essential to fruitful conversations to bring all sides (both sides in this case) to a position where they believe an incentive exists to alter behaviour. Sometimes that is not achievable (China, for example, is overwhelmingly unlikely to change its desire to reunify Taiwan with the mainland), at least in the short term, but diplomats apply this knowledge to creative options to address the two sides’ priorities.

Diplomacy means compromise which is distressful to many, especially in this particular problem. Hamas behaviour was horrifying in October; others see the Netanyahu government’s response as similarly appalling for civilians in the Gaza strip. To negotiate, however, both sides (and by extension negotiators as a whole) must give in, at a minimum to sit down with the enemy. While Americans see this as weakness, it is the heart of a system of any player’s reprioritising its actions. The diplomats don’t have the luxury of judging the sides. Those who feel unable to carry out their duties resign. That is the nature of the job but most find a way to see a better ultimate outcome for the citizens involved, as painful as that may be in principle.

Diplomacy requires trust for the negotiators to succeed. Israelis certainly do not trust Hamas nor does the Palestinian side trust the Israeli current regime. Both sides, however, have some level of trust of the United States or there would have been no extended talks and a deal to free these hostages. For all of our bombast about the ills of the international system or our complaints about Biden, we remain trusted as keeping our word under this administration. This is a fragile trust but essential to any ability to meet the needs of the hostage families as well as the Palestinian civilians.

One final comment on diplomacy which is perhaps the hardest for Americans. We tend to be so judgmental about the motivations of others. Diplomats must be professional above anything else to be successful, relegating judgements to a compartmentalisation process. In concert with the compartmentalisation is the desire to advance conditions even if we cannot fully achieve the most desired outcome. Partially this is because outcomes are rarely final, sadly, but also because advancing interests, such as getting hostages released, is important to the desires of some.

This does not, repeat does not, mean that diplomats should abandon principles or the interests of their nations. Diplomacy is acting on behalf of national interests, determined by civilian elected officials. Diplomats do not launch their own campaigns as a subversive effort. The outcomes are too obvious and too dangerous for their country. The crux of difficulties, however, result from civilian leaders—because our democracy has multiple masters rather than a single authoritarian one—having the competing priorities.

I have no idea whether the truce will continue between Hamas and Israel. The depths of the hatred between these parties remains profound, worse today than on 6 October. However, some families are happier today than a week ago as their loved ones are home. That is neither a guarantee for the future or a solution but it is today’s condition. Whew, this is complicated.

What are your thoughts on diplomacy? What do you think we ought be doing with that skill versus others? I welcome your thoughts.

Thank you for reading Actions Create Consequences. I especially thank those who contribute financially.

Back to beautiful sunshine on Spa Creek this morning. Such joy.

Be well and be safe. FIN