In recent years, many American officials have regarded withholding diplomatic relations as a way to punish countries for actions ranging from human rights abuses, to failure to abide by international law, to specific treaty violations and acts of war. But withholding diplomatic relations usually doesn't work, and can seriously handicap America's ability to achieve major foreign policy and national security goals. What's more, re-establishing diplomatic relations with a country after they have been severed is no simple matter for the Department of State. U.S. administrations have a great track record of painting themselves into a corner by curtailing relations with considerable brio, with the result that the path is blocked when it is in the national interest to resume normal relations.
Members of Congress or special interest groups have little difficulty finding reasons to insist that the culprit country first earn back recognition by renouncing past positions and unfriendly posturing. According to this view, if the subject country does not share American positions, and is unwilling to abandon hostile attitudes toward U.S. policies, then clearly it is not a country worthy of diplomatic relations with the United States.
But countries don't have to agree on everything or admire each other's forms of government to have diplomatic relations. The United States certainly did not respect the Vichy French government in unoccupied France in 1940, for example. But maintaining an ambassador allowed American consular officers to assess the loyalty of the French army to the puppet government, resulting in the largely unopposed U.S.-British landing of 100,000 troops in North Africa in November 1942.
To learn more about the U.S. history of addressing diplomatic relations, read The Importance of Maintaining Diplomatic Relations for FREE with your subscription to World Politics Review.
A Revolution in Diplomatic Relations
In the years after 9/11, America's unilateral exercise of hard, which is to say mainly military, power, supported by controversial doctrines such as pre-emptive defense, not only exacted a great human and financial toll, but came at considerable expense in terms of Brand USA's global appeal. In part as a result, American soft power, which is nourished by the country's national image, has been damaged. But what can be done? Smart power -- the putative blend of hard and soft power advocated by Harvard professor Joseph Nye -- has been mentioned as one possible solution. At first blush, it looks not just eminently sensible, but in fact an overdue restyling of something that major players on the international stage have long engaged in: a combination of dangling carrots and brandishing sticks. But it’s worth considering more radical approaches to upgrading diplomacy for the modern age, by broadening our definition of what actually constitutes diplomacy—and who qualifies to be a diplomat.
Tourism as a Form of Diplomatic Relations
Tourists represent one example of an alternative category of diplomats. The presumption that tourism can promote cross-cultural understanding and tolerance has long underpinned a diplomatic discourse of tourism as a path to peace. Unfortunately, proponents have struggled to provide empirical evidence to support such a causal link. So how do we make sense of the tenacity of this ideal in light of such disappointing empirical realities? One way to understand these contrasting views is to distinguish between tourism as the "globalization of culture" and tourism as a form of "global culture." By thinking about the relationship between globalization and culture through the prism of tourism, we might in turn identify areas where diplomatic initiatives could better leverage tourism to achieve some of the goals its proponents aspire to.
The Current State of Diplomacy in the U.S.
Where does all this leave us in the early years of the Trump administration, at a time when the importance of diplomacy is at an all-time high? When it comes to the biggest global challenges, the United States hasn’t had any easy successes lately. In cases where President Donald Trump tried to play a leading role in resolving conflicts—among the Gulf states, for instance—the parties involved paid only the briefest respect for his effort and then resumed their feud. Meanwhile, attempts by former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to reform the State Department—some of them credible and desirable—threatened to reduce its capacity to represent American leadership around the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment