[Article] Diplomacy: Legitimizer of Enemies or Panacea for Conflict?

[Loki]

Not content with fights over abortion and gay rights, the two chief ideological camps in the US have found a new wedge issue to energize their supporters over: diplomacy. On one side are former President Bush, much of the Republican establishment, and “conservative” talk radio. On the other is President Obama, the Democratic Party in general, as well as the anti-war camp. The former claim that dealing with enemies is a form of appeasement and legitimizes the views of America’s opponents. The latter suggest that diplomacy can be used as a substitute for coercive measures. Neither side is a fan of justifying their position.

Diplomacy is the conduct of negotiations between two or more groups. The goal is to understand the other side’s position: see what they are willing to sacrifice and what they want in exchange. Then each side can determine whether the other offer is genuine and the best one that can be obtained. Both sides in a negotiation have a range of outcomes that they prefer to the status quo - in some situations, those ranges will overlap and in some they will not. When they do overlap, an agreement is possible, though a lack of information about the other side and/or the perceived inability of the other side to stick to the agreement make reaching the agreement a complicated task. Viewed in this light, diplomacy is little more than providing and receiving information that can eventually create the basis for an agreement.

If diplomacy is the exchange of information, then do we have any grounds for saying that it legitimizes the stance of each side? A simple analogy is buying a car from a dealership. Each side has a range of outcomes they find acceptable, though they prefer some to others. An agreement is made if the two ranges overlap. But what happens if one side is entirely unreasonable? If the customer is willing to only pay $10,000 for a car, while the salesman refuses to back down from $40,000, is the customer somehow legitimizing that higher price by showing up at the dealership? Does the salesman derive any benefit from having a potential customer not buy his cars? What if the customer is famous? One might say that this would provide prestige to the salesman, helping him generate additional sales. Yet, is that the message that would be sent to others if no sale is made? The reality is that any photo op that can be provided by a meeting of ambassadors or even heads of state is unlikely to provide any long-term bump in approval to an unsavory foreign leader. If gaining approval was so easy, they would not have to bother with the trouble of repressing their people in the first place.

The logic above suggests that that diplomacy has no negative side-effects; then why not use it instead of other measures, especially ones requiring the use of force? After all, if we know what the other side wants and they know what we want, how hard can it be to come to an agreement? Reaching an agreement would not be overly difficult, but making one that is desirable would be. Getting back to the car dealership example, let’s assume that the customer is willing to pay anything less than $20,000 for a car, while the dealer is willing to accept anything over $10,000. The customer can choose to pay the $20,000, and the dealer would accept it. Is that an outcome that is desirable to the customer, however? In the context of international relations, the US can probably reach an agreement with North Korea and Iran to stop producing nuclear weapons, but the agreements would likely be some combination of unenforceable and too costly. Furthermore, without any threat of coercion, whether economic or military, there is no reason for the other side to either respect prior agreements or to act in good faith in negotiating future ones. Diplomacy allows one side to discover what the other is willing to accept, but the implicit threat of coercion is what makes the other side more reasonable in its counter-offers and more willing to negotiate in the first place. Why would a country that supports the status quo on an issue willingly change its policies if the consequences of doing nothing are minuscule?

Diplomacy is a tool to exchange information. In that regard, it does no more to legitimize the other side than a judge legitimatizes a crime by sentencing someone for committing it. At the same time, the effectiveness of diplomacy ultimately lies in its promise of sticks and/or carrots; it cannot be considered separately from other tools available to a country. The willingness to engage in diplomacy should be confused neither with the willingness to give in nor with the ability to resolve all disputes peacefully. It is a tool that can be useful in achieving a country’s objectives in concert with other measures. For that reason, it should not be ignored; conversely, its ability to get results should not be overestimated.

You can view the page at http://www.theworldforgotten.com/content.php/10

[GGT]

Diplomacy is a tool to exchange information. In that regard, it does no more to legitimize the other side than a judge legitimatizes a crime by sentencing someone for committing it.

I sent you a cursory PM also. Nice article. Are you asking us to edit this or debate this? I didn't really like the buying-a-car analogy. There might be a better one but I don't know which.

I also think Diplomacy is more like a judge hearing both sides and parsing it out, without automatically taking his decision to criminal sentencing.

[littlelolligagged]

I also think Diplomacy is more like a judge hearing both sides and parsing it out, without automatically taking his decision to criminal sentencing.

But Geegee, sometimes diplomacy doesn't involve an additional party mediating.

[GGT]

But Geegee, sometimes diplomacy doesn't involve an additional party mediating.

Sure, but Loki's the one who brought up a judge and a hearing. That itself infers a third party mediating.

That's the other aspect of Diplomacy that isn't given its proper due---the third parties always watching and arm-chair evaluating. That can mean anything from other countries observing negotiations, to coverage in the press, to populist opinions that move polls, and politicians that try to be everything to everyone.

[wiggin]

To reiterate some earlier comments: Your logic mostly applies to bilateral negotiations in a vacuum. The reality - with a whole host of players and many conflicting interests - is likely much more complex, and diplomacy may achieve far more (or less) than a simple exchange of information. This is critical to think about when it comes to both NK and Iran - look at SK and Japan's jumpiness about perceived US rapprochement with NK over their nuclear arsenal, or Israel's uncertainty about US intentions vis-a-vis Iran. Might engaging in a protracted diplomatic effort prompt others to force a solution of their own devising on the situation, theoretically one suboptimal to any result that could be reached by the US even without diplomacy?

Ender

[Hazir]

Isn't Diplomacy just the word for the non-violent interaction between nations? Through Diplomacy you can achieve either everything or nothing and typically something in between of those extremes. The question isn't if you should use diplomacy or not, but if you want conflicts of interest solved by violent or non-violent means. The whole shadow debate about whether or not you enable a dictator if you talk to him is a bit silly in my eyes. It probably stems from the equally silly idea that one needs to recognize a government de jure before one can do business with that government.

That's sort of when a 4 year old closes his eyes and thinks the world around him has disappeared.

[Loki]

I sent you a cursory PM also. Nice article. Are you asking us to edit this or debate this? I didn't really like the buying-a-car analogy. There might be a better one but I don't know which.

I also think Diplomacy is more like a judge hearing both sides and parsing it out, without automatically taking his decision to criminal sentencing.

Diplomacy involves direct interaction between two or more parties. You can argue that mediation (what you're referring to) is diplomacy, but that's not really the aspect of diplomacy I was writing about.

To reiterate some earlier comments: Your logic mostly applies to bilateral negotiations in a vacuum. The reality - with a whole host of players and many conflicting interests - is likely much more complex, and diplomacy may achieve far more (or less) than a simple exchange of information. This is critical to think about when it comes to both NK and Iran - look at SK and Japan's jumpiness about perceived US rapprochement with NK over their nuclear arsenal, or Israel's uncertainty about US intentions vis-a-vis Iran. Might engaging in a protracted diplomatic effort prompt others to force a solution of their own devising on the situation, theoretically one suboptimal to any result that could be reached by the US even without diplomacy?

Ender

I dealt exclusively with bilateral negotiations because that is the context in which they get attacked or defended in the US media, and that is the portrayal I was trying to address. You are right that multilateral negotiations are also an integral aspect of diplomacy, and are often used to help resolve otherwise intractable disputes, as is the case when the US puts itself between India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, and in the Korean talks.

Isn't Diplomacy just the word for the non-violent interaction between nations? Through Diplomacy you can achieve either everything or nothing and typically something in between of those extremes. The question isn't if you should use diplomacy or not, but if you want conflicts of interest solved by violent or non-violent means. The whole shadow debate about whether or not you enable a dictator if you talk to him is a bit silly in my eyes. It probably stems from the equally silly idea that one needs to recognize a government de jure before one can do business with that government.

That's sort of when a 4 year old closes his eyes and thinks the world around him has disappeared.

I was referring mostly to negotiations, and there are ways to resolve conflicts through non-violent means that don't involve direct negotiations (i.e. working behind the scenes, working through a third party, etc.). I do think you're right about the recognition aspect. People tend to have an overly rosy picture of what the US can accomplish by withholding recognition to a long-standing regime. That kind of policy only has some effect when dealing with regimes, and neither North Korea, Iran, or Cuba (the countries we're not meant to be "talking" with most) certainly don't have that issue.

[Hazir]

Are you trying to say that what the debate is about diplomacy being used not as a mere option but as the option that excludes all others? That would mean a surrender of a country's sovereignty, which of course is an option, but it would be extremely dangerous to make such a move one-sided.

So, that means both sides in your national debate hold profoundly flawed positions.

[Loki]

Are you trying to say that what the debate is about diplomacy being used not as a mere option but as the option that excludes all others? That would mean a surrender of a country's sovereignty, which of course is an option, but it would be extremely dangerous to make such a move one-sided.

So, that means both sides in your national debate hold profoundly flawed positions.

Basically, one side wants to totally rule it out with countries "we don't like", while the other wants to exclude all other options. I think it's a good point that both sides are willing to surrender a large chunk of their country's sovereignty just for the sake of some ambiguous and indefensible worldview. The right has been the first to take the odd position that we should only deal with our friends, but the left then had to outdo that by suggesting we have no need for any tools other than negotiations. Telling the former that we've managed to avert a war with the USSR through this very practice, and telling the latter that other countries aren't ruled by hippies seems to have no effect.

[LittleFuzzy]

The whole shadow debate about whether or not you enable a dictator if you talk to him is a bit silly in my eyes. It probably stems from the equally silly idea that one needs to recognize a government de jure before one can do business with that government.

Euh, not entirely. Loki did neglect a particular point of view, the institutionalism perspective. Frameworks have a limited inherent impetus toward self-perpetuation. A kind of metaphysical inertia. The act of diplomacy, talking with a particular party about a particular subject, creates a framework. Conflict does too. As Wiggin implies, this impetus is prone to influence by the presence of third parties. Once you've started talking, for most countries it can get rather difficult to stop doing so should that be called for. Selecting an approach effectively raises the cost of changing approaches, it limits your flexibility.

[Hazir]

Euh, not entirely. Loki did neglect a particular point of view, the institutionalism perspective. Frameworks have a limited inherent impetus toward self-perpetuation. A kind of metaphysical inertia. The act of diplomacy, talking with a particular party about a particular subject, creates a framework. Conflict does too. As Wiggin implies, this impetus is prone to influence by the presence of third parties. Once you've started talking, for most countries it can get rather difficult to stop doing so should that be called for. Selecting an approach effectively raises the cost of changing approaches, it limits your flexibility.

In this particular matter you could also turn that around; the fact that the US government refuses to talk to its percieved enemies makes it more difficult to start talking with parties as the threshold that needs to be crossed is significantly higher than for governments that understand that one may even sometimes benefit from talking with foes.

[LittleFuzzy]

In this particular matter you could also turn that around; the fact that the US government refuses to talk to its percieved enemies makes it more difficult to start talking with parties as the threshold that needs to be crossed is significantly higher than for governments that understand that one may even sometimes benefit from talking with foes.

To an extent that's true, but it's also rather mitigated by the third-party pressures, which tend to be rather more inclined toward the use of diplomacy

[Being]

Hmmm...I wonder how diplomacy applies to party politics?

[Hazir]

To an extent that's true, but it's also rather mitigated by the third-party pressures, which tend to be rather more inclined toward the use of diplomacy

But in how far is that relevant for the USA which may want to get third-parties on board, but doesn't necessarily need them to push through its will?

[LittleFuzzy]

But in how far is that relevant for the USA which may want to get third-parties on board, but doesn't necessarily need them to push through its will?

The fact that some countries can ignore pressure *either because they don't care, or because they're just powerful* does not mean that doing so comes at no political cost.

[Loki]

Hmmm...I wonder how diplomacy applies to party politics?

If we generalize the concept to negotiations in general, it's just as useful in domestic politics. Unless you have a one-party state, you need to know as much as possible about the preferences of the other party/parties if you're going to rule effectively.

Euh, not entirely. Loki did neglect a particular point of view, the institutionalism perspective. Frameworks have a limited inherent impetus toward self-perpetuation. A kind of metaphysical inertia. The act of diplomacy, talking with a particular party about a particular subject, creates a framework. Conflict does too. As Wiggin implies, this impetus is prone to influence by the presence of third parties. Once you've started talking, for most countries it can get rather difficult to stop doing so should that be called for. Selecting an approach effectively raises the cost of changing approaches, it limits your flexibility.

That's a more complex position that you'd hear from the politicians here. I think the audience costs literature makes more sense in this regard than the institutional one, since the latter totally takes any strategic element out of the equation. And audience costs can be greatly reduced as long as one is clear about the goals of diplomacy and don't create unreasonable expectations.

[ImAnOgre]

How does diplomacy equate to those nations that support terrorism? Does it legitimize terrorism?

[Hazir]

How does diplomacy equate to those nations that support terrorism? Does it legitimize terrorism?

That appears to be the opinion on the right side of he House

[Steely Glint]

Define legitimize.

[littlelolligagged]

How does diplomacy equate to those nations that support terrorism? Does it legitimize terrorism?

Why would it?

[ImAnOgre]

If a country sponosrs terrorism, then gets what it wants, it can be assumed that when said country wants something else, it has learned that terrorism works and will resort to terrorism again. Does that not make sense?

[littlelolligagged]

Not particularly, no.

Could you come up with a specific example of a state "sponsoring" terrorism, then achieving its objectives through diplomatic means, then deciding that since terrorism worked so well the first time they'd "sponsor" it again?

[Hazir]

Not particularly, no.

Could you come up with a specific example of a state "sponsoring" terrorism, then achieving its objectives through diplomatic means, then deciding that since terrorism worked so well the first time they'd "sponsor" it again?

Iran, widely known sponsor of terrorism, very successful in getting influence right next to Israel in Lebanon, then repeating the trick in Gaza.

[Loki]

How does diplomacy equate to those nations that support terrorism? Does it legitimize terrorism?

Does you talking to a communist legitimize communism?

If a country sponosrs terrorism, then gets what it wants, it can be assumed that when said country wants something else, it has learned that terrorism works and will resort to terrorism again. Does that not make sense?

Diplomacy isn't meant to be used instead of other measures. Iran, for example, realizes that terrorism "works" because it pays a small price for engaging in it. It's hardly relevant whether it does this while engaging or not engaging in diplomacy with the US.

[Hazir]

Iranians are great diplomats they exploit this silly US stance that the US government won't talk with the Iranian regime to the full. They probably aren't too keen on talking with the US anyway, and now they know they've sort of already won a couple of games the moment their negotiators are sitting down.