Tag Archives: working with allies

Fixing Diplomacy

William J. Burns is one of the most respected retired American diplomats. As a career diplomat, he served in many diplomatic posts, including Moscow. He capped his service by serving as deputy secretary of state under President George W. Bush.

In an interview with World Politics Review (June 10, 2020), he acknowledged the damage done to American diplomacy under President Donald Trump but said diplomacy had been adrift “for decades before that.”

Ambassadorial and department administrative posts given to political supporters has grown for several decades, but has increased under Trump.

As the investigation in Trump’s dealings with Ukraine has shown, inexperienced political appointees can cause serious damage to America’s reputation for leadership.

Unfortunately, Burns said, “It’s going to take a lot longer to fix the institutions of American diplomacy than it’s taken to break them.”

What’s been wrong with Trump’s diplomacy is not so much the direction it has taken with, say China. A push back against that country for certain predatory trade practices was justified, Burns said.

Instead of working with allies in that pursuit and in others, however, Trump attempted to go it alone. The president appears disdainful of such alliances and of the diplomatic efforts it takes to maintain those alliances.

Especially because the U.S. is no longer the only dominant player on the world scene, shoring up alliances is more important than ever.

Also, Burns said, the U.S. needs to look at the global problems, like climate change, that don’t relate to a specific country.

Summing up, Burns said, “The essence of employing enlightened self-interest is to see that our interests are going to be best served if we’re disciplined about our engagement overseas; that we can’t retrench entirely, but nor can we restore the role that we held uniquely in that first quarter-century after the end of the Cold War; that we’re going to need, in our own self-interest, to work with allies and partners, and reshape institutions. And that we still, at least as I look at it in the next couple of decades, have a better hand to play than any of our major rivals.”

Wars Forever?

Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy professor at Johns Hopkins, lists contenders for power faced by the United States today. He names them as Russia, China, and Iran. (“The New Containment; Handling Russia, China, and Iran,” Foreign Affairs; March/April 2019)

He suggests we apply the lesson we learned so well in our dealings with the former Soviet Union. We persevered in that contest through containment. Thankfully, though we engaged in smaller wars on the planet, wisely or unwisely, we never engaged the Soviet Union in an all-out war that no doubt would have devastated the planet.

Our problems differ with each one of today’s contenders. Russia nibbles at countries close by like Georgia and Ukraine. China wants hegemony in her area of the world, but the U.S. and China are huge trading partners. Our interest in Iran is limited to containment of conflict in the Middle East.

Mandelbaum did not mention North Korea. That county exemplifies the dangers of rogue nations developing nuclear weapons.

His reasoning involves working with allies, not abandoning organizations like NATO. Nor should we abandon allies like Japan and South Korea and Taiwan.

The widespread use of sanctions against North Korea is one example of smart power. Many nations signed on to the sanctions because of the obvious danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of someone like Kim Jong-un.

The rise in populism endangers our dependence on allies. It would be unwise for populists to scrap the global role of the United States in the world, especially since the current setup calls, not for military action, but careful tuning of U.S. partnerships with allies.

Cautions Mandelbaum: “Should the country turn decisively away from its global role and allow the revisionist challenges to advance unchecked, however, Americans’ happy detachment from the world beyond their borders may disappear. And by the time they realize what they need to protect, it may be too late to do so without great difficulty and high cost.”