Conducting US Foreign Policy

The terms, “diplomacy” and “negotiation” have been heavily used in recent weeks.  Although these terms can be used in a variety of settings, including business and even personal relationships, their application in the international context has relevance in the current discussion. Significant interests of the United States are at stake based on how these terms are understood by our national leaders.

Diplomacy is sometimes used interchangeably with foreign policy, but it is not the same.  Foreign policy generally is set by political leaders with advice from diplomats, military leaders and economic experts and includes goals as well as strategies and tactics for achievement.  Diplomacy is defined as the pursuit of a nation’s goals through representation, communication and negotiation.  It is the chief instrument of a nation’s foreign policy.  And while coercion may be in the background, a primary objective of diplomacy is to avoid the use of force or punitive measures.

It is also best conducted without great fanfare and publicity.

Negotiation may be defined as the process of discussing in order to reach an agreement.  If any party asserts there are preconditions required, other parties probably will refuse to participate except under duress.  Successful negotiation is also unlikely to be accomplished in too much public glare.   

Major differences exist between governance and politics in a single country and within the international arena.  Besides the likelihood that within a single country you find greater commonality in political beliefs and cultural heritage, you also likely will find a generally homogeneous population…the United States being an exception that confirms the rule. 

Perhaps the most significant difference is the absence in the international system of an overriding authority capable of resolving any question that might arise among the individual nations who consider themselves autonomous political units and act appropriately.  Despite extraordinary efforts to establish international organizations with the power to enforce decisions none exist today, and some that once showed promise have been diminished in their effectiveness.

Because of the nature of the international system understanding the concepts “diplomacy” and “negotiation” is of infinite importance.

Dealing with human beings makes the conduct of foreign policy difficult to plot and plan for; people are complex and their motives can be difficult to ascertain.  Donald Trump is not the first US president to assume understanding the leader of another country is easy.  Lyndon Johnson was perplexed when Ho Chi Minh did not rush to the negotiating table after he promised to replicate the Tennessee Valley Authority in the Mekong River Basin.  Colossal economic development welcomed by American politicians in the Appalachian South left Vietnam’s nationalist champion unmoved.

The foreign policy decisions of a nation’s leader will be based normally on the internal circumstances of that country.  Frequently, those circumstances may appear opaque or even counterintuitive.  Even experienced diplomats and scholars can be flummoxed.  In any case, it should be recognized that the most important policy objective of any state is its survival as an independent unit.  When considering the probable behavior of Kim Jong Un in regards to North Korea’s nuclear weapons, this fact should not be underestimated.

History is strewn with examples of national leaders who were certain they knew how to shape the international system to serve their country’s national interest.  Some have been motivated by the desire to extent their ideology or belief system, some have been driven by racial or ethnic animosity and some have been motivated by personal greed or raw ambition.

Those leaders who have been most successful in protecting their country’s national interest in the long run have recognized the wisdom of approaching the international community with respect and a willingness to accept the need to moderate their own country’s goals.  Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower are prime examples.

Managing power within the world order is a constant struggle.  Diplomatic representation, participation in international organizations, negotiating bilateral and multilateral agreements as well as formal treaties are all instruments nations use, but they only work when all participants accept the immediate goals in question.  It is natural that leaders of every country want their nation to prevail in most such interactions, but maintaining a viable international system cannot be a zero sum game.

History has proven that “winning” in the international arena is an ephemeral goal and it may open doors to greater losses down the road.  Attempting to gain leverage with another country through fear can prove to be a double edged sword.  It may result in the initial acceptance of a policy dictate, but inspire an ongoing effort to retaliate.  Using fear or hostile rhetoric in dealing with friendly nations or treaty allies is likely to be viewed as a betrayal and result in long term enmity.

Finally, it should be noted that the US Constitution envisions the Congress as a partner in the shaping of US foreign policy.  Since the end of the Vietnam War, however, the Congress has essentially neglected its oversight function.  This has embolden the executive to take unwise risks to our national detriment.