Diplomacy and the Bush Administration's Miscomprehension of What Diplomacy Is

As I was driving to school this morning, NPR was covering a press briefing by President Bush. He was addressing issues that have been important aspects of his administration's message over the last few months. One issue was that of Iran. What he said below (and this is not the first time I have been irritated by his position on the matter), really seemed to highlight the fact that his administration does not understand the purpose of diplomacy:

People say, would you ever talk to Iran? For you veterans here, for those who have been following this administration for a while, you might remember that I have consistently said that we will be at the table with the EU-3 if Iran would verifiably suspend their program -- and the offer still stands.

So what is the purpose of diplomacy?

Merriam-Webster defines diplomacy as:

1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations

2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility

My understanding of diplomacy is that it is the dialog used to maintain relationships between states, designed for the continuation of peace.

Wikipedia adds this to the picture:

Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics and culture.

The Bush Administration's actions do not indicate that they view diplomacy as filling this roll. On the contrary, the administration's position appears to view diplomacy as a means by which the United States can influence other "lesser" states.

The situation in Iran is really a fine example of why realism, a theory within the academic world of international relations and the method used by Bush's Administration, is not a viable approach for the maintenance of peace. Henry Kissinger is the best example of a realist I know of. Wikipedia defines realism as:

Realism, also known as political realism, in the context of international relations, encompasses a variety of theories and approaches, all of which share a belief that states are primarily motivated by the desire for military and economic power or security, rather than ideals or ethics.

What is not addressed in this definition is that realists view the attainment of military and economic power as the best ways to guarantee peace. In other words, we put ourselves in such a powerful position that the costs of confronting us greatly outweigh the benefits.

Diplomacy: the art of restraining power.

-Henry Kissinger

Another symptom of realism is that it inevitably leads to war. Such is the nature of power politics. Here is a brief scenario to explain what I mean:

Iran wants to develop nuclear power. As a sovereign state, they feel an inherent right to govern without influence from foreign states. Additionally, they feel threatened from neighboring states, a threat which they feel justifies the development of nuclear weapons (making themselves too powerful to attack).

The United States, already involved in the affairs of the Middle East, views the development of nuclear weapons in Iran as a dangerous ingredient in their efforts to "create democracy." Israel, an ally of the United States feels threatened by a nuclear Iran (a threat which is increased because of the rhetoric being espoused by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad). Their [The US] reaction, as a realist state, is to threaten Iran: first with UN sanctions, then with indications that if Iran will not stop their nuclear program the United States will attack Iran.

This approach is counter-productive. Instead of persuading Iran to discontinue their program, it leads to increased Iranian resistance. For the many Iranians that are not wild about Ahmadinejad, support for him is far preferable to allowing foreign interests to tell them [Iran] what to do. This results in a renewed resistance, now fully supported by the Iranian people. Iran feeling an increased threat from the US, increases its efforts to develop a nuclear program, and adds that if Iran is attacked , tens of thousands of rockets will be fired at American forces stationed in Iraq...

You hopefully get the point. Diplomacy should lead to peace, not through power plays and bullying, but through recognition that peace is a shared objective, and one with enough importance to warrant bi-lateral compromise.

You are probably asking which method best suits this purpose. I think that a combination of a couple of theories likely leads to the best outcome. The first of these is Idealism, which the IR Theory Knowledge Base defines as:

Idealism then is not only heavily reformist, but the tradition has often attracted those who feel that idealistic principles are the "next-step" in the evolution of the human character. One of the first and foremost pieces of the "old world" and "old thinking" to be tossed on the trash heap of history by idealism is that destructive human institution of war. War, in the idealistic view, is now no longer considered by either elites or the populace of the great powers as being a plausible way of achieving goals, as the costs of war, even for the victor, exceed the benefits.

Another theory which deserves attention is that of Pluralism. Through a complex set of assumptions this theory boils down to one underlying recognition: We live in a complexly diverse world that requires compromise and recognition of diversity for there to be any hope of peace. IR Theory points out these assumptions, and this third one is especially important when comparing political theories:

Thirdly, pluralists challenge the realist assumption of the state as a rational actor, and this derives from the second assumption where the clash of competing interests may not always provide for a rational decision making process.

Six months ago, while I was still active duty Air Force, I promised Bridgett and myself that were we to go to war with Iran, I would file as a conscientious objector. Some may view this as cowardly, but I will not go to war against a nation, when my president wasn't even willing to talk with them. Of course they are acting aggressively towards us...we have done nothing but provoke them. If we truly are the world leader we claim to be, then we should demonstrate our leadership by swallowing our pride, compromising slightly, and talking with Iran.

This all follows along the same illogical line that led Bush to nominate John Bolton as the US Ambassador to the UN (a recess appointment of an individual that probably would not have been confirmed). Bolton, as was discussed in this interview with John Stewart, didn't believe in the UN. Now that I think about it, it all makes sense -- Bush apparently doesn't believe in diplomacy.