For those that just don't get it: US diplomacy in 3 steps

Published on October 7, 2004 By d3adz0mbie In International

I see alot of people going back and forth about the war in Iraq, alot of people that don't understand North Korea or Iran, and it's really time that this very straightforward international dimplomacy be laid out in terms EVERYONE can understand. US diplomacy under the current administration follows a clear three step path that is easy to follow.

STEP ONE. Unilateral talks. This involves the USA discussing policy with another country in a one on one manner. Most countries in the world engage in unilateral talks with the USA. These range from friendly to neutral countries, and usually go through lower level officials with both countries. A milestone event will warrant President Bush and the respective leader of a country to meet face to face on occasion. Countries such as Japan, France, Russia, Canada, Britain, etc. are on a unilateral basis with the USA.

STEP TWO. Multilateral talks. This involves the USA and a target country discussing policy with other countries involved in the negotiations. Usually the countries are regional nationalities that have an interest in the result of the meetings. Multilateral talks are usually an escalation from unilateral talks because of a specific crisis or disagreement between the USA and the country on the other side of the table. The bonus of multilateral talks is that greater economic pressure can be brought against either country involved in the talks and it increases the seriousness of the discussion (see step three). Multilateral talks can include global sanctions against a country, may or may not have UN involvement, and can take over a decade to resolve. Nobody ever said global diplomacy was fast paced.

STEP THREE. Military action. This involves the USA sending in troops or covert teams to achieve a military objective on foriegn soil. This only occurs if unilateral or multilateral talks have come to a dead end and the lives of US citizens are at stake. Crisis level issues can include but are not limited to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's), harboring terrorists, sponsoring terrorists, funding terrorists, and pursuing war against the United States. Military action can last mere weeks or it can last years; there is never a certain outcome.

Let's see how this three step approach to international diplomacy clarifies recent global events:

Libya: Libya was pursuing WMD's and a state sponsor of terrorism. After Unilateral talks broke down the United States entered multilateral talks with Libya. At this stage, Libya decided that the threat of military action was real and has revoked it's pursuit of WMD's and is in talks to cut off all state sponsored terrorism. Libya has taken this a step further by admitting to past crimes and paying reparations to countries victimized by the terrorism it has sponsored. This benefits not only the USA, but many European countries that have lost citizens to Libya's reckless behaviour.

North Korea: Spun by certain political parties to be a weak spot in the administrations foreign policy, the USA is currently moving from unilateral talks to multilateral talks with North Korea. Their pursuit of WMD's is not just an issue for the USA, but for ALL the countries in the Asiatic region. The UN is finally turning it's limited attention to North Korea as well, after years of requests from the current President. How step two will resolve is anyone guess, as multilateral talks can take years to resolve.

Canada: They're still on unilateral talks with the USA. I just wanted to mention Canada here to keep them on their toes.

Iraq: A conflict that may decide US international policy for the next four years, Iraq followed each step of the current administrations policy and is an example of what happens when US interests are threatened. The USA held a unilateral status with Iraq for years, with each country using the other (as all countries do) to achieve political ends. With Saddams invasion of Kuwait, it was immediatly moved into multilateral talks, with sanctions, where it remained for twelve years. After 117 violations of UN sanctions, repeated efforts to kill US troops in the UN appointed no fly zone, the potential for WMD's (not actually having them we know now, but the potential HAS been confirmed), sponsoring terrorism through Saddams "Hamas scholarship fund" that paid $25k to families of homicide bombers and other crisis to long too list, the USA moved to step three and resorted to military action.
NOTE: Although US and international press spotlight 'WMD's' as the only reason the USA invaded Iraq, the Bush administration gave no less than 8 reasons publicly for invading the country before the assault was launched. You can't always believe an issue just because the press focuses on a single controversial item.

Pakistan: Like Libya, Pakistan moved into multilateral talks after 09/11 for sponsoring terrorism. They have since moved to unilateral talks with the USA and some multilateral talks between the US an India due to the tense nuclear balance of those two countries. While they have moved to a unilateral level on the subject of terrorism, it is conceivable that if they dont follow through with several promises made to the US and the global community on this subject they could once again feel international pressure concerning terrorism and re-enter multilateral talks.

Sudan: Currently moving from unilateral to multilateral talks concerning the genocide occurring in the Darfur region.

Every country in the world is somewhere within this three step system. Some countries, like Pakistan, are tetering between step one and step two. Some countries, like Mexico and Britain, will probably never, ever see step two, requiring regional countries to step in to resolve a crisis between the US and their country.

Now that you understand this logical and simple approach, I have to ask, "Does it make sense to move backwards from multilateral talks to unilateral talks when a country is intent on pursuing nuclear weapons?" This is Kerry's approach to North Korea, and honestly its silly to give up the bargaining power of the Asiatic countries assisting the USA. Multilateral talks have worked with Libya, Pakistan and other countries over the past four years. Why give up on this before it's even had a chance?

"Does it make sense to give up military action against a country when after twelve years multilateral and unilateral talks have failed?"

"Does it make sense to change the standard we have set in Iraq when we face the possibility of nuclear arms in Iran?"

Kerry's answer to these, and many more reasonable questions do NOT make sense. Why isn't this clear to EVERYONE?

Comments

bakerstreet

on Oct 07, 2004

"Why isn't this clear to EVERYONE?"

Don't think for a moment that it isn't. It isn't a matter of the policy, it is a matter of who is carrying it out. If Kerry wins, and holds to the exact same policy as Bush, Dems here will just call it "strong" and refuse to accept any suggestion that it is similar to Bush. The only real "change" that they want is to appease some esoteric hatred they have for Bush.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!