Diplomacy or the art of talking to yourself...

Diplomacy, as put by Mark Twain is, “the principle of give and take… give one and take ten.” In Thomas Fedyszyn’s article on the use of diplomacy he identifies three forms of diplomacy: unilateral, bilateral and multilateral. He also relates that three types of formal diplomacy are normal, preventative and coercive. Power defined inside of the scope of diplomacy can be stated as the ability to influence the policies and actions of another country. Through this interpretation and my belief system (which is an essential to my opinion) I, like most of the international community, prefer normal bilateral diplomacy. All forms and types of diplomacy have a time and place to be used, well, except for unilateral diplomacy in my opinion, but I will address that shortly.

First I would like to address the shortcomings of multilateral and unilateral forms of diplomacy. Although multilateralism should be preferred to unilateralism, its nature, especially coupled with realpolitik can be deceiving. In the liberal or Wilsonian point of view multilateralism can be and should be the preferred diplomatic venture. More often I believe that the actions of one nation in the diplomatic effort can muddle the combined action of the sum. The six party talks or the Israeli-Arab relationship are good indications that when the failure of diplomacy favors one party of a multi-party organization it tends to occur. From what I’ve written you could say that I do not believe in multilateralism, which is not the case. I believe it is important and serves an essential role in the international community, but is not as effective in conveying power in diplomacy.

Unilateralism is effective in coercive means to portray power if as, Fedyszyn states, “conversation with oneself” is your goal. As the hegemony unilateralism is an option at our disposal. It’s fair to make the argument that the immediate value of unilateral diplomacy is unequal to any lasting damage that the action inflicts. This is shown most recently in our efforts in the War on Terror. Declaring war on a non-state actor’s method of inflicting damage and talking to oneself may not be the best diplomatic strategy.

The best conversation is one between two people. It provides the least amount of confusion, unless that is your goal, and then it can provide the most “controlled” confusion or manipulation. “Soft Power” is built along these precepts. Instead of coercing your opponent you influence him into wanting want you want. That is a power that not many nations have the ability to accomplish. It is also the polar opposite of coercive unilateralism in that what you accomplish does not create animosity between the nation-states.

Power is a relative term that can encompass many aspects of diplomacy. I believe that coercive or preventative types of diplomacy cannot be the norm in displaying power. It must be a power that reflects a sensibility in dealing with other nations. A short-term win is not necessarily a long-term win. America’s inattentive and impatient nature can be its weakness in diplomacy. As a nation we must fight this temperament.