By: Alexandra Hamilton
The U.S. has historically established itself as a global diplomatic power seeking to forge connections from people around the world. From the creation of the League of Nations, to the Dayton Accord, to the Marshall Plan, America’s commitment to global security and development is undeniable. That being said, Ronan Farrow in War on Peace the End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence showcases the diminishing diplomatic and global power of the U.S., creating a truthful and worrisome argument. Even though military action has been emphasized since 9/11 to expand American control in foreign regions, prioritizing peacekeeping is absolutely critical to improving relationships with other countries in order to both establish and expand U.S. influence globally. To start, diplomacy and civilian dialogue are absolutely necessary to improve relationships in critical regions. For example, when discussing the American approach towards Turkey, U.S. military generals sought to exert greater influence over violent regions in the Middle East, and as a result, the Pentagon took over the State Department’s role (Farrow 161). The future of the State Department is dire, and there is worry about the disorganization of the government and how that may impact the prospect of building new relationships with other countries. The State Department needed to be present, but an overly dominating military strategy was implemented which has hurt America’s prospect of improving the relationship, and a similar problem has occurred in Afghanistan. To demonstrate this, U.S. intervention in Afghanistan seeking to find Osama Bin Laden proves how “America’s limited options in the region after 9/11, and the resulting decision to arm … warlords, were a direct result of a vacuum of diplomacy” (Farrow 173). Bringing to light America’s backing of violent warlords exemplifies how the U.S. lacked options to combat terrorism in the Middle East due to the rejection of diplomacy. People have questioned why America has not done something to improve diplomacy, especially when there is a need to establish better country relationships in a region where ISIS and other terrorist groups run rampant; however, there are instances of successful diplomacy which have improved relationships such as the use of public diplomacy in East Asia. To exemplify, a supporting article notes that China has focused on expanding public diplomacy through “the rise of media and the abundance of digital technologies … [which] have unleashed a flood of cultural content, making public diplomacy more dialogical, collaborative, and inclusive” (Otmazgin). The use of technology has led to the integration of other cultures into mainstream media, providing influence and cultural leverage toward those countries in global diplomacy and improving discourse with other powerful countries, such as Japan and Korea. Diplomacy has been used as a means to create both cultural awareness and influence, and America should be using these new tools to improve its relationships with East Asian nations. Only once negotiations and understanding of other countries are valued can the U.S. improve fraught but critical relationships to continue democratic ideals abroad. Furthermore, diplomacy serves the purpose of establishing new relationships with the prospect of helping those in need. To illustrate, American intervention and statesmanship in Colombia at the end of the 20th century allowed for “a holistic development plan surrounding arms and human rights waivers” (Farrow 252). Troops and humanitarian aid programs were allowed to enter the country which benefited both the government leaders and the average citizens of Colombia. Discourse continues between the two countries and Colombia remains one of the most important U.S. relationships in South America, demonstrating how important and successful diplomatic relationships can be which is similar to the China – Korea relationship. For instance, China implemented the use of “long-term … initiatives [which] should not be underestimated as they not only provide more tools for the State to use or change the nature of diplomacy, but also have an impact on the nature of the State and its relations with society in a given country” (Otmazgin). Public diplomacy has expanded to encompass educational initiatives which have large social and political benefits for both the governments who host them and the countries who receive them. Exemplifying a symbiotic relationship fueled by diplomacy where the government of a country is able to indirectly spread its influence showcases that peacefully providing needed programs to other countries in the region is equally as important as military intervention. Only through conversations, can an improved and more comprehensive relationship that benefits both people and the leaders of a country be established. Additionally, expanding American influence in important countries through civilian dialogue and diplomatic discourse is an unpopular yet beneficial idea. For example, due to the violent nature of the war on terrorism in Pakistan “the military wanted to stay in charge, and going against the military would make [President Obama] look weak” (Farrow 67). The president didn’t push for a more diplomatic approach to American policy due to the belief that doing so would ruin America’s reputation, but this viewpoint hinders the opportunity for long-term global influence. Diplomacy is losing importance by systematically favoring militarization in the U.S. government which doesn’t allow for the U.S. to understand and help its allies, and as a result, other countries have sought to support what the American government lacks. To illustrate, China’s diplomacy is growing as fast as its economy and if this trend continues, the U.S. will continue to lose influence and power globally (Farrow 293). Diplomacy has become a way to retain global economic and political strength, and America has neglected to see this value as it continues to back military influence. As America’s once well-known diplomatic approaches have declined, China’s have increased, putting the U.S. at a severe disadvantage for global strategy. Foreign policy allows for the forging of long-lasting relationships which leads to stability between governments that share similar democratic goals in a way that militarization cannot. Many believe that the military is a more concrete and simpler way to expand American influence abroad. To illustrate, an article in support of militarization indicates that some military generals follow the idea that “pre-emptive strikes may be of some utility… one unforgettable case [was] the Wehrmacht’s pre-emptive strike into the Soviet Union in 1941, a strike that was enormously successful” (Murray). Although there are examples where military intervention has been successful, it is important to consider the changing political landscape of our world. As tensions continue to rise globally, a tactical approach is extremely dangerous towards disrupting the global balance of power since it could result in unnecessary violence that could have been prevented through diplomacy. Others believe that military intervention is a way to remove possible threats that could be dangerous towards America. For example, President Bush and other high-level officials believed the invasion of Iraq “[had the intent] of removing Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction as well as eliminating the possibility that he might eventually possess nuclear weapons” (Murray). Military intervention was able to create some peace of mind, but just that alone was not enough to create sustainable solutions for the complicated and difficult relationship. It is not realistic nor safe to incite violence as a preventative measure whenever there is simply a lack of understanding of the people, but rather a greater understanding of a conflict is needed to create long-term change which is not supported by America today. To demonstrate, U.S. governmental officials had started a systematic problem where “American leadership no longer valued diplomats, which led to cuts that made diplomats less valuable” (Farrow 275). Without American government backing of State Department officials, preemptive strikes and military tactics will become the forefront of international policy, creating a violent and unstable world. No diplomatic counterpart means the Department of Defense has the opportunity to increase tensions globally and create a more unsafe world. It is imperative that one understand that diplomacy has historically been effective and should continue to be used. The world has become an increasingly violent and divided place. From the wars in the Middle East, to Western Europe’s tension with Russia and China, it is undeniable that misunderstanding other cultures could lead to disastrous consequences. Dialogue allows for a greater understanding of others and ensures peace for all countries in the world which enables both sustainable and long-term change. Diplomacy is absolutely critical for the establishment, expansion, and improvement of U.S. influence and must be prioritized for the safety of the world and generations to come. Works Cited Farrow, Ronan. War On Peace the End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence. New York, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2018. Murray, Williamson. "No Shortage of Quagmires: Seizing the military initiative can lead to success, as history confirms, but only if the party that seizes the initiative is fully prepared to exploit it. Few are." Hoover Digest, no. 1, winter 2018, pp. 63+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A526575462/AONE?u=j079907013&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=b420a931. Accessed 3 Feb. 2023. Otmazgin, Nissim. "An 'East Asian' Public Diplomacy? Lessons from Japan, South Korea, and China." Asian Perspective, vol. 45, no. 3, summer 2021, pp. 621+. Gale In Context: Global Issues, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A672222155/GIC?u=j079907013&sid=bookmark-GIC&xid=63124618. Accessed 23 Jan. 2023.
0 Comments
|
AuthorLatest article written and published by Alexandra Hamilton. Archives
April 2023
Categories |