Diplomats Are The Weakness Of Diplomacy

There is a very major, even a fatal, disease which afflicts diplomats--particularly those who represent liberal democracies such as those of Western Europe and the US. The disease is just this, the diplomats are so prone to the seductive nature of the process that they forget (if they ever really knew) that the purpose of diplomacy is to accomplish definite goals in the international political arena.

Diplomats so love the processes of diplomacy--the meetings, the exchanging of notes, demarches, memos, the conferences, the whispered discussions on the sidelines of conferences, the carefully phrased, often anonymous, statements and leaks to the media, the photo-ops, the self-congratulatory celebrations of success of process--that they ignore the goal. The focus is so process oriented that the nature of the goal--as well as its achievement--fades away on some distant, hazy horizon.

In a slight variation on this theme, the diplomats, having accomplished something, overlook such matters as verifying that the goal has actually been achieved, monitoring on-going compliance with an agreement as the months and years roll by, or even whether or not the accomplished task has genuinely advanced or defended a true national or strategic interest. This means that once the final paper has been signed, the last press statement given, the ultimate photograph of some smiling "statesman" taken, the diplomats move on blindly to the next exercise in "process."

History, diplomatic history, is rife with examples of "process" running amok so as to obscure completely the failed nature of the product. This has been equally true when the "process" results in a declaratory product--the Monroe Doctrine, the Open Door, "Peace Without Victors"--or a contractual agreement such as the Versailles Peace Treaty, the UN Convention on Human Rights, the Paris Peace Accords, the Oslo Accords.

Today the astigmatic focus on "process" above all realpolitik concerns exists all around us. High profile examples of the diplomatic fatal affection with "process" include the Mideast Peace Process and the Iranian Nuclear Question. In both of these the hypnotic fascination of "process" has served to render any meaningful goal less and less likely. Further, the constant emphasis on "process" has warped beyond all recognition just what American national or strategic interests are in play in either the Arab-Israeli conflicts or the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons.

The recent hyperbola emanating from the Oval and its environs concerning the presumed linkage between Mideast peace, solving the Iranian question, and Israel's having not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty shows the disastrous triumph of diplomatic "process" over the substance of national interest and security. In the pursuit of "process" the Nice Young Man From Chicago has been willing, even eager, to conflate illegitimately the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons with the Israeli expansion of "settlements" in East Jerusalem thus shoving the substance of national interest ever deeper in the background.

The Obama administration has connected the ongoing "failure" of the "peace process" in the Mideast with enhanced risks to US military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan in a manner so bogus as to excite pity. Now, Team Obama has surpassed even this exercise in bloviation unrelated with any real world basis.

The US has backed Egypt's play in seeking to pressure Israel into signing the NPT which would require the Jewish state to abandon its presumed nuclear arsenal. The justification for this travesty is to be found in the requirements of "process." Specifically the Obama administration pretends to believe that by forcing Israel into the NPT it would be possible finally to achieve a global consensus on the next round of sanctions directed at Iran.

Two impediments presented by the real world of real people pursuing real national interests are simply ignored by the Obama people in their fixation on the "process" of bringing Iran to the bargaining table where the mullahs will enter into a good faith agreement to abandon any warlike ambitions in their nuclear program. You want to know what these real world impediments are?

Glad you asked, bucko. The first is simply that the Iranians have made it clear they will not give up enrichment (or anything else meaningful) even if they agree to the proposed exchange of low enrichment uranium for higher purity uranium useful in their aging reactor. The second comes from the fact that no responsible Israeli government would abandon their prime deterrent.

In its latest process-driven pressure campaign the Obama administration has managed to do something so profoundly silly that even the Nobel Prize happy Jimmy Carter or Bill (I-Must-Have-A-Success-Any-Success) Clinton didn't go so many bridges too far. The Obama people have carved out a stance which must now serve as the Palestinian Authority's minimum acceptable terms for agreement. In effect the Obama White House is now the de facto bargaining agent for the PA.

To reach this point the members of Team Obama had to so narrow their focus to one of "process" that they imitated Oedipus, blinding themselves to such unpleasant historical facts as the number of times Palestinian leaders have rejected or not taken official notice of even more generous offers by the Israeli government. It is apparently unacceptable to Team Obama that the principals, the Israelis and the Palestinians, might achieve substantial agreement by a means other than the US approved "process."

Nor has the American emphasis on "process" enjoyed substantial results with the Iranian Question. The ever shifting deadlines, the always flexible schedules for compliance, the ever recurring need for more conversations with more countries for more consensus have benefited no one's national interest--unless one happens to have a high office in Tehran. In recent days the search for "process" has reduced American diplomats to claiming success when a more or less senior US diplomat has dinner with the Iranian ForMin and representatives of the other fourteen governments currently serving on the Security Council.

Consider for a moment the (remote) possibility that Iran does finally agree to the proposed transfer of three percent for twenty percent enriched uranium on conditions acceptable to the US and its Western partners. Then what? There is no reason to conclude the Iranians will abandon the quest for nuclear breakout capacity.

A useful analogy would be the outcome of the legendary Washington Naval Arms Limitation Treaty of seventy-five years ago and the somewhat later bilateral agreement between Imperial Japan and the US not to fortify their Pacific Ocean possessions. The first treaty failed to limit either aircraft carriers or submarines--the two decisive systems of WW II in the Pacific. The second had no substantial verification and enforcement mechanism with the result that while we neglected the Philippines and other islands, the Japanese made their new acquisitions--gained courtesy of the Versailles Peace Treaty--a no-go zone and fortified them to the max.

There is crucial substance in play with both the Israeli-Arab peace and the Iranian nuclear question. Key American national and strategic interests are involved with both. It is tragic for the US--and the world generally--that these clear, very specific interests have been veiled behind a scrim of diplomatic "process."

The tragedy is unnecessary. It is an artifact created by the coupling of diplomatic blinders and President Obama's personal True Beliefs and a style of international relations informed by cultural relativism and the organizing ideas of Saul Alinsky.

There is irony as well as tragedy resident in the current self-made, self-imposed policy debacle. Mr Obama is searching for a way out which does not involve war. In his search the consequent focus on "process" makes war more likely.

Not less.