Instapundit links to this:
The capture by the United States of thousands of centrifuges on board a German-owned vessel, the BBC China, en route to Libya has raised suspicions in Washington and London that Col Gaddafi offered to abandon his weapons programme after threats from America, rather than the lengthy British and American diplomacy vaunted by Tony Blair.
Instapundit is pleased because this report says what he and lots of others have also said, that it was American military muscle and the threat of more of it, not merely polite requests to Col Gadaffi to be nicer from Blair or his fellow Europeans. Quite so. The idea that recent American military activity had nothing to do with Gaddafi’s change of heart is very far fetched.
But what irritates me is that Blair, the Telegraph, Instapundit, the lot of them, are all talking about “threats” and “diplomacy” as if these were two entirely different and opposite things, when in truth threats and diplomacy go hand in hand, and neither can work properly without the other.
Take this particular set of circumstances. How were those American threats communicated, if not through diplomatic channels, and how did Col Gaddafi signal his desire to comply with American wishes if not through that same diplomatic process? And did not the Americans then respond very diplomatically to the Colonel’s climbdown?
As for that non-American diplomacy which is imagined by some to have persuaded Gol Gaddafi to change his ways, well, this report illustrates that this too would have consisted of threats, diplomatically communicated and responded to, in this case the threat of not allowing such things as centrifuges to journey from China to Libya on ships controlled by those doing the threatening. An unwillingness to make any such threats would have rendered European diplomacy toothless, and hence ineffective. And that seems to be what happened.
But that is not my central point. All I here insist on is the true as opposed to sentimental and ignorant meaning of the word “diplomacy”. Diplomacy doesn’t mean being nice only. It also means being nasty, while explaining nicely – or perhaps not so nicely – what you want in exchange for being less nasty.
What does anyone think that diplomats actually say?
Unfortunately, at least in America, diplomacy has become a code word of the left meaning non-confrontational. It means begging instead of threatening. It means talking softly while not carrying a stick at all. It means letting the UN do the work.
So don’t get too hung up on the terminology.
The point is that the lengthy *process* (to avoid a loaded term) was not what got Khadaffi to make his dramatic shift, but rather the US actions in Iraq (as the Telegraph reports he told Berlusconi).
In the great debate between the US left (who seem to believe that any progress achieved through the use or threat of military force is wrong if it benefits the US, but OK if it benefits Europe – i.e. the Balkans) and the right which believes that sometimes force is necessary has devolved to this sort of thing.
Furthermore, it is pretty clear that the US State Department, the organization responsible for “diplomacy,” has failed miserably for a long time – mostly because it adheres to the left’s view of the subject.
The right recognizes that talking (diplomacy) is an important part of international relations, but in disagreement with the left, asserts that diplomacy in many cases must be backed up credible threats – even if they are never spoken.
Glenn do say that threats and diplomacy go hand in hand:
“Diplomacy has more to do with (credible) threats than with sweet reason. And “threats from America” are a lot more credible, nowadays.”
No, Brian, you don’t understand diplomacy. Diplomacy means avoiding war at any cost. Diplomacy means talking and talking ad infinitum, and never doing anything else. It’s the *process* (as in “peace process”) that matters, not the results. The results don’t matter because they are never acheived. Diplomacy means good intentions, suave babble, ceremonies, photo ops, Nobel Peace prizes, good jobs, state dinners, good living etc. etc. Diplomacy employs the art of doublethink, the art of speaking a lot and sounding important and saying nothing to gullible listeners, or to those who are in on the game, and reply in kind. Diplomacy is the art of make beleive. Diplomacy is an art. Diplomacy is the UN.
What happened with Lybia wasn’t true diplomacy, it was fake diplomacy, it was stained by the threat of brute force, the whole beauty and art of diplomacy was lost, it was like those athletes who win the Olimpic medal by using steroids. It fits simplists like the Americans to add insult to injury and call the crude, brutal horse trade they do “diplomacy”. It is a deep insult to European finesse and sublime culture, developed over many centuries.
Some maintain that the art of Diplomacy (like modern art in general) reaches a higher level when it transcends the phase of mere hollowness and reaches the realm of the grotesque. These authorities bring the Munich accord of 1936, and the Le Duc To and Arafat Nobel Peace prizes as instances of this higher level of diplomatic acheivement.
Diplomacy is what armies do when they’re not shooting.
It just amazes me that people can criticize the US or Bush on diplomatic issues. What kind of historical perspective (or lack thereof) does a person have who even thinks there’s such a thing as diplomatic solutions without the threat of force?
I mean, its one thing for an agreement between friendly nations- the US and UK don’t measure each other’s strength and nerve every time they sign an accord. But just what the hell do these people think goes on in a diplomatic meeting? Do they think diplomats pull out 20-sided dice and make opposing Charisma checks? Do they think they arm wrestle?
If someone does not want to- in the case of Iraq and France, cannot possibly afford to agree to due to what they have to hide- make the concession you want, no matter what you offer, what exactly is a diplomat supposed to do?
What Brian M wrote! Damned straight!
What’s more, Kdaffi may be many things, but you don’t cling on that long as a dictator without some smarts. He’s had lightweight Tony Blair’s measure for six years and hasn’t given away diddley. It was a sudden dawning of George Bush’s measure that provoked a desire to be nice. Blair and his European friends are irrelevant.
“on board a German-owned vessel, the BBC China,”
???
Was that really the name of the ship?
Shurely Shome Mishtake. It’s too good to be true.
What does anyone think that diplomats actually say?
Be a good fellow, and pass the brie?
Diplomacy is the art of saying “nice doggie” whilst you find a large rock.
Attributed to Talleyrand
The whole point of doing things diplomatically is that it is so much more preferable to the alternative.
IIRC Stephen den Beste wrote about Qadaffi’s capitulation to inspections. He characterized it as a geopolitical game of Good Cop/Bad Cop. The US is the rogue bully that is just spoiling for a fight, while the UK is the reasonable type who might not be able to stay the bully’s hand.
Every so often it is necessary to show that it is indeed a saber making that rattling noise and to show that it is sharp.
The other day I was amazed to read, over at Jim Henley’s blog, Unqualified Offerings, (linked to on this site), that he thought Quaddafi’s decision was proof of the value of long-run diplomacy, etc. In other words, in no way must he concede that the the recent events in Afghanistan/Iraq had anything to do with it. No siree. Absolutely not.
Funnily enough, the same people claim to believe that Saddam and other folk were deterrable by the use of retaliatory force. Well, I’d have thought the sight of an ugly dictator being dragged from a hole must have had a sobering effect on others of like mind.
it has certainly sobered up Howard Dean, but that’s another story.
I made a similar point here. “Diplomacy which has no threat underlying it, at minimum withholding some benefit, is mere chit-chat. War without the possibility of some negotiated resolution is mere arbitrary violence. You need both arms and talk, but arms are primary.”
I am Shobamowo Gbolahan Joseph. I am a student of International Law and Diplomacy. I am very glad to hav found this site, where I believe I will be able to make contributions, comments and ask question.
Yes I just want teh world to know that Diplomacy is not itself in today’s real sense. If it were, let the world prove it to me with ancient and modern referrences. I mean from the date of Plato to Karl Marx to Thomas Hobbes to the present day sound and great philosophers.
Please, forward the response or the answers to my e-mail box.The e-mail box is gsj4uall@yahoo.co.uk.
Thank you.