In the interest of commenting on the recent Wikileaks 'revelations' (I think the last time I have heard that word used this often was when I took a Bible class in high school), I stumbled across a fairly interesting topic on the Wall Street Journal's open blog. The Question of the Day asked what kind of impact would the Wikileaks event (I use this in the scientific sense, wherein an 'event' can be anything from a collapsing star to a collision of a few photons) have on international diplomacy. One of the commenters suggested, accurately, that we should not be surprised by much of the content. After all, governments are not unitary actors and they are comprised of people - if no one in national governments dared ever, off the record, to voice their unique opinions, it seems that something fundamentally important about a civil government would be lost. That being said, this individual asked us to remember that "Diplomacy is war by other means."
This is an interesting notion, though the commenter was probably mis-remembering the Prussian Major-General Clausewitz, who suggested that "War is a continuation of politics by other means."
But I think that the tie between diplomacy and war is more complex. After all, if the worst reaction is Vladimir Putin's indignant and only vaguely comprehensible statements, I have only this to say: Does the Russian Prime Minister and former President know what everyone has been saying in front of his back?
What exactly is the relationship between diplomacy and war, (different facets of politics if you will) and how might the Wikileaks event, and reactions to it, help us understand that relationship? It seems to me that Wikileaks reveals much of what is already known - that state actors are primarily self-interested and that it is almost impossible to guess the intentions of other states. It proves that we have been operating in precisely the kind of international system that theorists have suggested we live in. We cannot truly know the intentions and opinions of other nations - the US and Saudi Arabia have to operate according to the official decisions and statements their governments make. It may actually be more surprising that governments are able to keep to coherent policies, given, as I mentioned before, the fact that a government is an institution filled with and shaped by individual human beings. We accept the reality of this every day. It seems that we should expect some level of clashing or rubbing the wrong way, even between nations and individuals with similar goals, who are indeed allied. When a government makes a decision, lives are in the balance. Thus it is no wonder that speculations and worries about Iran's nuclear program are whispered throughout the region. There are reasonable suspicions about the nation's stance, and since nations have a lot to lose, planning and speculating on what to do should it prove that Iran does indeed have weapons seems a natural part of protecting nation security and integrity in a world of uncertainty.
Now, onto the diplomacy bit. In a world where you can not truly know your neighbor's intentions, it seems to me like diplomacy is an excellent alternative to war. War is a continuation of politics, according to Clausewitz. This means that there is some sense in which 'normal politics' do not include violent conflict. This seems to fit with intuitions. Diplomacy, then, seems rather than a means of war to be a part of 'normal politics.' Again, this fits with intuitions - meetings between leaders, ambassadors and translators, economic aid and trade treaties seem to be a part of normal interactions. What Wikileaks revealed, to me, was how vital this system is, and how much of it may well be an illusion. Nations simply cannot, without knowing the full intentions of all other nations, trust one another completely. The price is, potentially, too high if that trust is violated. However, nations enter into alliances, treat with one another, buy and sell weapons of war, trade technology, and train allied military, and exchange students to educate one another. Wikileaks reveals the fear, the uncertainty, that is inherent in the system - reality may change tomorrow, simply because NO nation is completely, 100% forthcoming about its intentions. But by following along with these coherent policies, individuals are doing their best to prevent the disintegration of relations into war. Politics as usual means advancing your interests in a mutually beneficial way, through some sneaking and some openness, from anticipating the other guy's move based on what he's said and done in the past. Wikileaks highlights the most frightening aspects of politics as usual - that alternative to obeying coherent policy and trusting the other guy - is war. What matters is less what nations speculate about other nations, but whether or not their outward posturing suggests continuing peace and cooperation. Realizing that every country has a government built of people might make us more aware of the fragility of international diplomacy, but I, for one, think it changes nothing, and perhaps serves to remind us that we live in a dangerous world, and we need those diplomatic, ‘normal’ political ties to have any hope of functioning.
I am not really addressing your "direction" here but just want to continue the conversation:
ReplyDeleteI believe that Wikileaks indeed revealed how important diplomacy is to the fragile balance of international relations but these so-called leaks also revealed just how lacking our "intelligence" - clandestine not brains - has become. The power of Wikileaks depends on the content; what if we had the kind of intelligence gathered by the Mossad? Pakistan's ISI is run by the CIA...no shock there. What was a small shock was China's newly revealed and limited influence over North Korea.
So, your are presenting a longitudinal point without addressing time: what happened when the diplomatic pouch was stolen? Would a revelation at a time without global internet access have the same impact? Case in point, a few academics studied the impact of Pearl Harbor in comparison with 9-11 based entirely on images and prevalence of those images. Not to be tautological, but the event was the event and access to it defined meaning.
In fact, the era of Wikileaks means that every political leader is privy to the internal politics of their counterparts. Would Putin be able to make this kind of threat if not for the lame duck congress: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45792.html
I truly believe that the era of technology has fundamentally changed the tone of diplomacy and I fear it has transformed diplomacy into something that cannot live up to its image.
This is perhaps another iteration of a theme I've touched on this blog before - fighting old wars. The diplomacy of the modern era is based so extensively on Cold War posturing that we don't even think about the true role of diplomacy. Questioning its nature is correct, Labinov, but what we desperately need is to unpack the notion of a 'breach of national security' itself and figure out just which interests diplomacy is protecting and promoting. When insulting the wrong ambassador could lead to nuclear holocaust, then I could see this era of technology being extremely frightening. Now I am not so sure that Wikileaks hasn't simply revealed something that we already knew, or at least had the opportunity of knowing - that diplomacy is a lower-stakes game for the most part, and that the old forms, which are circled around existentialist concerns, are inappropriate. Again, I think it requires a sound definition of 'national security' for all nations involved, which I do not pretend to have, but it is worth considering more carefully before bringing the full force of the law down on Wikileaks.
ReplyDelete