The war in Ukraine—one that amounts to naked aggression by Russia—has set the stage for a tutorial on failed diplomacy. By failed I mean in the signals that diplomats and national leaders send when they are glib. Sadly, the United States has led the way when it comes to sending the wrong messages recently, creating impressions that are unwise and unintended. In either case, those missteps are impermissible in the conduct of responsible diplomacy.
To be sure, national security challenges usually arise amid uncertainty, since they are not always predictable via our intelligence services. In that regard, national security crises are frequently reactive in nature. No national security strategy can foresee the possibilities of a war that erupts unexpectedly. Our national security strategy is not a crystal ball, but rather a rational framework for the threats that may occur. But statecraft—particularly the manner in which leaders respond to such crises—must be skilled, precise, and measured. There is no place for diplo-blather, where leaders blurt out statements that are contradictory, provocative, or irrational.
When our President makes comments like (1) Russia’s leader cannot “remain in power” and our national policy is not to advocate for regime change, or (2) he tells U.S. troops in Poland that they will “soon” be in Ukraine when he has previously forsworn the deployment of ground forces there, or (3) when he says that the U.S. will respond “in kind” if Russia resorts to chemical weapons, mindful that “in kind” means “the same way,” are these anything but blatant contradictions?
Such loquacious imprecision is simply irrational. Why declare a position on a matter only to diametrically reverse oneself, thereby projecting uncertainty that further inflames the crisis? To be sure, Vladimir Putin is a thug and war criminal and should be removed from power. But impulsive rhetoric, even if accurate, has no place in sensitive diplomatic communications, whether from a stately podium or an offhanded comment while strolling past a press gaggle.
Once upon a time, our leaders were disciplined in their responses, saying what was appropriate for the moment and reserving options to be deployed later when the situation warranted. In other words, don’t get ahead of yourself diplomatically until the time is right to reveal what you are thinking. In diplomacy it is not necessary to state everything that is true. Putin is a gangster. That is indisputable. But garbled messages that reinforce Putin’s lie that the war in Ukraine is justified to protect the Russian government from being overthrown by the West was, in a word, inflammatory.
I suppose we are seeing the influence of social media and the 24-hour news cycle accompanied by daily presidential news conferences, instant analysis by talking heads on cable news, and immediate feedback in Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook posts. Simply put, there is too much said in the arena of diplomacy these days. It would be far better to say less. Consider Proverbs 17:28.
“Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.”
There is much wisdom there, particularly for national leaders who are charged with orchestrating a response to a crisis. I recall years ago when U.S. special envoy to the Middle East Philip Habib emerged from a rather sensitive negotiation and greeted an awaiting press saying words to the effect, “Sorry, boys, silent movies today.” Would not that be a refreshing thing to hear cross the lips of a world leader engaged in the crisis we see today? Contrary to popular belief by the fourth estate, we do not have a right to know every aspect of a sensitive diplomatic negotiation between contending parties. Unconstrained blabber compromises and undermines critical deliberations. Negotiators should indeed “hold their tongues,” very wise proverbial advice.
In the current age where a minor miscue can evoke a major misstep, it is essential that statecraft be highly disciplined. Recall the offhanded comment about Putin’s possible action against Ukraine by President Joe Biden on 19 January? It was a remarkable error in judgement.
“My guess is he will move in. He has to do something…It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do…there are differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do depending on what happens.”
Some have criticized this statement as an invitation to invade Ukraine, while also signaling hesitation on the part of NATO. To be sure, Russia’s invasion has not been “minor.” And NATO has eventually leaned into a strong response since the invasion began. But the statement was reckless. Period. Far better to have said in a most pithy manner, “An invasion of Ukraine is unacceptable. The response by the free world will be swift and decisive.”
No diplo-blather in that.
Categories: CBW
0 Comments