Interests, Responsibilities, and Persuasion Posted by David Shorr

I really liked Scot Wilson's WaPo piece yesterday on President Obama's foreign policy worldview. The article highlights what I consider the United States' central foreign policy challenge: getting other nations moving in the direction we desire. As NSC communications strategist Ben Rhodes put it, if nations were already inclined to live up to their responsibilities, "this would be easy."

Wilson collected comments from a good variety of foreign policy mandarins, but I have to quibble with part of a quote from someone I admire tremendously, Lee Hamilton. I don't agree with a description he gave of Obama's approach -- that the president is putting "a lot of faith in his persuasiveness." The narrative of persuasion is one of the great misconceptions of this debate.

The diplomacy of shared interests and responsibilities isn't an attempt to overcome skepticism via mesmerizing rhetoric and the force of our arguments. The administration isn't waiting for the Iranian government to tell us "you're right, our uranium enrichment is bad for global security." In a case like Iran, the real objective of tough-minded diplomacy is to offer a stark choice between cooperation and continued pressure from a unified front of powerful nations, as Secretary Clinton stressed in rejecting Iran's attempt to reopening the nuclear deal (via Politico).
 
With respect to gaining the cooperation of others more broadly (including to maintain pressure on Iran), my own tack is to ask what the alternative is. If the only hope for international cooperation lies in those areas where traditional national self-interests converge, this would all be easy. More to the point, international politics as usual would leave many problems -- nuclear proliferation, global warming, poverty, Israel-Palestine -- on a very negative trajectory.

It shouldn't take a lot of enlightenment to see the enlightened self-interests on these issues. A little statesmanship is all we're asking. After all, that's why they're called world leaders.

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

Secretary Clinton's recent performance has been, if not abysmal, at least very disappointing. I truly expected her to be better at the SoS position than she has been so far. Frankly, she seems to lack the polish, finesse and precision that are needed for making consistent statements on a public stage to a broad global audience. I can't figure out what our policy is from one day to the next.

[David Shorr]

I don't share your overall assessment, but this most recent episode with warm words for Netanyahu certainly seems to undercut what had been a pretty impressive effort to change the Mideast Peace game.

[kb]

"if nations were already inclined to live up to their responsibilities, "this would be easy." "

Where i presume the 'responsibilities' are whatever the US decides they are?

If only us damn foreigners would just wake and see that our national interests match up exactly with the US's. Instead of course we're all just a bunch of feckless troublemakers.

pfft, what a remarkably stupid view.

[David Shorr]

If you say so. But good luck with that whole global warming - nuclear arms races - regional conflicts thing.

[kb]

"global warming"

Like the kyoto treaty ? Yes what would we do if the non americans werent prepared to live up to their responsibilities.

"nuclear arms races"
Like the nuclear deal the US signed with india in 2005 ?

"regional conflicts thing"

Christ , yes , imagine if ,say, the french and the germans had failed on their responsibilities and not supported the war against iraq. Just think the US might have had to set up torture camps all around the world just because those bastards in europe had decided not to " live up to their responsibilities".

"It's not our fault" the americans would have wept as they tortured people , it's the french's fault , or the germans, or the the russians , or the british or whoever was handy to blame at the time.

[Justin]

I am eagerly awaiting your rebuttal of kb, David. I would happy to add some more points, but I think your plate's full at the moment.

OK, I couldn't resist. Maybe there is no international cooperation on Iran because even if they managed to acquire a nuclear weapon, there is no chance of them using it? They do not have the firepower to take out Israel's nuclear submarines, and any attack on Israel would leave Tehran in a pile of radioactive dust. If you want to maintain that Iran is a threat, you will have to explain under what scenario its leaders would commit suicide.

The Iranian leadership is cruel and repressive, no doubt- although worse regimes enjoy US support- but they are not stupid. They have no intention of using a nuclear weapon, any more than Israel did when it developed nuclear capability: it is a deterrent against invasion. Could this possibly motivated by US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? Under false pretenses, no less. Just a little bit of introspection, please?

[David Shorr]

I'm all for trying to break US foreign policy out of its blinders, acknowledging the harm its done, and looking at things from other perspectives. Where the conversation loses me is the idea that the perceptions and agenda of the US are wholesale misdiagnoses or purely self-serving. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in the ideals of the NPT treaty: that the role of nuclear weapons needs to be minimized rather than spread to more and more countries. Iran professes to be faithful to those ideals, and we should all work toward confidence that Iran is upholding the NPT. Justin makes a reasonable analysis, including of the "demand side" of the equation. I just think we'll be better off avoiding the scenario: Iran, then Saudi Arabia, then Syria, the Egypt... Or, for that matter, the scenario North Korea, then South Korea, then Japan...

[Justin]

No one thinks that more nuclear weapons are a good idea, the question is how we go about getting rid of them. The fact is, recent events have not made Iran feel secure. Israel, which is perceived with some accuracy as a US proxy in the region, has a massive nuclear arsenal, and Netanyahu has threatened Iran on a number of occasions. Let's also not forget Cheney was at one stage agitating for invasion.

Obama has helped somewhat, but when a UN resolution called for Israel to sign the NPT, the US yet again voted against. This does not send a good message. Plus, there are no guarantees Obama will be in office come 2012- imagine what Sarah Palin could do for Middle East peace!

It would be great if we could prevent a buildup of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. I'd start with the country that actually has them.

[David Shorr]

Only have a minute, but I'll take a second to say that positive security assurances are something I strongly favor (when the talks reach teh appropriate point). Meanwhile, I fervently passionately vociferously hope that the current Nuclear Posture Review gives us a no-first-use pledge -- or something pretty damn close.

[replica watches]

I fervently passionately vociferously hope that the current Nuclear Posture Review gives us a no-first-use pledge -- or something pretty damn close.

[tiffany jewelry]

It would be great if we could prevent a buildup of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. I'd start with the country that actually has them.

[racking]

racking
shelving
cold store equipment

professional racking & shelving manufacturer, pallet racking, drive in racking,
cantilever racking, longspan shelving, dexion racking

[muhtar]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[cheap coach bags]

Great comments! You are so nice, man! You never know how much i like'em!

[cheap coach purses]

Yes, that's cool. The device is amazing! Waiting for your next one!

[cheap nintendo dsi r4]

Hi,
Great article.Although the emphasis of this article is on defining the constructs, their ethical soundness as justification for persuasive practices and their usefulness in establishing direction and methodologies for research in persuasive also are addressed.