Dennis Ross’s Diplomacy 101

Policy

By Paul McLeary

Published August 08, 2007, issue of August 10, 2007.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Statecraft: And How to Restore America’s Standing in the World
By Dennis Ross
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 384 pages, $26.

When the diplomatic history of the Bush administration is written, it will likely be little more than a catalog of lost opportunities, punctuated only occasionally by a muted victory won only after a series of deliberately obstinate first steps. One of the most consequential of these missteps came just after the fall of Baghdad in early 2003, when the Iranian government reached out to the Bush administration by sending a fax to the State Department indicating a desire to talk about Iran’s nuclear program — offering, according to The Washington Post, “coordination in Iraq, ending ‘material support’ for Palestinian militias and accepting a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” The Bush administration spurned this unprecedented offer, sticking to the line that Iran’s help was neither needed nor wanted, and any discussion would be carried out on Washington’s initiative, and on Washington’s timetable. In the four years since this effort at diplomacy (however serious) was turned aside, Iran has succeeded in ramping up its nuclear program while baring its teeth in both Iraq and Lebanon, with bloody results. In May 2006, operating from a position of decreased strength, the Bush administration thought better of its initial impulse and joined with its European allies in narrow talks with Iran about its nuclear program — and only its nuclear program. All other previous offers were off the table.

And this wasn’t the first time the Bushies fumbled a diplomatic opening with the Iranians. In 2001 and 2002, Tehran offered to help in the American offensive against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but the overture was scuttled after President Bush’s “Axis of Evil” State of the Union address in January 2002, when some of the more radical elements in the administration decided that it wouldn’t cooperate with Iran no matter what the potential upside. Throw in the administration’s deft footwork in 2002 to scuttle the deal the Clinton administration negotiated with North Korea in 1994, which sealed the Pyongyang nuclear plant and allowed international inspectors into the country, and its subsequent refusal to talk to the North until recently — in multiparty talks with the Chinese, the Russians and the South Koreans — and you have a pretty grim history of American diplomacy in the first decade of the 21st century.

There’s an interesting footnote to these stories, and one that Dennis Ross brings to light in his new book, “Statecraft: And How to Restore America’s Standing in the World.” Despite what Bush’s many critics claim, Ross says, the administration isn’t wedded to a unilateralist foreign policy; indeed, in the case of both Iran and North Korea, when the administration finally got around to belatedly practicing diplomacy, it did so in a decidedly multilateral fashion. What’s more, in the saber-rattling that preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration did try going to the United Nations in an attempt to drum up support for war, and it was successful on some level. But whereas George H.W. Bush found legitimacy for war against Iraq in 1991 by sending envoys around the world to dangle carrots and wield sticks in order to build international support to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, W. stopped his diplomatic efforts at Turtle Bay, with predictable results.

Throughout the book, Ross, who served as Clinton’s Middle East envoy in the 1990s, comes back to this envoy-heavy paradigm for practicing diplomacy, an approach he credits with the victories that the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations won when dealing with the tricky issues of German reunification, Bosnia and the first Iraq War. The current administration has largely eschewed this approach in its own ham-handed efforts at diplomacy, so much so that Ross felt moved to write a starter manual of a book on diplomacy in order to remind American policymakers that the art of diplomacy still exists. In a recent interview with the Boston Globe, Ross said that he wrote the book “for those who are candidates to lead the next administration. I worry about the legacy, about what happens to statecraft when you have eight years of an administration where it’s not practiced. People coming in need to understand it.”

At times bogging down the reader with extended chapters about the rules for negotiation and mediation, Ross finishes strong by tossing off page after page of useful ideas, although the problems he tackles — the rise of China, international terrorism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a resurgent Iran — are much too big to be solved between the covers of a single 384-page book. But “Statecraft” reads exactly as he billed it to the Globe: a collection of ideas for the diplomats set to get back to work in 2009, once a new administration moves to Washington, D.C.

In practically every case of successful diplomacy — from the Cold War to the economic alliances of the 1990s — the situation at the bargaining table at some point appeared hopeless. But instead of pounding their shoes on the table as the Bush administration has so often done, previous administrations have kept at the messy business of diplomacy, committing, as Ross notes, the entire national security apparatus to the effort. As a result, “[t]he diplomacy was intensive and continuous, and there was an ongoing and accurate assessment of the environment, the openings, the problems, the sources of leverage and the role and effectiveness of potential partners. Finally, there was deep presidential interest and effective follow-through.”

All of which should sound familiar to those who remember a time before the dawn of the 21st century, when diplomacy was jettisoned by an administration that thought it held all the cards, but had to fold on each hand it played. While Ross’s book likely won’t change any minds as to the utility of a robust diplomatic effort, his reminder that such a course can be successful is a welcome one.

Paul McLeary writes for Columbia Journalism Review, Defense Technology International and The Guardian.


The Jewish Daily Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Jewish Daily Forwardrequires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and The Jewish Daily Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.





Find us on Facebook!
  • This is what the rockets over Israel and Gaza look like from space:
  • "Israel should not let captives languish or corpses rot. It should do everything in its power to recover people and bodies. Jewish law places a premium on pidyon shvuyim, “the redemption of captives,” and proper burial. But not when the price will lead to more death and more kidnappings." Do you agree?
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • "I fear that we are witnessing the end of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I see no possibility for resolution right now. I look into the future and see only a void." What do you think?
  • Not a gazillionaire? Take the "poor door."
  • "We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else. No more apologies."
  • "Woody Allen should have quit while he was ahead." Ezra Glinter's review of "Magic in the Moonlight": http://jd.fo/f4Q1Q
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.