THE CONCEPT OF ENGAGEMENT IN
CONTEMPORARY US DIPLOMACY
Modern diplomacy is conducted in a world of rapidly
evolving global challenges: the spreading dangers of weapons of
mass destruction; new and more malignant forms of terrorism;
regional and sectarian conflicts; failed and failing states; global
economic dislocation; and transnational health, energy and
environmental concerns. Rarely can these issues be addressed
unilaterally. In addition, diplomacy has moved beyond state to
state relations to include non-state actors, including private sector
entities, international organizations and NGOs, criminal cartels,
militant groups, and local and international media.
The policy of Obama Administration has been to achieving
U.S. foreign policy objectives and the administration believes that
it requires global engagement: a new era of relations, based on
“mutual interests and mutual respect.” What do they mean by
engagement, what place does it have in American diplomatic
history, and how is this policy tool used in American diplomacy?
The Meaning of Engagement:
Engagement is a tool for modifying the behavior of
regimes with which a great power has significant disagreements.
Heightened awareness of the costs associated with the use of
sanctions or military forces us to search for policy alternatives.(1)
Engagement is a tool of statecraft and is not about sweet
talk. Nor is it based on the illusion that our problems with rogue
regimes can be solved by engaging them through mutual talks.
Engagement is not normalization; its goal is not to improve
relations. It is not akin to detente, working for rapprochement, or
appeasement. The goal of engagement is to change the other
country’s perception of its own interests and to be aware of
realistic options, in order to modify its policies and behavior.
Engagement is a process, not a destination. It involves exerting
pressure, by raising questions and hypothetical possibilities, and
by probing the other country’s assumptions and thinking. Above
all, it involves testing how far the other country might be willing to
go. Properly understood, the diplomacy of engagement means
raising questions that the other country may wish to avoid or be
politically unable to answer. It places the ball in the other
country’s court. Engagement, of course, comes with risks. These
risks include distortion of issue by opponents, placement of pre-
conditions to negotiate, legitimacy claim of rogue regimes and the
targeted regime may remain in place or may be strengthened.(2 ).
The engagement policy signifies a trend that implies
involvement and interaction as opposed to isolation. It is a
willingness to continue to be involved actively in international
affairs and to provide leadership rather than retreating from
international responsibilities. It is a strategic agenda involving the
carefully considered extension of incentives and penalties to
influence other’s behavior. In this sense engagement implies a willingness to use positive incentives as a means of rewarding good behavior (3) In this sense, it is a general dialogue between opposing countries. In fact it is a process of strategic interaction and use of non-coercive tool which is initiated
to elicit corroborative behavior from the target opponents.
Thus an engagement includes extension of: (i) Positive incentive which is willingness to use positive means of rewarding good behavior.Thus the engagement includes extension of : (i)
good behavior Thus the engagement includes extension of Positive incentives,(4 ).
(ii) Conditional(5). (iii) Communication,(6). and
(iv) Interactive processes.(7).
What Place Does It Have In the American Foreign Policy?
There are four approaches, and four visions of US foreign
policy that shape the way Americans think and argue about the
world problems. The Hamiltonian, for example try to build a
global order of trade and economic relations that may keep
United States so rich that the Americans can afford to do what
Britain used to do, which is to keep at bay the countries that
threaten to take over US interests in either Europe or Asia, and for
to defend such interests. In order to achieve these goals, United
States may opt to build a coalition of like minded forces against
opposing counties and may bring them down, either by peace or
war. Jeffersonian view says that the United States should not go
hand in glove with corporations. Such policy undermines
democracy, as it involves US with despots abroad, and US will be
supporting evil dictators because some American corporation
might gain economic interest in the process. This school believes
that such an approach may undermine democracy at home.
Wilsonian hold the belief in the international institutions
like United Nations, and its agencies. According to this school, the
United States should push its values around the world and should
turn other countries into democracies whether they like it or not.
For that the U.S should work multilaterally with international
institutions. In order to achieve targeted goals US should support
things like the International Criminal Court, the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty. For that US should not be unilateral in its
approach; and the human rights should be put ahead of trade, and
so on.
Jacksonian, say “Don’t bother with people abroad, unless
they bother you. But if they attack you, then do everything you
can” [to defend your interests].(8)
How Policy Tool Stands Used In American Diplomacy
The case in hand is that of Iran deal on nuclear arms. In the
deal, the Obama administration characterized their approach to
the nuclear talks as part of a more comprehensive strategy to
establish “a new equilibrium” between Sunnis and Shiites in the
Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The intention was to reduce US
presence in the Middle East, and to keep better relations with Iran
that could help to establish a new balance of power. And by
following this policy a rapprochement has been made with Iran
comparable to Richard M. Nixon’s breakthrough visit to China in
1972. It is now believed that in the light of agreement, it will be
far more difficult for Iran to transform its civilian nuclear program
into a weapons program. It is further believed that the agreement
will not prevent a determined Iran from building a nuclear
.weapon, it will make doing so much harder, and the extensive
verification and inspection procedures will make it much easier to
discover any such attempt.
The American administration views this agreement as:
[putting] strong, verifiable limits on Iran’s ability to develop
nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years and [this] is
potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent
diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East
Politics.(9 )
However, the Iran deal poses new challenges (for the
Obama administration), the deal has ignited a domestic political
fight, the administration is trying to placate its allies in the Middle
East as they fear that Iran will use the economic boost of sanction
relief to ramp up support for its militant proxies.
The deal has provoked sharp reactions across the Arab
world, where major players are closely allied either with Iran or
Saudi Arabia, and any gain by one is seen as a loss by the other.
There are fears too that the United States is pursuing a
broader rapprochement with Tehran that could empower Iran.
United States allies in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia, appear
to be using opposition to the deal to lever increased assistance.(10)
The Obama administration however believes that the deal
and the economic benefits it could bring will empower Iran’s
moderates and make it easier for the United States to work with
them on regional issues.
This engagement policy and the Iran deal have brought new
challenges for US administrations. These include:
o Selling the deal to Congress, (including doubters in the
Democrats), it looks as if its approved from the congress
may prove as difficult as reaching agreement with Iran.
After decades of war in the Middle East, it is still unclear
whether the opponents will be able to muster public
opinion or the views of a narrow, passionate core of
hawkish conservatives and pro-Israel Democrats are going
to prevail.
o Presently, the critics are preparing a large scale mobilization
for the forthcoming August congressional session,
presently, the lawmakers are in their home states and
districts, and are engaging themselves to stoke opposition
to the agreement in order to agitate before Congress to
block the agreement.
o In case the deal is approved in the weakest and most pitiful
way possible, its acceptance becomes questionable.
o At presents, the deal indicates a depth of division and that
would put the whole venture into question.
o US president has to win over the majority of Congress,
including hostile Republicans, and to focus on sharing up a
Democratic base to sustain a veto.
The use of engagement as a policy tool has been constantly
pursued by US diplomacy; reference can be made to the policy
pursued in the case of China, Vietnam, Cuba, Russian federation
and Iran. As is evident engagement as a policy tool remains an
important option in the American foreign policy. This tool has
been used throughout American history for gainful and profitable
pursuits and to restrict the global flash points to become threat
for global security by neutralizing the force of their impact.
References:
1 Richard N. Haas: Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, Brooking Institute Press, [2000].
2 Such issues troubled some critics of the Bush administration’s 2003 breakthrough that led to the normalizing of relations between the United States and Libya.
(3) In fact it is a process of strategic interaction and use of non-coercive took and initiatives to elicit corroborative behavior from the target opponents.
4 Randell H. Schweller, Engaging China: The Management of Emerging Power, Routledge, New York.
5 Scott B. Lasensky, Buying Peace and Security: The Peace Puzzle, Cornell University Press.
6 Miun Nag Do, Legal issues on Burma, Columbia University, Journal No. 7, December 2000.
7 Richard N. Haas, id.
8 Harry Kreisler, US Foreign Policy and the American Political Tradition, [Interview]; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley, February 15, 2003
9 An Iran nuclear deal that reduces the chance of war, “International New York Times, July 14, 2015.
10 William D. Hartung, The Arms and Security Project, the Center for International Policy in Washington, 2013.
(Author is an Advocate and is currently working with M/s Azimuddin Law Associates Karachi.
To see author’s other areas of interest visit : Zafars Blog on International Studies http://blogoninternationalstudy.bl
Modern diplomacy is conducted in a world of rapidly
evolving global challenges: the spreading dangers of weapons of
mass destruction; new and more malignant forms of terrorism;
regional and sectarian conflicts; failed and failing states; global
economic dislocation; and transnational health, energy and
environmental concerns. Rarely can these issues be addressed
unilaterally. In addition, diplomacy has moved beyond state to
state relations to include non-state actors, including private sector
entities, international organizations and NGOs, criminal cartels,
militant groups, and local and international media.
The policy of Obama Administration has been to achieving
U.S. foreign policy objectives and the administration believes that
it requires global engagement: a new era of relations, based on
“mutual interests and mutual respect.” What do they mean by
engagement, what place does it have in American diplomatic
history, and how is this policy tool used in American diplomacy?
The Meaning of Engagement:
Engagement is a tool for modifying the behavior of
regimes with which a great power has significant disagreements.
Heightened awareness of the costs associated with the use of
sanctions or military forces us to search for policy alternatives.(1)
Engagement is a tool of statecraft and is not about sweet
talk. Nor is it based on the illusion that our problems with rogue
regimes can be solved by engaging them through mutual talks.
Engagement is not normalization; its goal is not to improve
relations. It is not akin to detente, working for rapprochement, or
appeasement. The goal of engagement is to change the other
country’s perception of its own interests and to be aware of
realistic options, in order to modify its policies and behavior.
Engagement is a process, not a destination. It involves exerting
pressure, by raising questions and hypothetical possibilities, and
by probing the other country’s assumptions and thinking. Above
all, it involves testing how far the other country might be willing to
go. Properly understood, the diplomacy of engagement means
raising questions that the other country may wish to avoid or be
politically unable to answer. It places the ball in the other
country’s court. Engagement, of course, comes with risks. These
risks include distortion of issue by opponents, placement of pre-
conditions to negotiate, legitimacy claim of rogue regimes and the
targeted regime may remain in place or may be strengthened.(2 ).
The engagement policy signifies a trend that implies
involvement and interaction as opposed to isolation. It is a
willingness to continue to be involved actively in international
affairs and to provide leadership rather than retreating from
international responsibilities. It is a strategic agenda involving the
carefully considered extension of incentives and penalties to
influence other’s behavior. In this sense engagement implies a willingness to use positive incentives as a means of rewarding good behavior (3) In this sense, it is a general dialogue between opposing countries. In fact it is a process of strategic interaction and use of non-coercive tool which is initiated
to elicit corroborative behavior from the target opponents.
Thus an engagement includes extension of: (i) Positive incentive which is willingness to use positive means of rewarding good behavior.Thus the engagement includes extension of : (i)
good behavior Thus the engagement includes extension of Positive incentives,(4 ).
(ii) Conditional(5). (iii) Communication,(6). and
(iv) Interactive processes.(7).
What Place Does It Have In the American Foreign Policy?
There are four approaches, and four visions of US foreign
policy that shape the way Americans think and argue about the
world problems. The Hamiltonian, for example try to build a
global order of trade and economic relations that may keep
United States so rich that the Americans can afford to do what
Britain used to do, which is to keep at bay the countries that
threaten to take over US interests in either Europe or Asia, and for
to defend such interests. In order to achieve these goals, United
States may opt to build a coalition of like minded forces against
opposing counties and may bring them down, either by peace or
war. Jeffersonian view says that the United States should not go
hand in glove with corporations. Such policy undermines
democracy, as it involves US with despots abroad, and US will be
supporting evil dictators because some American corporation
might gain economic interest in the process. This school believes
that such an approach may undermine democracy at home.
Wilsonian hold the belief in the international institutions
like United Nations, and its agencies. According to this school, the
United States should push its values around the world and should
turn other countries into democracies whether they like it or not.
For that the U.S should work multilaterally with international
institutions. In order to achieve targeted goals US should support
things like the International Criminal Court, the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty. For that US should not be unilateral in its
approach; and the human rights should be put ahead of trade, and
so on.
Jacksonian, say “Don’t bother with people abroad, unless
they bother you. But if they attack you, then do everything you
can” [to defend your interests].(8)
How Policy Tool Stands Used In American Diplomacy
The case in hand is that of Iran deal on nuclear arms. In the
deal, the Obama administration characterized their approach to
the nuclear talks as part of a more comprehensive strategy to
establish “a new equilibrium” between Sunnis and Shiites in the
Middle East and the Persian Gulf. The intention was to reduce US
presence in the Middle East, and to keep better relations with Iran
that could help to establish a new balance of power. And by
following this policy a rapprochement has been made with Iran
comparable to Richard M. Nixon’s breakthrough visit to China in
1972. It is now believed that in the light of agreement, it will be
far more difficult for Iran to transform its civilian nuclear program
into a weapons program. It is further believed that the agreement
will not prevent a determined Iran from building a nuclear
.weapon, it will make doing so much harder, and the extensive
verification and inspection procedures will make it much easier to
discover any such attempt.
The American administration views this agreement as:
[putting] strong, verifiable limits on Iran’s ability to develop
nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years and [this] is
potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent
diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East
Politics.(9 )
However, the Iran deal poses new challenges (for the
Obama administration), the deal has ignited a domestic political
fight, the administration is trying to placate its allies in the Middle
East as they fear that Iran will use the economic boost of sanction
relief to ramp up support for its militant proxies.
The deal has provoked sharp reactions across the Arab
world, where major players are closely allied either with Iran or
Saudi Arabia, and any gain by one is seen as a loss by the other.
There are fears too that the United States is pursuing a
broader rapprochement with Tehran that could empower Iran.
United States allies in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia, appear
to be using opposition to the deal to lever increased assistance.(10)
The Obama administration however believes that the deal
and the economic benefits it could bring will empower Iran’s
moderates and make it easier for the United States to work with
them on regional issues.
This engagement policy and the Iran deal have brought new
challenges for US administrations. These include:
o Selling the deal to Congress, (including doubters in the
Democrats), it looks as if its approved from the congress
may prove as difficult as reaching agreement with Iran.
After decades of war in the Middle East, it is still unclear
whether the opponents will be able to muster public
opinion or the views of a narrow, passionate core of
hawkish conservatives and pro-Israel Democrats are going
to prevail.
o Presently, the critics are preparing a large scale mobilization
for the forthcoming August congressional session,
presently, the lawmakers are in their home states and
districts, and are engaging themselves to stoke opposition
to the agreement in order to agitate before Congress to
block the agreement.
o In case the deal is approved in the weakest and most pitiful
way possible, its acceptance becomes questionable.
o At presents, the deal indicates a depth of division and that
would put the whole venture into question.
o US president has to win over the majority of Congress,
including hostile Republicans, and to focus on sharing up a
Democratic base to sustain a veto.
The use of engagement as a policy tool has been constantly
pursued by US diplomacy; reference can be made to the policy
pursued in the case of China, Vietnam, Cuba, Russian federation
and Iran. As is evident engagement as a policy tool remains an
important option in the American foreign policy. This tool has
been used throughout American history for gainful and profitable
pursuits and to restrict the global flash points to become threat
for global security by neutralizing the force of their impact.
References:
1 Richard N. Haas: Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, Brooking Institute Press, [2000].
2 Such issues troubled some critics of the Bush administration’s 2003 breakthrough that led to the normalizing of relations between the United States and Libya.
(3) In fact it is a process of strategic interaction and use of non-coercive took and initiatives to elicit corroborative behavior from the target opponents.
4 Randell H. Schweller, Engaging China: The Management of Emerging Power, Routledge, New York.
5 Scott B. Lasensky, Buying Peace and Security: The Peace Puzzle, Cornell University Press.
6 Miun Nag Do, Legal issues on Burma, Columbia University, Journal No. 7, December 2000.
7 Richard N. Haas, id.
8 Harry Kreisler, US Foreign Policy and the American Political Tradition, [Interview]; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley, February 15, 2003
9 An Iran nuclear deal that reduces the chance of war, “International New York Times, July 14, 2015.
10 William D. Hartung, The Arms and Security Project, the Center for International Policy in Washington, 2013.
(Author is an Advocate and is currently working with M/s Azimuddin Law Associates Karachi.
To see author’s other areas of interest visit : Zafars Blog on International Studies http://blogoninternationalstudy.bl
