Could Trumplomacy be the new face for diplomacy? |
It has been said that the unwritten norm for diplomatic engagements is the Theodore Roosevelt formula; “Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far.”
Under this norm the prevalent informal rules of the liberal democratic order prevailed, which were rules of moderated speech, reduced threat, focus on International goodwill and winning International public opinion as the central basis for winning a war.
Specifically, the American framework had focused largely not just on winning the international public opinion but building broad-based International coalitions, and on the strength of such coalition inflicting both lethal, diplomatic and public opinion damages on the designated State. This was what played out in the American twin invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, as well as in Libya, where through the agency of the UN security council resolution the US acted as an enforcer of Liberal International Law, and together with the NATO alliance directly oversaw regime change in Libya which has led to Libya’s present chaos till date.
While there have remained mixed reactions in the West as regards the legacy of those operations, there is little or no argument that the operation in itself (particularly Libya) was popular with the blessings both of the United Nations and International public opinion as at when it was carried out. However in a radical twist of reality, the framework of the Liberal International order seems to collapse under it’s own weight, and no better re-definer, like the United States have again stepped up to give a new face to the new order. So what has changed so far?
Factually, the liberal International order have raised more questions than answers; how can States like Iran, with strong International backing from Security Council members like Russia and China be held to account for their clear-cut rhetoric and threat of annihilation to other States.
The framework of moderated speech as a norm of International Relations have rather served to designate those whose speech-acts do not fit the international norms as being trouble makers, and whether their actions were beginning to match their words, nothing could be done other than verbal diplomacy, through which framework smart regimes such as the Iranian regime continued to engage in diplomatic negotiations while not refraining from their innate ambitions, rather building up their stockpile of Uranium (as in the case of Iran), and making it a sticking point of negotiations.
The Iranian regime’s formula was simple; present credible threat of your ability to make nuclear weapons, get concessions from Western Powers while keeping both the stockpiles, technology and production facilities and creating the groundwork to make actual production, either when bored with negotiations, or when the other party becomes slack in fulfilling their own part of the deal.
But over the last few weeks everything known about this system changed and new rules have begun to be written; a realist perspective to diplomacy, a realist framework to International Relations and a realist approach to International Law. A simpler way of designating this is; ‘Trumplomacy’.
First with Venezuela and now with Iran, Trump has clearly ushered in a new system of rules for doing business on the international diplomatic scene, the central points have become;
Rejecting International public opinion as the standard for any International military engagement.
Shifting focus from depending on International coalitions to striking first whether or not the coalition agree to follow.
Positioning the United States as being both the advocate, arbiter and decider of when negotiations can commence.
Redefining both the purpose of conflict and framework of regime change in itself. Where; regime change becomes ‘newer people with refined ideology’ whether they are from the same old breed, rather than setting up a democratic puppet regime and remaining in place to prop-up that regime.
In essence by the new rule, diplomacy (or better put; Trumplomacy) has now taken up a new aphorism; “Speak harshly and carry a bigger stick, you will go farther.”
Could this redefinition of diplomatic norms actually become the ‘in’ thing for the International Order? Or is it rather just an anti-thesis to the liberal style of doing diplomacy (which we could see as the thesis), for which both liberal and now-Trump’s realist style of diplomacy could find a middle ground and give room to a synthesis, which could well be something entirely different?