The debate between national interest and principles is ongoing, both in academia and in foreign policy practice. The Gaza War has intensified this debate, both domestically in the United States and globally in recent months. This comes amidst the contradictions in American decision-making regarding the situation in the Gaza Strip and unprecedented calls from circles aligned with general American trends to align foreign policy with the principles that Washington has long advocated for.
In Stuart E. Eizenstat's new book, "The Art of Diplomacy," a former ambassador with extensive experience in American foreign policy, I found myself contemplating how to rectify the current trajectory of American policies. Once known for sponsoring significant historical agreements, the United States is now accused of undermining international law and the rules-based international order. This shift has contributed to the dire humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, where the repeated use of the American veto has resulted in a complete paralysis of the UN Security Council's powers.
There are works that offer a comprehensive overview of high-level experience in politics and diplomacy, providing what can be termed as a "teachable moment," particularly when the author delves into half a century of American policy from the opening to China to the war in the Gaza Strip. Despite my disagreement with the foundation laid out by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the book's introduction, written shortly before his passing, where he emphasizes the realistic notion that foreign policy is rooted in the concept of interests rather than justice, Kissinger astutely reminds us that "negotiation" forms the bedrock of trust, serving as the currency of diplomacy. He stresses that credibility is the cornerstone of the international order, and a strong reputation in the realm of justice is paramount for a negotiator to heavily rely on the success of the negotiation process. Kissinger asserts that once trust is lost through deception, it cannot be easily regained, and without it, negotiations tend to gravitate towards the use of force or pressure.
In today's world, rational foreign policy plays a crucial role in achieving global justice and serving the national interests of the United States and all countries. The success of the largest superpower relies on its ability to collaborate with allies and alliances. To this end, the United States must engage in more diplomatic efforts to persuade other nations that its objectives align with their own national interests.
For instance, fair international trade, support for international laws against brutal aggression targeting civilians in conflict zones, and the responsible management of issues like illegal immigration and climate change are all interconnected. The interests of citizens worldwide are intertwined with the interests of American citizens in these matters.
American political behavior hinders efforts to bridge the gap with the United States. Official American statements predominantly convey a non-conciliatory tone towards all parties on the international stage, particularly towards China. This suspicion towards China's policies and economic intentions has been growing since Donald Trump's presidency, and Biden's adoption of a similarly tough policy indicates a continuation of this approach, regardless of the identity and orientations of the president in the White House.
Negotiations at the international level no longer follow the principle of "winner takes all." Instead, successful negotiations require a process that takes into account the interests of all parties involved. This is where the art of diplomacy comes into play - determining the true goals of both parties and finding ways to accommodate those goals while considering national interests.
In American thought, diplomacy is often seen as similar to commercial transactions. However, Stuart Eizenstat argues that this perspective fails to capture the complexities of international negotiations. According to Eizenstat, diplomacy involves a nation's worldview coming face to face with its self-perception. In order to reach a consensus, international negotiations must strive to align these perspectives. Unlike in domestic legal systems, there is no appellate court to enforce international agreements. Instead, the parties involved must rely on their own commitment to uphold these agreements. Successful international negotiations go beyond mere pragmatism; they embody a steadfast belief in legitimacy. Achieving this level of negotiation requires a prolonged period of understanding the other party.
In the insightful preface to the book, Henry Kissinger emphasizes the importance of understanding history and the concepts that arise from it in order to effectively engage in diplomacy. He quotes Winston Churchill, who observed that "all the secrets of statecraft lie in history."
History reveals that there have been exceptional individuals who have played a crucial role in crafting pivotal agreements. Examples include Kissinger in the Egypt-Israel disengagement negotiations, Jimmy Carter at Camp David, and Senator George Mitchell in the Northern Ireland peace process. These transformative negotiators excelled in their arduous journeys, demonstrating remarkable skills in listening, comprehending the goals, culture, and history of the other side. They also showed readiness, resilience, and courage in making difficult decisions in the pursuit of peace.
In the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip, the United States needs to appoint an exceptional individual to make a decisive difference in the negotiations, working alongside Egypt and Qatar. Negotiating a resolution in this deeply complex conflict has proven to be a protracted and challenging process, spanning many months. It requires an exceptional American "negotiator" who can overcome the formidable obstacles and dilemmas, earning the trust of both parties and untangling the chronic knot of conflict. While the differences between the parties may seem intractable, the negotiator's role is to bring an end to violence and bloodshed, paving the way for confidence-building measures.
Achieving these objectives necessitates the expertise of a skilled negotiator who can make a tangible impact, helping the United States break free from the vicious cycle that has characterized its Middle East engagement for years.
In closing, I echo Ambassador Eizenstat's observation that "diplomacy is not inherently about achieving perfection but rather about balancing risks."
