Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Whenever the cry goes out over a crisis in another country to 'do something' because the state over there is being terrible, I'm always reminded of the Yes, Minister bit with the 'Six Diplomatic Options:' https://youtu.be/t3zNCg55kiw?t=183 … 1/6
The six options given are 1) ignore the situation 2) a statement, 3) a protest, 4) cut off aid, 5) expel ambassadors and 6) declare war. And Sir Humphrey explains why each step is ineffectual until he gets to the final one, but of course few things are worth a war. 2/6
The current situation the United States finds itself in every time foreign repression occurs is very similar. Sanctions were supposed to create a step 4.5, using US dominance of trade and finance as a tool, but the success rate is terrible. 3/6
Sanctions end up coming in two flavors: the kind that target the elite of a country and consequently do very little except disrupt their travel plans and the kind that impoverish the people of the country while applying functionally no pressure to its leaders. 4/6
The United States does have one more tool, a global version of the bully pulpit created by American dominance in a lot of global mass media, but this is indirect, slow to work and the very laws and customs in the US which created that tool make it hard to wield with intent. 5/6
Which leads back to the original problem: we are asked to restrain a violent drunk in a crowded bar and for tools we have five wet noodles and one hand grenade. The existence of a problem does not always imply the existence of a solution. Sorry to be a downer. end/6
My impression of diplomacy was that, if you have a well-developed network and access to various corridors of power, you have many more options than these.
And diplomats’ real job is to build these networks and leverage them, such that reducing any situation to these 6 options is itself a massive failure of diplomacy.
How about overthrowing governments, arming inside enemies to fund a civil war or guerrilla, that sort of thing? I guess it isn't exactly "diplomatic" but it's certainly on the menu.
All of those things are acts of war, if you get caught. I suppose we could replace war with variations on 'use armed force within another county's border' but that ends up not being a very meaningful distinction.
I'm curious if you know if there's anything written about this that goes into more detail. (An essay or even a book that you'd recommend)
So one example (and I'm playing with fire here) where I think the clip is wrong is Israel, because we (America) *do* give them a form of aid, which should give us some sort of leverage, yes? I'm not an expert, so I might be missing some nuances, of course.
Yes, and that has given us some degree of leverage. Often though, when it comes to Israel, there is an expectation that Israel can be strong-armed into giving up things which they - rightly or wrongly - view as core national interests. The aid isn't that much leverage.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
