Rules for Diplomats

Bismarck is supposed to have said that asking him to take political principles into account when conducting foreign policy was like suggesting that he walk through a dense forest with a twelve-foot pole between his teeth. Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he? Still, even if we discount for the cynicism of a 19th- century practitioner of realpolitik, his observation cannot be dismissed. For when U.S. policy-makers turn to such places as Afghanistan and the Balkans, they bring with them a set of principles that often make them stumble.

Here are three such rules: You should not change borders; you should not pro- pose a peaceful transfer of populations; and your solution—especially if it re- quires force—must have the approval of the U.N. Now, these are all useful ideas, provided that they are seen as caution- ary—and optional—restraints. Changing borders is reasonably seen as dangerous because it might be a precedent encouraging expansionist states to seek the forcible breakup of vulnerable nations. Peaceful transfers of populations are dis- liked lest they encourage violent “ethnic cleansing.” And U.N. sanction is required because diplomats generally want to place as many obstacles as possible in the way of force as a solution to disputes.

About the Author

John O’Sullivan

John O’Sullivan is a senior fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

Bismarck is supposed to have said that asking him to take political principles into account when conducting foreign policy was like suggesting that he walk through a dense forest with a twelve-foot pole between his teeth. Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he? Still, even if we discount for the cynicism of a 19th- century practitioner of realpolitik, his observation cannot be dismissed. For when U.S. policy-makers turn to such places as Afghanistan and the Balkans, they bring with them a set of principles that often make them stumble.

Here are three such rules: You should not change borders; you should not pro- pose a peaceful transfer of populations; and your solution—especially if it re- quires force—must have the approval of the U.N. Now, these are all useful ideas, provided that they are seen as caution- ary—and optional—restraints. Changing borders is reasonably seen as dangerous because it might be a precedent encouraging expansionist states to seek the forcible breakup of vulnerable nations. Peaceful transfers of populations are dis- liked lest they encourage violent “ethnic cleansing.” And U.N. sanction is required because diplomats generally want to place as many obstacles as possible in the way of force as a solution to disputes.