2. The diplomatic setting

The nature of diplomacy and how it is carried out are also affected by its setting. The setting can be roughly divided into three parts: the international system, the diplo¬matic environment, and the domestic connection.

The international system

One aspect of the setting is the system. As we have noted many times, the nature of the anarchical international system creates a setting in which self-interested actors pursue their diplomatic goals by, if necessary, using power to ensure that their goals prevail over the goals of others. When China, Taiwan, and the United States found themselves embroiled in the two crises that arose over China’s attempt to influence Taiwan’s 1996 and 2000 presidential elections, Taipei and Washington could only look to themselves to forestall any military attempt by Beijing to reincorporate Taiwan. China was similarly limited to self-reliance. In the current system, the only recourse for China if Taiwan were to declare its independence would be to try to reincorporate Taiwan militarily. Thus, when tension occurred, the actors had little choice but to rely on their own power to protect their divergent national interests.

The diplomatic environment

A second part of the diplomatic setting is determined by the relationships among the various actors who are involved in a particular matter. This part of the setting can be subdivided into four diplomatic environments: hostile, adversarial, coalition, and mediation diplomacy.

Hostile Diplomacy

Where one or more countries are engaged in armed clashes or when there is a substantial possibility that fighting could result, diplomacy is con¬ducted in a hostile environment. The maneuvering surrounding the U.S. demand on Afghanistan that it surrender those responsible for the 9-11 terrorist attacks fell distinctly within the range of hostile diplomacy. Almost immediately, the United States moved to deploy a massive Navy flotilla centered around the aircraft carriers Enterprise, Carl Vinson, and Theodore Roosevelt to the Indian Ocean. On September 16, Bush also instructed, "The secretary of state should issue an ultimatum against the Taliban today warning them to turn over bin Laden and his al-Qaeda or they will suffer the consequences." If the Taliban do not comply, Bush instructed his advisers, "We’ll attack with missiles, bombers, and boots on the ground.... We are going to rain holy hell on them."

Adversarial diplomacy

An environment of adversarial diplomacy occurs at a less confrontational level when two or more countries’ interests clash but when there is little or no chance of armed conflict. A great deal of diplomacy involving economic issues occurs in adversarial circumstances as countries press other countries to accede to their wishes. Russia and the United States have disagreed strongly about the proposals of President George W. Bush to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 in order to try to build a ballistic missile defense system. Russia’s president Putin tried to head off the Bush move by arguing it would upset deterrence and also by attempting to enlist the support of the European members of NATO, many of whom have doubts about the U.S. move. Russia’s weakness left little that it could do when Bush formally announced in December 2001 that he would go ahead. Putin’s comments were moderate, but other Russian leaders expressed anger. A former Russian ambassador to Washington complained that the U.S. used Russia’s enormous help to conduct the anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan and then announced its position on ABM. And a leader of one of the party’s in the Russian parliament called the move proof that the United States is a superpower that is trying to dictate its rules to the world.

At other times, adversarial diplomacy addresses less critical issues. President Bush in early 2002 ordered tariff increases of up to 30 percent on foreign steel imports. Washington claimed the move was to offset unfair pricing by foreign competitors to the U.S. steel industry; critics charged the move was more about giving Republicans a political boost in big steel-producing states. Whatever the cause, Russia and other countries that export steel to the United States struck back. With Russia’s lost revenues estimated at $750 million a year, Moscow announced that it was barring U.S. poultry imports, which amounted in 2001 to about $800 million, because of health concerns. The press quickly dubbed the contretemps the "cold chicken war." To the diplomats involved, however, it was serious. The American ambassador to Russia termed the dispute, the number one problem in U.S.-Russia relations in the past time, and he indicated that so many feathers had flown that diplomacy had engaged at least five cabinet ministers on his side, and even President George W. Bush, who has spoken to President Putin directly about this.

Coalition diplomacy

When a number of countries have similar interests, often in opposition to the interest of one or more other countries, then coalition diplomacy becomes a significant aspect of international activity. National leaders spend a good deal of time and effort to build coalitions that will support the foreign policy initiatives of their country or of other international actors that they support. When, for instance, Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, President George Bush spent much time and effort in rounding up international support for military action against Iraq. During the first four days of the crisis Bush made 23 phone calls to a dozen foreign leaders, and personally flew to Colorado to consult with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who was coincidentally speaking at a conference there.

When President George W. Bush entered the White House, he favored a more unilateralist approach to diplomacy, and was less interested in building coalitions than his father had been. The complexities of combating global terrorism provided the son a lesson that his father had learned earlier. The younger Bush found that he could not succeed without building a broad coalition in support of U.S. goals. In addition to a high volume of phone calls to heads of government around the world, a presidential adviser in January 2002 indicated that since September 11, Mr. Bush had met personally with nearly 80 foreign leaders, using each session to elicit whatever backing the other nation was willing to give.

Mediation diplomacy

Unlike hostile, adversarial, or coalition diplomacy, the use of mediation diplomacy occurs when a country that is not involved directly as one of the parties tries to help two or more sides in conflict resolve their differences. The United States has been involved for decades in an attempt to mediate the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors, especially the Palestinians.

In April 2002, the mounting crisis in the Middle East led the United States to once again intervene in an attempt to mediate at least a surcease in the violence marked by multiple terror attacks in Israel by Palestinian suicide bombers and a full-scale Israeli invasion of the Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank and Gaza. Fear grew that the fighting could destabilize neighboring Jordan and perhaps Egypt and might even lead to yet another general Arab-Israeli war. On the diplomatic front, Bush dispatched Secretary of State Colin Powell to the area to upgrade the ongoing mediation attempt of special envoy Anthony Zinni. Bush also was unusually blunt in his public remarks to and about both Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. In a direct and well-reported phone call to Sharon, Bush told him that he meant what he said in his public call for Israel to begin to withdraw without delay, and that without delay meant immediately. Bush also said openly that he had lost trust in Arafat and called on him to order an immediate effective cease-fire and to crack down on terrorists.

By early May, the fighting had subsided, and Prime Minister Sharon had traveled to Washington to discuss the future with President Bush. Then, literally when the two leaders were meeting, they received news that a suicide bomber had destroyed a crowded recreation hall near Tel Aviv, killing at least 15 people and wounding more than 50 others. Sharon cut his visit short to hurry back to Israel, and the violence threatened to escalate anew.

The domestic connection

Domestic politics provide the third part of the diplomatic setting. The concept of two-level game theory holds that to be successful a country’s diplomats must find a solution that is acceptable to both the other country at the international level and, at the domestic level, to the political actors (legislators, public opinion, interest groups) in the diplomat’s own country. From this perspective, the diplomatic setting exists at the domestic as well as at the international level, and is influenced by the interplay of the two levels when leaders try to pursue policies that satisfy the actors at both levels.

During the Taiwan crises, the leaders of China and the United States not only had to find a point of agreement between themselves, they also had to fend off domestic forces that were pushing to escalate the crisis. Prior to the 1996 crisis, President Jiang Zemin told the U.S. ambassador, that any leader who lets Taiwan’s independence pass would be overthrown. Similarly, during the crisis in 2000, the domestic political issue for the leadership in Beijing, one political scientist explained, was the worry that Taiwan would evolve gradually into a recognized state without Beijing being able to stop it. It has become imperative, the scholar continued, not only to not be the leader who lost Taiwan, but not to be the leader who allowed this slow drift toward independence to continue.

President Clinton also had to deal with strong domestic forces. In 1996 House Republicans urged Clinton to commit the United States to the defense of Taiwan. Keeping the pressure up in 2000, Republican Senate leader Trent Lott condemned the threats emanating from Beijing and suggested that the Clinton administration should worry more about protecting and promoting Taiwan’s democracy than offending the communist dictators in Beijing. To ensure that Clinton did not ignore their views, Congress legislators introduced the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act, to substantially increase the U.S. commitment to Taiwan.