Diplomacy 101 from Joe Biden

Sat, 07/25/2009 - 5:14pm

Joe Biden gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal after his sojourn to Georgia and Ukraine.  I wouldn't characterize his remarks as "diplomatic": 

The reality is the Russians are where they are. They have a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they're in a situation where the world is changing before them and they're clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable.

If Biden was just shooting the breeze off the record, I'd be hard-pressed to disagree with anything in the quotes.  I'm pretty sure, however, that part of "smart power" is not being gratuitously insulting to fellow members of the nuclear club.  Maybe, just maybe, they'll take this kind of dumbass statement personally. 

Don't take my word for it, though -- take Joe Biden's:

It is never smart to embarrass an individual or a country when they're dealing with significant loss of face. My dad used to put it another way: Never put another man in a corner where the only way out is over you. It just is not smart.

The word "stupid" has been thrown around a lot this week, but I think it applies pretty well to Biden's language. 

Daniel W. Drezner | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Let's back this truck up

by Zathras on Sat, 07/25/2009 - 7:52pm

Let's back this truck up a little bit.

Not long ago, Dan put a post up here noting with schadenfreude the difficulty the Iranian Supreme Leader has in finding suitable a suitable proxy to deliver the hardest part of his hard line in the aftermath of Iran's election controversy. Shortly after that, he posted with amusement on the North Korean government's irate reaction to remarks from the American Secretary of State that compared it to a teenager seeking attention -- a gratuitously insulting choice of words that seemed to have little point beyond expressing the Secretary's personal pique.

These posts are now followed with one that notes the Obama admininstration's timely use of a proxy to make observations about Russia with which hardly anyone outside the Russian government disagrees, in language devoid of personal innuendo or unflattering comparisons to spoiled children. Dan's opinion is that the proxy is "stupid" and his remarks those of a "dumbass."

OK, just this once I'll use the most irritating rhetorical device employed by any American commentator: Well. I mean, WELL! Just how long are we supposed to cower before the wrath of Russian government spokesmen, and insist that high American officials tip-toe around facts well known to everyone whenever the subject turns to Russia? I know there is a constituency in the United States for approaching Russia in full cringe mode. I am unclear as to Dan's relationship to that constituency, so I'll refrain from making any observations on the relationship of cringing to diplomacy. However, in diplomacy, it is not only acceptable but shrewd practice to use a proxy to convey to one's interlocutor ideas that influence one's thinking but that one does not wish to make central to specific negotiations. This is what the Obama administration has used Vice President Biden to do.

One could argue that this is stupid diplomacy, dumbass diplomacy -- or just assert this as Dan does here. I suppose it depends on what one is comparing it to. Just for fun, let's say the gold standard for dumbass public comments is the very first reaction to Hurricane Katrina a few years ago, by one prominent commentator who thought the really noteworthy aspect of that situation was television news outlets' addiction to "hurricane porn." How do Biden's remarks compare to that standard?

Meh.

by Daniel W. Drezner on Mon, 07/27/2009 - 7:45am
OK, Zathras, let's tackle these in order: 1) On the proxy question. The Khamenei example is one of domestic politics; what Biden did applied to international relations. If, say, Sarkozy or Brown or Kaczy?ski had said something like this, then that would have been the appropriate parallel. Having Biden say it clouds the signal Obama was trying to send last month. 2) On North Korea. One difference here is that at least Clinton was discussing a specific policy issue. Biden was just waxing generically about the state of Russia, and caused needless damage. There is also the simple realpolitik point that this kind of error matters more when dealing with Russia rather than a minnow like North Korea. 3) I'm an unofficial blogger -- my screwups damage only my reputation. Joe Biden is the VPOTUS --- his words are take as the official policy of the U.S. government. It's apples and oranges.

Who Need the Vice Presidency?

by Dan Kervick on Mon, 07/27/2009 - 9:25am

This flap reminds me why I don't like the office of the Vice Presidency. The Vice President, though constitutionally situated in the Executive Branch, holds an independent elected office. He can't be fired by the President. In his capacity as Vice President he doesn't work for the President. Except for the fact that he could be impeached by Congress, he is accountable to nobody during his elected term in office. The extent to which he is or is not part of the President's administration, or does or does not speak for the administration, depends on the vagaries of his personal relationship with the President, and the the degree to which the President decides to bring him into the administration by assigning him various tasks and making him an informal part of the staff in the office of the President.

Of course, people in other countries no doubt routinely assume he speaks for the administration, and assume that the Vice President of the United States is something like a vice president in a corporation, who is a subordinate to the corporation's president in the chain of authority.

OK

by Zathras on Mon, 07/27/2009 - 11:49pm

In order, then...

1. Why is the Vice President of the United States, who is accountable to the President but is not responsible for negotiating anything with Russia, not the appropriate parallel? Why would an official of a foreign government, who is not responsible to our President and may have to conduct or supervise negotiations with Russia on behalf of his own country, be more appropriate?

2. What damage? So far, I hear the same outrage from Russian government spokesmen that is directed at any remark remotely critical of Russia from any quarter, and has been for longer than anyone reading this has been alive. Plus, the people mortified that any factual statement about Russia not cleared by the Russian government should pass the lips of an American official are very upset.

3. OK, they're not really that upset. It's just that their reflex for self-satisfied snark has been triggered, which can make it sound as if they are very upset. Yes, it must now look as if official US government policy is that Soviet nostalgia on the part of a government that must neglect massive social problems to indulge it is something of which Washington is aware. What kind of stupid dumbass would think of letting that get out?

If Dan hadn't been so piqued by my reminding him of his Katrina moment, he might have made a more serious criticism of my defense of Vice President Biden. The defense presumes Biden said what he did for the reasons I argue he might have -- might have, that is, if he'd been directed to by a President (or a group of advisers around the President) wishing to let the Russian government know that a desire for constructive Russo-American dialog didn't mean the Obama administration was prepared to stand by as Russia walked over its neighbors.

And where is the evidence that this happened, or that either President Obama or anyone around him is capable of coordinating message-sending in foreign policy to that fine a point? To be honest, I don't have any. The Obama administration's record to date indicates pretty rudimentary skills in this area of diplomacy, with the admittedly important exception of messages sent in public statements by the President himself. What are the odds that Obama directed his Vice President to make the kind of statement about Russia that I might, in his place, have wanted him to, for the reasons I might have wanted it? They're not obviously worse than Powerball odds, and that's the best I can say for them.

I recall vividly, and painfully, assuming that numerous specific actions by the last administration in the foreign policy field six and seven years ago were eminently defensible in the context of precedent and my own view of what the American national interest required. The problem, obviously, was that high officials in the last administration had their own views about what needed to be done and how it needed to be done, views which turned out to bear little resemblance to mine. I don't think there is any direct comparison between the Bush administration during Bush's first term and Obama's administration today, but am aware that my understanding of how this administration makes decisions is limited. For all I know, thinking in the White House may be that Sec. Clinton can try her corny "reset button" gimmick and Biden can tell his reporters anything he wants to, because the only thing that matters -- because it's the only thing voters will pay atention to -- is what the President himself says.

To be fair, after Biden used

by Brett on Sat, 07/25/2009 - 11:58pm

To be fair, after Biden used that pretty withering-but-true language, he then went on to say that the US can't go up the Russians and say, "Hey you - pay up!".

That said, it was pretty harsh overall. Does Obama just have piss-poor message control when it comes to Biden, or is this deliberate on his part - designed to throw the Russians off-guard by having the VP say one thing, and the President and his people say another? *

*The latter is something that those international students who think the US is the Grand Puppetmaster would think is going on.

I'll agree with Dan

by Jason Sigger on Mon, 07/27/2009 - 8:13am

Russia may be down on its luck, but it is still a superpower and still expects to be treated with respect. If we are to obtain a partner on international issues (and most importantly, Middle East issues), then the last thing we need is the VPOTUS saying "Yeah those hicks in Moscow, what losers."

Doesn't matter if he was factual, it was undiplomatic and detrimental to advancing US foreign policy. It's one thing to say that in a "not-for-attribution" forum discussing the future of US-Russia relations, where people want to talk realistically about the issue. Another thing to figuratively smack Russia in the face with a wet fish.

All the evidence required to

by Buzz Killington on Mon, 07/27/2009 - 10:56am

All the evidence required to prove liberal bias in the media is that Palin was made out to be the dumb VP candidate. The word "smart" should never be in the same sentence with Joe Biden.

In fairness,

by Jason Sigger on Mon, 07/27/2009 - 1:16pm

There's dumb (Biden) and then there's dumber (Palin). Why it's so hard to find a competent and photogenic VP these days is beyond me.

what's new?

by AR on Mon, 07/27/2009 - 11:03am

This was also the same man that had some harsh things to say about Serbs, yet didn't even mention the horrible crimes committed by the Albanian side during the Kosovo crisis.

Biden is simply a State Dep't mouthpiece

by max soldo on Mon, 07/27/2009 - 2:13pm

I tend to lean towards those who suggest that the Obama/Biden foreign policy thrust towards Russia is that of good cop/bad cop. Anyone familiar with Democratic politics knows that Russia has long been seen as a regime that simply gets in the way of American hegemony and that Putin especially harms some very important people that the Democrats (and many Republicans too) hold dear.

Biden's widely opened mouth in the Wall Street Journal piece is hubris writ large and is quite shocking in light of the beatdown received by Saakashvili this time last year when his gambit blew up in his face. No doubt Biden is speaking undiplomatically to assure the Georgians and the Ukrainians that American support is still present and that they shouldn't fear any undoing of the colour-coded revolutions that put those two regimes into power.

Has anyone heard anything from ol' Zbig lately?

Russia is the third World Power

by Enrique on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 10:09am

If we take into account all the data Russia is still the Third World Power in terms in the World in terms of influence after the U.S. and China.

1. Member of the UN Security Council with veto right.
2. 3,000 nuclear heads.
3. Second World exporter of weapons.
4. Sixth GDP at PPP.
5. 142 million people, twice more than France or the UK.
6. Autonomy in Defense and security questions, something neither France nor the UK or Germany have, as they are NATO member stats under U.S. Command.
7. First exporter of gas and second exporter of oil
8. Largest gas reserves and 7th oil reserves.
9. 4th largest producer of cereals in the World exporting 20 million tonnes last year.
10. Most efficient Aerospace system with 25 rocket launches last year compared to 15 by the U.S.

So, even if Germany or Japan have a larger economy, they are U.S. Protectorates with U.S. military bases...but Russia is the second largest autonomous state after China, with a Foreign Policy and Defense independent from America and with its ownd objectives.

Population, economy, Defense....

by Enrique on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 10:23am

During the last decaded Russia has enjoyed an average GDP growth of 7%, has consolidated its geographical espace and rationalited it (from 89 federal subjects to 82)

Placed between Europe and China, with the third largest currency reserves in the World ($400 bn.), a $2 Tr. economy, a World relationship net built during the Cold War, first exporter of gas and second of oil, aircraft and nuclear technology, glonass positioning system, soyuz, topol, sukhoi...it cannot be compared to any other state in a developing World, or even in Western Europe.

China has much larger population and a larger economy, but it cannot match still the Worldwide net influence that Russia enjoys now for market and strategical reasons.

Russian population last year just fell 0,2%, almost similar to Japan or Germany.

Probably the Donbass Republic (Luhansk, Donetsk, Rostov), Crimea and Belarus will be federal subjects of the Russian Federation next year.

The difference between Paris and Moscow

by Enrique on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 10:31am

Paris or London (not to talk about Berlin or Tokyo) have to call Washington DC when they want to do something. They are just subsidiary powers, not central powers.

Meanwhile, in spite of its problems, Moscow is a central power, autonomous, and as such, it has a phone that Washington DC has to call if they want to reach an agreement.

On several grounds (first nuclear) Russia could be considered still the Second World Power, but if we take into account all the data (defense, economy, population, extension, natural resources, diplomacy etc) the Second Power is already China while Russia is in third place.