COMMENT The cowboy
learns some finesse By Dmitry
Shlapentokh
Recently, US President George
W Bush willingly accepted Chinese President Hu
Jintao's invitation to attend the 2008 Summer
Olympic Games in Beijing, an unmistakable signal
that, despite the problems in the Chinese-US
relationship, the United States has no intention
of burning bridges.
Bush also maintains a
most amicable relationship with Russian President
Vladimir Putin, with whom he planned a fishing
trip to
Siberia, despite Putin's
decision to resume strategic bomber flights close
to US bases. And tension with "Old Europe" seems
to be a thing of the past. Bush has become an
increasingly skillful and shrewd diplomat, in
clear contrast to the early days of his presidency
when he showed an iron fist to potential
adversaries and discarded international law with a
doctrine of preemption.
One might even
assume that the current Bush is a departure from
the average American, someone who could be seen as
an undiplomatic simpleton, albeit quite friendly
and on occasion even charming. But his
sophisticated diplomatic maneuvering may not be an
aberration but a return to traditional US
diplomacy, a reflection of the life of the average
American, who might be said to be born with superb
diplomatic skills.
An inexperienced
foreigner employed by a large US company or
university might find colleagues extremely
friendly and helpful. He or she is immediately
invited to numerous parties and other gatherings
where bosses and employees mingle in the most
democratic way. Colleagues spend considerable time
pointing out stores, supermarkets, and real-estate
agencies.
There are greetings and broad
smiles in the corridors, and colleagues state
publicly that in the current horrible job market,
fellow employees, fellow human beings, should not
be dismissed with flippant pretexts, especially if
there are family or medical problems. The newcomer
is absolutely sure the job is secure.
Yet
at the end of the year our individual is
unpleasantly surprised that his or her contract is
not to be renewed. The people who were so friendly
at the beginning might be the very ones who
insisted most on the dismissal, in the aftermath
of the very party where the person was greeted by
everyone so pleasantly, and that it had been
decided then that the dismissal should be as soon
as possible. Our bewildered individual might also
find out that those who had pressed hard for
immediate dismissal asserted that this was not
because of any personal grudge but because it
would be in the best interests of the institution.
Why is there such a sharp difference
between external sociability and pleasantries and
calculating and tough subsequent behavior? The US
civilization was formed with no trace of
traditional feudal culture, which emphasizes
hierarchical relationships.
This blurring
of lines leads to sociability and external
friendliness. But it also makes middle-class
Americans extremely individualistic, with an inner
core that is not revealed to anyone. This hidden
self (reinforced by a strong Calvinistic tradition
of survival depending on self-reliance), combined
with strong external sociability, has created a
peculiar national character where "deciphering"
the other is extremely hard.
Discerning
what a person thinks about you, or even his or her
personal mood, can be very difficult, for people
smile pleasantly and respond "fine" to any
question about their well-being. At the same time,
the individual sincerely believes his or her
personal interests are the interests of the entire
group and of society in general. All this makes
Americans natural diplomats.
Those who
regarded Bush's early policy as manifesting
America's diplomatic culture - or lack of it:
calling Bush and the entire nation "cowboys"
happened quite frequently in the foreign press -
ignored the fact that Americans are extremely
skillful diplomats. America's dealing with China
is a good illustration.
The rapprochement
with China in 1972 began with "ping-pong"
diplomacy: meetings between Chinese and American
sportsmen. Later, then-secretary of state Henry
Kissinger skillfully played the Russian card in
dealing with the Chinese and the Chinese card in
dealing with the Russians or, more precisely, the
Soviets.
The early George W Bush's lack of
diplomatic niceties and brazen disregard for
international law and even for America's allies
were not the result of a sudden degeneration of
the mental abilities of the US elite. Nor was it
caused by radical changes in US middle-class
culture - "say what you think". Rather, it was
caused by general geopolitical change.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union,
the United States emerged as the only superpower,
which seemed able to solve its problems by sheer
force. Similar to Rome at its height, the US elite
and the nation in general - with Bush as
representative - acquired habits of primitive
directness and often lost the self-control so
central to the middle-class Machiavellian and
Orwellian cultures of US public discourse.
The situation became strikingly different
when the US faced increasing economic and military
challenges that it could hardly solve alone, if at
all. At that point, the inbred diplomatic culture
was duly reborn, as witness Bush's increasing
multifaceted flirtation with a variety of nations,
from China to Korea and France to Russia. It
corresponds with the transition from the Roman
Empire with its tough-talking generals, invincible
legions and global reach to the post-imperial
Byzantine stage where limited territory and
resources went with a much more sophisticated
diplomatic culture.
One could possibly see
in Bush's humble acceptance of the invitation to
the China Olympics the beginning of the
"post-Roman", "Byzantine" state. The new - more
precisely old - diplomatic culture could be of
great benefit to smoothing America's decline. But
there is still a persistent danger that the
irrational streak in overall behavior of the elite
- and the nation in general - caused by the quick
transition from the boundless expectations of the
"American century" to an increasingly troubled
future could spoil the designs of finely tuned
American Orwellian Machiavellianism.
Indeed, if this happens and some reckless
action is made - eg, war with Iran - diplomacy
will be of no use.
Dmitry
Shlapentokh, PhD, is associate professor of
history, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences,
Indiana University South Bend. He is author of
East Against West: The First Encounter - The
Life of Themistocles (2005).
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
