International Relations Theory and Diplomats

 Recently, I had the privilege to listen to a high ranking NATO diplomat. I won't disclose his nationality, since that would reveal too much info. Suffice to say that he's pretty high up in NATO hierarchy, and had served as the spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry of his country prior to this post.

 For almost half hour, he talked about NATO's Afghanistan mission.
 I honestly cannot recall anything of substance from that entire speech.
 Except that troop withdrawal is planned by 2014.

 Since it seemed impossible to derail the NATO diplomat from his rehearsed lines, I saved my questions for this blog.

Here we go:

Q1: What exactly is NATO's job definition in Afghanistan?

My educated guess: Establish stability and security??

My comment: Good luck with that one!

Stability and security requires a functional state. What is the grand strategy to achieve this?

The only two successful cases of state building through military intervention were Japan and Germany. Besides, they had functional, highly effective state apparatuses before being destroyed during WWII. In both cases, state building was not just a military task. World Bank, then called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, was heavily utilized to rebuild Europe.

In short, NATO in Afghanistan is de facto engaged in state building. But it is ill-equipped for this task. Furthermore, we don't even know if all the members are content with this "state building" mission...

Q2: What exactly is NATO's exit strategy in Afghanistan?

My educated guess: Nada!

My comment: We owe this concept largely to Colin Powell, probably the only decent man in GWBush cabinet. The senior NATO diplomat said absolutely nothing about the exit strategy in 2014.

What amazes me the most is, how they come to speak for so long and manage to say absolutely nothing... Hence, is the cartoon below. Sorry if it offends any diplomat admirers...

 Lastly, someone in the audience asked the diplomat his opinions of Arab Spring. He said, "well, each case is very specific, unique to itself..." As a scholar, this kind of statements just spike my blood pressure.

 I'm not saying let's rush to lump apples and oranges, but come on. Where is your systematic analysis?

There is either some kind of ignorance or contempt for generalization among the diplomats. They feel like they have to re-invent the wheel at every single incident. Yet, there is a huge literature on revolutions and social movements. Political science have not been sleeping over the French, Russian and Iranian revolutions.

 Likewise, diplomats seem to completely ignore theoretical approaches in the study of IR and foreign policy. Mostly, they endorse almost an archaic form of realism, that even realists have grown out of, and expect their audience to concur... come on...

Unfortunately, Turkish universities have an old habit of employing retired diplomats as faculty in International Relations departments. This is a huge retrogress for our discipline. If anything, IR scholars should lecture the diplomatic core about the recent theoretical and analytical insights of our discipline.

Diplomats should keep in mind that anecdotes, no matter how interesting they are, do not count as social science.

The diplomat-weary Academic Mommy

IR and the Two Cows: The Middle East Version

Esteemed Readers,

I assume that many of you are familiar with the two cow jokes in our discipline. Yep, the famous socialist cows, communist cows, American cows, German cows, French cows, etc... Here is a quick reminder: in the British version, you have two cows and both are mad...:)

Here is the Middle East version of this staple joke. It just came out in Foreign Policy magazine. I applaud the author for his wit, sense of humor and his ability to offend all parties equally.

Enjoy!

Iran:
You have two cows. You interrogate them until they concede they are Zionist agents. You send their milk to Southern Lebanon and Gaza, or render it into highly enriched cream. International sanctions prevent your milk from being bought on the open market.

Syria:
You have five cows, one of whom is an Alawite. Feed the Alawite cow well, beat the non-Alawite cows. Use the milk to finance your wife's shopping sprees in London.

Iraq:
You have three cows: one Sunni, one Shiite, and one Kurd. The first is milked by Saudi Arabia, the second by Iran, and the third smuggles its milk abroad. The United States picks up the manure.

Yemen:
You have two cows. Feed them khat instead of grass and neglect to milk them. Watch them fight each other.

Libya:
You have two cows. You wish they were camels. Feed them only your words of wisdom and kill them if they dare moo.

Hosni Mubarak's Egypt:
You have 10 cows. Neglect to tend to them, but prevent them from fighting Israel in order to get milk from America.

Post-Mubarak Egypt:
You have 10 cows who think they now own the farm. There's still no milk.

Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali's Tunisia:
You have two cows. Beat them regularly and use the milk money for you wife's shopping sprees in Paris. When cows revolt, retire to Saudi Arabia.

Post-Ben Ali Tunisia:
See post-Mubarak Egypt.

Qatar:
You have one cow that has hundreds of udders. You use the limitless milk money to set up a television channel that broadcasts to other cows in the region being milked (except Saudi Arabia's)

United Arab Emirates:
You have two cows. You bring Filipino nannies, South Asian laborers, and Russian prostitutes to make sure they're well taken care of. Sell the milk to build the world's biggest shopping mall.

Turkey:
You have two cows and one sheep. You claim that the sheep is really a "mountain cow".

Israel:
You have two bulls. Pretend they are helpless calves.


Fore more countries and the full version of the article, click here

IR and Prejudice: The Unbearable Lightness of Stereotyping

Disciples of my area, International Relations (IR) are probably among the pioneers of political correctness. After all, we are the students of foreign affairs, which includes equal parts of hypocrisy and double-crossing served on a generous platter of “diplomatic language.”

Here is an example:

In our professional jargon, the proper way to refer to genocidal maniacs or narcissistic kleptocrats is “Heads of State in the Developing World”. Yet, despite the long years of socialization in this PC language as scholars, diplomats, civil servants, journalist and pundits, it is interesting how some prejudices and stereo-types can linger on rather bluntly.

Bearing in mind the very international audience of my blog –extending from US to Russia and Turkey to Singapore- I thought my readers would enjoy the stereo-typical images of their countries’ in the eyes of the British government!

Below excerpt is taken from the official documents of Tourism Bureau of United Kingdom. As part of their preparations for the 2012 Olympics in London, they have distributed this "info" to the British business, so that the businesses can “take into account the cultural needs” of their international patrons.

I suggest, don’t make travel plans for the London Olympics, before reading what the Brits think of you…;-J

· Cleanliness is of major importance to Austrians.

· Brazilians do not travel lightly.

· The French will begin eating only after someone says “bon appétit!”

· Russians may come across as cold and not very open or polite people.

· In America, time is a very important commodity. People “save” time and “spend” time as if it were money in the bank.

· The Dutch do not believe in lining up and show almost no consideration in public for a person’s status, gender or age.

· Koreans do not like to talk a lot during dinner.

· Don’t ask personal questions to a Brazilian.

· Avoid discussing personal matters or linguistic divisions with a Belgian.

· Mexicans drink huge quantities of soft drinks and beer. Good conversational topics are Mexican culture, history, museums. NEVER discuss the Mexican-American War, poverty, aliens, or earthquakes.

· The Japanese (particularly women) could be said to have a childlike air to them.

· Although Italians give little care to public places, they are scrupulously clean in their own homes.

· Don’t be offended by Argentine humor, which might mildly attack your clothing or weight.

· Koreans are not Chinese!

And I say: what should the rest of the world think, when they look at that odd-shaped building sticking out in London skyline? Typical British carnality?