Those Who Made Further Enquiries On the Matter,
Yesterday I noted how the United States should approach contemporary international affairs within the Bismarck paradigm to international diplomacy rather than the Kaiser-ian arm-centric model, and any knowledgeable reader might be forgiven to believe that the thesis presented seemed to echo another attempt for a revised version of Joseph Nye’s Soft Power thesis, on contrary, my argument made yesterday was rather different and more of a challenge to Nye’s model on contemporary US international affairs practices.
To simplify the nature of the differences, one can observe how Nye’s soft power thesis is based primary on the visibility of America to the rest of world supported mainly with the assistance of the modern information technologies. On contrary to this visible argument, my thesis argues and encourages for invisibility of the United States of America within the realm of International politics and security affairs; in other words my thesis calls for US to go underground with her diplomatic and security relations abroad; the United States need not to be seen or over-heard but it should maintain a web, similar to Bismarck’s (hence Bismarck-ian Approach), held up by secretive behind doors diplomacy, the very practice that some within the US State Department sought to move, or shy, away from since the early 1900s, especially under Pres. Woodrow Wilson and the post-World Wars jitters (based on the logic of the need to end the dangerous and to be blamed old European system of back-doors diplomacy). This concept of back-door diplomacy has it’s natural advantages and of course disadvantages (abuse of powers etc), which we will not go into here, but limit our full recommendation for the practice, back-door diplomacy, to contemporary United States and her international dealings.
To sum up above points, I argue, unlike Nye, the United States should reduce it’s visibility and signature abroad, think of it like this; say you are a sport fan and there is one team which is constantly dominating the league and others, that a team ever visible, what do you think your feelings will be like towards that team, whether you are not a fan of any team in such a league or just not a fan of the team— in short your feelings will rather be based on that natural and dominant human characteristic; you will hate it, despise it, and to hope (or even pray) for it’s end (if one asks these individuals why exactly do they seem to posses such a negative feelings towards such a team, they will always come with similar answer, ‘I really don’t know why, I just hate it!”).
Above stated is the essence of my point: the more the United States, like all the past great/imperial powers, is forever seen openly to dominate others or to ”bully” them arrogantly, the more she losses the popularity contest, and in time with a lost popularity comes the inevitable open rebellion, as it has been for some time now against the United States, from Latin America, to Asia, Middle East and Africa, even within that old grand kinship, Europe.
In short, the United States diplomatic practices should move away from Nye’s thesis of more open visibility and sought to approach diplomacy along the tested and refined ancien ways; quietly, unseen and, simply, more diplomatic.
I hope I have answered satisfactorily to those who raised these enquiries, and thanks for getting in touch.
Geo-Strategic Analyst & Strategist