Diplomacy is one of the most important foreign policy tools for any country. The United States is no exception. Diplomacy is considered the most efficient and effective foreign policy tool in serving the interests of the state and defending its security, at the lowest possible cost and with the most profitable return. Indeed, diplomacy advances the most aggressive and ferocious tool of foreign policy. The military tool lies in the background of the external behavior of the United States in the service of diplomacy, being satisfied with the capabilities of strategic deterrence that it provides, despite its high cost .. and its mobilized readiness, and never abandoning its choice.
One of the most important characteristics of American diplomacy is the "constructive ambiguity" methodology. Observers of the American foreign policy movement notice: a formal concern for observing the rules of international dealings. Nevertheless, it is not possible to define a position for US diplomacy that reflects its public claim of its love for peace and indicates its jealousy over the stability and security of the international system. Forget showing true sincerity on her part for her slogans for spreading democracy, supporting human rights, preserving the environment, supporting the idea of resolving international problems and conflicts by peaceful means, and refraining from interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.
The United States follows diplomatically, on the stage of international politics, the approach of “constructive ambiguity” in order to perpetuate an unstable and volatile reality at any time, which it believes is in its interest to continue and perpetuate and can always contain and neutralize it. In the Middle East, for example: Washington does not hide its support for Israel, which is unjust and immersed in injustice. At the same time: it declares its commitment and adherence to Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, which does not permit Israel's occupation of Arab lands.. and declares, morning and evening, its opposition to Israel's measures to change the features of Arab lands it occupies, as is the case with its refusal to build settlements.. and its support for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and its support for the two-state option.
On the other hand: We only see the interest of American diplomacy in one aspect of this equation, regarding support for Israel and commitment to defending it. As for the other side of the Arabs and the Palestinians, it is not sponsored by any interest, except for repeated reminders of it in times of tension and flare-up of the situation. Indeed, American diplomacy, while declaring Israel’s right to defend itself, we see it prohibiting the Palestinians from defending their rights, even by peaceful means. Rather, to spite the Palestinians, Washington attaches its declared commitment to their cause, in establishing their state, to the agreement with the Israelis, in light of the unfair balance of power between Both parties!
On the other side of the world, in the western Pacific, another “Corporate” version of the American “constructive ambiguity” diplomacy is emerging. In the seventies of the last century, the United States developed a strategy of peaceful coexistence. It opened up to China, recognized the People's Government of China, severed its diplomatic relations with Taiwan (national China), recognized the principle of one China, and agreed to Beijing's assumption of China's permanent seat in the Security Council. . But, at the same time: it maintained strong economic relations and political and strategic links with Taipei.. and declared its refusal to annex the island to China by force.. and declared its commitment to defending Taiwan, and its rejection of any attempt by China to annex it, without an agreement between the two sides.
In the end: Under this “constructive ambiguity” diplomacy, Washington has maintained a permanent strategic presence for itself, or it is easy to activate it whenever it wants in tense regions of the world, in order to preserve its dominant position in the international system, at the lowest possible cost and the greatest possible return.
In short: the United States, with “constructive ambiguity” diplomacy, wants to enjoy the privileges of the position of global hegemon, which it reached without a fight after the collapse of the Soviet Union, without paying its due cost. This is a situation that will not last long, if Washington faces a serious challenge to its claim to the (exclusive) global position from an international competitor who has the strategic ability and the determined and past political will, to resolve the issue of global hegemony, such as China.
The global clash between China and the United States is coming, and it may come to the American era, perhaps by the end of this decade, or at most by the first centenary of the Second World War.
Talal Saleh Banan