Diplomacy

Basketball Diplomacy: The International Impact of the NBA

I. Introduction

The Most Valuable Player award in the National Basketball Association, a league that has historically been dominated by players born in the United States, has been awarded to a foreign-born player in each of the past six seasons. The rising globalization of sports in the 21^st century is not unique to basketball, as similar trends have emerged in baseball, soccer, and across the landscape of sports. Given the trend of sports globalization, two questions are raised: (1) What caused the rapid rate of globalization we are experiencing in the 21^st century, and (2) What implications does the globalization of sports have on international relations?

II. Shifting NBA Demographics as a Reflection of the Times

The globalization of the NBA began with the players themselves, who then generated shifts in fanbases. The NBA consisted of almost entirely American-born players up until the early 1980s when players like Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing entered the league. Although players like Ewing and Olajuwon achieved historic success and broke down barriers for international players to follow, they rose to stardom through the American collegiate basketball system before entering the league. This was a common theme for most foreign-born players in the NBA up until the late 1990s and early 2000s.

In 1994, the NBA appointed David Stern as the league commissioner; he would serve for the next 20 years. Stern understood the importance of expanding the NBA’s influence abroad more than anyone who held the position before him. Stern made his position on the NBA’s expansion very clear, saying, “There are 250 million potential NBA fans in the U.S., and there are 5 billion outside the U.S. … We like those numbers.” The new commissioner not only set ambitious goals for the league going forward but also delivered on them.

Following the appointment of David Stern as commissioner in the 1990s, the NBA used several strategic policies in order to encourage global expansion. One of these policies included giving international players who come from countries with large consumer markets, like China, preferential treatment and payment. In 2001, the NBA helped create the Basketball Without Borders program, which seeks to develop young international talent by holding camps for players age 18 and younger from all over the world. These camps include basketball training sessions as well as seminars and workshops teaching campers important life skills. The NBA, heavily invested in finding the next generation of basketball talent, is simultaneously helping the international youth develop skills that will make them successful off the court.

The growth of the NBA’s international player pool beginning in the late 1990s was seemingly exponential. The 1998-1999 season saw 30 international players on NBA rosters. Just two years later, the number of foreign-born NBA players had nearly doubled to 57, and by the 2007-2008 season, that number had nearly doubled again to 109 players. Finally, the most recent season saw 125 international players from 40 different countries represented on NBA opening-night rosters. Clearly, there has been a steep upward trend in the NBA’s international player presence since the turn of the century.

In order to understand how this rapid globalization of sports has occurred, it is important to analyze these trends in the broader context of the international political economy. In the early 1980s, around the same time that the NBA first began to expand globally, the political and economic doctrines of neoliberalism were adopted by several Western leaders. Neoliberalism is an extreme form of free market capitalism that was pioneered by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s and involved reducing government regulation and other barriers to international trade. While critics point out the detrimental impacts these economic policies have had on the developing world, neoliberalism gave corporations, like the NBA, financial incentives to expand overseas.

III. The “Soft Power” Achieved on the Court

The globalization of the NBA has given the United States an incredibly valuable platform to display the country’s excellence on the world stage. There are countless examples of nations boasting their military power, technological advancement, resource abundance, or wealth in order to show their superiority or strength internationally. However, the NBA functions as a more unconventional diplomatic tool for the United States to advance its foreign policy standing through “soft power.” The idea of “soft power” is when countries use persuasive strategies that glorify certain aspects of their culture in order to spread their influence. While the aforementioned “conventional” strategies of diplomacy involve coercive methods meant to demonstrate disparities between countries, the strategies of “soft power” often invoke acceptance and camaraderie through the celebration of cultural excellence. This is nowhere more evident than in the growth in international recognition of NBA stars.

The “soft power” associated with the NBA can largely be traced back to the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona. Up until 1992, the United States was not allowed to send NBA players to the Olympic Games, which had long been considered a competition for amateur athletes. After a disappointing performance from the United States Men’s National Team in the 1988 games, there was a push for the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) to level the playing field and allow NBA players to compete against professionals from other countries. When FIBA voted to allow NBA players to compete in the 1992 Olympic Games, the stage was set for the NBA to be displayed in front of an international audience. The 1992 United States Men’s Olympic Basketball Team, otherwise known as the “Dream Team,” will go down in history as one of the greatest sports teams ever assembled. Comprised of some of the biggest stars the NBA has ever seen, including Michael Jordan, the “Dream Team” went on to win the gold medal at the 1992 Olympics and set a precedent of basketball excellence that is associated with the NBA today.

The influence of the “Dream Team” went beyond just basketball. The worldwide recognition of the NBA stars on the “Dream Team” was utilized by the United States to advance its cultural influence abroad. In 2023, Dirk Nowitski, Pau Gasol, and Tony Parker, widely considered to be three of the most influential international players of all time, were inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame. All three of these players credit the performance of the “Dream Team” at the 1992 Olympic Games as an inspiration to pursue their dreams of being in the NBA. The German basketball legend Dirk Nowitski explains the impact of the 1992 Olympic U.S. Men’s Basketball team on his career: “I had just started playing basketball in ’90, ’91…I was about 12, 13. I was just starting to be an NBA fan. MJ just won his first championship in ’91. Then, ’92 happens, and I remember I was watching every game. It had a huge impact on me, and I wanted to be like these guys, and I wanted to be in the NBA. That was a huge moment.” Just like Nowitski grew up idolizing NBA greats like Michael Jordan, a whole generation of young athletes grew up idolizing Nowitski. In 2013, the Oklahoma City Thunder’s German point guard Dennis Schröder commented on Dirk’s impact on his generation of players, saying “I think every player, every German player, looks up to him.” Clearly, the impact of the “Dream Team” on young people in the early 1990s started a chain reaction. Young people from all corners of the world will continue to draw inspiration from the greatness of NBA players, especially players who represent their home country. The “soft power” of basketball has created an interest in the now global National Basketball Association.

IV. The NBA as a Catalyst for the Spread of American Ideals

Not only did the globalization of the NBA increase international interest in American sports culture, but it also added new consumers to the American capitalist economy. Following the 1992 Olympic Games, Michael Jordan became a household name and a global commodity in his own right. Jordan was marketed alongside iconic American brands like Nike, Coca Cola, and McDonald’s, which essentially monetized his excellence on the court for the benefit of the United States economy. By associating its stars with huge multinational corporations in the food, beverage, and apparel industries, the NBA was able to create a marketing system that pushed American consumerism into untapped markets.

The NBA also markets its star athletes to international audiences in order to push the idea that the American dream is achievable through sports. A great example of this kind of marketing is Nike’s 2019 ad celebrating Giannis Antetokounmpo, an NBA superstar from Greece and the MVP of the league that season. The ad uses images and video footage to depict Giannis’ rise from when he “lived in a single room with his entire family” to being “crowned the 2019 MVP.” The ad ends with the words, “It’s only crazy until you do it,” followed by Nike’s signature slogan, “Just do it.” The marketing strategies used in commercials like this attempt to disseminate the idea that the NBA, like America, is a meritocracy where hard work is rewarded no matter where you come from. Regardless of whether these appeals to the international community’s hope for a better life are motivated by corporate profits, the message encourages people to better themselves. Clearly, there is a way for the capitalist system to simultaneously serve business interests and the betterment of humanity.

The NBA has even been able to build diplomatic bridges with countries that are considered adversaries to American democracy. One such country is North Korea. In 2015, a group of American basketball players, including NBA legend Dennis Rodman, were invited to participate in a “foreign sports exchange program” in Pyongyang. The trip included an exhibition game with mixed teams consisting of Harlem Globetrotters and members of the North Korean Men’s National Basketball Team playing alongside one another. More importantly, the game was observed by thousands of North Korean fans, including the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, who was seated next to Dennis Rodman for the entirety of the game. Following the game, Dennis Rodman spoke to the crowd and declared that while the United States and North Korea may not be “on good terms,” he considers Kim Jong Un a “friend for life.” The North Korean dictator even invited the group of Americans to dinner afterwards, where he and other North Korean ministers expressed their hopes that the exchange would “promote understanding between the peoples of the two countries.” While the legitimacy of the North Korean leader’s words are often brought into question, the camaraderie shared by the players on the court cannot be denied. The fact that a former NBA player and two Harlem Globetrotters were the first Americans to ever meet a dictator who stands as one of America’s biggest ideological adversaries is a testament to basketball’s unique ability to transcend politics.

V. The Future of the NBA and Sports Diplomacy

In the 21^st century, we are just now seeing the full effects of the globalization that began with the rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s. The NBA’s goals of expansion, which first began to show results in the early 1990s, continue to gain support from the international community. The increasing success of foreign players in the past 20 years is a testament to the NBA’s investment in developing international talent. The more basketball infrastructure and development programs that are created internationally, the more the NBA’s talent pool will continue to grow.

As the NBA and the sport of basketball continue to grow in popularity, the mixing of diverse cultures will become more and more salient. In order to continue advancing American foreign policy interests throughout the 21^stcentury, the United States should continue to invest in global sports development. Not only does international sports development grow the American economy, but it also provides a common ground for people of all different backgrounds to come together. Unlike international competitions over geopolitical, military, or technological power, the competitions that take place on the basketball court have a level playing field where everyone is subject to the same rules. Ultimately, sports bring out the best in people, and fostering international inclusion brings out the best in sports.

Image source: Unsplash

October 28, 2024 0 comment

Diplomacy Featured Guest Article United States

From Silence to Solidarity: United States Public Diplomacy in Response to Genocide in the 20th Century

written by thegeneration

By Sariah Perera, University of Southern California

Introduction: Genocide and Public Diplomacy

Genocide is a human creation – both the action and the word itself. In 1948, Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jew and international lawyer, coined the phrase “genocide” to describe the atrocities committed against Jews in Nazi Germany. Lemkin would go on to secure the passage of the first United Nations human rights treaty to ban the newly defined crime of genocide. Genocide, as an act, however, has stained human history long before the formal definition was established. One of the earliest recorded instances is the Assyrian Empire’s brutal campaigns in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, involving mass killings, forced relocations, and widespread cultural destruction. Throughout human history, conquerors, colonizers, and regimes have engaged in the systematic extermination of indigenous or minority populations, such as the widespread Mongol invasions and European colonization of the Americas. While the term “genocide” was not coined until the mid-20th century, significant precursor events include the Armenian Genocide during World War I, where the Ottoman Empire orchestrated mass killings of its Armenian minority population, and the Holocaust during World War II, in which Nazi Germany systematically exterminated a population of six million Jewish civilians and five million Poles, Roma, homosexuals, political opponents, and others.

In the aftermath of the devastating carnage of the mid-20th century, the diplomatic community found itself at a crossroads, grappling with the undeniable reality that violence and death are integral to the human story. The echoes of two world wars reverberated across the global human consciousness. A collective commitment emerged as nations surveyed the smoldering ruins and contemplated the irrevocable toll on humanity. The aftermath of World War II witnessed the birth of a new era in international cooperation – the United Nations. Conceived as a bastion of hope and an embodiment of shared responsibility, the United Nations became the crucible in which the world’s leaders sought to forge a more just and harmonious future. In this spirit, the United Nations Geneva Conventions emerged as a testament to the commitment to mitigate the horrors of armed conflicts, establishing fundamental principles to safeguard the lives and dignity of civilians and combatants alike. However, perhaps one of the most poignant responses to the atrocities of World War II was encapsulated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, creating a resolute international legal framework. The Convention defined genocide as a crime under international law, binding ratifying nations to prevent and punish acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

As the United Nations and its associated conventions crystallized, the stage was set for a global community united in purpose, poised to intervene and protect the inherent dignity of every individual, irrespective of their origin or identity. After World War II, however, Iraq targeted its Kurdish minority during the Iran-Iraq war; Bosnian Serbs set out to destroy Muslims and Croats during a Balkan civil war; and Rwandan Hutu nationalists exterminated roughly 800,000 Tutsi civilians amidst a civil war against a Tutsi rebel force. The continuous existence of genocide threatens the legitimacy of public diplomacy by compromising moral credibility, diminishing trust, and undermining a nation’s advocacy for human rights. Genocide – and the inability of the global community to condemn or stop genocide – stains a country’s image, eroding its soft power and diplomatic effectiveness, as it raises questions about its commitment to shared global values and collaborative efforts against mass atrocities. Within this historical backdrop, it is essential to navigate the complexities of United States public diplomacy in the face of genocide, scrutinizing the fidelity to these noble ideals and the intricate dance between rhetoric and action on the international stage. Through analyzing case studies of mass atrocities in Armenia, Cambodia, and Rwanda and the subsequent United States public diplomacy response, it is possible to formulate a comprehensive strategy to prevent and address genocidal atrocities in the 21^st century.

The Armenian Genocide (1915-1923)

In 1915, the Young Turks presided over the killing by firing squad, bayoneting, bludgeoning, and starvation of nearly one million Armenians. Mehmed Talaat, the former Turkish interior minister, and the Young Turks justified the “deportation” of Armenians by asserting its imperative to quash Armenian revolts – a facade for the desired eradication of the Armenian minority in the Ottoman Empire. The international community, loosely established at the time, did not widely condemn the Ottoman horrors. Still, Britain and France, who were opposed to the Ottoman Empire during World War I, publicized the atrocities of the Armenian genocide. The British Foreign Office meticulously searched for and published photographs of massacre victims and Armenian refugees. Since Britain was already at war with the Ottoman Empire, many British officials believed the most efficient way to end the atrocities would be to defeat the German-Austrian-Turkish alliance. On May 24, 1915, the Allied governments delivered a joint declaration that took the unprecedented step of condemning “crimes against humanity and civilization.” The declaration further warned the members of the Turkish government that they would be held “personally responsible” for the massacres.

During World War I, the United States was determined to maintain its neutrality in the global conflict and refused to join the Allied declaration. President Woodrow Wilson chose not to formally protest or pressure either the Turks or their German backers under the justification that the Turks had not violated the rights of any Americans. Within the Ottoman Empire, however, the United States Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr., responded to the Ottoman deportation and slaughter of its Armenian minority by urging Washington to condemn the Ottoman Empire and pressure Germany. Morgenthau defied diplomatic convention by personally protesting the atrocities, denouncing the regime, and raising money for humanitarian relief. He was joined by former President Theodore Roosevelt, who went a step further, calling on the administration of Woodrow Wilson to enter World War I and forcibly stop the slaughter. However, the United States’ foreign policy remained committed to neutrality and insisted that the Ottomans’ internal affairs were of little concern to the American public. An estimated one million Armenians were murdered or died of disease and starvation as a result.

American media, however, gave Ottoman atrocities steady coverage. The New York Times published 145 stories in 1915, speaking of Ottoman “massacres” and “atrocities” against Armenians. These reports relayed accounts from missionaries, Red Cross officials, local religious leaders, and survivors of the mass atrocities, creating a multifaceted account of the crimes and garnering American awareness and support for condemnation. Viscount Bryce, former British ambassador to the United States, pleaded that the United States use its influence, stating, “If anything can stop the destroying hand of the Turkish Government, it will be an expression of the opinion of neutral nations, chiefly the judgment of humane America.” As casualties rose, the United States maintained its neutrality with the Ottoman Empire, even after entering the war against Germany in April 1917. In the end, Turkey broke off ties with the United States.

The lack of immediate public diplomacy efforts from the United States established a pattern that would be repeated. Throughout the remainder of the 20^th century, the United States would constantly remain reluctant to cast aside its neutrality and formally denounce a state for mass atrocities until after the crimes had been committed. From a diplomacy standpoint, the United States wavered in its legitimacy as a global advocate for human rights. In the aftermath of World War I, the United States engaged in numerous diplomatic and public advocacy efforts to address the Armenian Genocide and seek accountability for war crimes committed by the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 included provisions for prosecuting Ottoman officials responsible for atrocities, but geopolitical shifts and the Turkish War of Independence led to the abandonment of this treaty. The King-Crane Commission, appointed by President Woodrow Wilson, highlighted the Armenian Genocide and recommended international measures for justice. Public awareness campaigns, congressional resolutions, and the presentation of evidence during the Paris Peace Conference underscored the United States’ commitment to acknowledging and addressing the genocide. However, the complex geopolitical landscape hindered immediate justice, and it would take decades for the international community, including the United States, to formally recognize the Armenian Genocide.

In April 1981, over sixty years after the Ottoman atrocities toward Armenians, President Ronald Reagan issued a proclamation marking Holocaust Remembrance Day. In that proclamation, Reagan referenced the Armenian atrocities, using the term “genocide” to describe the tragic events; he said, “Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it – and like too many other such persecutions of too many other peoples – the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.” Reagan’s use of the term “genocide” in this context was a significant moment as it marked a formal recognition of the Armenian genocide by a sitting president. It laid the groundwork for subsequent discussions and efforts toward official recognition. More recently, in April 2021, President Biden’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide marked a significant moment in the ongoing debate over historical accountability. While carefully phrased, acknowledging the Ottoman authorities’ role, the statement unequivocally labeled the events as genocide, aligning with President Reagan’s similar usage in 1981. This move was unsurprising given the 2019 Congressional recognition of the Armenian genocide and the strained diplomatic relations between the United States and Turkey. Ostensibly grounded in human rights, these declarations often serve as strategic moves in the geopolitical chessboard, serving as diplomatic tools to reconcile accountability.

Public diplomacy initiatives in the United States regarding the Armenian Genocide encompass a range of projects aimed at raising awareness, fostering understanding, and commemorating the historical tragedy. Organizations such as the Armenian National Institute and the Armenian Genocide Museum of America actively contribute to the diplomatic aim of awareness and accountability through educational materials, exhibits, and events across the United States. The Armenian Assembly of America engages in advocacy efforts and organizes briefings to promote Armenian-American issues, including genocide recognition. Various documentary films, such as “Intent to Destroy” and “The Promise,” serve as powerful tools for reaching diverse audiences and creating public opinion through visual storytelling. Efforts to include the Armenian Genocide in school curricula, such as the “Teaching the Armenian Genocide” program, contribute to domestic educational diplomacy within the United States. The Congressional Armenian Caucus, composed of American lawmakers, plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion through briefings, statements, and resolutions on Capitol Hill. Social media campaigns, annual commemorations on April 24^th, and the active engagement of Armenian-American communities further contribute to the multifaceted landscape of public diplomacy initiatives, shaping perceptions and fostering continued dialogue on the Armenian Genocide. United States public diplomacy regarding the Armenian genocide centered on post-crime accountability as opposed to real-time condemnation.

Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian Genocide (1975-1979)

The genocide in Cambodia occurred in the backdrop of the Cold War and the steadfast American desire to quash the spread of communism around the world. In Cambodia, two wars preceded the mass atrocities, the United States war in Vietnam and a subsequent civil war in Cambodia. The Cambodian genocide, orchestrated by the Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge regime from 1975 to 1979, resulted in the mass killing of an estimated two million civilians. For nearly four years, the Khmer Rouge rendered Cambodia off the grid, making it impossible for outsiders to enter and allow media outlets to accurately report on the atrocities, resulting in the deaths of almost two million Cambodians. The United States’ public diplomacy response followed a similar pattern as in the Armenian genocide. In advance of the seizure of Phnom Penh, numerous early warning signs of the organization’s brutality were met with unfilled hope for a natural resolution. The Khmer Rouge sealed the country after their victory, delaying and misrepresenting the international reporting and opinion of their atrocities. However, even after the facts had emerged, United States foreign policy was once again poised towards non-engagement and non-condemnation.

The public diplomacy and foreign policy response from the United States is widely intertwined with its historical role in the region in the decade prior. In Vietnam, the United States intended to prevent South Vietnam from becoming Communist; however, massive American casualties and American brutality strengthened domestic opposition to the war. In 1968, as coverage of the My Lai massacre revealed American use of defoliants and napalm, American lives, as well as honor, were being lost in Vietnam. When President Richard Nixon took office, he expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia, pointing to sanctuary being provided to North Vietnamese units in Cambodian territory. In March 1969, Nixon ordered American B-52s to begin bombing Cambodia. The operation was nicknamed “Operation Breakfast” after the setting in which National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and U.S. military advisors drafted their bombing plans. The mission was kept top secret for fear of domestic protest, now begging the question as to whether these bombing plans constitute war crimes under international law. The incursion into Cambodia had nothing to do with Cambodians but rather the United States’ position regarding the war in Vietnam. Cambodia’s civil war, a conflict in which the genocidal Khmer Rouge would win, would also mark this violence. Still, between March 1969 and August 1973, United States military planes dropped 540,000 tons of bombs in the Cambodian countryside, resulting in the deaths of countless Cambodian civilians.

In February 1974, Kenneth Quinn, a United States foreign service officer, sent Washington a detailed report entitled “The Khmer Krahom [Rogue] Program to Create a Communist Society in Southern Cambodia.” In this forty-five-page report, Quinn wrote, “The [Khmer Rogue] programs have much in common with those of totalitarian regimes in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, particularly regarding efforts to psychologically reconstruct individual members of society.” Quinn’s reporting was unique from that of his State Department colleagues because, at the time, United States government officials rarely interviewed refugees and instead relied on official government sources. Ultimately, Quinn’s reports were never heeded.

When the Ford administration started citing “very factual evidence of the bloodbath” years later, the credibility of the United States had already faltered. Nixon and Kissinger had carpet-bombed Cambodia and tainted the reputation of United States foreign policy in Southeast Asia. The American public had learned to dismiss what it considered official rumor-mongering and anti-Communist propaganda as a consequence of the Cold War. In the United States, media and editorial neglect regarding Cambodia resulted from “Southeast Asia fatigue,” making the decline in Cambodian coverage directly impact American public opinion – or lack of opinion. As a result, it would be nearly two years before most would acknowledge that the reports of mass atrocities and “bloodbath” were accurate, delaying the public diplomacy response until after the atrocities had concluded.

In response to the genocide in Cambodia orchestrated by the Khmer Rouge regime from 1975-1979, the United States engaged in various public diplomacy initiatives to address the humanitarian crisis. The United States government condemned the Khmer Rouge’s brutality and inhumane actions, with President Jimmy Carter expressing concern over human rights abuses, crimes against humanity, and mass killings. Public statements, including speeches and press releases, aimed to raise awareness about the atrocities and urged the international community to take restorative action. Additionally, the United States contributed significant humanitarian aid to assist survivors, particularly in the form of food assistance, medical support, and refugee relocation programs. United States diplomatic efforts included pushing for independent investigations into the genocide in Cambodia and advocating for accountability on the international stage – ranging from Amnesty International to the United Nations. Today, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum hosts a special exhibition on the heinous reign of the Khmer Rogue in Cambodia. While the overall public diplomacy response faced challenges due to the lingering impact of the Vietnam War, these specific initiatives demonstrated a commitment to addressing the Cambodian genocide on both humanitarian and diplomatic fronts.

The Rwandan Genocide (April 1994- July 1994)

In December 1990, the Hutu newspaper Kangura published its “Ten Commandments of the Hutu,” resembling Hitler’s Nuremberg laws and the Bosnian Serbs’ 1992 edicts. The commandments included divisive and inflammatory statements towards the Tutsi population in Rwanda, claiming “every Tutsi is dishonest in business,” all positions of power “should be entrusted to Hutu,” and “the Hutu should stop having mercy on the Tutsi.” In addition, the precursors of the Rwandan genocide witnessed the appalling role of media manipulation through the infamous Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM). RTLM played a central role in spreading hate propaganda, fueling ethnic tensions, and inciting violence against the Tutsi population. The radio station, known for its extremist broadcasts, dehumanized Tutsis, encouraged mass killings, and served as a tool for coordination among perpetrators. The broadcasts not only fueled the intensity of the genocide but also contributed to the dehumanization and vilification of the Tutsi community. The RTLM highlights the dangerous potential of media in exacerbating ethnic strife during times of conflict, underscoring the importance of responsible journalism and the prevention of hate speech to mitigate the risk of mass atrocities from occurring.

The Rwandan genocide of 1994, marked by the mass slaughter of approximately 800,000 ethnic Tutsis by the Hutu majority, posed a significant challenge to United States public diplomacy. The United States’ response to the genocide was widely criticized for its perceived inaction and lack of robust intervention. Despite mounting evidence of the unfolding atrocities, the international community, including the United States, hesitated to intervene militarily. The most frequently cited reason for United States non-intervention in Rwanda is President Clinton’s intention to avoid another failed mission, like the one that occurred in Somalia just six months earlier. However, like in the case of Vietnam and Cambodia, salient foreign policy measures should not hinder the American obligation to prevent mass atrocities from occurring. The United States’ public diplomacy efforts during the crisis were marred by a sense of regret and the acknowledgment of a failure to prevent the genocide. In later years, President Bill Clinton expressed remorse for the international community’s insufficient response. The Rwandan genocide stands as a sobering chapter in United States foreign policy, prompting reflections on the ethical responsibility of nations to prevent and respond to mass atrocities and emphasizing the crucial role of public diplomacy in shaping international perceptions of such crises.

In the course of 100 days in 1994, the Hutu government of Rwanda virtually succeeded in exterminating the country’s Tutsi minority. It was the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century. The warning signs were early and evident, pointing to an increasingly unstable situation capable of sliding into genocide. The United States understood the conditions in Rwanda before and during the genocide, but the United States officials decided against taking a leading role in confronting the slaughter in Rwanda. A declassified White House email from Eric Schwartz to Susan Rice and Donald Steinberg on April 19, 1994, warned of a possible genocide. This email, however, would be of no actionable use. Instead of intervening in the conflict, United States officials confined themselves to public statements, diplomatic overtures, and initiatives for a ceasefire – all while never using the word “genocide.”

In the wake of mounting evidence and international media coverage, the United States finally launched substantial operations in July 1994, in a supporting role to assist humanitarian relief efforts for those displaced by the genocide. If the United States had responsibly intervened earlier and identified the crime of genocide, the tragic outcome could have been altered. In future scenarios, the United States must lead and bring all national elements of power to prevent genocide and mass acts of violence. The United States and the international community should prioritize robust public diplomacy campaigns that emphasize early recognition of potential crises, a commitment to prevention, and the swift mobilization of coordinated international efforts in the face of mass atrocities.

Overarching United States Public Diplomacy Response

In times of mass atrocities, the United States has generally fostered a public diplomacy response of non-engagement and non-condemnation. Once atrocities have concluded, the United States usually engages in public awareness and memorial efforts, focusing on post-atrocity diplomacy instead of preventative genocidal diplomacy. Preventing genocide using public diplomacy is achievable, with a committed international community required to lead the effort. The United States must embrace the reality that a failure to responsibly intervene when genocide conditions surface does not absolve it from future intervention. Instead, a failure to prevent genocide guarantees future involvement – too late and after millions of innocent lives are lost. By recognizing early warning signs, United States public diplomacy can be used to counter messages of divisiveness and hateful propaganda.

Lessons for Future Public Diplomacy

Instances of genocide in the 20^th century, including the Armenian Genocide, Cambodian genocide, and Rwandan genocide, provide valuable lessons for future public diplomacy endeavors, particularly in the face of mass atrocities. First, timely and accurate communication is paramount to preventing and addressing mass atrocities. Swift and transparent responses from the international community and effective public diplomacy campaigns are essential in mobilizing support and raising awareness. Second, acknowledging historical wrongs and expressing genuine remorse enhances the credibility of public diplomacy efforts. The importance of aligning rhetoric with concrete actions cannot be overstated, as demonstrated by the impact of perceived inaction in cases like Rwanda. Additionally, proactive diplomacy and early intervention are critical to preventing the escalation of conflicts into genocidal acts. Future public diplomats should consider the insights of foreign service members and media sources with weight and importance, especially in times of crisis. Future public diplomacy initiatives should prioritize the ethical responsibility of nations to protect vulnerable populations and uphold human rights. By learning from these historical cases, the international community can strengthen its commitment to preventing, responding to, and learning from genocides through principled and effective public diplomacy strategies.

Drawing from the historical lessons of the Armenian genocide, it is imperative to apply these insights to the contemporary context of the Azerbaijani seizure of the Nagorno-Karabakh region – an enclave with a predominantly Armenian population. The tragedy of the Armenian genocide serves as a poignant reminder of the catastrophic consequences that can unfold when the international community remains passive in the face of mass atrocities. As tensions escalate in Nagorno-Karabakh, there is an opportunity to leverage these historical lessons to advocate for proactive measures that prioritize diplomacy, conflict resolution, and the protection of human rights. By heeding the warnings embedded in history, there is a chance to prevent the recurrence of similar patterns of violence and displacement, fostering a commitment to international cooperation and peacebuilding in the pursuit of a just and equitable resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

United States involvement in Vietnam undoubtedly cast a shadow over its public diplomacy efforts in the wake and aftermath of the Cambodian genocide. The contentious Vietnam War, marked by significant loss of life and deep societal divisions, created a context where public trust in government actions was strained. When news of the Cambodian genocide emerged, the general skepticism fueled by the Vietnam War undoubtedly influenced perceptions of the United States’ involvement in Southeast Asia. The trauma and disillusionment from Vietnam likely contributed to a lack of public faith in United States diplomatic initiatives, hindering effective communication about the Cambodian genocide. Similarly, fears of a failed mission in Rwanda grew from prior experiences in Somalia. Future public diplomacy efforts should prioritize transparency, accountability, and clear communication to prevent such challenges. This includes a salient approach to every diplomatic situation in which prior mistakes inform future actions rather than halting any action altogether. Acknowledging historical mistakes and actively engaging in open dialogue about the complexities of international interventions can help rebuild public trust. Additionally, emphasizing shared values, ethical considerations, and a commitment to humanitarian principles can enhance the credibility of United States public diplomacy in addressing and preventing mass atrocities. Learning from past experiences is crucial in ensuring that public diplomacy effectively navigates the complexities of international crises.

Image source: Joshua Sukoff on Unsplash

April 8, 2024 0 comment

Image from NARA and DVIDS Public Domain Archive: https://nara.getarchive.net/media/three-unmanned-aerial-systems-uas-soar-in-the-sky-99dd32

Arms Control Diplomacy Featured Human Rights Military National Security Security Technology

The Real Implications of Artificial Intelligence in Modern Warfare

written by Seher Alvi

A drone buzzes over a tumultuous warzone, scanning over dusty ruins and disarrayed troops. Unlike the human fighters, who are forced to deal with threats coming at them from every direction, this drone seems more single-minded, at peace with its duty of finding and eliminating a single target. When it finally locates its quarry, the next actions are simple mechanics: lock. Load. Shoot.

While the involvement of such advanced technology in warfare once seemed to be a figment of science fiction, leaps and bounds in artificial intelligence, used in fields such as facial recognition, risk processing, and many others, mean that it has become an inevitable reality. As with many other areas of innovation, the policy and treaties governing it have been left in the rearview, with only weak predictions and insubstantial precedents existing to regulate the usage of such measures. The beauty of AI technology is also its most dangerous aspect: anyone can access it up to a certain point, meaning it has already found its way into the hands of the most powerful governments and far out radicals. Terrorist groups such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have long been “early adopters” of newer technologies, resorting to less-tested methods in hopes of obtaining any sort of strategic advantage.

To understand the risks posed by AI, one must first understand how it works. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, “AI refers to the ability of machines to perform tasks that would otherwise require human intelligence, such as recognizing patterns, learning from experience, drawing conclusions, making predictions or generating recommendations.” The capacity to do so comes from a system known as machine learning, which is exactly what it sounds like: computers are “trained” to perform certain operations on known datasets, through which they “learn” how to apply this knowledge to external variables. The more data a machine processes, the more experience it accrues, and the more intelligent it gets. These capabilities are commonly thought of as innocuous; at this point, AI can be used in mainstream applications such as Instagram and Whatsapp to generate custom emoticons, and ChatGPT has become every student’s best friend, regardless of what they study.

Military AI is on an entirely different level. It can include drones equipped with the ability to locate and eliminate individuals of interest, such as the Israeli Harpy Drone, which can be assigned to a certain area to hunt down opponents and dispatch them using a powerful explosive. Such devices have existed for a few years now; in 2018, two small autonomous drones were used to carry out an unsuccessful assassination attempt on Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro. Less spoken-about but equally impactful is AI’s ability to aid in military strategy, as its capacity to process historical and real-time data and recognize recurring patterns makes it a valuable tool for decision-making.

On a surface level, it seems as though AI is capable of doing anything humans can, but on a more efficient level. What, then, makes it so dangerous, to the point where many argue it should merit its own set of governing principles beyond those that currently exist to overlook mechanized defense instruments? The answer can be found in the same science fiction tropes that predicted the rise of the machines far before humanity had the means to actualize it: they lack the humanity–and by extension, ethics–needed to self-regulate. Whereas even the cruelest militant has the capacity to stop themselves from carrying out an operation due to some level of moral apprehension, autonomous artificial intelligence is literally programmed to carry out its task by any means necessary, through the most optimal pathways. Even though their deployment is often governed by human users, the actual execution of their objectives is triggered instantly once an algorithm has obtained the input necessary (the identification of an enemy base, for instance) to produce its desired output, regardless of potential mitigating factors. This loss of subjectivity is what creates humanitarian concerns, and the widespread nature of the technology makes it a global issue.

Currently, the main piece of policy designed to temper the effects of such unprecedented innovation is the Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy, an initiative launched by the United States government in February of last year during the Military Domain Summit, which is held in the Hague. Endorsed by 56 states thus far, the Declaration includes measures that encourage responsibility in the usage of AI technologies, through “legal reviews”, “proactive steps to minimize unintended bias”, and “transparent” and “auditable” development processes. The document does not address humanitarian concerns brought up by many human rights groups, and also does not account for controlling terrorist exploitation of such devices. At the moment, the American Department of Defense remains at the forefront of transparency measures, publishing numerous policy briefs and strategies over recent months; however, it is unclear if this forthcomingness stems from a desire to procure rights to rapid, unfettered innovation or merely Good Samaritan concerns.

Opponents of AI have suggested multiple means to oversee the rapid growth of the industry. These include standardization of technology to ensure that no country has an unfair advantage, posing a risk to privatized intellectual property laws as well as the regulation of datasets used in machine learning in order to prevent harmful biases from finding their way into computer programming. It is clear that this issue is a nuanced one: AI is the newest step in military technology, following the lines of biochemical warfare and nuclear missiles, for example. However, its accessibility and rapidly evolving nature make it harder to regulate and, by extension, harder to morally police. Unlike other weapons technology, this represents the shift to a new era of mechanical autonomy and a secession from human sentiments. It is clear that new policies must be put into place not only to facilitate the usage of AI, but to police it.

January 30, 2024 0 comment

Image from Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:No_parking_sign_-_Hillsboro,_Oregon.JPG

Democracy Diplomacy Featured International Law

This International Law Lets You Get Away with Murder!

written by Max Schaked

“Harry was bubbly and outgoing and from the age of 7, he shared a passion for riding motorbikes with his Gramps and step-dad… He loved to get out on the road and explore the countryside”

In August 2019, 19 year old Harry Dunn was riding his motorbike outside of Royal Air Force Croughton air station in Northamptonshire, England when he was fatally hit, in full collision, by a woman driving on the wrong side of the road. Local officials investigated the situation, found the woman, and were about to press charges when — they were barred from doing so. The culprit, Anne Sacoolas, is the wife of high-ranking American diplomat Jonathan Sacoolas. She would have likely been charged with involuntary manslaughter, but diplomatic immunity prevented any such charges from being pursued. A few days later, the woman flew back to the states, leaving Harry’s family speechless and suffering.

This is no standalone case. Diplomatic immunity has allowed international diplomats to take part in serious crimes without ramifications all over the world. But what exactly is diplomatic immunity? How does it work? Why is it so powerful? And, of course, should it be in place.

From a historical perspective, recordings of the idea were first found in the Ramayana and Mahabharata epics, where diplomats and messengers were free from capital punishment. The prophet Muhammad was also known to be a proponent of protecting envoys and allowing no harm to come to them — a practice that was even followed by certain caliphs after his death. Even Genghis Khan insisted on peaceful conduct towards representatives from different empires, though if a government did not respect the rights of his own diplomats, he was known to respond with terrifying and violent conquest. In 1709, the British Parliament enacted the Diplomatic Privileges Act which granted full immunity to foreign ambassadors, though it should be noted that this act was known to be selectively relevant. Diplomatic immunity was granted to ambassadors from allied governments like Russia, but less so to non-allied representatives from The Ottoman Empire.

In 1961, The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations made Diplomatic Immunity a worldwide custom. As of today, the only UN recognized nations who have not signed on have been Palau and South Sudan. The convention also expanded immunity rights to family members and staff in the case of high-ranking officials.

Regardless of its ever-present international standing, misinformation (or mere lack of information) on the concept has led to overenforcement and underenforcement of domestic laws, as well as general confusion. I’m going to provide a brief but content-dense overview of diplomatic immunity so that you’ll feel like an expert on the matter — or at least enough information to get through this article.

At a very basic level, having diplomatic immunity means not being under the jurisdiction of local courts or authorities in an official (and sometimes personal) context. There are different levels of immunity. For example, those with the title of “diplomatic agent” enjoy complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction, while members of administrative and technical staff only enjoy criminal immunity in connection with official duties. In the latter’s case, personal offenses are not protected. Diplomats are not known to flout their international lawbreaking, but those with full immunity can use protection to their advantage themselves and those with partial immunity can stretch the limits on what is ‘official’ business. After all, no nation wants to start a hostile international incident over a minor offense. It’s for these reasons exactly that the City of New York is currently owed over $20 million in parking tickets by international diplomats. Interestingly enough, the National Bureau of Economic Research found that diplomats from nations who either 1. have a higher corruption index, 2. have a less amicable relationship with the United States, or both, have higher amounts of unpaid parking tickets. In 2017, Canadian journalists found in their nation alone cases of armed robbery, assault, potential human trafficking, theft, domestic violence, and tax evasion that all went without consequence. Saudi businessman Sheikh Walid Juffali separated from his wife in 2013, and in 2014 was named St. Lucia’s representative to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in order to avoid her separation claims to part of his wealth. This caught the attention of diplomatic immunity critics as before the decision, Juffali had no connection to St. Lucia.

Of course, there are limitations to these protections. At any point, a host nation can declare a diplomat persona non grata, basically expelling the diplomat from the state — though this might strain relationships between nations. Similarly, a state can deny their diplomat immunity, as in the case of Dwight Sagaray. Sagaray was found guilty of killing Olga Fonseca — both Venezuelans stationed in Kenya — after she was set to take over the embassy from him in 2012. Committing a crime as a diplomat with immunity is technically a roll of the dice, but usually one’s country is on their side.

These are all unintended consequences. Obviously, The Vienna Convention did not strive for corruption, evasion, and murder. The idea of diplomatic immunity was spread around the world so that representatives of foreign nations (and their families) could not be threatened, harassed, or hurt as a way of influencing policy, decisions, or diplomatic actions. It is a protective measure that allows an ambassador of South Korea to, as an example, tour North Korea without fearing for their life.

Some believe that diplomatic immunity is an outdated cold-war era policy that needs to be altered given the numerous abuses it has allowed without punishment. Dr. James Hoare rejects these ideas, arguing that it is an absolute necessity to diplomats in order to complete the tasks they are assigned in a foreign nation without interference, He specifically mentions private communications and “diplomatic bags” — bags which cannot be searched by police — which are protected under diplomatic immunity. The security of meetings, business, and exchange that diplomats encounter on a daily basis are all reliant on immunity. The detainment of foreign officials by a nation to use as political leverage is also prohibited under the principle. Proponents of keeping the international law, especially those who worked in the foreign service, stress that specific cases of abusing the system should not undermine nor compromise diplomatic immunity given the necessary freedoms it provides.

We are a new and young generation of aspiring change-makers. We’re high school and college students — learning about history, contemporary social and political geography, international economics status quos, and other taken-at-face-value institutions — who are disillusioned with the way of things. Diplomatic immunity has been in the ‘hot seat’ in recent years, but there are substantial arguments both for and against the international law. It protects representatives in the ways the Vienna Convention intended, but with some unintended side-effects. It is on us now to rely on it, revoke it, or reform it.

June 27, 2023 0 comment