US President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in a letter in 1900, “I have always been fond of the West African proverb: ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.’” He reiterated that idea on at least two occasions and “big stick diplomacy” became the foundation of Roosevelt’s foreign policy.
The concept was that the US would back its diplomacy with the unmentioned threat of its military. The “big stick” was an extension of “gunboat diplomacy” used since the mid-19th century when, for example, the British dispatched a Royal Navy squadron to blockade the Greek port of Piraeus in retaliation for the assault of a British subject.
Henry Kissinger, during his tenure as US Secretary of State, summed up both concepts as: “An aircraft carrier is 100,000 tons of diplomacy.”
Since World War ll, “big sticks” have become less and less effective. The first cause was the post-war bipolarization of the superpowers US and USSR. But even that waned over time, as the proxy wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan were both lost by the “big stick.” The Korean War was a stalemate.
The second cause is nuclear weapons. Nine countries currently have nuclear weapons: the US, UK, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. The definition of “big stick” has changed.
Thirdly, since the last 70 years has been one of the most peaceful times in human history based on casualties of war, the mindset is that diplomacy works almost perfectly until it doesn’t.
Russia invaded eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea in March 2014. Over 100 nations and countless international organizations condemned Russia. But the statement from Israel sums it all. “Israel hopes the crisis in Ukraine will be handled through diplomatic means and will be resolved peacefully.” In other words, “We will not lift a military finger against Russia.”
On February 1st, the Myanmar military took over the government on the grounds that there was massive election fraud. That was followed by equally massive “virtue signaling” condemnation from around the globe. There have been calls for intervention from the United Nations to Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations).
However, the UN can only deploy its peacekeepers with “consent of the parties” and is designed for cross-border conflicts, not domestic situations. The Asean “Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia of 1976” states specifically: “The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference.”
Yet Thailand’s former foreign affairs secretary Sihasak Phuangketkeow said about the treaty: “It certainly needs reinterpretation. The crisis should no longer be seen as internal affairs of a member country.” Likewise, the Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Teodoro Locsin Jr., said: “No intervention; just wise counsel and distancing if ignored because Asean principle of noninterference in others’ domestic affairs cannot be used to conceal crimes against humanity; that would be tantamount to Asean complicity and consent.”
The fact that at least 550 people have been killed by Myanmar’s military is an abomination. Yet it took Vietnam invading Cambodia in 1978 to overthrow the Pol Pot government responsible for the death of almost a quarter of all Cambodians. Asean’s policy then was that Vietnam’s intervention was illegal and unjust. Asean stuck to its claim of the illegality of Vietnam’s presence.
Attitudes evolve, as they should when situations change. But where does Asean go if and when the death toll climbs to 1,000, 2,000 or 20,000?