This document discusses several topics related to the conduct of diplomacy including: 1) The resource disparity between the State Department and Defense Department poses challenges for diplomacy. 2) The State Department should prioritize additional resources and potentially develop deployable crisis response capabilities. 3) There are calls to change how the State Department operates to be more effective and efficient in responding to changes in the global environment. 4) Economic and security issues differ in diplomatic negotiations, and differing perspectives between Congress and the Executive Branch can affect outcomes.

1. 1. Describe the resource disparity between the Department of
State and the Department of Defense. What challenges and
limitations does this disparity pose for the conduct of
diplomacy?
2. What should the State Department adopt as priorities for
additional resources? Do you believe that the State Department
should have a deployable, operational capability to respond to
crises?
3. Who is trying to change the way the Department of State does
business and why? What are the issues that drive the need for
change? What capabilities do the State Department lack that
would add to its effectiveness and efficiency?
4. Are the external recommendations for change consistent with
the QDDR and statements from the Secretaries of State? How
will the proposed changes address and resolve the issues?
5. How is the concept of diplomacy changing at the State
Department? Can the State Department anticipate/create and
respond to changes in the international environment and the
conduct of diplomacy?
6. Do the varying views between and within the Executive
Branch and the Legislature enhance or detract from US
diplomatic efforts? What other organizations or institutions
have an impact on diplomacy?
7. How do economic issues differ from security issues with
respect to the conduct of diplomacy? What are/were the issues
between the three negotiating partners in achieving the NAFTA?
8. How do the different perspectives between Congress and the
Executive Branch affect the outcome of these types of
negotiations? Do the key leaders in the overall negotiations
necessarily see the priorities, benefits and costs from the same
perspective as their counterparts? Why or why not? Who
balances those priorities and interests?
9. Why do diplomats and practitioners think economic sanctions
are a viable method of enticing or coercing compliance with

2. human rights values or international law/opinion? Are sanctions
effective in this context? What do you think a vulnerability
assessment would show about South African vulnerability to
sanctions?
10. What are the goals of US policy and North Korean/Iranian
policy in security and economic issue areas? How have
economic sanctions affected the North Korean/Iranian nuclear
program? What do you think a vulnerability assessment would
show about North Korean/Iranian vulnerability to sanctions?
How do the different perspectives between Congress and the
Executive branch affect the employment of sanctions?
11. What was the rationale for deploying INF to Europe in the
early 1980s? Explain the contextual issues of geography and
strategic calculations that tended to divide the alliance on this
issue? How did the U.S. get NATO allies to agree to the
deployment? How did the process of deployment and the
process of negotiation interact?
12. How did the US and Russia interpret the context
surrounding the effort to extend NATO membership to former
Warsaw Pact countries? How did these perceptions influence the
determination of pros and cons of extending NATO membership
for both sides of the issue? What did NATO do, if anything, to
reassure Russia?
13. How did the US come to lead the effort to quell the
sectarian and ethnic violence in the Balkans in the mid-90s?
How did the sequencing of military and diplomatic initiatives
affect the outcome in the negotiations in Dayton? Do you think
the same sort of process would yield similar results in other
cases of sectarian/ethnic violence, such as in Syria or
Afghanistan? [Week continues on the next page.] 15 INTA 603
American Diplomacy / Summer 2017 Syllabus
14. What did President Clinton articulate as the US role in
supporting these negotiations? What were the US, PLA/PA, and
Israeli reasons for entering into this negotiating session? What
were the “redlines” or nonnegotiable limits of the PLA and
Israel? Why did the participants fail to reach an agreement?

3. How did the process of negotiations and the setting contribute
to the outcome? What tools (incentives and sanctions) were/are
available to the US to influence the two primary actors?