Whenever political violence breaks out anywhere in the world, one can predict the U.S. response without any hesitation. The State Department will declare that the U.S. abhors the use of violence and call for dialogue. The repetition of this well-worn narrative every time violence breaks out in yet another capital city seems to have little effect on conditions on the ground. Still, it is not an empty ritual.

The Realist Prism: Why the U.S. Always Calls for Dialogue, and Why it Always Fails

By , , Column

Whenever political violence breaks out anywhere in the world, one can predict the U.S. response without any hesitation. The State Department will: solemnly declare that the United States abhors the use of violence and sends its condolences to the casualties; promise that the U.S. will hold “all sides” accountable for their actions; demand that the government “show restraint”; and call for immediate “political dialogue” to resolve the crisis. This preset script has been followed, with minor modifications, as tensions have escalated in Ukraine, Venezuela and Thailand, among others; it was the initial response when violence broke out in in Syria and Egypt.

Yet the repetition of this well-worn narrative every time a news camera captures scenes of protest and violence in yet another capital city’s central square seems to have little effect on conditions on the ground. It is a seemingly hollow incantation recited by Washington policymakers who simply want to show that they are involved, engaged and “monitoring the situation” and is usually dismissed as such by the participants. ...

To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review

Individual
Free Trial

  • TWO WEEKS FREE.
  • Cancel any time.
  • After two weeks, just $11.99 monthly or $94.99/year.
subscribe

Institutional
Subscriptions

Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.

request trial

Login

Already a member? Click the button below to login.

login