T - ALL

Resolved

ResolvedResolve means to make a definite and serious decision Merriam Webster’s Dictionary No Date (Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolve#legalDictionary)

Simple Definition of resolve: to find an answer or solution to (something): to settle or solve (something): to make a definite and serious decision to do something: to make a formal decision about something usually by a vote

Resolved means a formal decision of an organization Duhaime Law No Date (Duhaime's Law Dictionary http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/R/Resolution.aspx)

Resolution Definition: The formal decision of an organization. A motion which has obtained the necessary majority vote in favor

Resolved: To arrive at a decision, come to a determinationFarlex’s Free Dictionary (The Free Dictionary by Farlex; http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/resolve)

resolve(Decide), verb arrive at a conclusion, arrive at a decision, ascertain, be firm, be settled in opinion, come to a determination, constituere, decernere, determine, devote oneself to, fix in purpose, make a choice, make a decision, make up one's mind, plan, propose, purpose, settle on by deliberate will, settle upon, statuere, take a stand, will

The

TheThe – to refer to things or peopleMerriam-Webster No Date, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “The”, accessed 7-2-16, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the

Simple Definition of the —used to indicate a person or thing that has already been mentioned or seen or is clearly understood from the situation —used to refer to things or people that are common in daily life —used to refer to things that occur in nature

The – Used to mark a nounDictionary.com No Date, Dictionary.com, “the”, accessed 7-2-16, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/the

(used to mark a noun as being used generically): The dog is a quadruped.

USFG

All Three Branches The United States federal government is defined as all three branchesUS Legal no dateUS Legal. “United States Federal Government Law & Legal Definition” no date. http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government/

The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution . The Federal Government shares

sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii)

Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people.

The federal government consists of all three branchesOxford learners dictionary no dateOxford learners dictionary “federal government” no date. http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/federal-government

(in the US) the system of government as defined in the Constitution which is based on the separation of powers among three branches: the executive, the legislative and the judicial . This system provides a series of checks and balances because each branch is able to limit the power of the others. The executive branch consists of the President and Vice-President, based in the White House in Washington, DC, and government departments and agencies. The President can approve or stop laws proposed by Congress, appoints senior officials, such as heads of government departments and federal judges, and is also Commander-in-Chief of the military forces. There are 15 government departments, the heads of which make up the Cabinet which meets regularly to discuss current affairs and advise the President. The legislative branch is the Congress which is made up of the two houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives which both meet in the Capitol Building in Washington, DC. The main job of Congress is to make laws, but its other responsibilities include establishing federal courts, setting taxes and, if necessary, declaring war. The President and members of Congress are chosen in separate elections. The Senate has 100 members, two from each state, both of whom represent the whole state and are elected for six years. The House of Representatives has 435 members, who are elected every two years. The number of members from each state depends on the population of the state, with larger states divided into districts, each with one representative. The judicial branch of government has three levels: the Supreme Court, 13 courts of appeal and many federal district courts. The Supreme Court has nine members, called justices who are chosen by the President and headed by the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court has the power to influence the law through a process called judicial review.

State LevelState level engagement means using the USFG to promote national interestsDERRICK, 1 April 1998[LIEUTENANT COLONEL ROBERT R. DERRICK, USAF Lieutenant Colonel, ENGAGEMENT:THE NATIONS PREMIER GRAND STRATEGY, WHO'S IN CHARGE?, Pg. 1]

US government agencies engage to promote US National Interests but other agencies that engage, such as the NGOs, PVOs and IOs, often have quite different interests. These interests vary as much as their founding charters vary. Some work to promote specific religions, others attempt to improve legal systems, while others concentrate on

creating a stable environment to safeguard the global community as a whole. These agencies are engaged in virtually every country worldwide to some degree. Their agendas include everything from tracking human rights violations, to promoting programs for financial aide, to deploying missionaries and teachers. With all of this activity it is likely that there will be a large number of potentially competing agendas working within a single country.

The state level’s purpose is to bring about policy benefits.Department of State, January 29, 2015[Department of State, Department of State Evaluation Policy, http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/evaluation/2015/236970.htm]

The Department of State is committed to using performance management best practices, including evaluation, to achieve the most effective U.S. foreign policy outcomes and greater accountability to our primary stakeholders, the American people. Evaluation is the systematic collection and analysis of information about the characteristics and outcomes of programs, management processes, and delivery systems as a basis for judgments, to improve effectiveness and inform decisionmakers about current and future activities. Well designed evaluations contribute to a body of evidence for better decision making. A robust, coordinated evaluation function is essential to the Department’s capacity to monitor performance, make critical management and programmatic decisions, and improve management practices and services. It is also necessary to measure results; provide inputs for policy, planning, and budget decisions; and assure accountability.

Consists OfThe United States federal government consists of the executive, legislative and judicial branchesThe Free Dictionary no date The free dictionary. “United States Government” no date. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/United+States+government

United States government - the executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States

Not StatesThe USFG is separate from the states-states cannot engage with foreign nationsThe Free Legal Dictionary No Date

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment+to+the+United+States+Constitution

Ratified in 1791, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution embodies the general principles of Federalism in a republican form of government. The Constitution specifies the parameters of authority that may be exercised by the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising. For example, nowhere in the federal Constitution is Congress given authority to regulate local matters concerning the health, safety, and morality of state residents. Known as police powers, such authority is reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. Conversely, no state may enter into a treaty with a foreign government because such agreements are prohibited by the plain language of Article I to the Constitution. At the time the states adopted the Tenth Amendment, two primary conceptions of government were under consideration. Many federalists supported a centralized national authority, with power concentrated in a single entity. This type of government was exemplified by the English constitutional system, which vested absolute authority in the monarchy during the seventeenth century and in Parliament during the eighteenth century.

Faceters GuildThe USFG is the United States Faceters Guild-not the United States federal governmentUSFG 2016

United States Faceters Guild. “About Us” usfacetersguild.org. 2016. Webpage. Accessed 7-2-16. https://usfacetersguild.org/about-us/

Our Constitution lists our purposes as (1) to promote the art, skill, and teaching of faceting; (2) to expand the knowledge of natural and laboratory-made crystals; (3) to develop and promote uniform rules for faceting competitions within the US and among other countries; (4) to sponsor or assist in managing competitions; and (5) to serve as a national repository and clearing house for faceting designs, published

materials, and general information for faceters everywhere. An equally important objective of the USFG is to advance the skills of faceters who want to achieve as close to perfection as possible. One of the best ways to approach perfection is to enter competitions where skilled judging denotes perfection, or via “private assessment.” We are working on a system to allow members to have stones critiqued

by a qualified master cutter. Our organization had its beginning as the USA Competition Faceters in January 1990, when it was proposed as a support group for the USA team in the Australian Faceting Challenge . Our first newsletter appeared in April 1991. At that time, the goals were expanded to include compiling a set of rules for Single Stone Competitions. Since that time, we have established a comprehensive set of Single Stone Rules to assist in encouraging greater uniformity in the judging of single stone competitions.

USFG is for people who enjoy gem stone faceting- holds no powerUSFG, No Date, “Become a USFG Member Today!”, https://usfacetersguild.org/become-a-member/

The USFG welcomes members from across the globe who share our passion for gem stone faceting. Your annual membership fee brings you many instant benefits and helps us promote the art, skill, and teaching of faceting in the 21st Century.

Should

ShouldShould shows obligationAmerican Heritage Dictionary 9 (theFreeDictionary.com, “Should,” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/should)

should (shd)

aux.v. Past tense of shall

Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.

Should implies what is expectedMerriam Webster No Date

(Merriam-webster.com, “Should,” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/should

used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected <with an early start, they should be here by noon>

Should implies conditionality The Free Dictionary No Date

(theFreeDictionary.com, “Should,” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/should)

Should- Used to express conditionality or contingency

Should shows correctionOxfords Learning Dictionary No Date

(www.oxfordlearnersdictionary.com, “Should”, http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/should)

Should- used to show what is right, appropriate, etc., especially when criticizing somebody’s actions

Substantially

Large/ImportantDefinition of substantial – large in amount, significantly great, important or essential Merriam Webster No Date (American company that publishes reference books, especially dictionaries; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantial)

Simple Definition of substantial : large in amount, size, or number : strongly made of food : enough to satisfy

hunger Full Definition of substantial 1 a : consisting of or relating to substance b : not imaginary or illusory : real, true c : important, essential 2 : ample to satisfy and nourish : full <a substantial meal> 3 a : possessed of means : well-to-do b : considerable in quantity : significantly great <earned a substantial wage> 4 : firmly constructed :

sturdy <a substantial house> 5 : being largely but not wholly that which is specified <a substantial lie>

Definition of Substantial – considerable amount, essential, fundamentalDictionary.com No Date (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/substantially)

adjective 1. of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.: a substantial sum of money. 2. of a corporeal or material nature; tangible; real. 3. of solid character or quality; firm, stout, or strong: a substantial physique. 4. basic or essential; fundamental: two stories in substantial agreement. 5. wealthy or

influential: one of the substantial men of the town. 6. of real worth, value, or effect: substantial reasons. 7. relating to the substance, matter, or material of a thing. 8. of or relating to the essence of a thing: the substantial parts of the ruling. 9.

existing as or being a substance; having independent existence: a substantial being. 10. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of substance or reality rather than an accident or attribute. noun 11. something substantial.

Definition of Substantial – large in important, most important thing being considered Cambridge Dictionaries No Date (Online, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/substantial)

large in size, value, or importance: The findings show a substantial difference between the opinions of men and women. She inherited a substantial fortune from her grandmother. The first draft of his novel needed a substantial amount of rewriting. relating to the main or most important things being considered: The committee was in substantial agreement (= agreed about most of the things discussed).

Foreign policy should have a substantial measure of public values Encyclopedia.com in 2008 (International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences in 1968, Thomson Gale Copyright 2008; http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Foreign_policy.aspx)

The second major approach to the study of foreign policy making I have called “ideological,” because in one form or another it is concerned with the democratization of foreign policy—with the possibilities and procedures for introducing a substantial measure of public values into every stage in the formulation of foreign policy.

Increase

SizeIncrease - To become larger in sizeMerriam Webster No Date, Merriam Webster, “Increase”, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/increase

to become larger or greater in size, amount, number , etc.

Increase means to make something largerCambridge Dictionary No Date, Cambridge Dictionary, “Increase”, date accessed 7-2-16, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/increase

to become or make something larger or greater :

Its

PossessionIts Indicates possession as related to the agent. Merriam Webster NO DATE (Merriam Webster Dictionary, online dictionary, “its,” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its)//ghs-VAof or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action <going to its kennel> <a child proud of its first drawings> <its final enactment into law>

Its indicates possession Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary 10Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, 2010, K Dictionaries, http://www.kdictionaries-online.com/DictionaryPage.aspx?ApplicationCode=18&DictionaryEntry=its&SearchMode=Entry&TranLangs=18the possessive form of it (used as an attributive adjective ) : The book has lost its jacket. I'm sorry about its being so late

Its means belonging to what was previously mentioned Oxford dictionary No dateOxford Dictionary, No date, "its: definition of its in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)”, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/itsBelonging to or associated with a thing previously mentioned or easily identified: turn the camera on its side he chose the area for its atmosphere

Diplomatic Engagement

Requires Carrots

Diplomatic engagement requires carrots- distinct from sanctions, which are ‘sticks’Paul R. Pillar in 2010, academic and 28 year veteran of the CIA, The National Interest, Engagement and the Libyan Example, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/engagement-libyan-3901

Moss says diplomatic engagement is not a "panacea" or a "silver bullet." Quite true. Neither is any other tool of statecraft. He says that "Washington can count on Qadhafi only when U.S. and Libyan interests coincide." True again--in fact, it's true not only of rogues but also of every other regime, including ones considered allies. Washington can count on, for example, Israel only when U.S. and Israeli interests

(or the interpretation of Israeli interests by whoever is making policy at the moment in Israel) coincide. Diplomatic engagement is not, per Moss's straw man, a force that can turn conflicting interests into coinciding ones. Instead, it is an instrument, sometimes an indispensable instrument, for realizing opportunities for turning partially convergent or parallel interests into two nations' mutual benefit, notwithstanding other areas where interests conflict. Moss takes an opposite chronological tack from the Bush administration's contention about the effect of the Iraq War by arguing that Qadhafi, for his own reasons, began reorienting his policy before U.S. and Libyan diplomats ever met. That's right in the sense of the Libyan perspectives that made

the diplomatic breakthrough possible. But the fruits of Qadhafi's rethink, including the opening of the WMD programs and the

cooperation against radical Islamists, could never have been harvested without the diplomacy and the agreement it produced. Those fruits were part of the diplomacy and the engagement. Moreover, if Qadhafi had not achieved the normal relationship with the United States that he sought, he almost certainly would have backslid in the areas where he had already begun

to change his policies. The lesson that Moss propounds is that it is sanctions, not engagement, that works. No,

the lesson is that sanctions and engagement used together work, as in the Libyan case. Sanctions without engagement--all sticks and hardly anything in the way of carrots--do not work , as they have not worked in the Iranian case, because the sanctioned regime has no reason to believe that its circumstances or relationship with the United States would change even if the behavior that is the ostensible reason for the sanctions changes.

Diplomatic engagement requires inclusion of carrots – lifting restrictions is engagementTara Maller in 2010, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Diplomacy Derailed: The Consequences of Diplomatic Sanctions, Washington Quarterly, https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/twq10julymaller.pdf

Beyond the Middle East, the administration appears to be shifting strategies toward Burma, a state with which the United States has had downgraded diplomatic relations since 1990 due to the Burmese junta’s failure to honor democratic election results and its continued human rights violations. Reports indicate that the United States may be reevaluating its sanctions strategy and lack of engagement, potentially moving to an approach involving carrots as well as sticks.4 The Obama administration has also recently made moves toward thawing diplomatic relations with Cuba by easing a number of travel and monetary restrictions that had been in place since 1960.5 Lastly, the new U.S. strategy for Sudan openly embraces engagement in order to make progress on fighting terrorism, implementing a comprehensive peace agreement, and improving human rights.6

Diplomatic engagement uses positive incentives to achieve objectivesKrain, 14, Matthew.1/1/14 "The Effects Of Diplomatic Sanctions And Engagement On The Severity Of Ongoing Genocides Or Politicides."

Journal Of Genocide Research 16.1 (2014): 25-53. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 July 2016. Professor of Political Science and Global & International Studies at the College of Wooster –O’Brien

One set of foreign policy options available to states in such instances is the use∂ of diplomatic engagement and/or diplomatic

sanctions.10 Engagement is ‘a∂ foreign policy strategy which depends to a significant degree on positive incentives∂ to achieve its objectives’.11 Types of diplomatic engagement that hold the∂ greatest allure for potential

target regimes include normalizing diplomatic ∂ relations with a state , upgrading the diplomatic presence in that state or ∂ regularizing interaction between high- and low-level diplomats. These actions ∂ legitimize the actor and signal a willingness to pursue a diplomatic resolution to∂ disputes. They also ensure more communication of information between actors, ∂ and may facilitate more effective negotiation and mediation.12 Conversely, diplomatic∂ sanctions include ‘severing formal diplomatic ties with a country or signifi-∂ cantly downgrading ties from the normal level of diplomatic activity for foreign∂ policy purposes’.13 This is usually done to signal disapproval of the target∂ regime’s

behaviour, and also to signal the possibility of subsequent punitive∂ measures should that behaviour not change. Neither diplomatic engagement nor∂ diplomatic sanctions rule out other options. Indeed, ‘in practice, there is often∂ considerable overlap of strategies’.14 Unfortunately, we have little information∂ about the effect of either set of diplomatic actions in situations of ongoing mass∂ killing.15

= Sticks, too“Sticks” are a form of diplomatic engagement- GW Bush administration provesTara Maller in 2010, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Diplomacy Derailed: The Consequences of Diplomatic Sanctions, Washington Quarterly, https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/twq10julymaller.pdf

The George W. Bush administration clearly embraced such sanctions as effective and low-cost tools of coercion. Former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, Flynt Leverett, characterized the Bush strategy as embodying the idea that: ... ‘rogue’ regimes were to be uprooted, either by military force (as in Iraq) or through diplomatic isolation and political pressure (as the administration has tried with Iran and Syria). The United States would not offer ‘carrots’ to such states to induce positive changes; diplomatic engagement would be limited to ‘sticks.’ 13

= NegotiationsDiplomatic engagement involves negotiated solutions that seek adjustments to target state behaviorRay Takeyh in 2009, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, The Essence of Diplomatic Engagement, http://www.cfr.org/diplomacy-and-statecraft/essence-diplomatic-engagement/p20362

As the Obama administration charts its foreign policy, there is increasing unease about its lack of achievements. The Iraq war lingers,

Afghanistan continues to be mired in its endless cycle of tribal disarray and Islamist resurgence, Guantanamo remains open. Still, Obama has introduced important changes in both the style and substance of US diplomacy. An honest dialogue with the

international community has at times led the president to acknowledge our own culpabilities and shortcomings. Even more dramatic has been Obama's willingness to reach out to America's adversaries and seek negotiated solutions to some of the world's thorniest problems. It is Obama's declared engagement policy that has raised the ire of critics and led them to once more take refuge in the spurious yet incendiary charge of appeasement . Columnist Charles Krauthammer recently exclaimed, "When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom." Acknowledgement of America's misjudgments is derided as an unseemly apologia while diplomacy is denigrated as a misguided exercise in self-delusion. After all, North Korea continues to test its nuclear weapons and missiles, Cuba spurns America's offers of a greater opening, and the Iranian mullahs contrive conspiracy theories about how George Soros and the CIA are instigating a velvet revolution in their country. Tough-minded conservatives are urging a course correction and a resolute approach to the gallery of rogues that the president pledges to embrace.

Such views miscast the essence of diplomatic engagement . Diplomacy is likely to be a painstaking process and it may not work with every targeted nation. However, the purpose of such a policy is not to transform adversaries into allies, but to seek adjustments in their behavior and ambitions . North Korea, Cuba, Syria, and Iran would be offered a path toward realizing their essential national interests should they conform to global conventions on issues such as terrorism and proliferation.

Diplomacy is the use of negotiations to advance the interest of a stateADST No Date Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, Ten Principles of Operational Diplomacy: A Framework, http://adst.org/the-stump/ten-principles-of-operational-diplomacy-a-framework/

The operational level of foreign policy is the essential crucible for the formulation of diplomatic approaches to international challenges. This article identifies ten principles for conducting operational level diplomacy to help practitioners frame the development and implementation of

successful foreign policies. Diplomacy — the use of negotiations to advance the international interests of a state — continues to play an important role in the adjustment of state interests and societies to contemporary challenges. The principles proposed below to strengthen operational diplomacy are: national interest, credibility, clarity, comprehensiveness, understanding,

perceptiveness, circumspection, confidence-building, decisiveness, and perseverance. Diplomacy is defined by the Department of State as “the art and practice of conducting negotiations and maintaining relations between nations; skill in handling affairs without arousing animosity.” Another recent definition from Indian General KA Muthanna

described diplomacy as “the conduct of international relations by negotiation and engendering goodwill and mutual trust rather than by force, propaganda, or recourse to law .” Among these and other classic definitions of

diplomacy are a common theme: the essence of diplomacy is communication between different parties with the goal of reaching agreement on an issue or on a basis for state interaction . The proposed ten principles are intended to contribute to diplomatic practice and to the development of effective diplomatic approaches to achieving foreign policy objectives.

Diplomacy is employing the techniques of persuasion and negotiationDonna Lee and Brian Hocking 2011, published in Bertrand Bardie, Dirk-Berg Schlosser & Leonardo Morlino, International Encyclopaedia of Political Science, (Sage, 2011)

In its broadest sense, diplomacy refers to the conduct of human affairs by peaceful means, employing techniques of persuasion and negotiation. In the more specific sphere of international politics, through the utilisation of such techniques, it has come to be regarded as one of the key processes characterising the international system and a defining institution of the system of sovereign states - often referred to as the “Westphalian” system after the 1684 Peace of Westphalia. Its usage, however, embraces some important distinctions. First, at the state level, it has frequently been used (particularly in studies of diplomatic

history) as a synonym for foreign policy – as in “Russian”, “German” and “Japanese” diplomacy (foreign policy). More commonly, however, it is used to refer to one means by which such policies are implemented. Second, viewed as an institution of the international system, a distinction can be made between diplomacy as a set of processes and as a set of structures through which these processes are conducted. Debates about the continuing utility of diplomacy in contemporary international politics frequently reflect confusion between these meanings. In the course of the following discussion, the origins of diplomacy are outlined together with differing analytical approaches to its nature and significance as a feature of international politics. The changing nature of diplomatic processes is then discussed followed by an

examination of the evolution of the structures through which diplomacy has been conducted at both the state and international levels.\

Diplomatic engagement is finding mutual acceptable solutions to a common challengeJosé Azel, 4/6/2009, a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, In Defense of “Carrots and Sticks”, Information and Analysis from the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies University of Miami

Diplomatic engagement with an adversary rarely, if ever, succeeds by merely appealing to the adversary’s higher principles. It is an implausible strategy with the likes of Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, or Castro, where the vigorous interaction of values and diplomacy are necessary. By definition, diplomacy and diplomatic engagement are about negotiations to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge. Giving away all U.S. bargaining positions in return for nothing is not a mutually acceptable solution. In negotiations, when an unconditional concession is given, the other party pockets it and moves on to its next demand. That is precisely what the Castro government would do with the recommended giveaways. In the real world, if one arrives at the negotiating table empty handed, one is sure to leave empty handed.

Must Be Reciprocal

Diplomatic engagement requires talks that pressure another country to change its behavior, and must contain reciprocal arrangementsCHESTER A. CROCKER SEPT. 13, 2009, professor of strategic studies at the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, was an assistant secretary of state for African affairs from 1981 to 1989, Terms of Engagement, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/opinion/14crocker.html?_r=0

PRESIDENT OBAMA will have a hard time achieving his foreign policy goals until he masters some key terms and better manages the expectations they convey. Given the furor that will surround the news of America’s readiness to hold talks with Iran, he could start with “engagement” — one of the trickiest terms in the policy lexicon. The Obama administration has used this term to contrast its approach with its predecessor’s resistance to talking with adversaries and troublemakers. His critics show that they misunderstand the concept of engagement

when they ridicule it as making nice with nasty or hostile regimes. Let’s get a few things straight. Engagement in statecraft is not about sweet talk. Nor is it based on the illusion that our problems with rogue regimes can be solved if only we would talk to them. Engagement is not normalization, and its goal is not improved relations. It is not akin to détente, working for rapprochement, or appeasement. So how do you define an engagement

strategy? It does require direct talks. There is simply no better way to convey authoritative statements of position or to hear responses. But establishing talks is just a first step. The goal of engagement is to change the other country’s perception of its own interests and realistic options and, hence, to modify its policies and its behavior. Diplomatic engagement is proven to work — in the right circumstances. American diplomats have used it to change the calculations and behavior of regimes as varied as the Soviet Union, South Africa, Angola, Mozambique, Cuba, China, Libya and, intermittently,

Syria. There is no cookie-cutter formula for making it work, however. In southern Africa in the 1980s, we directed our focus toward stemming violence between white-ruled South Africa and its black-ruled neighbors. This strategy put a priority on regional conflict management in order to stop cross-border attacks and create better conditions for internal political change. The United States also engaged with the Cubans in an effort aimed at achieving independence for Namibia (from South Africa) and at the removal of Cuban troops from Angola. In Mozambique, engagement meant building a constructive relationship with the United States, restraining South African interference in Mozambique’s internal conflicts and weaning the country from its Soviet alignment. More recently, the Bush administration’s strategy for engagement with Libya ultimately led to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations and the elimination of that country’s programs to develop weapons of mass

destruction. While the details differ, each case of engagement has common elements. Engagement is a process, not a destination. It involves exerting pressure, by raising questions and hypothetical possibilities, and by probing the other country’s assumptions and thinking. Above all, it involves testing how far the other country might be willing to go. Properly understood, the diplomacy of engagement means raising questions that the other country may wish to avoid or be politically unable to answer. It places the ball in the other country’s court. Engagement, of course, comes with risks. One is that domestic opponents will intentionally distort the purposes of engagement. Another risk is that each side may try to impose preconditions for agreeing to meet and talk — and ultimately negotiate. But we will not get far with the Iranians, for example, if we (and they) insist on starting by establishing the other side’s intentions. Another risk is that, no matter what we say, the rogue regime may claim that engagement confers legitimacy. A more consequential danger is that a successful engagement strategy may leave the target regime in place and even strengthened, an issue that troubled some critics of the Bush administration’s 2003 breakthrough that led to the normalizing of relations between the United States and Libya. But by far the greatest risk of

engagement is that it may succeed. If we succeed in changing the position of the other country’s decision-makers, we then must decide whether we will take yes for an answer and reciprocate their moves with steps of our own. If talk is fruitful, a negotiation will begin about taking reciprocal steps down a jointly defined road. Engagement diplomacy forces us to make choices. Perhaps this is what frightens its critics the most.

Excludes sanctionsDiplomatic engagement is distinct from sanctions- sanctions are designed to dis-engageTara Maller in 2010, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Diplomacy Derailed: The Consequences of Diplomatic Sanctions, Washington Quarterly, https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/twq10julymaller.pdf

The U.S. government has recently begun to emphasize the need for greater engagement with problem states. Proponents of this approach argue that diplomacy is necessary, even with these regimes. Critics, however, maintain that engagement with these regimes is tantamount to appeasement and signals acceptance of behavior that ought to be condemned. In their view, there is little to be gained by talking to these states. Thus, diplomatic sanctionsor sanctions characterized by political disengagementare seen as a low-cost means of isolating and delegitimizing regimes.

And/Or

And/OrAnd/or means ‘one’ or ‘both’Duhaime's Law Dictionary, No Date http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/AndOr.aspx

And/Or Definition: Any combination of two options; one, the other (either), or both. In law, it is synonymous with "or" which is taken to mean the same thing, and which is a preferred term for the concept of "either or both", which and/or attempts to convey. "And/or" is considered poor legal drafting and has been much criticized by the courts. It is to the law as the square root of 2 is to mathematicians, an "irrational" word. and/or It has been called a "pestilent" and a "monstrous linguistic abomination".

‘And/or’ is defined as ‘or’ by legal draftersAdams and Kaye 7(Kenneth A. and Alan S., Jan. 23, 2007, "Revisiting the ambiguity of "and" and "or" in legal drafting" St. John's Law Review, Pgs. 1191-1192, Vol. 80:1167, http://www.adamsdrafting.com/downloads/Ambiguity-And-Or.pdf) Accessed 7/2/16 BE

Drafters sometimes use and/or to convey the meaning of the inclusive or. Judges and legal-writing commentators have fulminated against use of and/or,75 but it has gained greater acceptance among general authorities.76 It does, after all, have a specific meaning—X and/or Y means X or Y or both. One could use Acme may dissolve Subsidiary A and/or Subsidiary B as an alternative to [13b]. (X, Y, and/or Z means X or Y or Z or any two or more of them). On the other hand, X or Y or both is generally clearer than

and/or. And drafters sometimes use and/or when the only possible meaning is that conveyed by or : Acme shall incorporate Subsidiary in Delaware and/or New York. On balance, it is best to avoid and/or. That said, in some contexts and/or is the most efficient way to incorporate into a provision the concept of or both. An example: Acme may sell widgets in the Roetown Store and/or one or more of any other discount stores that Acme opens in the Territory with the prior written approval of Widgetco, which approval Widgetco may not unreasonably withhold. The best alternative to and/or would be as follows: Acme may sell widgets in the Roetown Store or one or more of any other discount stores that Acme opens in the Territory with the prior written approval of Widgetco, which approval Widgetco may not unreasonably withhold, or in both the Roetown Store and one or more of any such other discount

stores. This alternative is wordier, and in this context both is a little awkward, since it is best applied to two homogeneous objects.77 In any event, do not use and/or in language of obligation, since it can be misleading. In the provision Acme shall hire Roe and/or Doe, using

and/or obscures the fact that Acme’s obligation would be satisfied by hiring either Roe or Doe. It would be more precise to use or and append, if necessary, the phrase and may hire both Roe and Doe.

‘And/or’ means ‘either’ or ‘or’, but it can’t mean ‘both’Shuy 8

(Filed by Roger Shuy under Language and the law, April 17, 2008, Shuy is a professor of linguistics for 30 years at Georgetown University and has been consulted on some 600 cases and have testified as a linguistics expert witness 54 times in criminal and civil trials, “Legal uses of and/or…or something,” http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=47) Accessed 7/2/16 BE

Mellikoff cites Holdsworth's A History of English Law (1922) among others, noting that the law interpreters agreed on and/or as the best translation. Apparently an ancient Latin division between the copulative and disjunctive was not very meaningful. For centuries the courts have

argued about this (Mellikoff, 147-152), often contradicting each other. Several legal scholars have called and/or "a bastard"

since the first time it was called into question (1845). Mellinkoff concludes that it has several understandings (307-308): 1. It includes every possibility imaginable with and alone plus every possibility imaginable with or alone. 2. It should best accord with the equity of the situation. 3. It includes some but not all of the possibilities of and and or (but legal scholars disagree about which possibilities to include). 4.It means either and or or but it can't mean both. 5.It is meaningless. In his excellent book, The Language of Judges (Chicago 1993) Larry Solan (who is both a linguist and a law professor) devotes 14 pages to "the and/or rule" as it is used in the legal context, noting that commentators on statutes who have encountered the legal uses of and, or, and and/or say that this expression is notoriously loose and inaccurate.

‘And/or’ can mean either one of two thingsCambridge Online Dictionary, June 22, 2016, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/and-or

and/or used to mean that either one of two things or both of them is possible : Some banks are offering customers cards and/or loans over the internet.

Economic Engagement

Unconditional or ConditionalEconomic engagement can be conditional or unconditional- prefer scholarly definitionsMiles Kahler in 2004 Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies University of California, San Diego Scott L. Kastner Department of Government and Politics University of Maryland, College Park November, Strategic Uses of Economic Interdependence: Engagement Policies in South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=75C3049617276909DAB613712DFC6DCA?doi=10.1.1.496.7734&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Scholars have usefully distinguished between two types of economic engagement: conditional policies that require an explicit quid-pro-quo on the part of the target country, and policies that are unconditional.2 Conditional policies, sometimes labeled linkage or economic “carrots,” are the inverse of economic sanctions. Instead of threatening a target country with economic loss (sanction) in the absence of policy change, conditional engagement policies promise increased economic benefits in return for desired policy change. Drezner’s (1999/2000) analysis of conditional economic inducements yields a set of highly plausible expectations concerning when conditional strategies are likely to be employed, and when they are likely to succeed. Specifically, he suggests that reasons exist to believe, a priori, that policies of conditional engagement will be less prevalent than economic sanctions. First, economic coercion is costly if it fails (sanctions are only carried out if the target country fails to change policy), while conditional engagement is costly if it succeeds (economic payoffs are delivered only if the target country does change policy). Second, states may be reluctant to offer economic inducements with adversaries with whom they expect long-term conflict, as this may undermine their resolve in the eyes of their opponent while also making the opponent stronger. Third, the potential for market failure in an anarchic international setting looms large: both the initiating and the target states must be capable of making a credible commitment to uphold their end of the bargain. These factors lead Drezner to hypothesize that the use of economic carrots is most likely to occur and succeed between democracies (because democracies are better able to make credible commitments than non-democracies), within the context of international regimes (because such regimes reduce

the transactions costs of market exchange), and, among adversaries, only after coercive threats are first used. Unconditional engagement strategies are more passive than conditional variants in that they do not include a specific quid pro quo. Rather, countries deploy economic links with an adversary in the hopes that economic interdependence itself will, over time, effect change in the target’s foreign policy behavior and yield a reduced threat of military conflict at the bilateral level. How increased commercial and/or financial integration at the bilateral level might yield an improved bilateral political environment is not obvious. While most empirical studies on the subject find that increased economic ties tend to be associated with a reduced likelihood of military violence,3 no consensus exists regarding how such effects are realized. At a minimum, two causal pathways exist that state leaders might seek to exploit by pursuing a policy of unconditional engagement: economic interdependence can act as a constraint on the foreign policy behavior of the target state, and economic interdependence can act as a transforming agent that helps to reshape the goals of the target state.

Economic engagement requires reciprocity—US/Korea doctrines prove.Babson in 2011[Bradley; consultant on Asian affairs with a focus on Korea and Northeast Asia economic cooperation; “Rethinking Economic Engagement with North Korea”; US-Korea Institute; March 11, 2011; http://38north.org/2011/03/rethinking-economic-engagement-with-north-korea/]

Economic and political disengagement from North Korea by the United States and South Korea embody the doctrines of “strategic patience” and “reciprocity” adopted by these two administrations and has been amplified by increased military hostilities between the two Koreas during the past year . In a departure from previous governments

in both countries, the Obama and Lee administrations have resisted requests for humanitarian assistance of any significant scale. Although widespread concern for the plight of ordinary North Koreans is genuine, some actors believe it is paramount to respond to demonstrated humanitarian needs, while others also recognize that political factors need to be taken into account when calibrating a response. Concerns about

whether the North Korean government appeal is motivated by domestic priorities to shore up stocks to meet expectations created for 2012, and whether monitoring protocols will be honored after previous experiences, contribute to the hesitation to respond robustly. Also, provision of humanitarian assistance has implications for the perceived role of foreigners by the recipient groups and the effectiveness of the government’s own systems and capacity for providing food for

the people. Any claims that food aid is fully “independent” of other considerations are not credible for those concerned with the wider political dynamics of engagement with North Korea. This means that food aid should be understood to have significance as a political tool and also should be synchronized with an overall

economic engagement policy that is shaped by political and not solely humanitarian objectives.

QpQEconomic engagement requires carrots and sticks- we must ask for something in returnPatrick DeSouza in 2000, Economic Strategy and National Security- a Next Generation Approach, a council on foreign relations book, p 145

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright has argued that a U.S. policy of economic engagement with a country does not mean endorsement of its regime.34 In fact, the U.S. version of engagement is different from countries, such as France and Japan, which often practice a policy of unlimited economic engagement based on the rationale that unfettered trade and investment best promotes democratic values for the targeted nation, and financial success for

themselves. By contrast, U.S.-"style" engagement must be coupled with a range of policy tools that includes the targeted use of economic restrictions. In other words, it is a variation on the traditional carrot and stick approach rather than one or the other. Engagement, coupled with the availability of discrete penalties,

establishes a functional dialogue and practical relationship between the United States and the targeted government. It constructs a bilateral relationship that the targeted country values and wants to preserve. In the context of that relationship, the United States has more opportunity and more credibility to potentially influence a country's behavior. The targeted country has more at stake, in the form of economic profits, enhanced security, and even international status. It, therefore, has more reason to adapt its policies to maintain a good relationship with the United States. Studies over the years have shown that sanctions combined with a healthy trade relationship often succeed in getting a targeted country to change its offending behavior before it loses more business.”

Incentives- Trade or AidEconomic engagement is an incentive based structure that offers access to trade or aidHass and O’Sullivan 2K (Richard AND Meghan, Director of Foreign Policy Studies AND Fellow with the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brooking Institute, Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies, Survival, vol. 42 no. 2, Summer 2000, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf)

Architects of engagement strategies can choose from a wide variety of incentives. Economic engagement might offer tangible incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or promotion, access to technology, loans and economic aid.3 Other equally useful economic incentives involve the removal of penalties such as trade embargoes, investment bans or high tariffs, which have impeded economic relations between the United States and the target country. Facilitated entry into the economic global arena and the institutions that govern it rank among the most potent incentives in today’s global market. Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic recognition, access to regional or international institutions, the scheduling of summits between leaders – or the termination of these benefits. Military engagement could involve the extension of international military educational training in order both to strengthen respect for civilian authority and human rights among a country’s armed forces and, more feasibly, to establish relationships between Americans and young foreign military officers. While these areas of engagement are likely to involve working with state institutions, cultural or civil-society engagement entails building people-to-people contacts. Funding nongovernmental organisations, facilitating the flow of remittances and promoting the exchange of students, tourists and other non-governmental people between countries are just some of the possible incentives used in the form of engagement.

Economic engagement = trade or aidHelen V+ Milner and Dustin H+ Tingley in 2011, Who Supports Global Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic Policy, International Organization 65, Winter 2011, pp+ 37–68, https://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/forthcoming%20papers/MilnerTingley%20(2011)%20Who%20Supports%20Global%20Economic%20Engagement.pdf

We find strong support for political economy ~Stolper-Samuelson! theories in both trade and aid policy+ A central core of support for international engagement in trade and aid lies in the constituencies that gain economically from trade and aid+ 26 Surprisingly, political economy preferences affect legislative voting in aid as much as they do in trade and in the same way+ This lends support to the idea of a single coalition supporting international economic engagement and to the claim of foreign policy substitutability+

Trade and Aid is economic engagement—political economy preferences prove.Milner et al 2011[Helen; political scientist who has written extensively on international political economy like trade; “Who Supports Global Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic Policy”; IO Foundation; Winter 2011; https://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/forthcoming%20papers/MilnerTingley%20(2011)%20Who%20Supports%20Global%20Economic%20Engagement.pdf]

We find strong support for political economy (Stolper-Samuelson) theories in both trade and aid policy+ A central core of support for international engagement in trade and aid lies in the constituencies that gain economically from trade and aid. 26 Surprisingly, political economy preferences affect legislative voting in aid as much as they do in trade and in the same way+ This lends support to the idea of a single coalition supporting international economic engagement and to the claim of foreign policy substitutability+

AidEconomic engagement = aidHelen V+ Milner and Dustin H+ Tingley in 2011, Who Supports Global Economic Engagement? The Sources of Preferences in American Foreign Economic Policy, International Organization 65, Winter 2011, pp+ 37–68, https://www.princeton.edu/~hmilner/forthcoming%20papers/MilnerTingley%20(2011)%20Who%20Supports%20Global%20Economic%20Engagement.pdf

Political economy factors, foreign policy concerns, and ideology help account for legislative voting on aid and trade, but they do so in different ways+ Why? Inter-estingly, the same political economy factors operate in the two areas+ Legislators seem to respond to the economic endowments of their constituents+ As StolperSamuelson models predict, districts heavily endowed with high-skill workers gain from freer trade

and more aid, and their legislator’s voting choices reflect this+ Surprisingly, this is just as true for aid as for trade+ Even though aid is a smaller part of the U+S+ economy than trade, aid is often seen as an important means of economic engagement with the world economy+ Legislators hence respond to the political economy pressures of their constituents similarly+ This suggests that political economy factors might help shape a broad internationalist policy orientation across multiple policy areas+

Government-Government Econ engagement must be gov-to-gov not private commercial engagementNational Center for Policy Analysis think tank 2013 “Economics of the 2013-2014 Debate Topic: U.S. Economic Engagement Toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela” http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Message_to_Debaters_6-7-13.pdf

Economic engagement between or among countries can take many forms, but this document will focus on government-to government engagement through 1) international trade agreements designed to lower barriers to trade; and 2) government foreign aid; next, we will contrast government-to-government economic engagement with private economic engagement through 3) international investment, called foreign direct investment; and 4) remittances and migration by individuals. All of these areas are important with respect to the countries mentioned in the debate resolution; however, when discussing economic engagement by the U.S. federal government, some issues are more important with respect to some countries than to others

Energy/Warming Cooperation

Cooperation on green energy and global warming = econ engagementPaulson in 2008 Paulson is former Secretary of Treasury, Strategic Economic Engagement. By: Paulson, Henry M., Foreign Affairs, 00157120, Sep/Oct2008, Vol. 87, Issue 5

The United States and China recognize that both energy security and environmental protection are crucial for their sustainable development. Although the two countries have different needs and face different challenges, they both want to achieve energy security while maintaining a healthy environment. Out of this shared recognition has come one of the SED'S major

achievements: the signing of the Ten Year Energy and Environment Cooperation Framework at the SED last June. This framework is a bilateral mechanism focused on creating a new energy-efficient model for sustainable economic development and on addressing the factors that cause climate change through concrete actions. Recognizing that such problems are too big for either government to fix alone, the initiative involves all levels of government, business, and other sectors of society in both countries and focuses on the development and implementation of new technology,

the review of current policies, the development of new regulatory and enforcement capacities, and public education. The framework has produced tangible results in the areas of electricity production and transmission, water and air quality, transportation, and forest and wetland conservation--suggesting the promise that future cooperation between the United States and China holds. Through the framework, the United States and China are already cooperating on joint research on alternative and renewable fuels for transportation and on efforts to improve the water quality of China's rivers, lakes, and streams. Even

greater breakthroughs could lie in the years ahead, and this framework provides the next U.S. administration with a critically important foundation on which to continue Washington's economic engagement with China.

Engagement

Conditional or UnconditionalEngagement can be conditional or unconditionalBrian Kane in 2008 US Marine Corps Major, thesis SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF OPERATIONAL STUDIES for the USMC School of Advanced Warfighting Brian, “Comprehensive Engagement: A Winning Strategy “ http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA504901

Engagement strategies are not new. Since the end of the Cold War, engagement strategy has been called “comprehensive containment, conditional containment, conditional engagement, limited engagement, quid pro quo engagement, congagement, unconditional engagement, and comprehensive engagement.”8 As a result, engagement strategy represents a “conceptual fog” in today’s environment.9 However, the Clinton Administration attempted to dissipate this fog with the first post-Cold War, multi-faceted definition proposed in its NSS, which stated that engagement strategy is: (1) a broad based grand strategic orientation; (2) a specific approach to managing bilateral relations with a target state through the unconditional provision of continuous concessions to that state; (3) a bilateral policy characterized by the conditional provision of concessions to a state; (4) a bilateral policy characterized by the broadening of contacts in areas of mutual interest with a target state; and (5) a bilateral policy characterized by the provision of technical assistance to facilitate economic and political liberalization in a target state.10 This definition of engagement has been the most successful historically.11

Dip and Econ distinct from Military

Economic and diplomatic contacts are distinct from cultural or military agreementsLee in 2012[Jeongseok; instructor at the Department of Military & Strategic Studies, Republic of Korea Air Force Academy; “Hedging against Uncertain Future: The Response of East Asian Secondary Powers to Rising China”; IPSA/ASIP; July 8 2012; http://paperroom.ipsa.org/papers/paper_18064.pdf”

The Seventh option is to engage with the ascending power. Engagement is defined as “the attempt to influence the political behavior of a target state through the comprehensive establishment and enhancement of contacts with that state across multiple issue-areas.” (Resnick 2001: 559) Instruments of engagement policy include diplomatic contacts (e.g. extension and elevation of diplomatic relations, summits, high level meetings, etc.), military contacts (e.g. military exchange, joint training or exercise, confidence building measures, intelligence sharing), economic contacts (e.g. agreements, foreign aids and loans, coordination of macroeconomic policies), and social contacts (e.g. cultural exchanges, improvement of tourism, youth exchange programs). Through these forms of interactions, minor powers can try to induce its target to more moderate and peaceful path of ascendance. Although secondary states’ influence over shaping perceptions and behaviors of rising power is not as powerful as great powers,’ engagement is a considerable option. If ascending state’s thinking and behavior can be altered to a more favorable direction even to the slightest degree, it is worth to attempt because it does not require significant compensations nor costs, and it does not risk provoking antagonism.

Diplomatic and economic engagement are distinct from military and cultural engagementHall in 2014 Senior Fellow in International Relations, Australian National University Ian, The Engagement of India: Strategies and Responses, p. 3-4

This book explores the various modes of engagement employed in the Indian case, their uses, and their limits. It follows the growing consensus in the literature that defines engagement as any strategy that employs "positive inducements'' to influence the behavior of states.8 It acknowledges that various, different engagement strategies can be

utilized. In particular, as Miroslav Nincic argues, we can distinguish between "exchange" strategies and "catalytic" ones. With the first type of strategy, positive inducements are offered to try to "leverage" particular quid pro quos from the target state.9 An investment might be canvassed, a trade deal promised, or a weapons system provided in return for a specific concession. With the second type of strategy, inducements are offered merely to catalyze something bigger, perhaps even involving the wholesale transformation of a target society.10 In this kind of engagement, many different incentives might be laid out for many different constituencies, from educational opportunities for emerging leaders to new terms of trade for the economic elite. The objects of engagement can include changing specific policies of the target state or transforming the wider political, economic, or social order of a target society. Both of these objectives could be pursued with coercive strategies employing either compellence or deterrence—or indeed with a mixture of both engagement and coercion." But much recent research has argued that the evidence for the efficacy of both compellence and deterrence in changing target state policies is inconclusive.12 Both military and economic sanctions have been shown to have mixed results, and many scholars argue that coercion rarely

works." By contrast, there is some considerable evidence that engagement strategies can both elicit discrete quid pro quos from states and generate wider political and social change within them that might in the medium to long term lead to changed behavior at home or in international relations .14 Moreover, it is clear that engagement is both more commonly utilized than often recognized by scholars of international relations and that it is generally considered

more politically accepted to politicians and publics in both engaging states and in the states they seek to engage.15 Engagement strategies take different forms depending on their objectives. They can emphasize diplomacy, aiming at the

improvement of formal, state-to- state contacts, and be led by professional diplomats, special envoys, or politicians.

Alternatively, they can emphasize military ties, utilizing military-to- military dialogues, exchanges, and training to build trust,

convey strategic intentions, or simply foster greater openness in the target state’s defense establishment.16 They can be primarily economic in approach, using trade, investment, and technology transfer to engender change in the target society and perhaps to generate greater economic interdependence, constraining a target state's foreign policy choices.17 Finally, they can seek to create channels for people-to-people contact through state-driven public diplomacy, business forums and research networks, aid and development assistance, and so on.

Economic and diplomatic engagement are distinct from cultural and military contacts- requires state department contacts or increasing trade/aidResnick in 2001 Evan, Assistant Professor at school of international studies, Journal of International Affairs, 0022197X, Spring2001, Vol. 54, Issue 2, Defining Engagement

In order to establish a more effective framework for dealing with unsavory regimes, I propose that we define engagement as the attempt to influence the political behavior of a target state through the comprehensive establishment and enhancement of contacts with that state across multiple issue-areas (i.e. diplomatic, military, economic, cultural). The following is a brief list of the specific forms that such contacts might include: DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS Extension of diplomatic recognition; normalization of diplomatic relations Promotion of target-state membership in international institutions and regimes Summit meetings and other visits by the head of state and other senior government officials of sender state to target state and vice-versa MILITARY CONTACTS Visits of senior military officials of the sender state to the target state and vice-versa Arms transfers Military aid and cooperation Military exchange and training programs Confidence and security-building measures Intelligence sharing ECONOMIC CONTACTS

Trade agreements and promotion Foreign economic and humanitarian aid in the form of loans and/or grants CULTURAL CONTACTS Cultural treaties Inauguration of travel and tourism links Sport, artistic and academic exchanges(n25)

Engagement is an iterated process in which the sender and target state develop a relationship of increasing interdependence, culminating in the endpoint of "normalized relations" characterized by a high level

of interactions across multiple domains. Engagement is a quintessential exchange relationship: the target state wants the prestige and material resources that would accrue to it from increased contacts with the sender state, while the sender state seeks to modify the domestic and/or foreign policy behavior of the target state. This deductive logic could adopt a number of different forms or strategies when deployed in practice.(n26) For instance, individual contacts can be established by the sender state at either a low or a high level of conditionality.(n27) Additionally, the sender state can achieve its objectives using engagement through any one of the following causal processes: by directly modifying the behavior of the target regime; by manipulating or reinforcing the target states' domestic balance of political power between competing factions that advocate divergent policies; or by shifting preferences at the grassroots level in the hope that this will precipitate political change from below within the

target state. This definition implies that three necessary conditions must hold for engagement to constitute an effective foreign policy instrument. First, the overall magnitude of contacts between the sender and target states must initially be low. If two states are already bound by dense contacts in multiple domains (i.e., are already in a highly interdependent relationship), engagement loses its impact as an effective policy tool. Hence, one could not reasonably invoke the possibility of the US engaging Canada or Japan in order to effect a change in either country's political

behavior. Second, the material or prestige needs of the target state must be significant, as engagement derives its power from the promise that it can fulfill those needs. The greater the needs of the target state, the more amenable to engagement it is likely to be. For example, North Korea's receptivity to engagement by the US dramatically increased in the wake

of the demise of its chief patron, the Soviet Union, and the near-total collapse of its national economy.(n28) Third, the target state must perceive the engager and the international order it represents as a potential source of the material or prestige resources it desires. This means that autarkic, revolutionary and unlimited regimes which eschew the norms and institutions of the prevailing order, such as Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany, will not be seduced by the potential benefits of

engagement. This reformulated conceptualization avoids the pitfalls of prevailing scholarly conceptions of engagement. It considers the policy as a set of means rather than ends, does not delimit the types of states that can either engage or be engaged, explicitly encompasses contacts in multiple issue-areas, allows for the existence of multiple objectives in any given instance of engagement and, as will be shown below, permits the elucidation of multiple types of positive sanctions.

Precision k 2 EduConceptual clarity of ‘engagement’ is vital to having robust, meaningful debates over policyResnick in 2001 Evan, Assistant Professor at school of international studies, Journal of International Affairs, 0022197X, Spring2001, Vol. 54, Issue 2, Defining Engagement

While the term "engagement" enjoys great consistency and clarity of meaning in the discourse of romantic love, it enjoys neither in the discourse of statecraft. Currently, practitioners and scholars of American foreign policy are vigorously debating the merits of engagement as a strategy for modifying the behavior of unsavory regimes. The quality of this debate, however, is diminished by the persistent inability of the US foreign policy establishment to advance a coherent and analytically rigorous conceptualization of engagement. In this essay, I begin with a brief survey of the conceptual fog that surrounds engagement and then attempt to give a more refined definition. I will use this definition as the basis for drawing a sharp distinction between engagement and alternative policy approaches, especially appeasement, isolation and containment.

Broad definitions undermine scholarly understandings of discrete foreign policy methodsResnick in 2001 Evan, Assistant Professor at school of international studies, Journal of International Affairs, 0022197X, Spring2001, Vol. 54, Issue 2, Defining Engagement

A second problem associated with various scholarly treatments of engagement is the tendency to define the concept too broadly to be of much help to the analyst. For instance, Cha's definition of engagement as any policy whose means are "non-coercive and non-punitive" is so vague that essentially any positive sanction could be considered engagement. The definition put forth by Alastair lain Johnston and Robert Ross in their edited

volume, Engaging China, is equally nebulous. According to Johnston and Ross, engagement constitutes "the use of non-coercive methods to ameliorate the non-status quo elements of a rising power's behavior."(n14) Likewise, in his work, Rogue States and US Foreign Policy, Robert Litwak defines engagement as "positive sanctions."(n15) Moreover, in their edited volume, Honey and Vinegar: Incentives, Sanctions, and Foreign Policy, Richard Haass and Meghan O'Sullivan define engagement as "a

foreign policy strategy that depends to a significant degree on positive incentives to achieve its objectives."(n16) As policymakers possess a highly differentiated typology of alternative options in the realm of negative sanctions from which to choose--including covert action, deterrence, coercive diplomacy, containment, limited war and total war--it is only reasonable to expect that they should have a similar menu of options in the realm of positive sanctions than simply engagement. Equating engagement with positive sanctions risks lumping together a variety of discrete actions that could be analyzed by distinguishing among them and comparing them as separate policies.

At: Engagement = Change Target BehaviorDefining engagement based on ends rather than means undermines the utility of the term-defining as socialization is overlimitingResnick in 2001 Evan, Assistant Professor at school of international studies, Journal of International Affairs, 0022197X, Spring2001, Vol. 54, Issue 2, Defining Engagement

The third trap that has ensnared numerous scholars is the tendency to needlessly circumscribe the parameters of engagement. This results from attempts to: define engagement as ends rather than means; stipulate the types of states that can engage or be engaged; restrict the types of behaviors that comprise engagement; and limit the types of behaviors that can be modified through engagement. Each of these restrictions hampers the task of evaluating the utility of engagement relative to other policies objectively accurately.

Some scholars have excessively narrowed the definition of engagement by defining it according to the ends sought rather than the means employed. For example, Schweller and Wohlforth assert that if any distinction can be drawn between engagement and appeasement, "it is that the goal of engagement is not simply tension-reduction and the avoidance of war but also an attempt to socialize [a] dissatisfied power into acceptance of the established order."(n17) Such ends-based definitions hinder the study of engagement in two ways. First, because the act of policymaking consists of selecting from a variety of alternative means in the pursuit of a given end(s), it stands to reason that policy instruments are more effectively conceptualized in terms of means rather than ends. When defined as different means, policies can be more easily compared with one another across a whole spectrum of discrete ends, in order to gauge more accurately the circumstances under which each policy is relatively more or less effective.(n18)

With

InteractionWith means accompanying or requiring direct interactionDictionary.com No Date (“With” http://www.dictionary.com/browse/with)

1.

accompanied by; accompanying:

I will go with you. He fought with his brother against the enemy.

2.

in some particular relation to (especially implying interaction, company, association, conjunction, or connection):

I dealt with the problem. She agreed with me.

ParticipationWith means participationMerriam-Webster No Date, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/with

2

a —used as a function word to indicate a participant in an action, transaction, or arrangement <works with his father> <a talk with a friend> <got into an accident with the car>

PRC

Taiwan is not the PRCTaiwan is a part of the ROC, not the PRCDictionary.com ND (“China”, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/people-s-republic-of-china)

Republic of. Also called Nationalist China. a republic consisting mainly of the island of Taiwan off the SE coast of mainland China : under Nationalist control since 1948 but claimed by the People's Republic of China. 13,885 sq. mi. (35,960 sq. km).

Capital: Taipei.

Taiwan is not in the People’s Republic of China Collins Dictionary ND (“Republic of China”, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/republic-of-china)

a republic (recognized as independent by only 24 nations) in E Asia occupying the island of Taiwan, 13 nearby islands, and 64

islands of the Penghu (Pescadores) group: established in 1949 by the Nationalist government of China under Chiang Kai-shek after its expulsion by the Communists from the mainland; its territory claimed by the People's Republic of China since the political separation from the mainland; under US protection 1954–79; lost its seat at the UN to the People's Republic of China in

1971; state of war with the People's Republic of China formally ended in 1991, though tensions continue owing to the unresolved territorial claim. Language: Mandarin Chinese. Religion: nonreligious majority, Buddhist and Taoist minorities. Currency: New Taiwan dollar. Capital: Taipei. Pop: 22 610 000 (2003 est). Area: 35 981 sq km (13 892 sq miles). Former name: Formosa

Taiwan is the Republic of China (ROC)History.com 09 (History.com, 10/1/09, This Day in History, “1949: Mao Zedong proclaims People’s Republic of China”, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mao-zedong-proclaims-peoples-republic-of-china)

Naming himself head of state, communist revolutionary Mao Zedong officially proclaims the existence of the People’s Republic of China; Zhou Enlai is named premier. The proclamation was the climax of years of battle between Mao’s communist forces and the regime of Nationalist Chinese leader Chiang Kai-Shek, who had been supported with money and arms from the American government. The loss of China, the largest nation in Asia, to communism was a severe blow to the United States, which was still reeling from the Soviet Union’s detonation of a nuclear device one month earlier. State Department officials in President Harry S. Truman’s administration tried to prepare the American public for the worst when they released a “white paper” in August 1949. The report argued that Chiang’s regime was so corrupt, inefficient, and unpopular that no amount of U.S. aid could save it. Nevertheless, the communist victory in China brought forth a wave of criticism from Republicans who charged that the Truman administration lost China through gross mishandling of the situation. Other Republicans, notably Senator Joseph McCarthy, went further, claiming that the State Department had gone “soft” on communism; more recklessly, McCarthy suggested that there

were procommunist sympathizers in the department. The United States withheld recognition from the new communist government in China. The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, during which communist Chinese and U.S. forces did battle, drove an even deeper wedge between the two nations. In the ensuing years, continued U.S. support of Chiang’s Republic of China, which had been established on the island of Taiwan , and the refusal to seat the People’s Republic of China at the United Nations made diplomatic relations impossible. President Richard Nixon broke the impasse with his stunning visit to communist China in February 1972. The United States extended formal diplomatic recognition in 1979.

PRC= mainland only The Peoples Republic of China is a separate entity to the Republic of China YourDictionary, No Date

http://www.yourdictionary.com/people-s-republic-of-china#hyoWwcYYvFb1rykP.99

Official name of the country popularly known as China, as opposed to the Republic of China. Abbreviated PRC.

Diplomatic and economic engagement are distinct from military and cultural engagementHall in 2014 Senior Fellow in International Relations, Australian National University Ian, The Engagement of India: Strategies and Responses, p. 3-4

This book explores the various modes of engagement employed in the Indian case, their uses, and their limits. It follows the growing consensus in the literature that defines engagement as any strategy that employs "positive inducements'' to influence the behavior of states.8 It acknowledges that various, different engagement strategies can be

utilized. In particular, as Miroslav Nincic argues, we can distinguish between "exchange" strategies and "catalytic" ones. With the first type of strategy, positive inducements are offered to try to "leverage" particular quid pro quos from the target state.9 An investment might be canvassed, a trade deal promised, or a weapons system provided in return for a specific concession. With the second type of strategy, inducements are offered merely to catalyze something bigger, perhaps even involving the wholesale transformation of a target society.10 In this kind of engagement, many different incentives might be laid out for many different constituencies, from educational opportunities for emerging leaders to new terms of trade for the economic elite. The objects of engagement can include changing specific policies of the target state or transforming the wider political, economic, or social order of a target society. Both of these objectives could be pursued with coercive strategies employing either compellence or deterrence—or indeed with a mixture of both engagement and coercion." But much recent research has argued that the evidence for the efficacy of both compellence and deterrence in changing target state policies is inconclusive.12 Both military and economic sanctions have been shown to have mixed results, and many scholars argue that coercion rarely

works." By contrast, there is some considerable evidence that engagement strategies can both elicit discrete quid pro quos from states and generate wider political and social change within them that might in the medium to long term lead to changed behavior at home or in international relations .14 Moreover, it is clear that engagement is both more commonly utilized than often recognized by scholars of international relations and that it is generally considered

more politically accepted to politicians and publics in both engaging states and in the states they seek to engage.15 Engagement strategies take different forms depending on their objectives. They can emphasize diplomacy, aiming at the improvement of formal, state-to- state contacts, and be led by professional diplomats, special envoys, or politicians.

Alternatively, they can emphasize military ties, utilizing military-to- military dialogues, exchanges, and training to build trust,

convey strategic intentions, or simply foster greater openness in the target state’s defense establishment.16 They can be primarily economic in approach, using trade, investment, and technology transfer to engender change in the target society and perhaps to generate greater economic interdependence, constraining a target state's foreign policy choices.17 Finally, they can seek to create channels for people-to-people contact through state-driven public diplomacy, business forums and research networks, aid and development assistance, and so on.