Peck's Postulates

[M2]

This is a bit old but I just found a hardcopy of this and thought it was worth sharing...

On 10 July 2000, General Michael Davison, Director, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, opened the Second Annual Security Cooperation Conference in Crystal City, where he presented the theme "Perspective Is Everything" as an appropriate motto for the security cooperation community which finds itself confronted by a myriad of changes resulting from this new era of a global strategy accompanied by rapid changes in technology and new missions.

Former Ambassador Edward L. Peck, the opening day speaker, seized on the conference theme on perspective to deliver a primer on the verities and vagaries of international relations. He delivered a powerful, insightful, thought-provoking and humorous lesson, using his "Peck's Postulates" to explain the four basic points that make every aspect of foreign affairs easily understandable.

Peck's Postulates

First, there are NO absolutes; perception is everything. It is not what we say or even what we do that matters. The only thing that matters is how the other party(ies) PERCEIVE what we're doing - because that is what controls how they react. Differing perceptions do not make one side wrong and the other right, but they do dictate what does or does not happen.

Second, there are only two things you can always depend upon sovereign nations doing.

1. They will always behave as if they perceive themselves to be sovereign nations. This means they can do whatever they wish, and if another nation does not like it, they can do whatever they wish to affect a change.
   
2. They will never, ever do anything that they perceive not to be in their best interests.
   

Third, every international problem can be put into one of just three categories, if grouped solely on the basis of who decides what to do about them.

1. Unilateral Issues, in which one country can make the decision all by itself. For example, the U.S. decides to break relations with Cuba.
   
2. Multilateral Issues, in which there is more than one participant and all must agree before a decision can be reached, e.g. the U.S. and Cuba decide to reestablish relations
   
3. Non-Lateral Issues, in which an outside party may have a great deal of interest, but is not directly involved in the decisions, e.g. the U.S. and the Arab-Israeli Issue.
   

Fourth, there is only one internationally recognized, universal explanation for every nation's foreign policies: "That's different". This explains why, for example, the U.S. can involve itself militarily in protecting the Kurds in Iraq, but only express mild concern over the harsher circumstances facing the Kurds in neighboring Turkey.

Consider yourself educated on foreign affairs!

Cheers! M2

[Guest Flyin' AF Hawaiian]

Well put, and definitely sums up ours and others foreign policy statements. I just finished reading The Next 100 Years by George Friedman; he's the founder and CEO of STRATFOR. The book basically details the setup and outcome of a mid-21st century conflict between the US, Japan, Turkey, and Poland. A lot of it reads more like science fiction than anything else, but I thought Friedman did a great job of portraying how erratic foreign policy is (or can seem to other nations), and how most of the time it can be boiled down to one of those four postulates.

[M2]

Oddly enough, we were just discussing George Friedman this morning...and as most long-time users of this forum know, I am a big fan of STRATFOR...

Cheers! M2

[Guest Flyin' AF Hawaiian]

Oddly enough, we were just discussing George Friedman this morning...and as most long-time users of this forum know, I am a big fan of STRATFOR...

Cheers! M2

M2,

If you haven't read the book, I'd recommend it. A big theme is how although many people have already determined that the 21st century belongs to the Pacific Rim, it will actually be America that will continue to be the sole superpower. It cites economic instability and unfavorable demographics as reasons why Asian countries will not be able to match the United States' global reach. An interesting point Friedman made was how the US tends to support stability by ensuring instability... essentially, keeping regions relatively conflict free by supporting two or more regional powers that keep those countries focused on their region of the world only, rather than the world at large.