How "Pinky Promise" diplomacy once stopped a war in the Middle East
post by positivesum · 2023-11-22T12:03:48.325Z · LW · GW · 9 commentsThis is a link post for https://tryingtruly.substack.com/p/how-a-pinky-promise-stopped-a-war
Contents
9 comments
An incredible example of game theory's Generous Tit for Tat strategy being utilised in diplomacy during a real-world crisis - stopping a military escalation between Israel and Jordan in the eve of the 1990 Gulf War. Also includes some hilarious accounts from the King of Jordan himself (I can't figure out if he's aware of his comic timing or simply talking naturally).
9 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by jmh · 2023-11-23T00:27:33.081Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
While I don't know how one might operationalize the view, it does fit in to how I've begun to start framing the current world state. Basically we have a choice. We can all start looking for reason not to start/keep killing one another or keep on making reason that we need to kill others.
comment by lc · 2023-11-23T20:12:12.002Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
This is a beautiful story.
Replies from: positivesum↑ comment by positivesum · 2023-11-23T23:43:10.650Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So glad you liked it!
comment by Shankar Sivarajan (shankar-sivarajan) · 2023-11-22T20:13:44.598Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Is the concept of honor so alien that you consider it "incredible" when men show it? You seem to be mocking the very idea with terms like "pinky promise" and "just trust me bro," but trusting a man, even your enemy, to keep his word isn't absurd.
If your model of international relations is the recent case of America responding to Russia denouncing the breaking of its promise not to expand NATO eastward with "Ha ha, you should have gotten it in writing!", I think it's clear that not all states behave so perfidiously.
Replies from: ChristianKl, positivesum, Viliam↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2023-11-24T05:05:32.432Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The way the executive can make promises to other countries that are binding for future administrations is to do it as part of a treaty that gets ratified by the Senate.
The German unification happened under the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany which has Russia and the United States as parties. If Russia's position at the time had been that they only agreed with German unification if a promise was made not to expand eastward, they could have asked for it to be included in that treaty.
If they would have done that, it would have been binding for future US administrations in a way that statements by a foreign ministers aren't.
There are plenty cases like the sanctions against Belarus that are a much better example of the United States actually not uploading promises it made.
Replies from: positivesum↑ comment by positivesum · 2023-11-24T11:52:06.963Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Also it seems that in extreme cases, formal agreements aren't enough either. For example the USA's pretty much unilateral cessation of many of its commitments under the Iran nuclear agreement the moment Trump took office. That one was supposed to go on for a-LOT more years.
Replies from: ChristianKl↑ comment by ChristianKl · 2023-11-24T15:24:39.754Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Yes, I would see stepping out of that agreement with Iran also of a real breach of promises. Bush also broke formal promises made to North Korea.
I don't think NATO expansion fits into that category.
↑ comment by positivesum · 2023-11-22T22:43:11.605Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There has been a misunderstanding - I did not mean to say any of this at all, let alone mock.
I would absolutely LOVE to hear about more examples of honor playing a significant role in international relations, especially conflict de-escalation! Perhaps I'm simply not familiar enough.
It would certainly make my day to learn that this is a more common occurrence than I ever thought it could be!
↑ comment by Viliam · 2023-11-23T16:20:36.581Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
the recent case of America responding to Russia denouncing the breaking of its promise not to expand NATO eastward with "Ha ha, you should have gotten it in writing!"
I thought the response was more like: "this never happened, you just made that up". You can't break a promise you never made in the first place.
Is the concept of honor so alien that you consider it "incredible" when men show it?
It would be hard to make it work in democracy. A politician may promise something, and get replaced by another politician later. Should the latter honor the promises made by the former? (Is Biden required to build the wall, just because Trump promised it?) The entire point of democratic elections is that people can replace the politicians they no longer want.