After the Falklands crisis, Haig, the then-mediator, said,
The United Nations, with its vociferous anti-colonialist coalition of Third World and Marxist members, would probably not be able to act quickly enough to be effective, and the debate was certain to digress into issues that would exacerbate a situation that could only be resolved by quiet diplomacy. The OAS was unsatisfactory for similar reasons. There was no time to form a consortium of European and American states, and besides, this was not a problem ideally suited to the methods of the committee. (Treverton, Gregory and Lippincott, Don, Falklands/ Malvinas, (B): The Haig Mediation Effort, Kennedy School of Government, Case Program, 1987, pp. 8-9)
What are the methods of committee in the context? Please enlighten me.
It’s pretty clear from the context: slow to act and prone to digression. For good measure, add the likelihood of an unenforceable compromise solution unacceptable to both parties
[quote=“Kent_Clark, post:2, topic:997717, full:true”]
It’s pretty clear from the context: slow to act and prone to digression. For good measure, add the likelihood of an unenforceable compromise solution unacceptable to both parties
[/quote
Is it because any international dispute will be broken down into various committees when it reaches the UN or OAS, and that’s why it’s called the “method of the committee”?
The “method” of any committee (not limited to international organizations) is to allow each member an opportunity to air their point of view and offer solutions. Inevitably some members of the committee will try to branch the discussion into matters of their own individual interest rather than the issue at hand. It also happens that recommendations of the committee are a product of compromise designed to pass through the committee by alienating the fewest members. Committees are useful for reaching a broad consensus on issues, but not so much for quick, specific action.
By contrast, the method of “quiet diplomacy” rarely involves any other than the parties directly involved and perhaps an acceptable mediator. Since the discussions are private, there’s less opportunity for outside influence or distraction, and any resolution that comes from such discussion will have been agreed upon by both parties.
If you’re asking what committee he’s talking about, given that he had just mentioned the OAS in the preceding sentence, it seems likely to me that he was referring to the General Committee of the OAS.
The intervening mention of European states is inconsistent with that interpretation, but if this is a transcript of speech people are not always precise in putting alternatives in perfectly logical order. It could of course also be a UN committee, but it reads like he was totally dismissive of the UN.
Method of the committee isn’t a reference to anything specific. It’s just an acknowledgement that when presented with complex and multi-faceted issues, committees tend to work slowly, relying on concensus, often producing plans that make no one happy and fail to achieve their goals.
For me, that nonspecific meaning would be conveyed only by “the methods of a committee”, not the definite article. But I don’t know how tolerant of “the” for that meaning his dialect might be, and it’s always possible he did say “a committee” and it was mistranscribed.
I would read it as being a generic reference to committees. Consider a similar conundrum where the question is whether to put the question to a court. It becomes The methods of the judiciary It doesn’t specify any particular judiciary or jurisdiction, but applies to a particular mechanism of reaching a goal.
A camel has been described as a ‘horse designed by a committee’. This phrase is so well worn that the process of committee work is often called camelling. The quote from the OP is referring to the slow process of committees most directly, but also intends to convey that the result will be far less than ideal.
Haig’s register when speaking or writing is that of an omniscient mostly-disinterested observer well above the fray, pointing out the structures and strictures of the situation. All of his opinions and observations are presented as absolute facts. Which is a pretty common POV taken by foreign policy academics. Which he was whenever he wasn’t an active foreign policy mover and shaker.
His overall construction of the cited paragraph means:
This situation (preventing the shooting war) requires prompt resolute action. That can only be done by immediate quiet diplomacy directly between the belligerents. Conversely, referring this problem to any committee, whether UN, OAS, or something ad hoc, will fail both the prompt and resolute tests. Due to the general nature of committees.
Many committees assume that by nature they should be coming to a consensus in their decision making. Which, in many cases consensus decision making is inefficient, slow, watered down, etc.