By John Erath
Recently, I attended a basketball game. This is not unusual. In my mind, there is little that can match the excitement of a live sporting event, and the skills on display at any NBA game are breathtaking. This particular game, however, was a bit out of the ordinary. It was the Brooklyn Nets’ first appearance after trading two superstars, Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving, for several less-heralded players. Conventional NBA wisdom, which focuses on the big name athletes, was that the Nets had taken a step back and would no longer be competitive. As I entered the arena, I heard someone joke that the Nets should be offering refunds for offering an inferior product.
That’s not what I saw. Despite starting four new players and a few rough spots as everyone figured out how to play with each other, the Nets were fun to watch. They can roll out multiple combinations of good players who are versatile and more committed to a team concept than a star-driven model. Although the opposition was Philadelphia, a team with championship ambitions, the Nets led most of the game and only lost when a last-second shot was disallowed by instant replay. It remains to be seen how the rest of the season will go. The NBA is set up to showcase its biggest stars, and most successful teams feature one or more of the top players. Brooklyn, however, may be on to something by going out of its way to acquire guys who play complementary basketball, rather than setting up one or two superstars to grab headlines.
Wait, this is supposed to be an arms control blog. Why is it about basketball?
There is a parallel here to the world of diplomacy, and it is one that should be considered. At times, international relations, including arms control, can fall into the trap of becoming more about the personalities and agendas than the results. As a recent example, following Russia’s 2014 attack on Ukraine, the Minsk Agreements were negotiated to resolve the issues raised. Seen as a showcase for European diplomacy, the process notably excluded the United States. Without U.S. participation, implementation of the Minsk Agreements was disappointing, and eventually it became clear that their primary use was as breathing space for Russia to prepare for the next round. This is not to say that including Washington in the Minsk Process would have solved the problems between Ukraine and Russia, but, without part of the team, the Franco-German led effort had little chance.
Similarly, Russia’s 2022 aggression led to several efforts at what is known in the basketball world as “hero ball.” French President Macron and Elon Musk have tried to go solo and fix the war without careful diplomacy. There is even a basketball-related case of “hero diplomacy” from when Dennis Rodman thought he could bring around North Korea by himself. When politicians and celebrities, or politicians who are also celebrities, try to achieve diplomatic breakthroughs that coincidentally advance their own careers, the results are rarely good.
Real diplomatic breakthroughs require patience, painstaking work and team effort. The Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF, took seven years and the efforts of two administrations to negotiate, not to mention the involvement of multiple U.S. government agencies and careful consultation with NATO Allies. Every piece of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) was minutely coordinated between NATO capitals in advance. The results made history. INF eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons, and CFE led to the withdrawal and destruction of thousands of Cold War vintage weapons from Europe. A big reason for the successes (initial successes, as Russia later killed both treaties) was the team approach to their negotiation.
Translating diplomacy to sport is tricky. The stakes in a nuclear arms control negotiation are higher than even those in the NBA Finals. It is easy to see that patience and teamwork are important in both areas, but will the Nets’ investment in a more team-oriented approach pay off? As a professional diplomat, I hope that it will.
