[Previous entry: "The Social Security Iceberg"] [Blog Home] [Next entry: "Reject the Rejected-20"]

03/10/2005 Entry:
I am an Obama Liberal

Diplomacy: Confronting vs. Enlisting

During Bush's first term, the emphasis was on militarism. Because the results were so terrible, the Bush administration is now emphasizing diplomacy. At first it appeared that the diplomacy was of the confrontational kind. But maybe, just maybe, the adminstration is changing. We see signs of the administration reducing its "us vs. them" rhetoric, even with regard to groups listed as terrorist organizations - such as, Hezbollah. Is it possible that the adminstration is trying to entice and enlist previous antagonists in activities leading to peace? I hope so.

We all know about the military-first approach that dragged the U.S. into Iraq, and brought death and destruction to American troops and Iraqis. It brought us condemnation by our allies, and fierce resentment from Arabs and Muslims throughout the world.

When Condoleeza Rice, the new secretary of state, was appointed, she told us that the time for diplomacy had arrived. And indeed she went to Europe and made nice with our allies. The president followed her to Europe and also said nice words.

About Iran, however, the diplomacy was confrontational. Both Rice and Bush screamed warnings to Iran about its probable development of nuclear weapons. Yes, this is diplomacy, but of the confrontational kind. Confrontation leads to confrontation. Even Iranian reformers sided with the mullahs against the U.S.

Later, after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, the former prime minister of Lebanon, U.S. began demanding that Syria get out of Lebanon. When Lebanese demonstrated to the same effect, it seemed as though the Syrians would be finally forced to pull out. However, the Hezbollah got its followers out in the streets with a much larger demonstration in favor of keeping the Syrians in Lebanon. Again, confrontation leads to confrontation.

After Bush returned home from Europe, we heard that U.S. is considering going along with the Europeans in their negotiation with Iran. I'm skeptical, but if it is so, it bodes well for all of us. Enlisting Iranians in a project for the improvement of their economy and for the spread of peace in the region may - in the long run - bring them over to our side.

The same is true with reference to Lebanon and Syria. Hezbollah does not truly want Syria in Lebanon. It merely wants the U.S. and Israel out of Lebanon's affairs. Though it is adamantly anti-Israel, I don't think Hezbollah would go so far as to ruin the chances for an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty. The French have suggested that Hezbollah be encouraged to become more a political than a military movement. Believe it or not, U.S. is following France's lead. An administration official said:

"Hezbollah has American blood on its hands... They are in the same category as Al Qaeda. The administration has an absolute aversion to admitting that Hezbollah has a role to play in Lebanon, but that is the path we're going down."

If instead of confronting we enlist the help of Hezbollah in forming a harmonious government in Lebanon, they will eventually insist that Syria leave. At that point, Syria will have few Lebanese citizens on its side. Part of the negotiations should include getting the Golan Heights for Syria and thus keeping Syria from sabotaging a possible Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

Diplomacy is better, in every sense of the word, than militarism. Diplomacy that enlists others, especially antagonists, in a common endeavor that helps all participants is much preferable to diplomacy depending on confrontation. Carrots taste a lot better than sticks.

Home | Obama | Blog | About