June 21st, 2008
Diplomacy 101—Advice For the Next U.S. President
During a speech given while celebrating Israel’s 60th anniversary, President Bush stated, “Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along…. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, ‘Lord, if I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.” The policy of the Bush administration has generally been to denounce diplomacy, preferring instead both the threat and use of military action. The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America states, “Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.” President Bush does not believe that we should conduct talks with enemies, and appears to equate diplomacy with appeasement. However, foreign policy expert, John Holum calls this the diplomatic equivalent of holding your breath until you pass out, practiced against someone who would prefer you dead.
The old adage “keep your friends close and your enemies closer” seems particularly apt in this case. Conflict is frequently resolved by talking to your enemies, not merely your friends. The history of the past sixty years clearly shows that. From 1948 (when Communists took control of most of Eastern Europe and tried to force the Allies out of West Berlin) the Soviet Union induced fear of spreading communism, and increased tensions through the U.S.-Soviet nuclear arms race. China provided weapons and soldiers to the North Koreans during the Korean War and to the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, and the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons aimed directly at the U.S. The Soviet Union and China were the two most powerful enemies of the U.S. Yet, even in times of tension and uncertainty, US presidents such as Democrats Truman, Kennedy and Johnson and Republicans Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan employed diplomacy, and by doing so, prevented nuclear catastrophe and all out war.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, President Kennedy conducted extensive talks with the Soviet Union, to resolve the crisis without nuclear exchange, and continued dialogue following the crisis further decreased tensions. In 1972, President Nixon opened relations with China and the Soviet Union. Nixon’s efforts established a channel of communication between the U.S. and China that normalized relations and reduced the potential for international military conflict. Diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union resulted in the 1972 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), geared towards freezing strategic ballistic missiles at 1972 levels. President Reagan continued this policy of diplomacy with the Soviet Union, which led to a 1987 agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons. Two years later, the Berlin Wall came down, and two years after that, the Soviet Union dissolved. The Cold War, one of the greatest threats to U.S. security, ended largely due to diplomacy.
Perhaps the Bush Administration should consider the accomplishments of diplomacy, since the current strategy of ignoring nations or using battle continuously fails. In 2006, President Bush refused the request by North Korea to talk directly, even though North Korea was willing to continue its self-moratorium on long range missile testing while in a dialogue with the U.S. As a result of U.S. refusal to engage in talks, North Korea eventually did conduct missile tests. Many argue that talking to the North Koreans is appeasement; the reality is that by doing nothing, the Bush Administration pushes North Korea into further isolation. Since the six party talks (including the U.S.) recently resumed, the DPRK has agreed to disable its Yongbyon reactor, and may eventually dismantle its entire nuclear arms program.
President Carter’s recent diplomatic talks with Hamas show two sides of the story. Through these talks, Hamas agreed to a ceasefire with Israel, under certain conditions. However, the Bush Administration still refuses to deal with Hamas, citing it as a terrorist organization and a terrorist supporter. Many people believe that talking to Hamas lends credibility to its official status, but whether terrorist organization or legitimate governing body, if the leaders of Hamas are willing to talk, alter their stance, and reduce the violence, the U.S. should take this opportunity. Without even attempting to engage in diplomacy, it is impossible to understand the motivations of the other party. In the words of Winston Churchill, “jaw-jawing is better than war-warring.”
In the sunset of the current presidency, the Bush Administration has limited options for dealing with Iran (or terrorist groups for that matter). Realistically, it would be next to impossible to take military action without some gross violation of international law and norms by Iran. The international community knows this as well, and will doubtfully extend its support for increased sanctions against Iran. By this time the next administration is in the position to engage in diplomacy, Iran will be much closer to developing a nuclear bomb. The Bush Administration has the opportunity to pave the way for the next administration, and provide for a successful resolution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, without waging war.
The current administration’s policy of preferring military action to diplomacy has yet to be successful, and every day brings us closer to a world with even more nuclear arms. Many have argued that mutual deterrence may not work in this new nuclear age as it did during the Cold War, and with the potential for nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of terrorist organizations, any possibility of mutual deterrence goes out the window. The new age of nuclear capabilities is dawning and what the world may look like in the next five or ten years is a frightening thought. Although diplomacy does not always work, the absence of diplomacy never works. War has been shown to be an expensive and uncertain means for maintaining security. When diplomacy works, it can be more effective and less costly than war. It is time for a policy change.
