Talking To Our Enemies: Why Even Bother?
May 22nd, 2008President Bush’s recent trip to Jerusalem hinted at what will surely become a contentious issue in the upcoming presidential election. In addressing the Israeli Knesset, the president said something to the effect that talking to Iran’s leaders was tantamount to “appeasement,” which history has proven to be a failed policy. In fact, the Bush administration has been repeatedly criticized for refusing to negotiate with certain, specifically selected enemies, like Iran and Syria.
Presidential candidate Barak Obama immediately countered, and reasserted his position that a refusal to talk to one’s enemies is not a sign of strength, but is rather a sign of weakness, and that a policy of robust negotiation, even with our enemies, would be part and parcel of an Obama administration.
Who is right on this score? Should we be willing to talk to our enemies, as Obama suggests, or should we shun them, as the current administration contends?
Both points of view have some measure of validity. President Bush could say that we sacrifice some of our prestige, as the most powerful nation on earth, when we talk to our enemies. It is as if the President lowers his stature when he talks to leaders like Iran’s Ahmadinejad. And what could be accomplished with such talk? Do we have any chance of changing Ahmadinejad’s mind? Obviously, his actions speak louder than words. He does not even hint at being open to suggestion. And conceivably, even in the face of the most persuasive arguments, he is not likely to budge from his extremist views. So what’s the point?
A lot of the reluctance to talk to one another has to do with pride, both personal and national pride. You don’t become President of the United States without having a certain amount of pride in your country, and without being able to inspire a sense of pride in the hearts of your fellow Americans. And so, when you accuse Ahmadinejad of being complicit in the killing of American soldiers, or of sponsoring terror, or of pursuing nuclear weapons for the sake of consolidating control of the region, it becomes almost impossible to swallow your pride, and to sit down and talk.
But the fact is that not talking is a way of saying something as well. If we refuse to talk to Ahmadinejad, we’re saying that his policies are so off the wall, that we cannot even imagine brokering a deal, and that we don’t want to waste our time even trying. And Ahmadinejad, whose only claim to fame is his ability to arouse passions in his people, can use our refusal to talk as confirmation to his people that there is no alternative to resistance, and that Iran has no choice but to protect herself from the arrogance of the West, as exhibited by a failure to talk. As such, our refusal to talk plays right into Ahmadinejad’s hands.
So who is right? Once approach may be to sit down and talk to leaders like Ahmadinejad, and to talk tough to him, but not for the purpose of convincing him, but rather for the public consumption of the people of Iran, and of the world at large. So, for example, you could say to Ahmadinejad, and the leadership he represents, something along these lines: “Look, with all due respect, we’re not about to let you acquire nuclear weapons, and we’re prepared to go to the mat on this; but we are also prepared to offer you a deal that gives you the energy you need, and that compensates your nation for giving up its nuclear aspirations.”
If you say something along these lines, you’re still making your point, you’re still able to hold your head up high, but you’re also driving home the point that you’re open to making a deal, and that such a deal will allow Iran’s leaders to save face. Saving face in the Middle East can be the difference between success and failure in negotiating our differences away. And truth be told, even the bush administration has proven that negotiation, and allowing you adversary to safe face, are possible even with the most intransigent and irrational of enemies.
It is difficult to imagine a more off the wall leader than Kim Jong-Il of North Korea. He was much closer to having a nuclear weapons stockpile than Iran. And his country was much more isolated than Iran. The U.S. did not refuse to negotiate. The U.S., instead, negotiated within the framework of the six party talks, thus utilizing the common interest of other countries in the region, particularly China, to exert even more pressure on North Korea, than could have been exerted by any one nation. If proved successful, at least for the time being, and U.S. food shipments are on their way to North Korea even as we speak. Success in North Korea contrasts sharply with stalemate in Iran.
Each adversary has to be handled differently, in relation to the circumstances at hand. On balance, however, if handled properly, it could well be argues that Obama is right to suggest that robust and direct negotiation is preferable to a failure to talk to one another. Such negotiation could convince a leader like Ahmadinejad that he can save face by cutting a deal, and thereby strengthen his position, and that such an outcome is preferable to military intervention.
If Ahmadinejad is not moved, than at least the willingness to talk, and to place a reasonable offer on the table, may convince Iran’s citizenry that it is in their best interest to pressure their government into a deal. And if such negotiation, as in the case of North Korea, could be undertaken within the framework of a consortium of nations with vital interest in the outcome, then so much the more reason why the outcome will likely be a positive one. And if we fail to solve the matter peacefully, we can at least take comfort in knowing that we did everything we could in that regard, which in and of itself is at least worth something too.
Loading ...
Loading...
Talking each other is sign of wisdom, instead of fighting togather. Throught the history those strong mens opend dialoges to stop bloody wares and made world safer.
Nissim:)
but to be a brother, I can’t, I can just be some bodoes’ sister :0 Honestly 
I really don’t like to be called any one’s enemy, really
Elinor, I didn’t mean to use the word “enemy” in a personal sense, but rather to describe the state of hostility between our two countries. I know Iranians to be a good and gentle people. But there is a political crisis going on, and in light of that crisis, I’m trying to figure out what would be the best way to avoid violence.
Not talking to one another is not the answer. When we maintain the silence we allow old wounds to fester. And over time, we begin to imagine the worst about one another. Even though talking to one another does have its negatives, and even though we should not be naive and assume that there are no substantial national objectives keeping our two nations apart, we should still be willing to talk, and thereby create new possibilities for coming together, and moving away from the abyss.
And John, I agree with you that the willingness to talk is a “sign of wisdom,” and that the willingness to broker the peace is a sign or courage.
Sometimes I wonder: What is harder, fighting a war, or brokering the peace? In the final analysis, I believe that brokering the peace is harder. Why?
When you fight, you fight for something you believe in, and we all feel good about ourselves when we fight for our beliefs. But to make peace, we often have to give up some of what we believe in, for the sake of something we can believe in even more, like peace and justice. And giving up some of what we believe in is not easy. It’s like giving up a part of ourselves. And the more we’re invested in ourselves, the more difficult it becomes to give in.
But the time is quickly coming, John, when we will have to fight for peace as hard as we fight in war. We will have to find the courage, as you suggest, to let go of some of what we believe in, for the sake of something even greater than ourselves, and in that journey, we will find a new version of ourselves, even greater than was there before.
No one is saying there should be no dialogue between the US and those politically diametrically opposed to the US.
What was said is that the President should not meet antagonistic foreign leaders without precondition/groundwork that sets a framework for the talks.
One does not ‘chew the fat’ with a potential enemy for fun.
When Pres. Kennedy met Kruschev without preparation/framework Kruschev used the scenario for propaganda and to shower the President with slogans etc. Kruschev felt Kennedy to be weak and thereafter built the Berlin Wall and deployed nuclear missles to Cuba precipitating the Cuban Missle Crisis and the closest we’ve come to a nuclear exchange.
All because of meeting without precondition.
President to whatever leader meetings should be preceeded by behind the scene talks at State Dept level to set the stage so the meetings can be politically positive.
Obama made a very naive comment about ‘meeting without condition’ and has since recanted and changed that position. He is very naive as it pertains to foreign affairs for an ind running for President.
patb, there is a great measure of truth to what you say. If you meet an adversary, without any prepatory work, and without knowing what the hell you’re going to talk about, then such talks will be an abject failure, and could cause your adversary to underestimate your resolve, and to take advantage strategically.
All that is true. But honestly, do you mean to tell me that for seven years there has been absolutely no opportunity to undertake some of the groundwork, and to meet some of the preconditions that you so rightly speak of?
Of course there was. But the reason we haven’t been talking to Iran, on a Presidential level, at least, is not that we didn’t have the opportunity to prepare adequately, but that we intentionally chose not to talk. In other words, the Bush administration, at least with respect to a specific set of adversaries, has come to conlusion that an unwillingness to talk gives them an advantage of sorts, perhaps keeps the enemy guessing, or shows to the world that we’re somehow above speaking to people we don’t care for.
And actually, there may be some logic in this type of approach. But on balance, I think it is misguided. So, go ahead and prepare. Go ahead and do some of the preliminary work with state department officials. But sooner than later, sit down with your enemy, and present your case focefully. Don’t mince words. But show that you are willing to talk, and that you are willing to cut a deal, but that you will not be pushed around, and that you will not be taken advantage of. If you do this, your adversary will not likely take advantage, or draw the wrong conclusions, but you may end up benefiting from worldwide support, and from the support of the citizenry of your enemy.
Nissim
I know about the state of the two countries, but it is really unnecessary, the officials want to make our people believe that their position is exactly what Palestinians need to maintain a normal life, G-d knows that is the most annoying reasoning for what they want to make people believe, if countries like Iran had treid to have a reasonable reaction toward the cirsis in the Middle East, the peace process would have been eased and maintained much sooner, the peace is innevitable, but G-d bless the countries who step in to help both people out of the crisi, i wish Iran was one of them. As talking of my people I say very firmly we are enemies of no one, you will realise that Nissim when you come to the home of any Iranian, you will see how they love people, they really, from any where.
Nissam,
I think you are incorrect in that we have spoken to and communicated with Iran thru intermediaries.
What would a high level US rep say to Arminidinijad(sp) in the way of changing his attitude or ours?
He was invited to the US and spoke (rather stupidly) at a US university and it’s pretty plain to see that he is not about to change his world views with a little friendly conversation.
He also knows our views…so what is to talk about?
Having a Pres visit with him would only substantially underwrite his position as a ’serious man’ of weight. It could only benefit him and serve no purpose.
It would be like trying to talk to Hugo Chavez, or the three stooges.
Sometimes silence is talking.
Elinor, I truly believe that Iranians are good people. I believe that because most people on earth are good. Why? Because it makes more sense to be good than to be bad. Good just works better than bad for most people.
However, as good as people are, their leaders don’t always have their best interests in mind. Many leaders are contantly balancing what is in their own personal best interest, and what is in the best interest of the people.
You bring up a good example. I don’t for a second believe that the Iranian leadership cares even a little bit about the welfare of the Palestinian people. It they did, this problem would have been solved equitably long ago. Insead, no matter what they say, the Iranian leaders use the Palestinian issue to stir up passions at home and abroad. It’s a handy cause to rally the troops. And if things begin to improve even slightly for Palestinians, there are leaders out there who will not hesitate to stir up trouble again, just so that they could once again have something to complain about, something which diverts attention away from problems back home, and which gives people someone to blame for their troubles.
This is a sad reality, but it is reality nontheless. Peace will come when the goodness of everyday people will be implanted in the hearts of leaders, who will truly become motivated to promote the welfare of their people, and of others around the world. The disconnect between goodhearted people and their leaders is a major obstacle to peace. Leaders around the world will have to learn how to get over themselves, and beyond their differences, in order to usher in an age of peace.
Nissim, I agree that the policy the authorities of iran have adopted toward the Palestinian cause is more destructive than instructive, and i believe if a country is for a people, the country should help those people solve their problem, not to make it more complicated. Well, Our authorities have yet to learn how to value and make use of the opinions of people of the country as well. it may take some more time… But finally there will be a peace deal in the region and the ones who contributed more to this constructive process will feel better when they are left alone with their own conscience.
Elinor, it is possible that human history is coming to some sort of ultimate conclusion. It is as if we are approaching a fork in the road. Decision time is right around the corner. Do we choose war, or do we choose peace?
There seems to be a pattern to human history. We’ve been around as a species for some two million years. And for 99% of that time we helped each other out, and were able, against all odds, to survive yet another day.
Some 10,000 years ago we decided to get “civilized,” by establishing small towns and villages, and by growing our own food. Suddenly, instead of hunting and gathering, we could store food. And just as suddenly, arose the urge to kill and steal, so that we could easily take what wasn’t ours. Ironically, with the advent of “civilization,” we stopped acting “civil” with one another.
For most of the last 2000 years, mostly everyone was pretty poor, except for a few royals here and there, and the population was pretty small.
In the last 200 years, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, a great deal of wealth was created, particularly in the West, and the population shot way up, to over six billion today.
And finally, in the last 20 years, the phenomenon of globalization came about, in which the technology is now here to allow for a global economy, in which rich and poor nations can partner together to improve the lot of all people around the world, by giving them a place at the table, a stake in their future.
So the question arises: Which way will we go as a species? Will we in fact come together technologically, economically, and ideologically, to usher in an age of peace, prosperity, and freedom for all? Or will we instead allow our technology to be used for war, with the resulting death, destruction, and despair, that are part and parcel of the folly of war?
The answer is in our hands, and everything we know and love hangs in the balance.
Me likes not the war for sure, I don’t think any one likes war really. it is very old fashioned.
War may be old fashioned, Elinor, but it’s like fashion, always coming back in vogue.
patb, I know ignorance is bliss, but come on. Berlin Wall was built to prevent those from east escaping to the west and the nukes were put in Cuba as a counter to nukes being deployed by the US in SU’s border states. US’s arrogance in deploying their nukes beside SU that brought the two superpowers to closer to war.
Feel free to ignore Iran, they will get their nukes and then you really can’t do anything. Good luck with it.
A brilliant man ones said “If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.” Wonder when the pricks nowadays going to learn this.