By Brigitte L. Nacos
It is a joke that the New York Times reported today on the Bush/Blair press conference under the page one headline "Bush and Blair Push To End Mideast Fighting." The two leaders did nothing like that. You do not push a plan for a cease fire by planning to introduce a resolution "next week" at the United Nations. In his joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the President stuck to his optimistic spin, when he called the current situation "a moment of opportunity." If the conflict is really a moment of opporturnity,why wasn't his Secretary of State returning as quickly as possible to the region but rather a day later than planned? It is wonderful that Dr. Rice, the accomplished pianist, received enthusiastic applause during an ASEAN meeting in Malaysia for playing two Brahms composition. It would have been better if Dr. Rice, the Secretary of State, had turned in a good performance on the diplomatic stage to push for what she calls a "sustainable" cease fire.
Why are President Bush and PM Blair waiting till next week for pushing for a UN cease fire solution to be linked to the deployment of an effective international force to keep the feuding parties apart? Even if "pushed," it will take time to get a UN resolution and more to get it enacted.
The ultimate sticking point may be that Washington refuses to involve governments that support Hezbollah and Hamas, namely Iran and Syria, in any kinds of negotiations. It may be distasteful to talk to parties that sponsor terrorism but there are many distasteful things in domestic and international politics that are nevertheless done all the time. Washington officials, whether Democrats or Republicans, like to say that one U.S. policy is written in stone since the Nixon administration, namely, that the U.S. government does not negotiate with terrorists. But doctrine is one thing--practice another. In the past, the U.S. has negotiated with terrorists and sponsor states, typically via third parties. This happened, for example, during the Iran Hostage Crisis and during several hostage situation during the 1980s in Lebanon. More importantly, during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union had formal and informal diplomatic contacts.
Since 9/11, the U.S. administration has all but abandoned diplomacy. If the continuation of politics and diplomacy is war, more attention must be given to international relations and diplomacy to work out problems that may never be resolved militarily--not in the long run. Perhaps intense diplomatic U.S. involvement in the Israeli-Palestinain conflict and in related issues could have prevented the current situation. Perhaps not. But there is no excuse for not trying.
Your argument is persuasive. But Bush always militarizes the problem of terrorism. He can't conceive of it in any other way than as a threat to be crushed through force alone.
The consequences of this approach are strewn like rubble all across the globe. He can't see why the insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere swell in response to his crude methods.
Posted by: amazon | July 30, 2006 at 02:32 PM