The Need For Diplomacy
December 1st 2006 01:24
The Need For Diplomacy
The Bush administration's neo-conservative traits will be well documented by history. By far the most worrying is their lack of regard for diplomacy – their “unilateral” approach to foreign policy. Rather than engaging in dialogue with hostile countries, they sort of bark orders, then make threats if the orders are not followed. The philosophy behind this is the “forceful spread of morals” in the modern world; a kind of code of manners enforced by overwhelming firepower.
The Western world is now reaping the benefits of this approach. Iran and North Korea announced the reactivation of their nuclear programs after being labeled part of the “Axis Of Evil”. The US's refusal to engage with Kim Jong-Il's regime has led the belligerent dictator to successfully conduct tests of nuclear weapons and ICBMs. The decidedly undiplomatic handling of Iraq led to the second Gulf War, which is rapidly degenerating into the US's most horrific military blunder since Vietnam.
The last time we saw such blatant refusal to engage diplomatically with the enemy was the Cold War, when it was not a single country but an entire coalition of like-minded governments against the US and its allies. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, it seems fair to say that the US is militarily unchallengeable – there is no one country in the world which could prevail in a land war with America. After 50 years of stockpiling nuclear weapons, of thousands of billions spent on weapons never to be used, the prize is total military superiority.
And now we have terrorism. Four hundred billion dollars in annual military spending, training and equipment on the cutting edge of technology, the ability to send a missile through the window of a building on the opposite side of the world...and nineteen fanatics with box-cutters pull off an attack which kills over 3,000 civilians and irreparably damages the US's prestige.
What is the lesson to be learnt from this?
Being king of the military castle has gotten us precisely nowhere. The enemy now is lower-tech, less trained, smaller in number and without even a country to call its own; and yet, it is potentially more dangerous than communism ever was. The answer does not lie in the use of military force, but in diplomacy – a measure scorned by current Western politicians. Isn't it obvious that having the biggest stick hasn't forced our enemies into co-operation, but has merely bred resentment and forced the use of more underhanded tactics?
The mess in Iraq is a perfect example. It seems likely that the best way out for all involved is to engage diplomatically with neighbouring Iran and Syria, encouraging them to help rein in the terrorist militias. But the Bush administration is reluctant to go down a path so contradictory to their philosophy – it would be an ideological defeat almost as sure as pulling out altogether.
Terrorists are not a conventional army. They will not walk onto a battlefield, load their muskets, and advance into the teeth of Western defenses in neat rows, firing and reloading and marching and dying like gentlemen. They will always have sponsors, will always have somewhere to hide, for as long as the West refuses to engage diplomatically with its allies. The heavy-handed use of force does not vanquish the enemy, it simply forces him underground. Diplomacy, on the other hand, has the power to stop him from being your enemy altogether – simply look at the US-Russian relationship today as compared to 20 years ago.
The threat of terrorism will never be extinguished as long as the West refuses to communicate with its foes. As we saw in the Cold War, a little goodwill goes a very long way. If we make allies – or at least put on neutral terms – the countries which sponsor and harbor terrorists, they will have no support, nowhere to hide. But it may do us well to remember that you cannot kill a mosquito with a machine gun.
| 56 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
