That piece is disappointing, coming from an experienced foreign policy guy like Daalder. However, he has a definite partisan POV that is woven into his analysis. He will join one of the Democratic presidential campaigns next year as a foreign policy adviser, no doubt.
Fact is, there is a mistaken assumption by many that diplomacy is a simple process where two opposing sides sit down in a room, talk for days or weeks or months, sign a document and another world problem has been fixed. That is rarely what happens.
Problems are multidimensional and multipolar, with many different players and many different possible fora for communication and negotiation. It's more like a three-dimensional game of chess where you want to maneuver your opponent into the position you want and, ideally, make him think that is where he wanted to be. Basic bilateral talks are only one of many ways to do that.
I agree that Bush has backed off from the use of force, and he hasn't succeeded yet with a multilateral diplomatic approach. Maybe he never will. But doing nothing? That is a simplistic dismissal of an observable diplomatic process that is very much underway.
As I said before, dismissing partisan opponents by claims they are doing nothing is just a way to avoid addressing what they are actually doing with some analytical rigor and detail.
PS Just one example - the US envoy on North Korea, Chris Hill, was one of the top 3-4 US officials involved in the Dayton Accords on Bosnia and the chief negotiator at the Rambouillet talks on Kosovo. Do you think he is there now to do nothing? Daalder knows that, he was on Clinton's NSC at the time. |
