Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (206177)	10/17/2006 2:20:10 AM
From: Sdgla	Respond to of 281500

AS LONG AS WE’RE TALKING, WE’RE NOT SHOOTING AT EACH OTHER” CATEGORY: History, Iran, UNITED NATIONS If we’ve heard that saying once over the last century, we’ve heard it a million times. As diplomatic maneuverings failed miserably in the summer of 1914 to prevent the cataclysm of World War I, exhausted negotiators were at a loss to figure out what happened. Why did the old diplomatic verities that had worked so well for more than a century fail in this instance to prevent a general European war? The short answer is that most of the parties wanted war. Or refused to take advantage of any “out” that was offered. This was due to the suicidal interlocking alliance system that assured smaller, weaker states dictated whether the great powers went to war or not. Germany was at the mercy of Franz Joseph’s Austria-Hungarian Empire whose ultimatum to Serbia following the Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination automatically dragged the Czar and Russia into any potential conflict. This made French participation inevitable as well as Britain’s forced march to disaster. Talking, it appears, was useless. The war so horrified civilized people everywhere that new diplomatic paradigms were invented to deal with conflicts. International organizations were constituted in order to give belligerents a forum to air their grievances. A blizzard of treaties were agreed to outlawing war itself, placing limits on naval tonnage, establishing uniform methods of dealing with POW’s, chemical weapons, and a host of other war related issues. A fat lot of good it all did. Almost exactly 20 years after the Versailles Treaty was signed ending the first World War, Adolph Hitler deliberately launched the second. But Hitler’s actions prior to the war were unique in history. He used diplomacy not for the purposes of conflict resolution, but to legitimize his power grabs. Skillfully blending a masterful propaganda campaign with an in your face negotiating style, Hitler cowed both the British and French into accepting his vision of “A Greater Germany” that included a re militarization of the Rhineland, Aunchluss with Austria, the absorption of the Sudetenland into the Reich, and the final destruction of the Czech rump state as poor President Emil Hacha was verbally abused into handing what was left of his country over to the Nazis. And yet, even as evidence of Hitler’s use of diplomacy as another kind of warfare piled up before their eyes, both Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier convinced themselves that as long as they were talking, Hitler wouldn’t go to war. This use of negotiations not to solve problems but simply to carry on with the diplomatic niceties – negotiations for the sake of negotiating – led directly to World War II. Thanks to extensive records captured after the war, we know now that Hitler always intended to go to war with France and England and nothing those two nations did would have stopped him. But would the Allies have discovered this if they had not been so in love with the diplomatic process? If, for instance, a more hard eyed approach to dealing with Germany exposed Hitler for the deal breaker that he turned out to be, could France and Britain have been forced to act militarily before Hitler was ready? This has been bothering me for months as the Israel-Palestinian war erupted and the Iranian/North Korean problems moved center stage. The fact of the matter is, I have zero confidence that negotiations with any of those parties will serve any other purpose than advancing their own plans for evil. Negotiations have been nearly continuous between Israel and the Palestinians for nearly 60 years and one must look realistically at what those talks have achieved. Is Israel safer? Do the Palestinians have a homeland? How much real progress has been made? Diplomats point to concessions made by Israel that have ceded land and sovereignty to the Palestinians. But has this made Israel safer, more secure? Does anyone save Hosni Mubarak in Egypt view the Israelis with anything but hate and loathing? A similar question could be asked of the Jordanians or any other Arab state. Despots all whose hold on power is dependent on the barrel of a gun could be overthrown tomorrow. And 60 years of “negotiating” would be seen for the utterly futile exercise it truly is. The Palestinians have no interest in living peacefully with a Jewish state. They wish that state gone. Through 60 years of negotiating, they have refused to recognize even the reality of that state’s existence. But somehow, “negotiations” are the end all and be all of statecraft and the proprieties must be observed. I find similar myopia when it comes to Iran and North Korea. Here’s former Carter National Security Advisor who sums up the striped pants position perfectly: Why won’t the Bush administration talk bilaterally and substantively with NK, as the Brits (and eventually the US) did with Libya? Because the Bush administration sees diplomacy as something to be engaged in with another country as a reward for that country’s good behavior. They seem not to see diplomacy as a tool to be used with antagonistic countries or parties, that might bring about an improvement in the behaviour of such entities, and a resolution to the issues that trouble us. Thus we do not talk to Iran, Syria, Hizballah or North Korea. We only talk to our friends—a huge mistake. Talking solely for the reason that this is the way it’s always been done and doing or trying anything differently is crazy seems to be the position of our foreign policy elites. You can’t really blame them. It was how they were trained. The diplomatic dance is successful when both parties are rational and both parties see an advantage in reaching an agreement. Civil wars in Africa especially have lent themselves to negotiated settlement for this reason. What advantage would accrue to Iran in reaching an agreement? I mean a real agreement that totally dismantled their nuclear program under strict and intrusive inspections. More importantly, how could we be sure that they would adhere to the agreement in the first place? Diplomats like to talk about “confidence building measures” and other intermediate steps before reaching an accord with an adversary. But what do you do when one party to the negotiations is not interested in settlement but rather in using the talks as a way to delay sanctions, or military action, or world condemnation, or any other fallout that would occur if and when the negotiations fail? This is the great conundrum facing the Bush Administration with Iran. North Korea proved that they couldn’t be trusted as the paper mache “Agreed Framework” turned out to be nothing more than a way to put American policy makers to sleep while Kim continued his enrichment activities. When the Bush Administration called the North Koreans on their cheating, they unilaterally abandoned the agreement and brought their activities into the open. The six power talks, where it was believed China and Russia could convince Kim to stop his mad rush for the bomb, proved in the end to be useless. One wonders if China, who supplies the North Koreans with 90% of their fuel oil couldn’t dissuade Kim how the United States in bi-lateral talks could have done any better (without giving Kim another huge bribe as the Clinton Administration did with the Agreed Framework). In a very roundabout way I am questioning this paradigm that posits the notion that negotiations – even if they won’t accomplish anything – are always preferable to the alternatives (not necessarily military). If only one side in the negotiations is seeking agreement while the other side wishes to use the talks to achieve the goals that the negotiations are trying to forestall, isn’t it common sense to ask why bother? The old verities and certainties did not work on North Korea. They are not working with the Palestinians. And it is an open question whether they will work with Iran. One could legitimately ask then that if we don’t have negotiations, don’t we de facto have a state of war? Not necessarily. There are still measures short of war that could be undertaken to dissuade an adversary from engaging in activities that are clearly unacceptable to the world at large. Sanctions and other measures that isolate an aggressive nation could – if they are broad enough and sting enough, threatening the stability and survival of the regime – accomplish far more than any negotiations ever could. Unfortunately, that just wouldn’t be possible. Diplomats live to negotiate. And negotiating simply for the sake of talking would appear to be the preference of a world community who one day will wake up and realize that all of the talk expended over Iran and North Korea was as worthless as the rubble that will be left behind when one of their cities lies in ruins. By: Rick Moran at 5:52 pm rightwingnuthouse.com

To: bentway who wrote (206177)	10/17/2006 7:24:57 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Should never have invaded", but we did, and nothing can change that. "There's no fixing it, no matter how long we stay." Well, you've added a new element to your rhetoric. Iraq is doomed, women and minorities hurt worst, news at 6 on your local PBS station and don't forget to read the New York Times, special October Surprise edition. They'll tone down the rhetoric after November 7, normal people can't keep it up indefinitely, they have lives. You know, I think you hate Bush so bad that you'd rather see the Iraqi people's lives be ruined because if they were better off it would destroy you. That's called Schadenfreude, taking joy in other people's misery. But yours has reached epic proportions. It's not enough for Bush to suffer, everything and everyone he's touched must suffer, too, in order to satisfy your sense of justice. Revenge hath no fury like a middle aged white guy with a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind.