"UNITED NATIONS – President Barack Obama's administration will engage in "direct diplomacy" with Iran, the newly installed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said Monday."
My response to this is that it is about time. I strongly feel that the only way to accomplish things diplomatically in this world is to directly interact with the states involved. Now this does not mean agreeing with everything that state does or giving in to every desire of the state. But, it means keeping the paths of communication open so that states can have access to each other to discuss issues that affect both them and the world. Even during the Cold War both the Soviet Union and the USA kept in contact. The cutting off of all official communication that the USA did with Iran in 1979 only served to make a bad problem worse. I would argue that relations with Iran are worse now then in 1979 when there revolution happened. Had we stayed connected with them in one legitimate form or another who knows what might have happened. As far as what this means for the future it is hard to say but I think this is a good step for President Obamas administration and I hope they continue to pursue diplomatic channels when there becomes a need to pressure some of these states.
8 comments:
Yeah. That's worked so well so far with all the other countries in the world that have tried it so far. Iranian radical clerics will listen to the Great Satan if only we talk to them directly.
Sure.
Baby steps CT, Baby steps. Then, when they refuse to listen the boom gets lowered. But, it seems to me that we haven't at least given them the rope so that they can hang themselves with it.
How many baby steps? For almost 6 years Europe and the UN have been trying talks and negotiations and inspections. When do you stop with the diplomacy, what is the criteria for someone saying "hey, this isn't working!" or is there any?
All valid points CT. But, I think the difference is that the USA has more weight then the UN and Europe and hopefully open diplomatic channels will make a difference with Iran much like I believe it has with North Korea. I realize North Korea is not perfect but at least they are not the threat that Iran is right now.
Jimmy Carter was also a big beleiver in talking diplomacy, the problem is the rhetoric of the speaker forces the issue. If you constantly say in public that you don't believe the military will work, you denigrate the soldiers, you speak out against aggressive tactics, chances are your words have no oomph behind them. Oh dear you are going to bring economic sanctions against us...who cares, in some parts of the world, might is the only way to bring the area into line.
Valid point about Carter. I feel like it is to early to tell about Obama in this case. I agree that economic sanctions will not work but I guess my thought is lets try something different and see if that works then if it doesn't we go back to military action. I would like to see us try it at first. I don't think under Bush we gave it enough of a shot.
Bush had what he felt were the best interests in mind for all the people of the region, not just the rulers. His entire philosophy is that a democracy is the only free way a people can live. Sadly, years and years of being under the thumb is difficult to change. I would however like to point out that the totalitarian regimes of the Eastern Bloc were changed in about two generations of people who were not thumbed down, but allowed freedom. Germany, and them other nations that were under soviet rule's children have grown up knowing that there is a better way. It's sad to see that the MTV way of looking at things, instant gratification and low attention spans have held into the political arena. It takes time for people to grab a hold of and embrace a change, and it generally isn't the elders that do so, it tends to be the children who grow up in the changed society that get and hold onto the benefits. Sorry for the disjointed thought process here, I am a bit of a tard. Never go full tard, never.
You are correct Joel. I agree that Bush had, what he felt, were the best interests of the people in the Middle East at heart. But, I would argue that he was ultimately wrong in the path that he chose to reach that goal.
I feel and granted that this is just a feeling that if over the last several years there had been open communication diplomacy going on then the youth that you talk about would have been hearing about the options that exist in a democracy. I think the mind set that exists within the Middle East is a completley different mind set then what existed in the Eastern Bloc country and that is what makes this such a hard problem to solve.
Post a Comment