Undiplomatic Diplomacy

Last week’s meeting of leaders from more than 170 countries at the United Nations in New York gave the Bush administration a rare opportunity to talk with its alleged adversaries, such as the presidents of Syria and Iran. Predictably, however, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice would rather denounce than meet them.

If it is true that Syria allows suspected terrorists to pass through its territory into Iraq, Ms. Rice should have taken advantage of the opportunity to have a frank face-to-face encounter with Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad. Instead, she excluded him from any discussion of Lebanese-Syrian relations and then intentionally delayed his visa. Feeling humiliated, Assad canceled his trip to New York.

Bringing the Assad regime down by isolating and destabilizing it is a pipedream whose pursuit would only further escalate Arab hostility toward the United States. Having been on study tours in Syria under both Hafez Assad and his son Bashar, I can testify to the fact that the younger Assad has substantially liberalized Syria economically and socially. If he tried to end the domination of the ruling Ba’ath Party, he would risk being overthrown by the Party’s still powerful hardliners

Syria joined the alliance against Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War and welcomed his demise. Regardless of the West’s misgivings with Bashar’s floundering regime, the U.S. can only gain from mutually supportive relations with Syria, particularly along its border with Iraq.

Iran is another alleged “rogue regime” with which the Bush administration refuses to speak, one of the three countries the President thought it wise to denounce as “axis of evil.” Iran’s new and outspoken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did come to New York and addressed the United Nations, but no American diplomat would have anything to do with him.

Yet, the Bush administration suspects the government in Tehran of producing nuclear weapons and urgently wants it to scrap even its non-military atomic energy program. Instead of addressing the issue directly in talks with the Iranian President while he was in New York, the White House is waiting for Britain, France, and Germany to impress America’s demands upon him.

The Iranian government, however, has repeatedly and correctly pointed out that under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty every country is entitled to produce nuclear fuel for non-military use. China, Russia, and India agree with Iran’s position and oppose any condemnation of Iran, or sanctions against it, as long as there is no demonstrated proof that it manufactures nuclear arms.
"
While Secretary Rice tried to ratchet up the pressure against Iran, President Admadinejad was widely applauded in the Muslim world when he accused the United States of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty by “trying to prevent other countries from acquiring the technology to produce peaceful nuclear energy.” Non-western observers generally find the U.S. position on nuclear proliferation inconsistent and unacceptable, particularly as long as Washington condones not only Israel’s production of nuclear weapons and its failure to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty but also its refusal to allow any inspection of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Commission.

If the Bush administration is serious about improving America’s relations with the Muslim world, it needs to talk with all Muslim leaders willing to discuss our grievances against them, as well as their grievances against us. The United States would have lost nothing--and probably gained at least morally--if Rice had sought to talk with Assad and Admadinejad.

Denunciation and confrontation of ideological adversaries impedes progress. It tends to increase tensions and thus provides more ammunition to anti-American propagandists and terrorists. It certainly is not in the national interest.

The President urgently needs to improve on his administration’s unimaginative and unproductive foreign policy. He owes a more conciliatory diplomacy toward Muslim countries particularly to those Americans who fight in harm’s way in faraway lands to end the scourge of hatred and terror.

Wolf D. Fuhrig	Home	09-25-05
Undiplomatic Diplomacy
Last week’s meeting of leaders from more than 170 countries at the United Nations in New York gave the Bush administration a rare opportunity to talk with its alleged adversaries, such as the presidents of Syria and Iran. Predictably, however, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice would rather denounce than meet them. If it is true that Syria allows suspected terrorists to pass through its territory into Iraq, Ms. Rice should have taken advantage of the opportunity to have a frank face-to-face encounter with Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad. Instead, she excluded him from any discussion of Lebanese-Syrian relations and then intentionally delayed his visa. Feeling humiliated, Assad canceled his trip to New York. Bringing the Assad regime down by isolating and destabilizing it is a pipedream whose pursuit would only further escalate Arab hostility toward the United States. Having been on study tours in Syria under both Hafez Assad and his son Bashar, I can testify to the fact that the younger Assad has substantially liberalized Syria economically and socially. If he tried to end the domination of the ruling Ba’ath Party, he would risk being overthrown by the Party’s still powerful hardliners Syria joined the alliance against Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War and welcomed his demise. Regardless of the West’s misgivings with Bashar’s floundering regime, the U.S. can only gain from mutually supportive relations with Syria, particularly along its border with Iraq. Iran is another alleged “rogue regime” with which the Bush administration refuses to speak, one of the three countries the President thought it wise to denounce as “axis of evil.” Iran’s new and outspoken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did come to New York and addressed the United Nations, but no American diplomat would have anything to do with him. Yet, the Bush administration suspects the government in Tehran of producing nuclear weapons and urgently wants it to scrap even its non-military atomic energy program. Instead of addressing the issue directly in talks with the Iranian President while he was in New York, the White House is waiting for Britain, France, and Germany to impress America’s demands upon him. The Iranian government, however, has repeatedly and correctly pointed out that under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty every country is entitled to produce nuclear fuel for non-military use. China, Russia, and India agree with Iran’s position and oppose any condemnation of Iran, or sanctions against it, as long as there is no demonstrated proof that it manufactures nuclear arms. " While Secretary Rice tried to ratchet up the pressure against Iran, President Admadinejad was widely applauded in the Muslim world when he accused the United States of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty by “trying to prevent other countries from acquiring the technology to produce peaceful nuclear energy.” Non-western observers generally find the U.S. position on nuclear proliferation inconsistent and unacceptable, particularly as long as Washington condones not only Israel’s production of nuclear weapons and its failure to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty but also its refusal to allow any inspection of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Commission. If the Bush administration is serious about improving America’s relations with the Muslim world, it needs to talk with all Muslim leaders willing to discuss our grievances against them, as well as their grievances against us. The United States would have lost nothing--and probably gained at least morally--if Rice had sought to talk with Assad and Admadinejad. Denunciation and confrontation of ideological adversaries impedes progress. It tends to increase tensions and thus provides more ammunition to anti-American propagandists and terrorists. It certainly is not in the national interest. The President urgently needs to improve on his administration’s unimaginative and unproductive foreign policy. He owes a more conciliatory diplomacy toward Muslim countries particularly to those Americans who fight in harm’s way in faraway lands to end the scourge of hatred and terror.

Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

09-25-05

Undiplomatic Diplomacy