Wednesday, May 21, 2008
IS IT SENSIBLE TO TALK TO IRAN WITHOUT CONDITIONS?
Both McCain and Hillary Clinton have tried to rule out talking to Iran without demanding that Iran satisfy various conditions first. If the Iranian government is not impelled to accept those conditions, then insisting upon them dashes any hope of having talks with it. Is having talks without conditions naive appeasement, or a sensible thing to do? What does the United States lose by talking without conditions? Some appearance of self-righteousness, no doubt, but self-righteousness is no advantage in diplomacy, especially in dealing with a power that is self-righteous, too. Talks without conditions might not work. On the other hand, there is a chance that the overheated rhetoric on one side or the other would not arise if representatives of the two powers met face to face, ready on both sides to make a genuine effort to find points of agreement on nuclear proliferation and other issues. Moreover, we should be prepared to try again, and again. The alternative – ceaselessly uttering threats -- is too dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The scope of the operative terms has been left so vague as to make the debate meaningless. We need to know more about what we mean by "conditions," and what by "talk." We should note that, because the campaigning takes place publicly, discussions about "talks" with, e.g. Iran constitute a sort of indirect "talk" with Iran, as does, of course, the current administration's policy of announcing "conditions" to be met before "talks" take place. The criticism of this position is that the "conditions" that the Bush administration demands are precisely the sort of "conditions" that usually come out of formalized agreements, produced during or after, and not prior to, "talks."
Also, I fail to see how the mere holding of talks could count as appeasement. By "self-righteousness," I take it, you mean something like "consistency," but if there were no problem with maintaining the current standard of behavior, there would similarly be no reason to hold talks.
Of course given the amount of senseless rhetoric currently aimed at Iran, I see no reason to take any of the talk about talks as good faith efforts toward diplomacy.
The primary belief driving the "no-negotiations without concessions" camp seems to be that there is something that will be gained or lost in the simple act of opening negotiations or not. However, would there be any actual difference between waiting for concessions to open negotiations and demanding concessions in the negotiations themselves, after their opening with (presumably) no conditions attached? It does not seem that any actual difference, besides the cosmetic, would exist. The benefits to actually opening talks, including actually attempting to implement non-military solutions, and the lack of corresponding risks seem to make the entire argument one about form rather than substance.
I suspect that what they fear losing is not the appearance of self-righteousness, but a carefully cultivated appearance of belligerence and even a degree of recklessness. The (bad) reasoning is that if our "enemies" think we're trigger-happy, they'll be less likely to try anything. I think this is the sort of logic that lies behind, e.g., Hillary's "obliterate" comment.
So, they refuse to talk without conditions because doing so might, heaven forbid, make the US appear reasonable.
Hasn't Israel been meeting with Syria lately--is that appeasement? Was Bush criticizing them when he spoke in the Knesset?
What is missing from US policy and has been for at least the last 8 years is an understanding that it is a chess game and not tic-tac-toe. For every move that is made, some advantages are gained and some slips in positions are lost. We have ended up with so much egg on our face that nobody believes our threats. Every one of our perceived enemies knows now that we are so addicted to their oil that our threats are equivalent to a suicide mission. Want to attack Iran? The next day gas prices would be so high that the economy would collapse and America would come to a grinding halt.
Maybe pre-Iraq just bullying Iran and North Korea would have worked. But now it is not a matter of sensibility. Talking is our only option.
Post a Comment