Maybe we should start talking to our enemies
POST said 07/03, 11:25 AM
I've always held the view that there is a difference between talking to terror groups and talking to governments (even if those governements are believed to be supporting some of the groups).
Governments are institutions of state, designed to look after the interests of their people. For many years these terror groups enjoyed refuge in countries where they were supported by governments. Out attitude that we will not engage with these countries at a diplomatic level led to the growth and strengthening of these groups.
It is time that we uproot these groups by engaging with governments that allegedly providing them with support.
I do hope that this the route Obama is planning to take on our foreign policy.
GenialFascist said 07/03, 08:18 PM
First, we do talk with every nation. Occasionally, depending on politics and situation, that communication is "back-channel." Under the radar and not on the front page. Our "enemies" know our expectations, our conflict with their actions, our refusal of their support for radical and dangerous groups. Our "enemies" know what actions they need to take to open "front-channel" communication. An example is N. Korea's recent destruction of a cooling tower with the intern'l press invited to film the event. N. Korea took that step without us having to sit down and enter into negotiations/talks to achieve their cooperation. The door to face-to-face talks opens a bit.
Carter visits Ramallah in April and "talks" with Hamas officials, lays a wreath on Arafat's grave. In May a rocket from Hamas ruled Gaza flies into an Israeli shopping center killing 14. Talking didn't have much impact.
Talking is good when we have something to talk about.
Until the guy trying to kill you puts down his weapon I'd rather not try and engage in constructive conversation.
POST said 07/05, 06:14 PM
I would like to believe that we do talk to Iran and Cuba, but evidence has shown us that we are not prepared to "back or front channel", at least not while Bush is still in the Oval office. A lot of the points you are raising about our engagements with these countries are speculations. I am basing my argument on policy statements that the Bush administration has uttered.
There are political consequences for a government that tells its people that it will not engage with certain governments and turn around to secretly do the opposite.
I am saying, we need to engage publicly with countries we are not friendly with to secure democracy and diplomatic achievements. This includes Zimbabwe. For us to stand by the side ways and do political cheer leading is not helping us but all those we stand against their causes.
GenialFascist said 07/05, 08:09 PM
We do talk to Iran, to Cuba, to Syria, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe. Diplomatic status exists between the U.S. and all of these countries. We host their embassies, they host ours.
If their diplomats have something to say our government will listen. By "talks" I have to assume that you want the U. S. to make the first overture. By "talks" I have to assume that what you actually mean are negotiations. A give and take, an exchange of ideas to determine why they behave the way they do, why they feel the way they feel??? I???m OK, your OK???
Please. Iran refuses to cease it???s nuclear program and has vowed the destruction of Israel. Where exactly do you see us finding "common ground" with Ahmadinejad. North Korea has made only the first steps at cooperation. Cuba is a brutal dictatorship. Hamas has an active terrorist situation with Israel. What do we "talk" about with these governments? We have made clear to them our demands for establishing normal relations as responsible members of the world community. These are non-negotiable demands. Again, what exactly do we talk about?
A healthy relationship with the U.S. is a valuable commodity and ample encouragement for their cooperation.
POST said 07/06, 02:02 PM
You are making a number of good points in your arguments, but you make it sound like its enough to engage with our enemies behind the scenes only. I think the effects of opening (unconditional) dialogue with them will spill over to issues such as economy, security, and democracy for all of us, especially the civilians of these countries.
Its fine that we talk to Iran through their embassy but that cannot be enough to deal with the grave problem that started our contention. I still find that Iran could welcome negotiations with the US on their nuclear program. The reason they would welcome this is because they understand the impact of other spinoffs in their country.
This is something we could have done with Saddam, instead of resorting to war (killing innocent children and women looking for WMDs that did not exist). So negotiations are better and yield better outcomes.
GenialFascist said 07/08, 01:38 AM
We don't negotiate with dictators. Our enemies know why they are our enemies. These countries have choosen paths which place them in opposition to our policies and/or beliefs or threaten our national safety and security.
Neville Chamberlain talked with Hitler and assured Briton and the world that if they just accommodated Hitler the world would be safe.
In situations where we have subtle differences with friendly governments talking is good.
"Enemies" such as Iran, Cuba, Syria, or Terrorist governments (Hamas) don't warrant the benefit of "talks." Prior to our sitting down with them they need to shed their policies, actions and rhetoric which make them enemies of us or our allies.
Comments
Add Your Comment
I wondered if General Facist would bring in Chamberlain, since he is always raised by people who have a poor understanding of pre-war europe as an example of why one shouldn't talk to enemies. When Chaimberlain met with Hitler in 1938 he was the leader of a country that was utterly unable to actually threaten German expansion in Eastern Europe - Italy had sided with the Germans, the French were unwilling to move against Germany, the Soviets had signed a non-aggression pact and the Americans had adopted an isolationist policy. Chamberlain actually had few options when he signed the Munich Agreement, since he was negotiating out of fear of another war, but with little military strength to avert such a course. Interestingly on his return from Munich where he made the 'peace in our time' speech he also mobilized the army, improved the radar detection systems in southern England and put more money into completing the Spitfire and Hurricane aircraft that would defend Britain. The lesson of Chamberlain is not that talking to ones enemies is a terrible idea, but is the same as the sentiment expressed by Kennedy - 'Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.' On that, Chamberlain failed.
Tickers | 07/08/08
Report Offensive Comment
First it's "Genial" not "General" :)... Granted Europe was a basket-case in the late 30's... To me the key in your statement is that Chamberlain "...was negotiating out of fear of another war..." With regard to Hitler being "utterly unable to actually threaten German expansion in Eastern Europe" at the time of Chamberlain's meeting remember Hitler had already "annexed" Austria and had stated that he was going to "rescue" Sudetenland. Permission for this "rescue" was part of what Chamberlain agreed to. Next came Poland, then came France... then ya got Hitler in your underpants.... Sorry... long day... not feeling too serious... Right now Iran can't seriously threaten Israel... Do we negotiate and permit them time to develop weapons that could plunge the world into a real WWIII?
GenialFascist | 07/08/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Photos: The Hajj Goes High-Tech
Advances in infrastructure and security improve the experience of Islam's holiest pilgrimage
( )
Athens in Flames
A massive student protest against proposed government reforms of state universities developed into major rioting in the streets of the Greek capital following the shooting of a teenage boy by riot police.
(Louisa Gouliamaki / AFP / Getty)
The UK Government had secret talks with the IRA during the 1990s despite public denials at the time. These tentative moves led to the establishment of the peace process in the late '90s and the end of the "troubles." Talking with the so-called "enemy" worked in that case.
mjb22 | 07/04/08
Report Offensive Comment