More on fair-weathered diplomacy

Sometimes, you come across an op-ed that summarizes exactly what you are thinking, better than you could summarize-- which I guess is why some people write op-eds, and others just blog about these things.

This op-ed by Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post pretty much sums up my attitude towards this administration's non-diplomacy diplomacy. You know, the kind where they only talk to people they are on good terms with.

At a press conference devoted to the Middle East crisis, asked why Bush isn't pursuing direct talks with nations like Syria and Iraq, he comments:

Q Many strategists say that we'll never get to the bottom of this crisis unless the U.S. engages directly with Syria and Iran. Why not talk to them directly about this, and have a back-and-forth conversation?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that's an interesting question. I've been reading about that, that people have been posing that question. We have been in touch with Syria. Colin Powell sent a message to Syria in person. Dick Armitage traveled to Syria. Bill Burns traveled to Syria. We've got a consulate office in Syria. Syria knows what we think. The problem isn't us telling Syria what's on our mind, which is to stop harboring terror and to help the Iraqi democracy evolve. They know exactly what our position is. The problem is, is that their response hasn't been very positive. As a matter of fact, it hasn't been positive at all.

And in terms of Iran, we made it clear to the Iranians that if they would honor previous obligations and verifiably stop enrichment of nuclear materials, we would sit at a table. And so there's a way forward for both countries. The choice is theirs. Now, I appreciate people focusing on Syria and Iran, and we should, because Syria and Iran sponsor and promote Hezbollah activities -- all aimed at creating chaos, all aimed at using terror to stop the advance of democracies.
(Italics and emphasis mine.)

You know, if the world successfully operated based on what other people, countries (heck, your own parents and kids) "knows what we think", there wouldn't be a need for dialogue, diplomatic relations, etc. This is kind of an inane way to operate. I'm sure North Korea "knows what we think", just like parents must "know (what their kids) think" when then have that difficult conversation about not trying drugs. Does that deter them from testing missiles? Should the parent simply not have this talk with their children simply because they "know (what their kids) think?" Is knowledge ever legitimate grounds for not pursuing talks? Evidently, it is with this administration.

And it's not like this administration's knowlege has been terribly impressive thus far.

Then there are the faltering talks with Iran. The precondition for talks with Iran is for them to stop enrichment of nuclear materials. However, it's like the chicken and the egg argument. Iran is unlikely to stop enrichment, or answer to our government's quasi-ultimatums. "The choice is theirs," says both an impervious and imperious Bush.

But is it?

As this excellent article states, with a U.S. that is hell-bent (or at least it seems this way to the government of Iran) on destroying Iran, present in four of Iran's bordering nations, it's going to be a bit difficult to convince Iran to give up on uranium enrichment. I mean, let's imagine a world order where the U.S. weren't the superpower that it is. Instead, Iran is that superpower. Canada and Mexico own nuclear weapons and are both hostile to the U.S. Iran just waged war on the Christian minority living in Canada. In such a situation, were Canada or Mexico to demand that U.S. stop developing nuclear weapons technology, "or else", would the U.S. listen? We've just destroyed Iran's neighboring country, and we keep selling weapons to nations that are hostile to Iran, Syria, etc.

It doesn't really seem like we are giving Iran much of a "choice". And if he is indeed giving Iran a "choice", then what a dumb choice that is. Essentially, Bush is accepting no talks as an answer.

How is this productive diplomacy? Or even still, how does this constitute diplomacy at all, to return to the point made in Froomkin's op-ed?

The OED defines diplomacy as:

1. The management of international relations by negotiation; the method by which these relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys; the business or art of the diplomatist; skill or address in the conduct of international intercourse and negotiations.

Well, according to this definition, what the Bush administration is doing hardly constitutes diplomacy. You can't reason with terrorists, but it seems like you can't reason much with this administration, either.