2008 Woodie Awards
Peace talks must include enemies, allies for success
Morgan Riedl
Issue date: 4/29/08 Section: OpEd Page
It's not realistic to expect to engage only friendly regimes and accomplish anything of importance. There is no logic in ignoring those who perpetuate the very problems the world finds most threatening. Solving these problems is obviously contingent on the compliance of those parties contributing to them. It should come as no surprise that the world often finds these parties offensive, but excluding them from attempts to resolve the conflicts they cause is inherently futile. While allies will naturally find compromise amongst themselves comparatively easier (though divergent national interests assure that even this process will not be void of complications) than comprise with enemies, the resulting resolution will not be much of a solution at all. To achieve a sustainable peace, negotiations must involve all parties, especially those likely to spoil the prospect of peace.
The problem is that this administration has often labeled those hostile parties that are so critical to the peace process as terrorist organizations and then promptly refused to talk with them. This moral victory does little to disguise the inevitable policy failure that follows. Four years after being named as part of the "axis of evil" and diplomatically ostracized, North Korea tested a nuclear weapon. So much for non-proliferation. Now, two years later, the United States finds direct talks are "productive." Of course anything is more productive than standing by, even if that means standing on the high ground. That is the point in all of this, though. Negotiations are messy and complex; it's inescapable. The very definition of compromise implies an imperfect solution, but a solution nonetheless. Those who are determined to live in a world in which the "wrong" side never triumphs are merely deluding themselves. The fact is regimes sponsoring conflict exist whether the United States acknowledges them or not. If the United States wants, as it purports to and as it should, to bring an end to these threats, the sponsors need to be included in the process.
The problem is that this administration has often labeled those hostile parties that are so critical to the peace process as terrorist organizations and then promptly refused to talk with them. This moral victory does little to disguise the inevitable policy failure that follows. Four years after being named as part of the "axis of evil" and diplomatically ostracized, North Korea tested a nuclear weapon. So much for non-proliferation. Now, two years later, the United States finds direct talks are "productive." Of course anything is more productive than standing by, even if that means standing on the high ground. That is the point in all of this, though. Negotiations are messy and complex; it's inescapable. The very definition of compromise implies an imperfect solution, but a solution nonetheless. Those who are determined to live in a world in which the "wrong" side never triumphs are merely deluding themselves. The fact is regimes sponsoring conflict exist whether the United States acknowledges them or not. If the United States wants, as it purports to and as it should, to bring an end to these threats, the sponsors need to be included in the process.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 2
Douglas Christianson
posted 4/29/08 @ 12:25 PM EST
In an ideal world, Carter visiting Mashaal, the leader of an internationally recognized terrorist organization, Hamas, would be the start of a long-term peace deal between the Palestinian and Israeli community, this is clearly not the case. (Continued…)
Post a Comment