Ahmandinejad Goes to Ground Zero
September 21st, 2007Today on Huffington Post there was a great article by Kristen Breitweiser about the president of Iran coming to New York
...So, no, I wasn't angry that Ahmandinejad wanted to visit Ground Zero. I was angry, however, at the "pack mentality" of our leading journalists. I was also dismayed -- but not surprised -- at the similar mentality of our current crop of political officials and presidential candidates, several of whom provided the same predictable, politically-correct sound-bite: "We are OUTRAGED!"
What I would have preferred was some real statesmanship.
Real statesmanship would be a presidential candidate with the courage to encourage potentially dangerous, misinformed leaders like Ahmandinejad to visit Ground Zero, in the hopes that they might learn something.
Real statesmanship would mean proposing a new dialogue with Ahmandinejad and other Iranian leaders, searching for some common ground between America and Iran while there's still time to avert disaster.
Real statesmanship would not be intimidated by the O'Reillys and the Ann Coulters of the world. Real statesmanship would not view this kind of diplomacy as weak, but wise. Real statesmanship would not be based on knee-jerk reactions, but on long-term vision.
So far not one presidential candidate has seized the opportunity to do something "out of the box" and important on Iran -- like actually meeting Ahmandinejad at Ground Zero and challenging him to a real dialogue.
Can you get the visual? Extending hands like an olive branch -- saying to the world that it is high time for Iran and the U.S. to join together to end terrorism, root out rogue extremist groups, and combat the injustice that nurtures them? That would be bold action, not cheap, tough talk. It would show the world that we are strong and confident enough to deal directly and squarely with our enemies, inviting them to join these common battles...
I for one am tired of the "We don't negotiate with terrorists" mentality. The United States is the world's drunken uncle, swaggering around the room picking fights with people who he should be embracing. Here's a quick tip for politicians: We get attacked by our enemies, not by our brothers. So please please please, treat our world neighbors like you would treat your family: with dignity, respect, and compassion.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I think there's a big difference between "we don't negotiate with terrorists" and picking fights.
The principle behind not dealing with terrorists is solid. Like a child who acts out because negative attention is better than none at all, at some point, terrorists first engaged in those tactics because they felt traditional methods of diplomacy were not effective. If they get a response, they will feel it is the only way to get what they want, and they will no longer try the traditional methods. The only way to get them to come back to diplomacy is by ignoring the tantrum.
That said, America's aggressive foreign policy right now is exactly what we shouldn't be doing - reinforcing the tantrum habit and seeking it out in new places.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Thanks for your insightful comment Dinh.
Let me ask a couple of pertinent questions:
Who exactly are the terrorists we do not negotiate with? Syrians? Iranians? Heads of states? By refusing to negotiate with them, do we funnel them into a "terrorist-friendly" category?
I think part of the conflict stems of the deliberate ambiguity of the phrase. No, I don't think that we should give into every irrational demand, as in the case of the tantrums, but I think that if the group says 'We did this because we think your policy is wrong. We would like you to change it', our leaders have an obligation to sit down and discuss a common solution. By engaging in conversation, even with an "enemy", you give them the respect and dignity they desire, even if the outcome isn't exactly what they want.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:12 pm
I think the dissonance comes from people's varying opinions on what negotiation would mean--- giving in, or proactive effort to change for the better? Admitting we were wrong before, or improving upon conditions for the better? etc. etc. It's really hard to sway the public's mind once they've already settled in to and invested in a particular belief, especially when it's a strong one.
For example, a lot of Americans asked, "But if we pull out of the war now, does that mean all we've done (that my brother/husband/son/friend in the military has been away for so long working for) is for nothing? Were we wrong all along? Did we make mistakes?" and people don't like to think that. We like to know the choices we made were the right ones, and that our opinions were right all along.
And going back to Ahmandinejad, by arguing against his visit to Ground Zero the public gets to justify and reiterate their anger and beliefs. With the approval of authorities it's even easier.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Thu,
I'm glad you brought up such a good point. I'd never thought of it in that context, and I think I'm going to apply it more from now on. It seems really important for analysing the status quo.