Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Iran's president sent a letter to Dubya (I have what I'm told is a copy, but haven't read it yet and so can't comment). A pretty big gesture I'd say (even if he is a 'bad' man, our history and interference in their country isn't exactly rosy). One that was rebuffed and scorned. I don't consider that a diplomatic act.
The United States said Wednesday it will join in face-to-face talks with Iran over its nuclear program if Tehran first agrees to put disputed atomic activities on hold, a shift in tactics meant to offer the Iranians a last chance to avoid punishing sanctions.
At the White House, President Bush said, "I believe that it's important that we solve this issue diplomatically, and my decision today says that the United States is going to take a leadership position in solving this issue."
The above quotes came from this article.
How nice. Can diplomacy really work when it's only attempted on one level? The Iran/US issue is not new to this dispute over possible nuclear weapons. It's older than that. How can this difference of opinion be cleared up by focusing on ONE issue, when the parties don't know each other anymore (since dimplomatic ties were cut in 1979)? To me it makes sense to begin at the ground level. Accept the letter from Amadinejad as a gesture. Return a peaceful gesture in return. Say "Hello". Go from there. But make a real effort at dimplomacy. Relationships are built up over time (except for one night stands. And their legitimacy as a relationship is sketchy at best. Unless you are a diamond company, then you can use it as another venue to carouse down in your efforts to....digression. Back to the task at hand) and I see no reason why this is any different in the relationships between countries. I suppose it's easier to point to Iran's avoidance of our bullying (yes, it is) and demand that this ONE issue is addressed (ignoring history once again! Pretending that nuclear head-butting is all that's involved).
In my opinion, telling someone what they must do without giving them a voice to debate WITH you, is not diplomacy. Making demands is not making the utmost efforts at diplomacy. Give and take; exchanges of ideas; trying to understand the other side (something rarely done, on either side, it seems); this is diplomacy to me.
To end this tirade (I have to work ya know), I want to throw out one last quote from the above mentioned article and let it be known again how ridiculously poor a choice I think our pres made with his selection for our rep in the UN (the error of his ways should have been clear when this diplomatic 'genius' declared his hatred of the UN and desire it be dismantled):
It was a rare one-on-one discussion between Bolton and Javad Zarif. Bolton has said previously there are a few diplomats at the U.N. he never talks to — from Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba.
Huh. Diplomacy at its finest. Refusal to communicate. Great idea when one of the counties mentioned (Venezuela) is one of our primary sources of oil... How can you know your 'enemy' (which implies facts and understanding) when you have no contact with them?
The guy (Bolton) is an arrogant idiot.