Diplomacy" as the art of cultivating conflict !!!!!!!!!!

[Daanyeer]

Source: freedominourtime.blogspot
October 25, 2007 Author: William Norman Grigg


The purpose of diplomacy is to protect our independence and security through means other than war.

Those occupying the upper echelons of the Bush Regime define diplomacy as the practice of removing impediments to war. Indeed, for ceeb Cheney and his cohorts, manufacturing pretexts for war is the highest form of diplomacy.

But then again, as Stephen Kinzer documents extensively in his fascinating (and infuriating) book Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, that type of perverse “diplomacy” has long been the Power Elite's stock-in-trade.

Of John Foster Dulles, scion of a family deeply rooted in the Anglo-American Elite, one biographer noted that “it was not too difficult ... for threats and interests to merge in [his] mind,” leading him to the conclusion “that the United States might actually have an interest in being threatened, if through that process Americans could be goaded into doing what was necessary to preserve their way of life.” Thus Dulles and his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, arranged the 1953 Iranian coup that deposed Mohammad Mossadegh, thereby creating the conditions for several decades of stimulating conflict in the Persian Gulf that may well culminate in an apocalyptic war.

I hasten to clarify that the “way of life” referred to above is one in which the bulk of the American population dutifully submits to the benevolent supervision of the likes of Dulles – the anointed Guardians of the Bipartisan Consensus. Keeping the population perpetually alarmed over some foreign threat is a vital part of maintaining that sinister stability; absent such a perpetual crisis, at least some of the people would start agitating for a smaller, less expensive, and less invasive government.

So threat cultivation is necessary in order to ensure a rich harvest of government power. This is hardly a secret; it's been the common practice of rulers for as long as they have afflicted humanity. But the Bush Regime has distinguished itself somewhat by its vulgar, transparent lust for war, and its dogmatic refusal to explore alternatives. It's not their wealth that's being wasted, or their own flesh and blood being rent, by the needless wars they pursue.

To get some sense of just how alienated the Regime is from reality as the rest of us experience it, consider this: The administration's eagerness to go to war with Iran has alarmed Fareed Zakaria.

A little more than a decade ago, Mr. Zakaria – at the time managing editor of the Council on Foreign Relations journal Foreign Affairs – kicked off his career as foreign affairs columnist for Newsweek with an essay entitled “Thank Goodness for a Villain.” The piece contained this breathtaking specimen of Establishment “wisdom”:


“If Saddam Hussein did not exist, we would have to invent him. He is the linchpin of American policy in the Mideast…. If not for Saddam, would the Saudi royal family, terrified of being seen as an American protectorate (which in a sense it s), allow American troops on their soil? Would Kuwait house more than 30,000 pieces of American combat hardware, kept in readiness should the need arise? Would the king of Jordan, the political weather vane of the region, allow the Marines to conduct exercises within his borders?… The end of Saddam Hussein would be the end of the anti-Saddam coalition. Nothing destroys an alliance like the disappearance of the enemy.”




Of course, the Power Elite Zakaria spoke for did indeed create Saddam, for precisely the purposes Zakaria describes. As I've said before, rational people understand that sometimes it is necessary to create alliances to confront enemies; the depraved, power-intoxicated people Zakaria communes with prefer to create enemies in order to justify entangling alliances.



However, at some point Zakaria seems to have retrieved his conscience, or at least recovered his sense of the absurd. With the administration and its supposed Democratic antagonists lusting for war with Iran, and the Regime's media minions depicting Iran as a world-historic menace, Zakaria has taken up the unfamiliar role of dissident.



“Iran has an economy the size of Finland and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion,” he wrote in a recent Newsweek contribution. “It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?”



“We're on a path to irreversible confrontation with a country we know almost nothing about. The United States government has had no diplomats in Iran for almost 30 years. American officials have barely met with any senior Iranian politicians or officials. We have no contact with the country's vibrant civil society. Iran is a black hole to us – just as Iraq had become in 2003.”



Zakaria cites the account of James Dobbins, who served as Bush's representative to the international donor's conference in Bonn following the eviction of the Taliban. Dobbins recalls that the Iranians “were very professional, straightforward, reliable and helpful.” After dipping their toes in the mysterious waters of Washington-centered diplomacy, the Iranians wanted to take the full plunge, offering additional cooperation in Afghanistan and wide-ranging talks with the US on a variety of issues.



“Dobbins took the proposal to a principals meeting in Washington only to have it met with dead silence,” recounts Zakaria. “The then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he says, `looked down and rustled his papers.' No reply was every sent back to the Iranians. Why bother? They're mad.”



The current issue of Esquire offers a similar account of Bu'ushist "diplomacy" toward Iran.



In April 2003, State Department official Hillary Mann received a detailed four-page fax from the Iranian government. The document, which was sent through the Swiss embassy in Tehran (through which Iran and the US have maintained back-channel contacts) contained “a detailed proposal for peace in the Middle East, approved at the highest levels in Tehran.”

The Iranians offered to recognize Israel, cut off all support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, banish or imprison all international terrorists residing in Iran, and to end its nuclear program. The message urged Washington to re-open formal diplomatic channels that have been closed for decades.



The Bush administration refused even to acknowledge the overture from Tehran. Former National Security Council official Flint Leverett (who resigned in digust following the needless invasion of Iraq) protested that the rejection would mean “an Iran that has nuclear weapons and no dialogue with the United States.”

Odd as this result might seem to those familiar with conventional diplomacy, it makes perfect sense once it's understood, once again, that the purpose of Bush/Cheney-style diplomacy is to facilitate, rather than mitigate, conflict.



As the estimable Charley Reese observes with characteristic concision, “The reason our so-called diplomacy hasn't worked [as most people would understand the term `worked'] is because the Bush administration position is this: Iran, unless you stop what you are legally entitled to do (enrich uranium for nuclear fuel), we won't talk to you about not doing what you are legally entitled to do. You can't have talks if your position is that the other side must give in to your demands as a precondition.”




But once again, talking with the Iranians is exactly what the Bush Regime wants to avoid. Direct talks with the Iranians, after all, might lead to a solution other than the war Washington craves -- and what responsible leader would run such a risk?

Labels: diplomacy, Iran, War Party


posted by William N. Grigg @ 1:36 PM 5 Comments Links to this post

5 Comments: At 8:01 PM , Anonymous said... Will,

I read somewhere that bin Laden family members were in a meeting discussing investments with Carlyle Group people on 9/11. It is well known that bin Laden family members were ushered out on flights post-9/11.

Additionally, Bush once said that he was not that concerned about bin Laden.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc

As Osama bin Laden is the bogeyman that keeps on giving, why should we expect that the Bush administration really wants to get him?

Bin Laden on the lam fits better with the thesis of your post than does "Bin Laden -- "Dead, or Alive."

In the first YouTube link above, Bush downplays the importance of one individual -- bin Laden -- to the "War on Terror."

But it's apparent the same Bushian logic did not apply to the person of Saddam Hussein, and it seems like it will not apply to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


At 8:39 PM , TAYLOR said... Will,

I can see why a lot of people might envision "diplomacy" as a positive alternative to war-making, but the truth is a free people require neither from their government to ensure their freedom, prosperity and uninterrupted way of life. (Of course, a TRULY free people would have no government at all... but that's another discussion...)

Just because the government exists doesn't mean it has to have a policy or stance towards other nations or even maintain any kind of conversation with other nations. For those not convinced by the myth of the collective identity, it seems obvious that I can make up my mind about how I feel towards entire nation or individual resident of nation X better than anyone else could for me.

Think about it... it's "friendly" diplomacy with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, South Korea, Germany, etc. etc. which has resulted in American troops in those countries. It is "friendly" diplomacy that has enabled countries like Turkey to play the role of enablers in wars of conquest. It is "friendly" diplomacy that has resulted in "trade negotiations" with the EU, Canada and Mexico which limit and regulate the freedom and efficiency of American enterprise and vice versa.

No, a truly free person does not seek diplomacy between "his" country's government and any other country's government, just as he does not seek war between his country and any other country. A truly free person is indifferent at a national level and realizes that only his individual judgment of other nations and peoples is valid and relevant, and he acts accordingly.


At 10:45 PM , Anonymous said... The question still lingers for me: why? Why do our "leaders" want war. Sure, if I make bombs I stand to profit. But upon inspection, the connections of the military-industrial complex aren't that vital to the Bush regime, especially now that reelection isn't an issue. And it's not like the power elite need any more money. Maybe it's just evil for evil's sake. Or, even though few believe in him or his influence, Satan? As evil as the Nazi regime was, the Germans got screwed after WW1, lubing the population to digest war propaganda. Here, facing few hardships and the freedom of the internet, the nation tolerates, even embraces this nonsense. Very scary.


At 11:31 PM , RightWingNutter said... "The purpose of diplomacy is to protect our independence and security through means other than war."

Teddy R defined diplomacy as the art of saying "Nice doggy" while picking up a stout stick. Different assumptions flow from different definitions.

It has also been defined as "War by other means."

Would the Soviet Union still exist if ONLY means other than war had been used to resist it?

Would we be buying cars and electronics from South Korea (or Japan) had we said in 1940 "Oh sorry, please go ahead and subjugate Indonesia and China to meet your natural resource needs."?

How many more people would have been murdered had we taken those paths?

I should also point out that while Finland uses nuclear power, it's leaders have never stated that Denmark or Estonia should be wiped off the map, or that their inhabitants should be moved to the United States.

Finland was also continuously open and cooperative with the IAEA. Iran has conspicuously not cooperated.

Finland also does not support and supply terrorist organizations to attack Norway or Iceland. Finn agents have never killed US Marines or tortured and killed US diplomats (though what they call a "Tango" could be considered an atrocity.) Neither has Finland purchased IRBMs from anyone.

One of your statements re. the Fareed Zakaria piece was interesting. "Of course, the Power Elite Zakaria spoke for did indeed create Saddam, for precisely the purposes Zakaria describes."

We certainly created the Shah, who in turn (unintentionally through his own bungling) created the present Mullahocracy. How did we create Saddam. He was already created when we gave him an intel prop against Iran, who had only recently returned the embassy staff they had captured a year and a half before. Rather a mild backatcha for what would normally be considered an act of war.

However, saying we created Saddam strikes me as a jaunt into Truther type lala land.

Concerning the Iraq/Iran conflict Henry the K said "Too bad they can't both lose" which pretty much summed up the official and general public attitude. Trouble was that most middle east oil came out through Hormuz under threat from one of the belligerents. Diplomatic statements that Iran should not interfere with shipping were made by the presence of up to two carrier battle groups at any one time. Since we didn't have diplomatic relations due to our previous diplomatic mission being kidnapped and held hostage, we were compelled to rely on big sticks rather than soft speech.

No comment on Dobbins or the Esquire article since I'm not familiar with the background...except: Iran's supplying EFP mines to Sadrist militias is not some little diplomatic piffle. It is an (other) act of war. It is casus belli. That we have not taken military action against Iran already for this is an extremely diplomatic act.

The elephant in the room that you stroll around as if it didn't exist is that Iran has been conducting a war against us since 1979. Its been the same kind of war that the Soviet Union conducted, through proxies with some plausible deniability. It is a fact that before Osama bin Laden's people attacked us on 9/11 that Iran's agents had killed more American civilians and service men than any country since we left Viet Nam.

If you would please point to some past equivalent encounter with another nation that was resolved peacefully, I would be most grateful.


At 1:24 AM , Anonymous said... rightwingnutter, educate thyself (and stop with the pretentious language [come on--piffle?] and Hannityesque penchant for koolaid). The CIA, through two of its most esteemed and unctuous Skull and Bonesmen (which Will really should have mentioned), the Dulles brothers, overthrew the rightfully elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, and installed the Shah, a point which you conveniently ignore. Nah, they couldn't still be pissed at us for THAT, could they? Or, as Norman Podhoretz recently said to some, ahem, Truthers, "that's ancient history", which still doesn't make it irrelevant.

Saddam's association with the CIA began in 1959 when he was part of a CIA authorized six man team sent to assassinate then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim, a bloody dictator who had committed the cardinal sin of mentioning Iraqi nationalization of oil and had withdrawn from the Baghdad Pact. The assassination attempt failed, but Saddam had made his bones with the power elite which smoothed the way for his return to Iraq later in the 1960's, where he ultimately headed the Ba'ath party which had been installed by the CIA.

The CIA (and its predecessor, the OSS) has been sponsoring coups and otherwise meddling in the affairs of other countries, particularly countries in the Middle East, for the better part of a century. That's the real elephant in the room that you're strolling around.

[*jr]

Good read. Yours truly posted Mr. Zakaria's article here last week. 8)