Talking Does Not Make a Foreign Policy

I listened recently to three people who claim to advise Barack Obama on foreign policy. They all extolled the virtues of talking to our adversaries and allies. I have read a considerable number of blogs and op-eds arguing for and against Obama's declaration that he will talk to friend and foe alike. I believe it is a good idea, under practically all circumstances, and a vast improvement over the Bush administration's bankrupt unilateralism. However, talking does not a foreign policy make. Neither does the very welcome call for more diplomacy and less saber rattling. Talking and diplomacy are merely means to an end. The question is: to what end?

The French philosopher Montesquieu wrote in the days of sailing ships that no wind will do for a boat that has no port it is seeking to reach. Take the most dangerous part of the world, Pakistan. No one is denying that it has nuclear weapons, and a lot of Taliban running around, and that they have friends and allies in the Pakistani intelligence services. What do Obama and company plan to tell Pakistan? And what if there is no one who can speak for Pakistan? And what if those who do point out that they have other concerns than ours, for instance not to piss off the Taliban?

I am sure some progressive people will say, and not without merit, that it is 'all our fault.' If the CIA had not trained and armed Afghani troops, working with the Pakistani intelligence services; if American corporations... etc etc. But this is all water under the bridge. There is no way to rewind history. We now have a problem we do need to talk about, but first we must figure out what we are seeking, an outcome that will serve both us and Pakistan. I do not hear Obama and company talking about this thorny subject.

There are half a dozen others. Surely one should talk to Iran, Syria and Russia, among others. But on the way to sitting down with them, one must note that -- surprise, surprise -- they have their own agendas and needs. I see no sign that all the good people who surround Obama, or for that matter McCain, have drafted a plan or envisioned a new international architecture that the US can promote in talking to these agitated parties.

Actually there is a model that President Clinton worked out and which has been recently revived. In dealing with North Korea, the US did talk to other nations, including China, Japan and South Korea, as well as to North Korea. However, it also had a plan. It was willing to forego any notions of regime change, to shore up the last Communist tyranny in the world, by granting it fuel and food -- in exchange for it giving up its nuclear weapons. We do not know yet if all will work out, but it is a clear policy. Talking is not the main point; what we are talking about is.

Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University and author of Security First (Yale, 2007) www.securityfirstbook.com email: [e-mail]

Comments

[Pdubya]

until we address interventionism(totalitarianism) vs. just war/constitutionalism and fiat currencies and monetary policy vs. sound money and commodity standard this will never end. well, i guess it will...but i don't like that result.

[Cathexis]

Rationally, I agree with Mr Etzioni's premise.

Conversely, political campaigning has degenerated into a farce that should embarrass a 12-year-old. With political parties (*cough*GOP*cough) so focused on "winning" that they employ Swiftboat tactics, blatant misrepresentations, propaganda, and even flagrant lies ... and far too many in the American voting populace who appear to be swayed by such tactics, I have to admit that I can understand why a candidate wouldn't give out much detailed, substantive information. Why should they? Today's elections aren't based on "Who ha sthe best plan," they are based on "Who can be most successfully demonized." The less "real info" a candidate provides, the less fodder is out there for the political hacks.

BTW, I believe this also explains the craven cowardice (cough*Dems*cough) in not taking a stand against profound Wrongs ... even when they are glaringly obvious.

[FullChat]

Are you criticizing Talk - do you just want to bomb first , last, and always? Bush tried that. Doesn't seem to work.

If you really find out what the Bad Guys want, you may not need to Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran.

[BBackSoon]

So you want some kind of a clear policy in a very complex world? I guess I would like to see some specifics but for now I am happy to hear that Obama has brought communication back into vogue and he isn"t even president yet.

You are also singing the praises of the Bush admin finally trying some diplomacy. You know after 7+ years of being the worlds most arrogant bully it is refreshing to see them trying something other than just strong arm tactics but I can"t just pat them on the head and say good Georgie. I am pissed it took them this long to finally try diplomacy.

I see it like having someone give a party in you home, all the friends of this person come over and steal your jewelry, destroy your furniture, break out windows and your TV is stuck on FOX, but just before they leave they grab a broom and sweep up in the hall. This is too little, too late.

It reminds me of an old person that has been a real piece of work forever and all of the sudden they become a model citizen. I would call this "Just trying to get into heaven". That is what Bushco is doing now, trying to put a couple of marks in the good column.

[KillTheMessenger]

Sometimes inaction speaks louder than action. It tells little children, allies and enemies that we take them seriously and that they have the responsibility to take care of themselves.

Talking in a friendly way WITHOUT sending the fleet to amplify ones voice might be a good thing. It will amount to everybody calming down and maybe, after many years of not threatening people automatically according to some abstract playbook that gets rewritten every four to eight years, it will lead to peace.

I have some hope that Obama will do just that: nothing. And I am afraid that the next Republican at the helm will destroy it all for nothing but the heck of it.