New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman rarely disappoints when it comes to inane, or even spurious arguments and ideas, but in his latest column, he demonstrates such a lack of understanding of not just diplomacy, his subject of the day, but also of how the world has changed (beyond its now flatness), that one has to wonder if his peripatetic lifestyle has taught him anything about the way all those foreigners he meets actually think.
Continuing to view the world through the myopia of his all too Western eyes, Tom's brilliant new concept is that "this is not the great age of diplomacy." Why? Because, Tom tells us, we (the West, or America to be specific), can no longer reliably instruct allies and enemies to do as we say, or, to use another of his folksy analogies, "to pull a lever." Presumably Mr. Friedman's idea of the great age of diplomacy was when the great powers, for example Britain, France, the Soviet Union or the United States, could do as they wished; install and remove governments at will, negotiate crippling treaties with their clients, and all but steal the natural resources and wealth of underdeveloped countries with few or no consequences. Tom bemoans the fact that today is an age of "snipers, drones and generals, not diplomats" but he forgets that without generations of rifles, tanks, and omnipresent navies, the great powers' diplomats could never have succeeded in maintaining, as he puts it unashamedly, "solid client states." I'm sorry, however, to report that most people on the planet are no longer particularly keen on their countries being or becoming "client states" of the United States, no matter how benign our intentions are towards those countries. Nor are most people on the planet eager to see their leaders ask how high when told to jump, whether by a U.S. diplomat, general, or admiral. It is no longer the "great age of diplomacy," it seems, not because diplomacy is ineffective but because diplomacy, as Mr. Friedman and many others in the establishment define it, is not (and never was) diplomacy at all.
Mr. Friedman states in his column that of the four countries that are our "major problems," Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, two are client states that "cannot deliver" and two are enemy countries that "won't deliver." Well, perhaps the two client states would rather not be client states who must deliver to us what we demand of them, and the two enemies won't deliver because what we demand of them, getting them "to change their behavior along the lines we seek," is, as evident from the tone of a statement such as that, demeaning, insulting, and carries with it a whiff of moral superiority that in a flat world, Tom, reaches every corner of the planet. North Korea's "defiant missile launch" is bad behavior, our development of new generations of weapons isn't; Iran enriching uranium to a low level suitable for reactor fuel as is their right under the NPT is bad behavior; Western nuclear programs, including developing new nuclear weapons which is not their right under the same NPT, isn't. Our threats of and actual military action across the globe, excuse me, flat world, is not bad behavior, but other countries that defy our will need to change their behavior. That moral superiority, exhibited even in President Obama's much vaunted recent video message to the Iranian people and government, a message that the U.S. media largely praised (and characterized the Iranian response to it as a rebuff), was invisible to the likes of Mr. Friedman, but all to obvious to the Iranian government (whose response was actually anything but a rejection of goodwill on the part of the U.S.) Mr. Obama quite rightly delivered a respectful message to Iran, changing the tone of American rhetoric, but while he reached out to Iran with praise for its culture and history, he also suggested that Iran would have to behave according to Western standards, according to our determination of what is good behavior, actually, before it could take its rightful place among the family of nations. Iran's response? It is best summed up at the end of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's long speech in Mashhad the day after Mr. Obama's message was aired: "If you change, our behavior will change too. If you do not change, our nation will not change, as it has only become more and more experienced, patient, and powerful in the past thirty years."
Just as we would like to see other governments change their behavior, many of those other governments would like to us change our behavior. How hard is that to understand? Mr. Friedman's simplistic belief that our "problem countries" such as Iran have survival strategy that depends on hostile relations with America is belied by Ayatollah Khamenei's statement that Iran is willing to engage and negotiate, and yes, even change (something Iran has rarely, if ever conceded). It is further belied by arch conservative President Ahmadinejad's statements that Iran is interested in relations with the U.S. but only on the basis of respect. (Pulling levers on demand, I imagine, does not qualify as a basis for respect in Mr. Ahmadinejad's mind.)
If, in Mr. Friedman's imaginary school of foreign service (where he has fantasized about placing President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton as students), diplomats are taught that their job is to persuade a foreign leader "to pull this or that lever" (much like a laboratory animal in behavioral studies) and then "figure out what to do next," we will never be able to protect our national and strategic interests with any measure of success, which is, after all, the point of diplomacy. If instead the students at Friedman's school are taught that it's not about pulling levers or demanding things of foreigners, but about negotiating according to the culture and customs of both parties, of understanding that problems cannot be solved in this "flat world" without considering the vital interests of all parties, then we might have a shot. It's not, as Mr. Friedman fears, about adopting a "middle ground," it's about fundamental change, as Mr. Obama promised in his campaign and as he is slowly, but surely, delivering. Iran, for one, appears to be patiently waiting.
Loading comments… 
Incidental
See how these judgments are more complicate
The problem with engaging in arguments with people like sol313 is that they don't debate in good faith. They already have a well-estab
I highly recommend anyone who is interested in Iran read the below article:
Some excerpts:
The real cause of the regime’s
insecurity
the majority of the Iranian people who feel politicall
economical
their own vulnerabil
defining their dispositio
every move.""
http://www
Here is another must read:
http://www
Why assume someone has "handlers" or criticize someone for having "well-esta
So here's what I've been arguing: the Iranian government is not the cosmic evil anti-tazi says it is, but it has many serious problems in terms of human rights, transparen
Those are my baseless talking points, so take them for what you will.
This is off topic, but can you help this poor girl:
http://ira
The Islamic Republic is an illigitmat
http://www
http://www
We have had and still do have stolen elections, disenfranc
If you believe in regime change in Iran, that's one thing, but at least recognize that the majority of Iranians do not necessaril
What I do recall is that the US has actively threatened and wiped out other nations. Which is worse, the threat or the act?
Why do you think "disappear
http://lat
News Flash to the Flatworlde
Half the women in jail in Pakistan are there because THEY were raped. Unable to produce the requisite 4 witnesses (a rule enacted to shield Mohammed's wife Aisha from charges of adultory) they are instead convicted by their own testimony of unlawful fornicatio
The government of Iran keeps a list of young people who have pledged to blow themselves up in the cafes and busses of places such as Iraq and Israel. Is that the act of a moral government
There IS no moral equivalenc
Trial by judge and jury is vastly superior? Tell that to the millions (mostly minorities
And about the four witnesses, you've jumbled your talking points: the law could only shield Aisha if it required four witnesses to convict; if a woman needed four witnesses to prove her innocence, how would that shield her? It would burden her further. In fact, the Qur'an does mention that women cannot be accused without four witnesses, but it does not state that they need any witnesses to prove their innocence. Some Muslim jurists did rule they need two--not four--witn
As for Iran's alleged lists, is it worse to keep lists that don't kill anyone, assuming they exist, or to actually send soldiers and mercenarie
As I stated, the edict in the Koran was in response to accusation
Today that story is used to prevent MEN from being prosecuted for RAPE, unless there are four who witness the act and will testify against them. As you know, very few rapes would ever be witnessed by multiple people. And so, the case against a man can very seldom be made. The WOMAN however, is not so fortunate in this case. The reason is, it's usually the woman who makes the initial complaint. She HERSELF testifies that there was an unlawful sex act. If she can provide four witnesses, excellent. Otherwise, case dismissed against the men, but there is still the matter of the illegal sex act to which she has ADMITTED. In more cases than you could ever believe possible, she is then prosecuted
Any questions?
In order to make the world a better place for all, it is best that we avoid statements such as the above.
Mr. Majd is simply (and eloquently
Mr. Friedman and those in his "school" of thought should step off their superior pedestals, open their eyes, recognize and accept responsibi
I do think the United States has a moral superiorit
Can you imagine if the US treated its opposition the same way as the IRI does? Where would you be it that was true.
You need to tell your handlers that Obama is on to you and he is not buying your self-right
Ever heard of COINTELPRO
Ever heard Sen. Joe Mccarthy?
Can you tell me what legal principle defines "unindicte
I won't keep giving examples, since this really doesn't need to turn into a competitio
I recommend you educate yourself about how the Islamic Republic operates:
Start with the writings of a blogger who just died in Islamic Republic's (an oxymoron,b
)Gulag, 'Evin Prison':
http://www
http://www
Serial murders of 1988:
http://www
http://www
cyber memorial for victims' of IRI:
http://www
Death Penalty for Iranian bloggers
http://ira
Google is your friend. Use it.
Did you vote for bush twice too?
The whole of Middle Eastern/As
http://vid