Another Friedman Special

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.

Comments

[anti-tazi]

Talk about demonizing and villifying; I don't think anything is more damaging to Iran than to portray the Iranians people as one and the same as the militant brutal thugs ruling the country.

[sol313]

You're right, to portray them as one and the same is wrong, though I'd venture that's not the MOST damaging thing. You seem so quick to use superlatives.

Incidentally, I would feel personally offended if someone considered Bush representative of the American people, but at the same time I recognize that as a society we can't disown him--he came to power in accordance with our laws and system (even if he did steal at least one election), and a majority of us haven't exactly rallied to revolution against him.

See how these judgments are more complicated and nuanced than just yelling out "the Iranian government is evil"? And can you please try to understand that nuance is NOT the same as justifying or equating a government with its people!

[anti-tazi]

To those who have been following my exchange with sol313:


The problem with engaging in arguments with people like sol313 is that they don't debate in good faith. They already have a well-established point of view, and it's pretty much the same official talking points of their handlers. Reasoned argument and evidence means nothing to these people if it doesn't corroborate their self-serving view of things. Therefore, I refuse to engage them directly, but here is the latest debunking of sol313 baseless talking points; note: He simply offers his opinions without ever substantiating with facts.

I highly recommend anyone who is interested in Iran read the below article:



Some excerpts:

The real cause of the regime’s
insecurity, however, is the reality that it is indeed isolated from, even despised by,
the majority of the Iranian people who feel politically disenfranchised,
economically pressured, and internationally isolated as a pariah nation. In spiteof the regime’s public bravura, they are aware of
their own vulnerability with the fear of democracy
defining their disposition and determining their
every move.""

http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Milani.pdf

Here is another must read:

http://www.mideasti.org/files/Iran_Final.pdf

[sol313]

I encourage people to actually follow the exchanges, rather than take anti-tazi (which, incidentally, means anti-Arab according to wikipedia and a leading Persian encyclopedia). Note also the dismissiveness and arrogance of the above post.

Why assume someone has "handlers" or criticize someone for having "well-established points of view"? I don't mind if you have a strongly held point of view, as long as you're open minded. But you seem unwilling to engage in open debate.

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, transparency, economic and social policy, etc. that it does need to overcome. It's not fully representative of Iranian people, but it's not some kind of dictatorship whose subjects feel no ownership in it, either.

Those are my baseless talking points, so take them for what you will.

[anti-tazi]

Dear Mr. Majd:

This is off topic, but can you help this poor girl:

http://iranian.com/main/node/61802

[anti-tazi]

For those readers who are agenda free.

The Islamic Republic is an illigitmate government because of the way the Islamists usurped the power through unspeakable brutality, and murdering of thousands of other progressive groups who had helped overthrow the Shah. Their leader, Khomeini, lied and deceived the populace by telling them that the clergies will not participate in politics, that Hejab was not mandatory, etc.


http://www.democratiya.com/interview.asp?issueid=9

http://www.mideasti.org/files/Iran_Final.pdf

[sol313]

Actually, ask any impartial expert on Iran. A majority of Iranians regard their government somewhat similarly to how many progressives felt during the Bush years. They have serious misgivings about many policies, and some do not consider the elections entirely free and fair, but at the same time they by and large do think of the government as theirs--there is a sense of ownership.
We have had and still do have stolen elections, disenfranchisement, and political violence in the US. Most Americans don't support that, but they're not talking about revolution either.
If you believe in regime change in Iran, that's one thing, but at least recognize that the majority of Iranians do not necessarily agree with you.

[pros54]

Growing up in my country of origin which was a British colony and still pro Britain to the core ( like all most previous colonies are to their colonial masters no matter the prostations) we used British diplomacy interchangeably with gunboat diplomacy. Friedman is habitually in denial and uses figments of his imagination for facts.

[Rule Of Law]

Friedman has always been a Neo-Colonialist. This just proves it.

[booboo111]

I don't recall the U.S. recently threatening the existence of an entire nation or wiping one "completely off the map." That won't get you much "respect" and as far as respecting other peoples cultures, when basic standards of human rights are violated, we have an obligation to at least attempt to do something about it. I don't know about you, but when a nation legalizes rape, you might want to rethink your position on cultural respect.

[sol313]

I don't recall Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or North Korea threatening the existence of an entire nation either... Ahmadinejad did talk about the need for Israel's regime to disappear in the pages of history, but if you're condemning talking about regime change, then I think you would have to put the US in the same category.

What I do recall is that the US has actively threatened and wiped out other nations. Which is worse, the threat or the act?

[anti-tazi]

I'm curious, do you speak Persian?

Why do you think "disappearance from pages of history" any less incindiary than "wiping of the map??

[Baghooli]

Amen, Huffington Post rocks, checkout this link.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/04/iran-leader-says-tehran-can-live-outside-unjust-world-system.html

[RobHunt]

"and carries with it a whiff of moral superiority that in a flat world"

News Flash to the Flatworlders and Other People of Earth: The west IS morally superior to the predominant cultures and standards of the Middle East. Trial by judge and jury is vastly more just than allowing tribal chieftans to "work things out." Such arrangements in Pakistan and Afghanistan frequently lead to young children being married off to some family member of an aggrieved party!

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 fornication and jailed. Would you say THAT moral standard is equivalent to ours?

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 equivalence!

[sol313]

You're the perfect person to serve as poster child of moral superiority.

Trial by judge and jury is vastly superior? Tell that to the millions (mostly minorities) who are victimized by the the criminal justice system each year. You do realize the US is the world's preeminent jailer, don't you (in both absolute and per capita terms)? Yes, we beat the communists, the predominant cultures and standards of the Middle East, and all other countries for this dubious honor.

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--witnesses, but this is and always has been rejected by many other jurists as unfair.

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 mercenaries, along with weapons of mass destruction, to invade and destroy other countries, thus victimizing both the invading soldiers and the invaded civilians at the same time? That's what I thought.

[RobHunt]

It is you who doesn't understand the "four witnesses rule" in sharia law, and the particulars of how it is applied in much of Pakistan.

As I stated, the edict in the Koran was in response to accusations that Aisha had been unfaithful with a young man after she doubled back from the caravan to a previous rest stop, to look for her bracelet. She then fell asleep, and later accepted a ride back to the caravan with the man. Later, there were rumors, and when they got back to Mohammed, he said "Let four witnesses to this come forward, or the claim has no merit." And that was that.

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, convicted, and jailed. All on the strength of her own testimony.

Any questions?

[Princeton]

"The west IS morally superior to the predominant cultures and standards of the Middle East."

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) articulating the double standard that needs to be rectified so diplomacy can bare fruit for all the parties involved.

[holeybuybull]

Tom keeps making the same mistake as the US, thinking that he is exceptional, when he is really "special".

[Amatis]

Very well put Mr. Majd. Thank you for another great and informative piece.
Mr. Friedman and those in his "school" of thought should step off their superior pedestals, open their eyes, recognize and accept responsibility for all the wrong doings that the west has committed by its self serving foreign policy agenda which has caused all the chaos we find ourselves in.

[Paul]

Does anyone care what Thomas Friedman says?

[anti-tazi]

"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...""

I do think the United States has a moral superiority over the Islamic Republic. The United States does not kill, murder, stone, torture, maim its own populace merely for criticizing the government.

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-righteous hubris and false-bravado. Btw, give my regards to Khatami.

[sol313]

Really?
Ever heard of COINTELPRO?
Ever heard Sen. Joe Mccarthy?
Can you tell me what legal principle defines "unindicted coconspirators," what legal basis justifies the treatment of Jose Padilla--a US citizen--or the many victims of our moral superiority over the decades, and continuing to our day?
I won't keep giving examples, since this really doesn't need to turn into a competition between the US and Iran or any other country. That wasn't Majd's point. But your own hubris and false bravado show that Friedman isn't alone in his wilderness.

[anti-tazi]

You're engaging in false comparison to prove your point but it won't hold.

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,btw,
)Gulag, 'Evin Prison':

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/20/mir-sayafi-iranian-blogge_n_177553.html


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jillian-york/in-memory-of-omidreza-mir_b_177609.html

Serial murders of 1988:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iran1205/3.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/03/60minutes/main4917310.shtml

cyber memorial for victims' of IRI:
http://www.iranrights.org/


Death Penalty for Iranian bloggers
http://iranian.com/main/node/59806

Google is your friend. Use it.

[paixa3]

I think you should do some research about Chile, 1953 perhaps. Oh, while you are at it, do some independent, indepth research about central america as well.

Did you vote for bush twice too?

[anti-tazi]

American history is one of conquest. There is no denying that. But wars of conquest have been fought all over the planet throughout time, so what's so unique about the America's past?

The whole of Middle Eastern/Asian subcontinent history is one of conquest and the rising and falling empires, The Mongols,. the Persians, to take a highly relevant example, were empire builders from very long ago. The Han Dynasty in China built an empire at the Eastern end of Asia that rivaled its counterpart in the West, the Roman Empire. The Arabs during the first millennium built an empire that dominated the known world. The Mughals invaded India in the middle of the second millennium and were rulers of the subcontinent when the British arrived. Every culture in the world has engaged in Empire building. So what's so unique about America? And yes, this country is still in its infancy, less than 300 years old but in many ways it has acted more maturely than those with much longer civilization and history.

[TryToBeFlexible]

Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I think colonialism was just a form of theft and slavery, and belongs in the dust bin of history.

[Akenanubis]

Bingo!

[anti-tazi]

Here is you kind of admitting that you sound like the spokesperson for the Islamic republic. I think it was a Freudian slip of some sort:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5321612120640608789&hl=en

[sol313]

Not a Freudian slip, but a candid statement. Interesting you're so unfamiliar with openness and honesty that you think it can only result from a "slip" of some sort.