Tricks
I just wrote a draft of a forthcoming column on this subject and I thought it might be too out of left field, but fortunately along comes Sebastian Mallaby with the weird assertion of the day: "In North Korea and Iran, the United States has tried every diplomatic trick to prevent nuclear proliferation, making common cause with Western Europe, Russia, China and Japan, and wielding both sticks and carrots. The result is failure: North Korea has tested a nuke and Iran still presses on with its enrichment program."
Every trick? Really?
This sentiment is part of a bizarre American arrogance that seems to think "diplomacy" means "talking to people" and "every diplomatic trick" means "talking to them at great length." He's a trick we haven't tried vis-a-vis North Korea and Iran -- seriously offering to do things Pyongyand and/or Teheran would like us to do in exchange for them doing what we want them to do in terms of not building nuclear weapons. Similarly with regard to Russia and China. As I've been pointing out, we've been doing "everything" to get Russia and China on board with our North Korea policy except, well, setting priorities, making compromises, cutting deals and, um, conducting diplomacy. We want Moscow and Beijing to do such-and-such. Well, what do they want from Washington? Diplomacy means finding out what they want and then, if the price is worth paying, paying it.
That's negotiation, that's diplomacy. The Bush administration simply doesn't do it. It issues demands. And when it finds its demands can't be achieved through threats of force it . . . issues demands again. Sometimes it curtails its demands somewhat. What it doesn't do is diplomacy, the search for horses to trade, for positive-sum exchanges, for the reconciliation of competing interests.
Comments
He's a trick we haven't tried vis-a-vis North Korea and Iran -- seriously offering to do things Pyongyand and/or Teheran would like us to do in exchange for them doing what we want them to do in terms of not building nuclear weapons.
HUH??? We haven't done that with NK??? What exactly do you think happened in 1994? We seriously offered NK something they wanted. And they went ahead and continued to build nukes anyway. Sometimes I wonder if the Reality-Based Community bears any resemblance to reality.
The real Al wouldn't use so much punctuation.
Feel like weighing in on Russia, Yglesias? I keep wondering if the Big Fuck-up of this Administration is going to be Russia, but I have no relevant knowledge about the country or the policy issues relating to it. You, on the other hand, do. (IIRC.) Or, hell, anyone else. Does Bush II book end his father by reviving an enemy Bush I saw fall?
Al, which Nukes did North Korea build between 1994 and 2000?
Speaking of which, how well did the US live up to its obligations under the Agreed Framework between 1994 and 2003?
I was concerned a few days ago that Al had lost a step. But no, he's back in form as the biggest hack on the internets.
In North Korea and Iran, the United States has tried every diplomatic trick to prevent nuclear proliferation, making common cause with Western Europe, Russia, China and Japan, and wielding both sticks and carrots. The result is failure
This is an example of a deft rhetorical device employed by right-leaning commentators with a certain frequency. It is technically true that the "the US has...[made] common cause with Western Europe, Russia, China", etc., and has "wielded both sticks and carrots". But the carrots were only wielded during the Clinton administration, decisively rejected by Bush; and while we have negotiated together with the Euros, Russia, China, and Japan, we have been the only ones making "axis of evil" speeches and cutting off the NK's access to international banks on the side of those negotiations. So this is a technically accurate description of the history of US policy which is also completely obfuscating and deceptive about the only thing which matters, which is the Bush administration's rejection of any concessions to North Korea over the last 5.5 years.
I'm reminded of Dan Senor's op-ed response to the new Chandrasekaran book, in which he dredges out a number of Coalition Provisional Authority officials who were nonpartisan and did have relevant experience. But as Chandrasekaran pointed out in a response to Senor, each of these officials were in fact marginalized and replaced out by inexperienced political hacks, which is the real point of the story. In both cases, what we're seeing is a technically accurate lie.
"HUH??? We haven't done that with NK??? What exactly do you think happened in 1994? We seriously offered NK something they wanted. And they went ahead and continued to build nukes anyway. Sometimes I wonder if the Reality-Based Community bears any resemblance to reality."
'94 really was good diplomacy. Not only did we offer carrots to NK as Matthew likes, but we also threatened NK with sticks, which Matthew doesn't seem so keen on these days.
And we got an agreement, that while it had some breakdowns on both sides, managed to keep NK's plutonium under IAEA seal for 9 years.
Then the Texas crowd that couldn't shoot straight destroyed the agreement in 2003, the NK's got the plutonium, and here we are.
That's reality.
The carrot that needs to be on offer vis-a-vis Iran is a US commitment to require the removal of all Israeli settlers on the West Bank and East Jerusalem as part of its approach to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. If US policy-makers really believe that 'nothing could be worse' than an Iranian bomb, the propoosal would be entirely logical and would get Iranian attention much more than spare parts for planes. But of course some people think that restrictions on Israeli colonisation are indeed worse than an Iranian bomb.
A major commitment to renewing the Palestinian-Israeli peace process by restoring balance to the US's stance is an important part of repairing our dysfunctional MidEast policy. But it's ridiculous to suggest that a commitment to try and force Israel back to '67 borders would stop Iran from trying to acquire a nuclear bomb. It would improve the US's posture in the eyes of many Muslims, and hence improve our ability to influence the Muslim world in the long term. But it would have little concrete effect on Iranian policy decisions. That is not how the world works.
Offering large scale diplomatic concessions in return for large scale diplomatic demands is exactly how the world works.
"Offering large scale diplomatic concessions in return for large scale diplomatic demands is exactly how the world works."
Well, we're doing our part of the bargain by making the large scale demands. Why can't other countries do their bit and make the large scale concessions?
There's a Donald Bartheme story which has the incantatory line (from memory), "Daumier likes his chili dogs."
I wish I could find a similar whimsical way to phrase the way Bush likes to disembowel and betray the people who do business with him. I think foreigners must be smarter than the Americans who cooperate with George: foreigners apparently have noticed that Bush only makes deals where he makes all the profit.
Offering large scale diplomatic concessions in return for large scale diplomatic demands is exactly how the world works.
Yes, if they are in fact concessions that matter to the party they are being offered to. But a return of Israel to pre-1967 borders is not a core interest for the Iranian leadership. Israel is a propaganda and posturing issue for them. A return of Israel to pre-1967 borders is a core interest for the Palestinians, not for the Iranians.
Your idea is analogous to Venezuela offering to pressure Cuba to hold free elections in exchange for various concessions to Venezuela by the US. The thing is, free elections in Cuba are not really a core interest of the US; we don't particularly care whether or not Cuba holds free elections. Our protestations to the contrary are a matter of political posturing. If we want concessions from Iran, we need to offer concessions to Iran, not concessions to the Palestinians.
Our protestations to the contrary are a matter of political posturing. If we want concessions from Iran, we need to offer concessions to Iran, not concessions to the Palestinians.
I agree...there are good reasons to seek an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, but resolving issues with the Iranian nuclear program aren't really among them. The Iranians "support" the Palestinian cause, but not in the sense of actually being willing to give up anything non-trivial in exchange for it.
Not only did we offer carrots to NK as Matthew likes, but we also threatened NK with sticks, which Matthew doesn't seem so keen on these days.
Sticks are good. Unfortunately, the we don't have any sticks we can realistically wield against the DPRK these days. Russia, China, and South Korea, however, do have such sticks. So we need to persuade them to wield their sticks. That, in turn, means conducting further diplomacy -- real diplomacy, not table-pounding -- with those three countries.
That, in turn, means conducting further diplomacy -- real diplomacy, not table-pounding -- with those three countries
Interestingly, the NYTimes says we are not "table-pounding":
As between the Times and Matthew, I believe Matthew. Nonetheless, I think it beyond clear that Matthew's preferred approach failed completely in 1994. Who knows, maybe it might work this time.
Sorry - link for above.
I agree with Brooksfoe about Iranian interests. The Palestinian situation is PR for them. Their real interest is security for the clerical administration. The clerics want guarantees that the US will not try to destabilize their hold on power. I think they won't get that. What they would probably settle for is a sizable US economic interest dependant upon stability that is maintained by the sitting clerical powers that be. How and whether that should be implemented is a difficult diplomatic problem.
Just want to point out that NK broke the Agreed framework by deciding to research and build uranium-based nuclear weapons since 1997, three years after the "Agreed" framework was created, and during Clinton's term in office.
Bush inherited Clinton's poor excuse for diplomacy, and did his own even poorer job of handling it. However, it isn't clear to me how we could have properly threaded this needle in any case. I do agree that invading Iraq, however, vis a vis the actual WMD crisis in NK, was a very bad move.
Oh, and Matt - The Regan administration is on record, with photos and everything, of attempting to work with a known despot in Iraq back in the 80s. Later on, those attempts at "give and take" Diplomacy were used against the current administration.
So here's how it appears to work: If you're a republican, and you Diplomize with a tyrannical regime and give them some of what they want, you're "in bed with the enemy." If you don't Diplomize with the tyrannical regime, you're "An idiot cowboy."
If you're a democrat, and you Diplomize with the same regime, you're a statesman. If you don't Dimplomize with the regime, you're.... a statesman!
(and yes, I know Diplomize isn't a word, but it seems to capture the essence better than any other single word)
Uh, the criticism of Rummies dealings with Saddam is the hypocrisy of citing Iraq's chemical weapons and evil use as an excuse for War when Rummy/Reagan helped provide those weapons and supported their use at the time.
It is a straw man to argue that the criticism against Rummy and Reagan was their diplomatic relations with Iraq.
Do Bush supporters generally have problems understanding hypocrisy? I won't even say conservatives as many have shown honesty in understanding the hypocrisy of protesting the outing of the Gay GOP Senator for using "personal sexual matters for political gain." That was quite funny.
"The Iranians "support" the Palestinian cause, but not in the sense of actually being willing to give up anything non-trivial in exchange for it."
What is the evidence for this, particularly since they have never been offered any concessions to the Palestinian cause in exchange for anything?
We need the Iranians to suffer a diplomatic humiliation (not obtaining WMDs) and in return we offer a diplomatic triumph (reversing Israeli colonisation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem). That's the sort of swap a state can make. Even just for reasons of domestic politics in Iran, the deal becomes much easier. Plus, part of the reason that the Iranians and others are sure that the US is hostile to them (and thus need protection through WMDs and other mechanisms) is the US role in enabling Israeli colonialism (yes, and other reasons).
A lot of mind reading going on about NK and Iran. Reagan this, Clinton that, Bush something else. Don't forget the first Bush, he must be at fault somewhere.
The US actually doesn't have much we can do unless they attack us. So the mistake is to keep yapping about it.
The only constant is that neither country has shown the slightest intention of changing overall policy for decades. Both regard the United States as an enemy. Neither pays heed to international pressure - it is even hard to know what they do about internal pressures.
Both have found delay and confusion a most useful diplomatic strategy. How many times has NK said 'we aren't making nukes', then 'yes we aren't maybe', then 'we will stop if X happens', then 'if Y it is war', 'we will talk but only one-on-one with the US', 'ok, we will talk with the six party scheme'. 'nope, we won't do the six'.
Only China has influence with NK and they don't show their cards. Russia and the EU could influence Iran but only if they acted in concert.
Iran has played the EU and UN for fools on the nuclear issue. There is no indication they can't keep doing so.
The US has made the mistake wasting efforts on what we cannot fix. Just don't: bother them, aid them, harm them or expect them to please us. Too bad that policy wasn't chosen decades ago. Bush is currently getting crap for a situation he didn't create. But he should stop doing what doesn't work.
Put another way: MY's criticism was not against the US offering to end diplomatic support for Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but rather that the Iranians wouldn't accept the offer.
A better approach would be to make the offer and let the Iranians think about whether they want to accept.
Have the critics of the 1994 NK Agreement thought about the alternatives? Can you imagine how much worse things would be if North Korea hadn't frozen its plutonium processing program at Yongebon from 1994 to 2002 -- it would have tens of nuclear weapons at this point.
There's an interesting interview with Robert Galluci, the negotiator with NK during the 1994 crisis, in which he address the issue of cheating in internationa politics:
___________________________
"Did they cheat on it? Absolutely. They cheated on it. That's a lesson, too. They will cheat. They cheated by having a secret uranium enrichment program because they're still not confident their security will be guaranteed. Now it may be that they're unalterably committed to acquiring nuclear weapons; in which case, we've got to deal with that fact, if it is indeed a fact."
Well, that's a huge question. That changes the whole formula.
"Actually, not. I think you have to assume that they're committed to nuclear weapons, and you have to do deals that make sense, even if that's true. There's no trust here. It's not just a line, "Trust, but verify." It's "No, you don't trust and you get as much verification [as possible]."
Those who criticize the deal because they cheated on it, I think, are not understanding the nature of international politics. We have done deals with people who we expected might well cheat. Indeed, the Soviet Union cheated on all kinds of deals -- massively, in the biological weapons convention. That's probably the most famous. So, you look at the deal and say, "OK. What can you monitor? What can you watch? What can you verify? If they cheat, will you catch them? And if you don't catch them, are you still better off with the deal than without it?"
The lesson is we stopped the plutonium program, and we had to watch for the enrichment program. You couldn't expect to have high confidence the North Koreans wouldn't cheat, based upon their past experience, and based upon how easy it is to have a secret centrifuge program. You had to understand that might happen, and still regard the deal as a good deal, in our interest, because over time, we'd be better off with the deal than without it. It wasn't perfect. It didn't provide for absolute transparency in North Korea.
The hope, the expectation was, over time, relationships would improve. Tensions would reduce. We could get more access. And indeed, in the meantime, we stopped the plutonium program.
We also had to monitor them as closely as we could through our intelligence capability, and try to catch them. Well, we did, and we did. The question for this administration is, what do you do now? Do you say, "Wait a minute. They're a rogue regime. You can't talk to them?" I wouldn't think that would be the best answer."
Shorter Gallucci : Half a loaf is better than none.
Actually Clinton got more than half a loaf - they forced NK into a method of bomb-making that would have been exponentially longer and more difficult.
NK have had enough plutonium to play with for years, and still they haven't quite made a properly working bomb. Uranium enrichment, while undoubtedly sneaky, dastardly and generally immoral in the historical context, is physically and logistically a much harder way to produce fissionable material.
Well, North Korea would have been stupid NOT to cheat on the deal after the light water reactors failed to materialize, wouldn't they?
Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
Good comment.Thanks admin.
Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar
thanksss
perde
jaluzi perde
stor perde
dikey perde
iso belgesi
iphone kılıfı
süper site
kozmetik
kolonyalı mendil
kolonyalı mendil
dolum
güvenlik kamerası
kamera
süper
sohbetim
joyturk tekstilkent joytürk mIRC Chat Video poşet imalat ambalaj paketleme iso güvenlik ıslak mendil
Not only did we offer carrots to NK as Matthew likes, but we also threatened NK with sticks, which Matthew doesn't seem so keen on these days.
Sticks are good. Unfortunately, the we don't have any sticks we can realistically wield against the DPRK these days. Russia, China, and South Korea, however, do have such sticks. So we need to persuade them to wield their sticks. That, in turn, means conducting further diplomacy -- real diplomacy, not table-pounding -- with those three countries.
http://www.diziizlet.info
travesti
I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings. I congratulate you.
nice article thanks..
mirc
kelebek
http://www.ekmekmusafcarpsin.com/
thanks
god shemale
sexshop
thanks
Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset
izmir
karşiyaka
karsiyaka
forum
karsıyaka
sohbet
harbiarkadas.com
harbiarkadas.net
harbiarkadas.org
itirafet.org
ebedava.net
elektronikmarket.net
ameribress.com
clitoriacream.net
superspenisbuyutucu.com
megabress.com
rednightperformans.com
performansartirici.com
penisplus.tv
penispluspenisbuyutucu.com
penispluspenisbuyutucu.net
cinselmerkez.com
aseks.net
erotikcamasirlar.com
vajinatr.com
bakirevajina.com
cinselkozmetik.com
kozmetikmedikel.com
eturknet.com
tecavuz.net
yutuvideo.com
ponotubesex.com
laraperuk.com
sackanagimerkezi.com
peruksa.com
perukmarket.com
aseks.com
aloveshop.com
erotikgiyim.com
geciktiricispreyler.com
geciktiricihap.com
geciktiriciler.com
azdirici.com
bayanuyarici.com
fntazialemi.com
fantaziservisi.om
cinselmazemeler.com
cinselfantaziurunleri.com
erotikdakikalar.com
erotikmarketiniz.com
seksmarketiniz.com
sekshatlari.com
erotikdergiler.com
erotikderginiz.com
penisbuyutucuviprx.com
penisbuyutucuvigrx.com
penisbuyutuculer.com
vigrxpenisbuyutucu.com
sismebebekler.com
sismebebekshop.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
elektronikmarket.net
ebedava.net
kontortr.com
elaydin23.com
turkcellkontorcu.com
aveakontoral.com
vodafonekontoral.com
toptankontorcu.com
cinselkozmetik.com
bayanpartnerler.com
erkekpartnerler.com
kizarkadaslar.com
yonjaarkadas.com
siberalem-siberalem.com
sexpartnerler.com
sekspartnerler.com
erotikpartnerler.com
gencyuz.com
erkekarkadaslar.com
bayanarkadaslar.com
yemekeviniz.com
sanalmarketiniz.com
baskahaber.com
medikalkozmetik.net
kozmetikmedikal.com
zayiflamavediyet.net
zayiflamahapii.com
zayiflamabandii.com
kilovertr.com
zayiflamatr.net
diyettr.com
toksinbandi.net
botoxtr.com
botokstr.com
selulittedavii.com
selulitgiderici.net
selulitkremii.com
catlaktedavisii.com
catlakgiderici.net
catlakkremii.com
penis büyütücü
Post A Comment