By Patricia H. Kushlis
Leslie Gelb’s op-ed “In the End, Every President Talks to the Bad Guys,” in the April 27 Washington Post has been one of the very few recent articles in that newspaper worth reading. Not that the title is accurate – W hasn’t thought that this – or any other – “rule” of diplomacy applies to him – at least as far as I can tell. Nevertheless, most previous rational and successful US chief executives learned that to achieve America’s international goals and objectives they needed to talk to the “bad guys.” Most figured this out by the beginning of their second terms. “Standing resolute” in ever increasing isolation just didn’t and still doesn’t cut it.
Roosevelt and Churchill talked to Stalin during World War II, for instance, not because they wanted to – but because Soviet support against the Nazis was imperative for their own countries’ survival. That was an alliance of necessity, not of convenience or choice. Think about it, even staunch anti-Communist Ronald Reagan talked to Mikhail Gorbachev thus helping end the Cold War.
Gelb is a power realist. He understands that to move American interests ahead US administrations sometimes need to deal with not nice regimes. I agree with much of what he has written in his op-ed.
My following ten rules of diplomatic “engagement” therefore, are based, at least partially on his recommendations.
Rule #1: It’s usually a bad idea to threaten or attempt to oust leaders from their perches of power. People – like chickens – do not like to be removed from their roosts. They squawk loudly, or worse, when it happens to them. John and Bobby Kennedy might not have been met with assassins bullets if, for instance, they had not been so aggressively anti-Castro.
Rule #2: In reality, it means achieving an understanding to “live and let live.” This requires putting the brakes on even the threat to unleash the B52s and the Stealth Bombers.
Rule #3: It means not promising a political opposition more support than the US can, in fact, deliver. Think of the tragic consequences in Hungary in 1956.
Rule #4: From Gelb’s perspective setting preconditions before being willing to come to the negotiating table is primarily a recipe for no negotiations. Right on.
Rule #5: As far as I’m concerned although Gelb would disagree, name calling normally doesn’t work well either. It’s all too reminiscent of school yard taunts – threatening with empty words can be hazardous to the health. What is far more effective is the Reagan negotiations mantra “trust but verify.” I believe this has become “monitoring and verification” in current State Department lingo. The Bush administration should be doing it in spades in the Middle East as well as what it is already doing with the North Koreans.
Rule #6: Exaggerating threats is a really bad idea. This administration - perhaps because of its own predilection to use the hammer rather than engage at the chess board - is all too willing to take the worst case scenario at face value as an excuse to expand and continue the war in the Middle East. If I remember correctly, the military, in particular, always puts forth the worst case scenario so that it doesn’t get caught short. This is not to say that I agree with Rumsfeld’s failed charge-of-the-light-brigade warfare doctrine, but I think it is a huge mistake to trump up unsubstantiated threats from an adversary that foremost plump up the military's already humongous budget to be spent on ineffectual and questionable ends.
Rule #7: Listen to and use your experts who understand the culture, speak the language, know how to negotiate, have worked in the country or at least region, and intimately understand the disputed subject matter. Above all, don’t rely on third party intelligence, ideologues or questionable defectors for your information. They have their own agendas which have led and will lead the US down a cactus-filled garden path, or worse.
Rule #8: Show respect for your adversary but ensure that the leaders understand that you require equal respect. While this means putting the military toys in the closet, it also does not, by the way, mean “kow-towing” Chinese fashion.
Rule #9: Bilateral and multilateral negotiations take on different characteristics. The latter are far more complex and the rules subtle and archane. Both take time to learn but both can result in surprising and unexpected positive byproducts.
Rule #10: Make sure your own house is clean before accusing or sanctioning others for their domestic misdeeds, bad governance or poor behavior. After W, whoever wins the presidency will need to embark upon full scale renovations at home – not just engage in the usual spring cleaning at the top. This means fundamental changes in policies, institutions, attitudes and people.