The Economist Challenge...again...

The Economist runs another excellent commentary on the Iranian nuclear situation that I highly recommend...

No appetite for carrots, no fear of sticks...the Economist...

The opening lines of this article freaked me out, a little, to be honest...

"Iran has carried out its threat to restart its nuclear programme, removing the seals on part of its uranium-conversion plant at Isfahan. European offers of political and economic incentives, designed to dissuade the theocratic Middle Eastern state from building atomic bombs, have not proved enticing enough. Is a more aggressive approach called for?"

Now...

My first thoughts were, "Is the Economist seriously considering an invasion of Iran to tackle a nuclear program?"...

A pretty scary thought, as the Economist already argued well in a previous column that I posted, here, about the dangers of a militaristic diplomacy with Iran and North Korea over nuclear issues...

Thankfully...the Economist makes clearer, later in the article, just what kind of aggressive actions they are talking about...

"In response to the latest crisis, the 35-member board of the IAEA is due to hold an emergency meeting on Tuesday, called by the Europeans once it became clear that the talks were grinding to a halt. This is likely to lead to an entirely different type of diplomatic process: one that sees Iran referred to the UN Security Council, with a view to sanctions being imposed."

Now...

I have no confidence that sanctions will work with Iran...

The Iranians clearly view the development of their nuclear program as a matter of national sovereignty and autonomy...and, even with the dangers that come with an ultraconservative Iranian government hostile to the more modernized and democratic world having nuclear weapons -- which uranium and plutonium development likely signal -- it does seem very unlikely that Iran will respond to international pressure on this matter in this way...

As the next lines of the Economist article observe...

"Nevertheless, the Iranians are putting on an unconcerned face: “Even if they issue a resolution tomorrow, since it would have no legal basis…we won’t accept it and will carry on with our work,” Mr Saeedi told reporters on Monday."

And as the article's title -- No appetite for carrots, no fear of sticks -- sums up nicely...

Several issues, here...

First...the aggressive actions that the Economist, the world's premier conservative periodical -- is exploring should illustrate just how beyond the pale the aggressive approach that American conservatives, like Victor Davis Hanson and others, have openly explored -- invasion of countries like Syria, Iran, and North Korea -- are...

Invasion is not an acceptable way to resolve difficult diplomatic issues, at all...it increases fears among these countries...and leads -- as it already has -- to more ambitious efforts from nations fearful of invasion to protect themselves, as it clearly has, as the Economist argues well in an earlier article, Iran and North Korea...Return of the Axis of Evil...

Iran and North Korea...Return of the Axis of Evil...the Economist...

You'll want to read the article to get the full flavor of their argument...

But the essence of the article was an acknowledgement that the invastion of Iraq had seriously complicated and made counterproductive the efforts to limit or remove the threats of nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea...and a challenge to America's critics to develop alternative proposals...a challenge that I accepted and met, and then some, in the pages of my Blogspot blog...

The Economist Challenge...What to do with Iran and North Korea?...at Building a Better World...Return of the Jedi...http://benfrankln.blogspot.com/...

Now...

Having said that...the Economist is arguing for exploring more aggressive means of dealing with Iran...namely sanctions...as it did in that original article...

I seriously doubt that Iran will respond to such measures, for reasons illustrated, above...rational or not...although...as George Will argued during an earlier period of focus on Iran...when a President has invaded a neighboring country and when his Administration and many of his ideological cohorts have made plain that you might be next...efforts to defend yourself become rational...even if you are one dangerous regime to be waving such weapons of mass destruction around for everyone to see...

But, beyond that...as I argued earlier...the kind of psychology that we are dealing with...

"...insular, paranoid, seriously-controlling and repressive, militaristic, and seriously manipulative leadership in both Tehran and Pyongyang...Iran is democratic and, thus and on its own merits, less dangerous, I think, than the megalomania of Kim Jong Il...and has fewer capabilities to threaten democratic countries than does the North Korean leadership, according to this Economist article..."

So...

The question, again, is what should we do?...

First...as I argued in that earlier post...

"I want us to take a deep breath...exhale...

And remember that we are all on the same team, here...

And we ALL have an interest in a more peaceful, less threatening world...especially from the likes of leftist dictators like Kim Jong Il and Iranian theocrats who control parliament next door to Israel, Iraq, and other places that we need be concerned about...

Which is EXACTLY the point of the Economist editorial, if a bit shrill in its alarm at the situation..."

Second...as I argued, earlier...vis a vis the comparisons between Iran and North Korea (or Iran and Iraq, for that matter)...

"Iran is a very different case, I believe, that should be treated, differently, I believe...the most important difference, being, of course, not only that Europeans were briefly persuasive in getting Iran to hold back on its nuclear plans for about 6 months (an important success to build on...

But MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY...Iran is a DEMOCRACY...and one that recent dealt with a MILLION PLUS protest in its capital against the current leadership...a theocratic leadership that has proved itself to be TERRIBLY manipulative in its pursuit of power in Iran, including a slightly ramped up version of Pope Benedict's somewhat similar moves at power in the Catholic Church, purging moderates who veer from the leadership's view of Iran...in the Pope's case, his power is -- LUCKILY -- limited to the archaic institutions of the Catholic Church....in Iran's case, the conservative leadership purged moderate candidates who might have unseated them in periodic elections:(...

But Iran is a democracy, nonetheless...allowing for more openness to change and shock and adaption to circumstances and ability of the electorate to have influence --as it recently did in a MUCH, MUCH LESS democratic Lebanon -- that a more straightforward autocratic dictatorship like North Korea does not share with its autocratic democratic world neighbor...Islamic theocrats look more like their Christian theocratic brethren here in the States, in many ways, than they do the ugly and parasitic dictatorship of North Korea...

My friend, Kenny, has a REALLY WONDERFUL suggestion, I think...

In the case of North Korea and Iran, the President could start by de-linkinng the two countries, which are very different...

He could then pursue non-threatening bi-lateral and multi-lateral talks with them that don't take already paranoid actors and have them ambitiously pursue nuclear materials because they are afraid that you might invade and they clearly want to keep you out, making them MORE DANGEROUS, as the Economist points out, rather than LESS DANGEROUS,
which, if you take a moment away from just defending the President and his actions and just look at what they are doing in response to the President's actions...which is REALLY THE GOAL, isn't it?...I'd also -- in this case and with Iran, specifically -- build on MANY, MANY STRENGTHS in this Administration...including:

1) A SERIOUS respect for Islamic religion, cultures, and institutions...is EVERYONE losing their minds on this story TOTALLY forgetting how much effort the Administration and the military went to avoid hitting Islamic mosques in Iraq and rebuilding ones that got caught in crossfire or where fighting couldn't be avoided?...I would add a serious respect for the constructive priorities of leaders in
Iran and North Korea, including a vague desire to care for the needs of their peoples...given...it's a STRETCH of a compliment...but I think this is a better start than just criticism alone...which gets us to the SECOND important strength of this Administration, I think...

2) President Bush's forthright criticism of autocracies and rogue regimes...this is where I and many of the President's critics in the media SERIOUSLY DISAGREE...I DO agreee with many folks -- and the bulk of the international policy scholarly community...conservatives -- like Henry Kissinger and Robert Kagan -- AND liberals -- like Joe Nye and
Thomas Friedman...that the President should stop trying to bully the world and should work WITH multilateral institutions, like the United Nations and NATO, and with democratic and non-democratic partners to engage such issues...with open and honest disagreement, to be sure...but not trying to win the upper hand, politically, and not expect consequences that none of us want, on the back end...

And I think that trying to SCARE North Korea and Iran into giving up their pursuit of weapons is CLEARLY NOT WORKING BY ANY OBJECTIVE MEASURE of the situation, which is EXACTLY why the Economist is so
RIGHTLY critical...

I think we should focus on bilateral and multilateral talks...and in doing what the President and John Bolton have SAID, recently, that they want to do with the U.N...which I think would be encouraging if they are being sincere...which is to ENGAGE it...to recognize and acknowledge it's value...as the President does so well with, say, American businesses...but which he needs to do better, I think, with the U.N...AND to criticize it...especially its record of allowing serious human rights abusers tell the rest of the world what constitutes a human rights abuse...I am ALL ABOUT INCLUSION as a means of engaging aggressors in a democratic context -- as has CLEARLY been a success in Great Britain with the IRA and the Ulster Unionists -- but there also needs to be voices of reason who say that Syria is not the best country to tell ANYONE what is constituted in a human rights
abuse...and out of that democratic engagement, I think, we give autocrats experience with the BENEFITS and HONESTY and good for their countries and for the world that come with democratic engagement, which is EXACTLY why Gerry Adams -- a spokesman for a former terrorist group now-turned-political-party -- worked so hard in the last couple of years to keep the peace in Ireland on track...a remarkable development, to say the least, from a time when Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein RATIONALIZED murder for political ends...

So...there is MUCH PRECEDENT to believe that such a strategy could besuccessful...as well as the Europeans BRIEF success in squelching the Iranians' pursuit of nuclear weapons which was SADLY COMPOUNDED by a boisterous U.S. threatening war with it...what a foolish mistake....

And...it's just a mistake...and...like
Newsweek...the quicker the President recognizes that...the quicker we get to BETTER solutions...

3) The President's and the Administration's GENUINE concern for America's interests in global affairs...and their hopefully moving past the illusion that somehow their just going to be
able to BEAT world opinion in their direction...a foolish bet, that's for damned sure...and the Administration's willingness to point out the shortcomings in international institutions like the U.N. (though I somehow doubt going after Kofi Annon will do very much more, at all, than increase the shrill of Bush sitting for war-crimes talk amongts liberals (which is a pretty serious risk for the President who DID violate international law over the course of this war...I don't think it will go this way...but going after Kofi Annon will surely INCREASE that likelihood, rather than decrease it...and likely do NOTHING to promote the welfare of those hurt by the mistakes in the oil-for-food program -- except bring general awareness of the issue -- and do MUCH to undermine conservative credibility on the issue, as it already has with me...

4) Making the case that though America's willingness to lead military efforts when they are needed might, at times, make them a bit TOO EXCITED to take on such missions...that the resistance to sharing the burden equitably on such missions by the Japanese and Germans and French, etc., undermine THEIR CREDIBILITY AS WELL...a truism that gets MUCH DISCUSSION in the U.S...especially amongst conservatives...but less and needed discussion in places like the U.N....

...and saving the talk of militarism for when it is more useful...like
in the case of a REAL IMMINENT THREAT from the North or Iran on Seoul or Israel...like if North Korea or Iran is overtly threatening to rain nuclear on Seoul or Tel Aviv...or to otherwise attack, with missile technology or ground troops, their more democratic neighbors...

5) Sanctions will almost inevitably beconsidered...and the Administration will almost inevitably support them (though they have PLEASANTLY SURPRISED me at times...as with their pleading with Ariel Sharon to back off more aggressive moves in Palestine)...so I have to include them...I don't have much hope that they will work, given what we know about the psychology of the insular, paranoid, seriously-controlling and repressive, militaristic, and seriously manipulative leadership in both Tehran and Pyongyang...Iran is democratic and, thus and on its own merits, less dangerous, I think, than the megalomania of Kim Jong Il...and has fewer capabilities to threaten democratic countries than does the North Korean leadership, according to this Economist article...

Though the Economist suggests them...they will likely have a similar, less serious consequence as the current policy, I'm afraid (I would love for them or war or ANY POLICY to work, frankly...but they just aren't likely to, I'm afraid, given who we are dealing with...and with human nature's tendency to DEFEND itself from perceived attacks, for good or for ill...

I think bilateral and multilateral talks and inclusion of these countries into institutions like the United Nations are MUCH MORE LIKELY to create changes in their leaderships' behavior (with a VIGOROUS AND ENGAGED debate and discussion about the direction and purposes of the United Nations and other international institutions by conservatives, liberals, and even rogue regimes...this doesn't mean that Kim Jong Il's philosophy of democracy is equally as valid as that of democratic countries like the U.S. OBVIOUSLY...it just means that, like Gerry Adams...the more he's TALKING AND THINKING about democracy...the more he absorbs its values...and the better for ALL OF US, as a consequence...as the truism of contemporary political science that the President has been repeating to President Putin and his neighbors, recently...the more democratic countries are...the more likely that they DON'T go to war with one another...and that they act less aggressively with one another...which, at its root, is the FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE of our policies towards Iraq, Iran, and North Korea...not declaring war...or imposing sanctions...these are only tools...that either get us CLOSER to that goal...or, as is the unfortunate case today, get us FARTHER AWAY from that goal...

6) The very savvy and important work and suggestions of the brains behind much of the work in Iraq, right now, that I'm ashamed that I forgot about when I posted very similar versions of this writing on
Ala's blog...

Paul Wolfowitz...

Very soon after the commencement of the Iraq war...As Paul was -- far ahead of the pack of the very reflective re-thinking of the war going on inside the Administration...ahead Condi's very poignant rethinking...and Don Rumsfeld's second thoughts...and Colin Powell's and Tom Ridge's and Richard Clarke's post-cabinet re-thinking that would have been far more effectively engaged if it would have had an audience while they were still working for the President...

Very soon after the war started, Paul suggested that Americans support more open, democratic, and liberal -- "small l" classical, free-thinking, free-expressing liberal, in this sense -- values by financially and otherwise supporting schools in Islamic countries like Afghanistan and Iraq to support the nurturing of these kinds of very important values in Islamic cultures...

And that suggestion is not only a brilliant one -- which the Administration, generally, and Paul, specifically, deserve much credit for...

But it is one that should be extended, as much as possible to autocracies and dictatorships like Iran and North Korea...

This would make an immense difference, if it were possible to implant these institutions in places like North Korea and Iran...But they will only be possible if these states and cultures do not feel threatened by the Administration and the Western and civilized and democratic world...

A very, very, very good reason to not engage in a policy that makes threats as a way of resolving difficult issues...for goodness sakes...But that is ok...because mistakes get made...and that is the nature of international and domestic policy...

It is not only OK that mistakes get made over the course of these very difficult policy choices...it is common and on-going in the neverending learning curve of international (and domestic) policy...and acknowledging that instead of assuming bad faith is much more constructive, I believe, to preventing similar mistakes in the future than trying to get folks' heads...

For the President...and for Newsweek...and, this time, the President needs to follow this media organization's lead, I think...

That would be the most important suggestion I would have for the President...it's not his strength, unfortunately...and, as I've written earlier, it is very difficult to do, publicly...so I totally feel for George in this respect...but I'd do it anyway...

Apologize...

Apologize to the world for trying to make it do your bidding just because you say so...and because you're arrogant enough to believe that you know what's best for the world without consulting it...Apologize to Iraqis and American soldiers and international relief workers and other service-people, Iraqi law-enforcement, non-profit workers, commercial workers, and to the families of those whose lives were lost over the course of this world...whose lives were all put in far too much unnecessary risk, as a consequence of the President's arrogance to believe that forming substantial international coalitions
and consensus did not/do not matter...for disregarding international institutions, like the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council...as well as important NATO allies, like France and Germany...

Apologize to the North Koreans -- the leadership and the population -- as well as the Iranian leadership and people for persistently threatening them, militarily, to get our way on a whole host of matters
-- specifically, the renunciation of nuclear programs -- that has clearly been counterproductive to anyone honestly concerned with dealing with this threat...and not just defending the President and his mistakes...a policy of threats that leads those cultures, populations, and states to close down, dig in, and prepare for battle...not the state that you need so same folks in to learn and
support and nurture the values of free and open and liberal ("small l" classical liberal ) and democratic cultures...

And apologize to the American people...for both giving deceptive reasons for going into Iraq...and for not being more thoughtful about how such a war might be engaged to ensure that many, many, many fewer American, Iraqi and other lives would be lost over its course...and to American liberals, in particular, for treating them like opponents, at worst, and less than equitable partners, at best, when developing international and domestic policy...

I would then work with international relief organizations, fundraising, and other groups to fund emergency food relief for North Koreans, specifically, during bilateral and multilateral talks...to make clear that such talks and efforts in the region are authentically about how much Americans care about the North Koreans -- and about themselves -- and not about how they want to scare or repress them further than they are already repressed (learning the lessons from the very serious problems we've encountered in Iraq...

I would also continue to offer up as much free and paid for and otherwise supported access to both Iranians and North Koreans (there is more precedent for Iranians enjoying American culture...but if there's a way to get it to North Koreans, then I am all for it to products and media of American culture...the pink fashions and rap music that Iranians have, reportedly, been indulging in...and rebelling against their parents and their parents' generation with...the access to American, British, South Korean, Egyptian, Iraqi, Japanese, French, German, Spanish, Scandanavian, Swiss, Italian, Nigerian, Kyrgyz, Russian, Christian and other missionary (my South Korean friends tell me that Christian missionaries have been very important ambassadors to South Korean culture from America...and might have similar influence in the North, though, as with China, with significantly more risk, I'm sure, in a Communist dictatorship...and other more democratic media, movies, music, books, scholarship, and more open culture...

As Joe Nye -- the Dean of the Harvard School of Government and my favorite international policy scholar -- makes clearer in his most recent works...

While hard power -- in the form of military and economic force and sanctions -- can be useful in international diplomacy (and I would add...for some purposes...that have important tradeoffs with other purposes...meaning they are discreet tools for certain efforts -- like limiting regimes' access to weapons of mass destruction -- while distorting relationships needed for other efforts -- for democratization, for instance...or for extradition of or for reducing or removing support for terrorists....or for trade...or for improving openess and linkages for American and Western and democratic and non-democratic media, music, books, scholarship, internet, etc...or for solving a whole host of serious international problems...that require
strong overall relationships, first and foremost, to tackle so many important and necessary issues, simultaneously, without trading off issues of importance with one another...rather than discreet and often counterproductive efforts at forcing regimes' hands on issues that are not of immediate and truly imminent threat, as I see no evidence, thusfar, including from this Economist article, that Iran or North Korea really are...

As Joe makes clear...

Soft power -- or more direct diplomacy, study abroad programs -- especially programs that allow young folks from these countries to study in America in as big of numbers as possible and that sharing and genuine exchange of our more open culture and even others' more closed cultures -- are far undervalued in the current context...and need to be revisited by American and world leaders, generally...but definitely in situations of the most serious risk of escalation, as Iran and North Korea and Iraq are proving to be...

And soft efforts to encourage, teach, share, and otherwise nurture democratic values in these countries...through schools -- as Paul Wolfowitz, the current World Bank chairman and one of President Bush's most important intellectual advisors over the course of this war in Iraq suggested very, very, very wisely in Islamic countries...like Iran, say...through open and as freely accessed as possible...internet...press...and other news media (the Economist making its premium content freely accessable is a welcome and wonderful move in this direction...I've been waiting to brag on them about this ever since I encountered it...music...movies...television...advertising (as much as this just pisses off like hell traditionalists in developing and autocratic and repressive cultures...fuck 'em, I say...I don't have any fuckin' problem in the fuckin' world with Islamists and Communists and various autocrats and dictatorships and closed and more traditional cultures being pissed off with Americans and others using and celebrating their First Amendment Rights...I also happen to think that Afghanis can learn to tolerate desecration of the Koran, as well, by the way...even as Americans also learn to respect, preserve, and appreciate the Koran, Islamic tradition and culture, and Arab and South Central Asian cultures, generally...but that's for another post...

And if we need to use weapons and sanctions...We can still do so when we might think we might need to...but not lead with such a policy, thus playing trump cards that we cannot quickly replace or get back and, in doing so, at each turn, reversing a very important game called, "How to facilitate all of humanity adopting the highest values of all humanity..."

I would also add, at this point...that we should also consider acknowledging the legitimacy of Iran pursuing a peaceful program, as a part of those talks...meaning...that it is hardly fair for the Administration to argue, as they have, that peaceful nuclear development in America for energy purposes is needed...but that it must be halted in Iran...the President and the Administration and all those involved need to acknowledge that Iran's pursuit of a non-weapons-grade nuclear program is wholly legitimate for an emerging economy seeking non-oil-dependendent energy sources...

But one of the main purposes of bilateral and multilateral talks -- as is being used, more successfully, with North Korea, with the wise leadership of the South Koreans bringing Washington on board for a much more constructive resolution to such matters, there -- is to guarantee is -- whether Iran gets the bomb or not -- that they do what most democracies do, better, these days...

Which is not go to war with one another...

Meaning...

That we should work on better relations, generally, with the Iranians -- at least for the long run...even when there is, periodically, bad blood in the short run -- to better guarantee that any nuclear weapons that might be developed or acquired...

Are not used...

Which is our real concern...

The world is slowly beginning to come to terms, I think, with the fact that it cannot control hostilities...

At best they can combat them when they are aggressive...and then, only as a temporary solution to such conflict...

And build better relationships...even with those nations we don't trust...

And to follow the example that Franklin Roosevelt and George Marshall set for the country more than 50 years ago...

To build up our enemies...into stronger and better versions of themselves...

And to continue to expand on our own legacy of freedom and democracy...domestically...as well as abroad...

To build on what is good...to leave behind what is wrong and destructive...to forgive ours' and others' past transgressions...as we want others to forgive our and their own...

Melissa is home...I'll have more suggestions, later:):):)...have a great day, everyone:):):)...

Love,
Ben