« Changing the Channel | Main | CT Goes to the Polls »

Undiplomacy

This is Diplomacy?

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, August 7, 2006; 2:02 PM

As President Bush's foreign policy oscillates between "cowboy diplomacy" and "post-cowboy diplomacy" and back again, it's worth pointing out that it's not really correct to call it diplomacy if he invariably refuses to talk to people who disagree with him.

The U.N. resolution Bush was pushing this morning from his vacation home in Texas bears the hallmarks of non-diplomacy: It's a supposed cease-fire resolution that the parties most desperate for a cease fire are condemning as unworkable, unsatisfactory and doomed.

Perhaps that's because the Bush administration is only engaging in direct talks with one party to the hostilities: Israel. The United States refuses to conduct negotiations with Hezbollah or its sponsors, Syria and Iran.

And the views of the democratically-elected government of Lebanon -- where the continuing Israeli air strikes have killed more than 550 people, mostly civilians -- are being dismissed by the White House as the overly emotional arguments of people who don't know what's best for them.

At a morning press availability, (here's the transcript ) Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice brushed off Lebanese opposition to the proposed agreement, which would keep Israeli troops in Southern Lebanon until an international force is ready to help relieve them.

Bush made it clear that the continued presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon is non-negotiable. "We must not create a vacuum," he said.

Asked about Lebanese objections, Rice responded dismissively: "I understand how emotional this is for the Lebanese."

Said Bush: "I understand both parties aren't going to agree with all aspects of the resolution, but the intent of the resolutions is to strengthen the Lebanese government so Israel has got a partner in peace." (Israeli reaction to the agreement, by the way, while muted, has been positive.)

Both Bush and Rice were dispassionate about the carnage in the region, savoring instead what they insist are important geopolitical gains. An unconditional cease-fire three weeks ago, Rice said, "would not have addressed any of these items that both sides know are going to have to be addressed if we're going to have a sustainable cease-fire in the future.

"So this has been time that's been well-spent over the last couple of weeks."

Asked about his administration's continued refusal to engage with Syria, Bush said, "We have been in touch with Syria." But the contacts he cited date back to long before last year's withdrawal of the U.S. ambassador in Damascus. And he showed little enthusiasm for two-way communication. "Syria knows what we think," he insisted. "They know exactly what our position is."

Responding to specific questions about the resolution and the conflict, Bush tirelessly dipped into his small store of stock answers, repeatedly extolling the universal appeal of liberty and asserting the importance of addressing the "root cause" of the violence -- terrorists in general, Hezbollah in particular -- as part of "the great challenge of the 21st century."

Hexbollah is part of the elected government of Lebanon. That's an inconvenient truth for Bushco. This is clearly beyond the Bear of Small Brain.

Comments

Unless this IS the diplomacy bushco wants - to propogate a strategy for world-wide control of oil reserves. [It's the policy, stupids.]

Professor Juan Cole has a fascinating post from Sunday, August 6 - "One Ring to Rule Them". Quoting from that post:

The wholesale destruction of all of Lebanon by Israel and the US Pentagon does not make any sense. Why bomb roads, bridges, ports, fuel depots in Sunni and Christian areas that have nothing to do with Shiite Hizbullah in the deep south? And, why was Hizbullah's rocket capability so crucial that it provoked Israel to this orgy of destruction? Most of the rockets were small katyushas with limited range and were highly inaccurate...

And, why was Condi Rice's reaction to the capture of two Israeli soldiers and Israel's wholesale destruction of little Lebanon that these were the "birth pangs" of the "New Middle East"? How did she know so early on that this war would be so wideranging? And, how could a little border dispute in the Levant signal such an elephantine baby's advent? Isn't it because she had, like Tony Blair, been briefed about the likelihood of a war by the Israelis, or maybe collaborated with them in the plans, and also conceived of it in much larger strategic terms?

I've had a message from a European reader that leads me to consider a Peak Oil Theory of the US-Israeli war on Lebanon (and by proxy on Iran). I say, "consider" the "theory" because this is a thought experiment...

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)