In a column for the South African Business Day, the president of the South African Institute of Race Relations, Sipho Seepe, insists on an end to fear, prejudice, and adversarial attitudes in his country’s politics. He laments the past decade: “Our politics was oppositional instead of being based on dialogue. You were either a friend or the enemy. Our politics was about personalities and not issues.” Despite South Africa’s ongoing struggle with race and division, Seepe remains hopeful that “national conversations” can open the “democratic space of opportunities.”
Seepe speaks of a specific time and place, to be sure – but that does not mean his advice and his hope are particular to South Africa. Though his plea for dialogue is couched in South African nuances – criticism of the ANC and President Mbeki – its essence is the desire that before we disengage from conversation and fall back on prejudice and ignorance, before we resort to violent means to achieve what we consider our “goals,” we try to understand one another by talking.
It feels like it has been a long time since this has been a priority in the US foreign policy agenda. However, events this week provide at least a glimmer of hope that this administration – let alone the next one – realizes the necessity of improved diplomacy, negotiation, and dialogue. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates yesterday warned against the “creeping militarization” of America’s foreign policy. In the context of a long-term war on terrorism, he noted that, “We cannot kill or capture our way to victory.” He encouraged proper funding and usage of civilian institutions, particularly those within the State Department. The bottom line is that dialogue, not military overtures, must be our most trusted foreign policy tool.
For this reason, today’s announcement that the Bush administration will send under secretary of state for political affairs William Burns to Geneva to meet with Saeed Jalili, Iran’s nuclear negotiator, is welcome news. That the administration is abandoning one of its strictest prerequisites for meeting face-to-face with Iran is, perhaps, an omen that diplomacy will take on an augmented role in President Bush’s last days in office. There is much doubt that the talks will amount to anything extraordinary – in fact, the line out of Washington is that “substantive talks” will not commence until Iran has ceased to enrich uranium. Nevertheless, the effort simply to engage Iran, to talk about intentions and concerns, bodes well.
Whether for South Africa’s domestic policy or US intentions abroad, meaningful dialogue, political negotiation, and compromise are the only ways to ensure true conflict resolution. To understand the other side, to see your “adversary” as more than a static enemy, is to work toward peace and cooperation.
High diplomacy – Union for the Mediterranean
In a display of both “grand talk” and “high diplomacy,” the leaders of 43 European and Mediterranean countries gathered in Paris yesterday to commence talks of the new Union for the Mediterranean. The project is largely the brainchild of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who said that part of the union’s intent was to “end all hatreds.” Whether this latest diplomatic scheme will succeed is still up in the air. However, hearing Ehud Olmert say boldly that Israel and Palestine have “never been as close to the possiblity of an agreement” on peace is cause enough for hope.
Eboo Patel of The Washington Post reflects on the warming relationship between American Muslims and Jews he has observed in his interfaith work with youth. Patel believes that there is a quiet but fundamental revolution taking place in these adherents’ attitudes toward one another, from adversarial to non-adversarial – and it is young people, he says, that are fueling it.
Just seven weeks after terrible sectarian violence erupted in Lebanon, the worst since civil war broke out in 1990, Lebanon has established a 30-member national unity government. The designated Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora commented, “The government of national unity is the government of all the Lebanese…Our differences will not be resolved overnight, but we have decided to resolve them through institutions and dialogue rather than in the streets.”
Lebanon’s breakthrough – largely a product of negotiations in Doha – emphasizes Qatar’s success as the Middle East’s new mediator. Read more here at The New York Times about why some are calling the Qatari emir a “modern-day Metternich.”
In this USA Today column, a conservative writer and a liberal Democratic strategist collegially and productively debate education reform – and find common ground. The Republican columnist summarized the purpose of such a bipartisan discussion: “Once political interests begin driving policy decisions, we have a problem.”
