Holding talks

THE DIPLOMATIC WAY
When I hear the phrase "holding talks" there are all kinds of ideas produced. The phrase first brings a hush to my thoughts, because it always sounds like good news. Then questions come to mind:

• What prompted the parties to agree to talks?
• What will they talk about?
• Is the meeting behind closed doors? Were there third parties that secretly met earlier to bring them together?
• Does our side have a good hand? Who holds the best cards?
• What is the diplomatic strategy that could be successful between disparate cultures?
• How can both sides win something in the process?
• Will the parties come to an agreement that will bear fruit?

Iraq is the most important area of conflict for the U.S. right now. The leaders of the two governments do not always agree, as the recent "benchmark" news flurry illustrates. Most experts agree, however that there is not a military solution to the war in Iraq. It must be based on talking - political/diplomatic, rather than using sheer raw power. So far the only actions the current administration have taken publically are military. To that end Sweetness and Light.com quotes an anonymous source that claims that we have recently secretly been talking with Iraqi insurgent leaders in Jordan. The headline begins,

"US in secret truce talks with insurgency chiefs" October 22, 2006 Marie Colvin
AMERICAN officials held secret talks with leaders of the Iraqi insurgency last week after admitting that their two-month clampdown on violence in Baghdad had failed.
Few details of the discussions in the Jordanian capital Amman have emerged but an Iraqi source close to the negotiations said the participants had met for at least two days.
They included members of the Islamic Army in Iraq, one of the main Sunni militias behind the insurgency, and American government representatives. The talks were described as “feeler” discussions. The US officials were exploring ways of persuading the Sunni groups to stop attacks on allied forces and to end a cycle of increasingly bloody sectarian clashes with members of the majority Shi’ite groups.

The United States depended on European allies to hold talks over Iran, because the current administration keeps a long list of nations, including North Korea, to whom it refuses at times to talk directly. This makes the U.S. look weaker, in my opinion, while Iran only desires minimal recognition as a beginning. To be realistic, diplomacy is the only option with Iraq, and they know it. The Islamic Republic News Agency maintains that agreement on Iran's nuclear program can only be reached through talks, "unconditional negotiations." Foreign Minister Mottaki is quoted from the 10/21/06 story as saying,

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki here (S)aturday dismissed as 'incorrect and irrational' any comparison between Iran's peaceful nuclear activities and the nuclear experiments by the world big powers, including the new generations of atomic bombs.
. . . The minister said that such a comparison will just uncover the weak reasoning basics, given Iran's clear stance on nuclear weapons.
Mottaki referred to talks as the only way to reach agreement, but underlined that if any preconditions are set, Iran would have priority.
. . . In response to a question about the recent approach of the European Union to the country's nuclear issue, he said, "We expect EU to pursue the issue based on reason and independently." He criticized the union's intention to compare Iran's peaceful nuclear activities to atomic tests.
In reply to another question about revealing the agreements reached between Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, and the EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana, the minister said that the two sides agreed not to release the outcome of their agreements.

The so-called "Middle East peace process" in the past involved the U.S. holding talks to try to settle the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through our good offices, with diplomacy. But that approach has languished ever since the current Bush administration took office. We have refused to talk to Hamas. But the difficulty is now even more basic. Following the victory of Hamas, the Palestinian government itself has been deadlocked over governance. The Financial Times carried this in-depth article about PM Abbas' dilemma with Hamas. To quote,

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority’s Fatah president, is this weekend expected to try to break a political deadlock with his Hamas-led government, as tension over the prospect of a civil war between the rival factions rises in the West Bank and Gaza.
. . . Mr Abbas’s options range from dissolving the Hamas government and establishing a cabinet of technocrats to calling a national referendum that would probably lead to new elections. Hamas officials say either option would amount to a coup d’etat aimed at overturning the Islamist party’s victory in elections last January.
. . . In the face of an international boycott and following Israel’s round-up of many of its ministers this summer, the Hamas government has in effect ceased to function, contributing to an economic crisis in which public salaries have virtually not been paid over the last six months. In the meantime there has been a surge in violence between security forces loyal to the rival factions, including street clashes and assassinations that Palestinians fear could be the prelude to a wider conflict.

The traditional place for holding peace talks has long been Geneva, Switzerland. Or the seat of diplomacy might be in Brussels, Belgium. Unfortunately The United States has not elevated New York - seat of the United Nations - to the diplomatic place for peace that it could hold because the U.S. seriously underutilizes the UN peacemaker function. Currently in Geneva negotiators are working on Sri Lanka. ACHR Weekly Review (10/11/06) reports that representatives have gathered for talks for peace set for October 28-29.

The representatives of the government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have already reached Switzerland for holding talks on 28-29 October 2006 to explore the possibilities to salvage the shattered peace process. According to the Sri Lankan Defence Ministry a total of 2,735 people, including 664 civilians were killed between 1 December 2005 and 10 October 2006.
Approximately 200,000 persons have been displaced in the conflicts since July 2006 and they have been regularly denied access to regular or sufficient humanitarian assistance. . .

Long time traditional rivalries are very hard to settle. Old enemies India and Pakistan have been holding talks over their conflict on "the highest battlefield in the world" in Kashmir. Fortunately, the United States has been friends with both countries for some time before the Bush administration took office. Clearly the diplomatic path was what turned President Musharraf towards being one of our main allies in the Middle East, despite our alliance with India. The Voice of America News, carried this story, from which I quote,

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has acknowledged that India and Pakistan have been holding secret talks on ways to resolve their Kashmir dispute.
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, the general said the talks are aimed at moving the almost three-year-old peace process forward. He said he has invited Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to visit Pakistan and that he wants to make the trip substantive. He gave no details.
However, the Pakistani leader said that there is no need for more official-level talks on the Siachen Glacier issue because they have not made any progress so far. He said the problem can and should be resolved by political will of the two sides.

Background resources:

1. A past S/SW post focused on the concept of leadership.
2. Wikipedia on diplomacy (always use with caution).

Tags: bush iraq palestine current affairs news news and politics politics foreign policy diplomat peace
My "creative post" today at Southwest Blogger is my book meme.