Monday, February 02, 2009
Badminton diplomacy
Uh-oh. The Obama administration's first big gesture toward Tehran is to dispatch a women's badminton team to help build cultural ties:
The Obama administration is sending a women’s badminton team to Iran this week as part of a broad bid to engage the Iranian people through educational and cultural exchanges.
U.S. officials familiar with the matter told The Associated Press today the team will be in Tehran from tomorrow until Feb. 9 to participate in an international tournament.
The trip comes amid a wide-ranging review of U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic.
Sad to say, we've tried this one before. The Clinton administration promoted American-Iranian athletics as one component of a package of gestures toward Iran during the administration of "reformist" Muhammad Khatami. From Kenneth Pollack's superb book, The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America
:A month after Khatami's momentous CNN interview [in 1997], Washington took him up on his offer to begin nonofficial contacts. An American wrestling team was allowed (encouraged is more like it) to compete in a tournament in Tehran. American officials stated explicitly that Washington intended it as a 1990s version of the "Ping-Pong diplomacy" that paved the way for normalized relations with China. When the wrestlers returned, having been applauded in Tehran, they were invited to the White House to meet the president in the Oval Office. The wrestlers truly deserved the honor (no one had known how the Iranians would react to them, so their trip had been an act of considerable bravery), but the point was as much to show enthusiastic presidential approval for contacts with Iran. (p. 321)
Neither the wrestling nor the eight other gestures during those crucial Clinton years were able to stimulate any favorable substantive response from Iran. Pollack again:
In truth, many American officials, myself among them, were beginning to get frustrated with Tehran: the United States had now made nine gestures (liberalizing visas, sending the wrestlers and other cultural exchanges, putting the MEK on the terrorism list, taking Iran off the counternarcotics list, allowing the sale of food and medicine, agreeing to the ILSA waivers, sending Albright to the "six-plus-two" talks on Afghanistan in hope of meeting Kharrasi, [President Clinton's] Millennium Evening dinner near apology, and the spare parts for the Boeing aircraft). In return, the United States had not gotten very much, especially since the smuggling of Iraqi oil through Iranian waters had resumed in 1999. Nevertheless, we thought it worth making one last grand gesture....Albright's confession and apology did not come out of thin air. No, the Iranians had asked for it, directly and indirectly, for years. It was supposedly their ultimate precondition. If only we made this one last gesture, then the two countries could get beyond their history. The Clinton administration spent more than three years "building bridges" to the mullahs, finally delivering on the long-sought apology without ever hoping for similar consideration for the embassy hostages, only to have the Supreme Leader -- the same Supreme Leader who is in charge today -- twist it into yet another opportunity for anti-American propaganda. Khamene'i had turned the Clinton administration's Iran policy, which had included the studied non-retaliation for the Khobar Towers attack in the interests of comity, into a figurative smoking pile of rubble.
So, on March 17 [2000], Albright gave the famous speech. She issued the apology quoted in the introduction to this book. She announced the lifting of the import ban on Iranian foodstuffs and carpets. She said any number of other warm, welcoming things about Iran. And she again called on the Iranian government to begin an official dialogue with the United States, with no preconditions and no demands for a rapid solution to what we acknowledged were extremely complicated problems. The Europeans were ecstatic. Our Iranian interloculators were impressed and hopeful that it would have a positive impact in Tehran. A number of groups inside Tehran hailed the speech and the partial lifting of the sanctions as a remarkable gesture on the part of the United States, to which Iran should respond positively. Then, ten days later, [Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah] Khamene'i gave his thoroughly negative response... (337-339)Just a few days ago an American minister delivered a speech. After half a century, or over 40 years, the Americans have now confessed that they staged the 28th Mordad [August 19, 1953] coup. They confessed that they supported the suppressive, dictatorial, and corrupt Pahlavi shah for twenty-five years. Please pay attention. We are in the year 1379 [by the Islamic calendar], more than forty years have elapsed since 1332 and the coup d'etat of the 28th Mordad. It is only now that they are admitting that they were behind the coup d'etat. They admit that they supported and backed the dictatorial, oppressive, corrupt and subservient regime of the shah for twenty-five years. And they are now saying that they supported Saddam Husayn in his war against Iran. What do you think the Iranian nation, faced with this situation and these admissions, feels? ... In the course of those days, during the war, we repeatedly said in our speeches that the Americans are helping Sadam Husayn. They denied this and claimed they remained impartial. Now that 12 years have elapsed after the end of the war, in a center [the American-Iranian Council] this American Secretary of State is official admitting that they helped Saddam Husayn. The question is, what good will this admission do us? ... What goes does this admission -- that you acted in that way then -- do us now? ... An admission years after the crime was committed, while they might be committing similar crimes now, will not do the Iranian nation any good. (xxv)
Almost three years ago Secretary Albright spoke at Princeton, and I had an opportunity to ask her about this. I characterized Ayatollah Khamene'i's response as the diplomatic equivalent of a stiff arm, and Albright agreed with the analogy. I then asked her whether, in retrospect and knowing what she does today, she would have taken a harder line against Iran in the 1990s, or, alternatively, made even more concessions. Being nobody's fool, Albright praised the question as a good one and then declared her prior policy the correct one and said that she would do again just as she did then. Apparently Albright is as unwilling to confess error as George W. Bush.
Now, almost ten years later, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is demanding that Barack Obama also apologize for all the same stuff without any acknowledgement that we already did that and got insulted for the effort. President Obama appears to be responding to this request for a double-apology by sending a badminton team. It really is beginning to feel like Groundhog Day.
18 Comments:
By 
Mrs. Davis, at
Tue Feb 03, 09:29:00 AM:
Look at The Messiah's appointments. Of course it's going to look like Ground Hog Day. And it will end the same way. But at least we get to watch Hillary sing I Got You Babe to Bill.
By 
, at
Tue Feb 03, 09:52:00 AM:
Tigerhawk, I think Michael Ledeen has the best take on the course of negotiations with the mullah regime in Iran in his recent posting.
It has to do with how power is accumulated and disbursed in Iran, and nobody has definitive responsibility except the lead Ayatollah.
Dan
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/02/01/how-to-talk-to-a-mullah-not/
By , at
Tue Feb 03, 09:54:00 AM:
The fundamental question is why did sports diplomacy work with China but not with Iran. May I suggest the answer lies in understanding Islam's fundamental religious beliefs? Or was it just Nixon's superior intellect?
By , at
Tue Feb 03, 10:29:00 AM:
Those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Except it isn't really a question of not remembering. In Obama's case, it may well be he is entirely ignorant of the past. In the case of his diplomatic advisors it may well be a case of hope and the unrequited desire for change trumping experience.
By Diogenes, at
Tue Feb 03, 11:02:00 AM:
The Chosen one cannot (will not) understand the mindset of Islamic Iran that divides the world into two camps, the House of Islam and the House of War.
Faithful Muslims (people who read, understand and believe the Koran) will always be at war--in jihad--with non-believers.
Iran will negotiate only if it results in service to Islam, i.e., "not to convert by force but to remove the obstacles to conversion for the infidels and the apostates, so that they shall either convert or become dhimmis (non-Muslims who accept Islamic dominion) and pay the jizya, the poll tax." Victory in Tripoli, by Joshua E. London, 2005.
Iran is simply a modern version of the Barbary Pirates.
We should all remember that faithful Muslims view Islam as the last and greatest revision of the "Good Books," and pray for worldwide dominion over infidels and other "people of the Book."
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Feb 03, 11:09:00 AM:
"All politics is local," Tip O'Neill said. The tantrums of politicians like Chavez and Ahmadinejad are for domestic audiences.
All too often American officials allow others to set the agenda. We have to get control of the discussion. Here is how many international businesspeople would respond in these kind of situations (a hundred times, if necessary): "You have a point. Now lets talk about the best ways to improve the lives of the Iranian people."
Perform for the audience, not the other actors.
American diplomats need to improve their marketing skills.
By , at
Tue Feb 03, 11:30:00 AM:
Intransigence is one thing. Intransigence armed with a nuclear weapon is another thing entirely.
And, please, "need to improve their marketing skills"?! Really?
Poor diplomatic marketing is hardly the nut of our problem with the mullah-cracy.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Feb 03, 11:41:00 AM:
To Anonymous @ 11:30 a.m.
I am an American (and a Republican) who does business around the world.
America has problems with China. I don't.
America has problems with Russia. I don't.
America has problems with Malaysia. I don't.
America has problems with Pakistan. I don't.
America has problems with the Middle East. I don't.
America has problems with North Africa. I don't.
Think about that.
By , at
Tue Feb 03, 12:37:00 PM:
To DEC,
Did you have a problem with President Clinton sharing satellite launching and orbiting technology with the Chinese?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Feb 03, 12:58:00 PM:
I have a problem with sharing technology, period, Anon at 12:37 p.m. I believe in free trade, but I don't believe in selling or giving away your "business edge." (Unfortunately, we often sell it for the price of college tuition from foreign students.)
My point is simply this: The Republican Party is the party of capitalism. Start thinking like capitalists.
KFC, Levi-Strauss, Coca-Cola, and Hollywood movie studios are but a few of the American companies that have changed cultures across the globe. Learn from them.
By Diogenes, at
Tue Feb 03, 01:50:00 PM:
Marc Rich, apparently a Democrat, did business with Iran while they held 59 Americans hostage for some 400 days.
He was not only an oil profiteer but paid no income taxes on billions of sales. In fact, he was a fugitive from justice. He was indicted but neither tried nor convicted, and yet, President Clinton and President Obama's Attorney General pardoned him.
In short, American Marc Rich sought to further Islam's champion.
What are we to make of such treason?
By , at
Tue Feb 03, 04:16:00 PM:
I do apologize DEC for my overly quick response to the marketing comment. Obviously you weren't suggesting that the sum total of our issues with Iran was marketing, and I reacted as if you did say just that thing. Nevertheless, given the diverse world we live in it would be hard to create a message country-by-country for America as a whole without ruffling feathers (just ask George Bush). The State Department and the CIA couldn't use the same message in China, for example, that it uses in Bolivia. But you as a businessperson can do that.
With respect to your thought that we ought to focus on the welbeing of the Iranain people in our efforts to work with the mullah-cracy I would ask you if there is even one iece of evidence that they care? The government of Iran seems to care most about asserting the primacy of Iran in the region and of Islam in the world. How would you suggest we market to those concerns? Iran is interested in gaining a nuclear capacity, and maybe even a space based method of delivering the weapon (extrapolating from todays news). I can't think fo a message we can develop that would help change their priorities. Apparently, our various governments have been involved in nearly constant failed attempts to renew direct relations with Iran practically since 1979. At what point to we abandon hope and understand the government of Iran itself needs to change before we can succeed at a productive dialog?
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Feb 03, 05:12:00 PM:
To Anon @ 4:16 p.m.
Here is an example: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Reagan, the "Great Communicator," knew what he was doing. He circumvented the Russian leaders and appealed directly to the people (while ignoring U.S. State Department liberals who were unable to think outside the box).
Appeal to basic human desires. You can adjust messages for specific audiences without stepping on your primary message. Advertising execs do it every day.
Sometimes you have to fight. But I prefer manipulation over confrontation. Manipulation has fewer unpleasant side effects.
P.S. I don't have a problem with arms shipments to freedom fighters in Iran.
By , at
Tue Feb 03, 07:08:00 PM:
I agree: We should be appealing directly to the people in Iran. They are probably our best friends in this fight, at least based on what my Iranian-American friends tell me.
My bad angel wants to rid the world of those troublesome imams by any means necessary, to paraphrase Henry II, but the rational part of me realizes that a violent intrusion into Iranian politics will cause us problems for eons to come. The Iranian people must solve this problem. We can help them, and maybe even supply them with weapons if necessary, but somehow I think the Iranian government is closer to falling of it's own accord. Time is on our side, but for the nuclear problem. It's a conundrum.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Feb 03, 10:50:00 PM:
Totalitarian states willing to use force to stay together almost never fall of their own accord. North Korea should have collapsed years ago, but hasn't. When there was an uprising in Syria, they shelled and destroyed an entire city to put it down. We all know what happened to the Iraqis when they tried to rise up.
Once a certain measure of control is obtained by the state, it can't be shaken off without outside aid. For instance, where would the would be revolutionaries get weapons on their own?
By Gary Rosen, at
Wed Feb 04, 01:36:00 AM:
DEC, I usually have great respect for what you say but I find the following strikingly naive:
"America has problems with China. I don't.
America has problems with Russia. I don't.
America has problems with Malaysia. I don't."
etc.
The reason you don't have "problems" is that you don't have the world's most formidable armed forces and arsenal of nuclear weapons. Now the retort to that may be that we should be "kinder and gentler" to the rest of the world as you undoubtedly are :^). But if America is not willing to put its military might to use it does us no good to have it. That certainly does not mean that we should use it every time an opportunity presents itself, but we *do* have to use it some times and this will cause "problems" with certain people. One of the beneficial side effects of the Iraqi invasion is that it made clear our willingness to use force when we believe it necessary. And one of the dangers of an Obama administration is that that clarity will be muddied.
Now it is possible that I have misconstrued your point. In a later post you make a welcome distinction between the rulers and citizens of regimes such as Iran's, citing Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech. I myself have often wondered why American leaders have not brought more attention to the abominable human rights situation in Iran. But even in this case I believe words are more effective when they are backed by military might.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Feb 04, 07:43:00 AM:
Comparing the behavior of a man to the behavior of a state is silly anyway, and any judgments or ideas born of such thinking are flawed.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Feb 04, 11:44:00 AM:
My points are quite simple, gentlemen.
1. Get control of the agenda.
2. Use effective marketing to get the people of Iran on your side.
3. Support the revolution.
Obama isn't going to invade Iran. It's time to move on to plan B.
My other point is this:
I wouldn't hire 99 percent of the people in the U.S. State Department because they lack the necessary skills to "get things done" in other countries.
