HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 24, 2003 It’s time to recognize the incredibly difficult job facing Colin Powell right now. He is tasked with the unenviable position of having to reconcile the philosophical contradictions between the US’s current aggressive foreign policy toward nations that harbor terrorists and Israel’s willingness to adopt this same policy in regard to Hamas. The US’s invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has clearly demonstrated to the world that the US will take whatever measures are necessary in order to destroy both terrorists networks and any countries that we deem have been harboring those networks. This aggressive posture was of course, prompted into being because of a direct attack upon US soil, so, on the surface, this stance and the subsequent offensive (as opposed to defensive) actions have been regarded as completely justified by the Bush Administration and a significant percentage of the American public. Though this stance has caused some significant damage to the US’s standing in the eyes of the international community, there is also a feeling of reluctant acknowledgement in that same international community that this type of aggressive stance may be the most viable option for fighting terrorism. The problem facing General Powell now is how to tell the Israelis that they should not be adopting this same type of aggressive stance in their dealings with Palestine and more specifically in regard to their continued program of aggressively seeking out (and often destroying) the leaders of Hamas. To the Israelis, Hamas represents a very real and continuing threat to the citizens of Israel, much like the Al Queida represent a vary real and continuing threat to the US. Unfortunately, a volatile relationship between Israel and Palestine creates an on-going instability in the Middle East, which could then possibly disrupt the production and flow of oil out of the region and thus threaten the interests of the US. So, by extension, the US must work to pacify this instability between Israel and Palestine in order to protect our own interests. Unfortunately, by adopting and carrying out our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush Administration has demonstrated very little belief in the power and applicability of diplomatic efforts. Talk is cheap to the Bush Administration. We made a very clear statement to the UN and the world at large that we believed that the time for talking was over, and that the longer we talked about getting rid of terrorism, the more time those terrorists had to continue operating. Action had to be taken now in order to deal with the immediate threat. Yet now, when Israel is utilizing this same hard-line stance in regard to the threat that they face daily from Hamas, the US is telling Israel that this kind of aggression only hinders and possible derails the “Road to Peace.” Essentially, George Bush has been ‘hoist on his own petard” by attempting to have General Powell contradict the very philosophy that has defined the Bush Presidency. We (the US) have backed ourselves into a corner on this issue. In proving that we do not put much stock in the diplomatic peace process, we have become fairly one dimensional in regard to dealing with international relations. The result of our recent aggressive actions can have two primary results in regard to our dealings with other countries who are not acting in the best interest of the US: Scenario One: We approach a country that is not acting in Our best interest and tell them that they must stop doing what they are doing. That country, out of fear that we might invade them if they do not comply, sets about complying with our wishes while simultaneously looking to further their own interests clandestinely so as to circumvent the implied threat from the US. The country builds up resentment toward the US and becomes a defacto enemy of the US because they have surrendered their rights of self-determination out of fear. Scenario Two: We approach another country that is not acting in Our best interest and tell them that they must stop doing what they are doing. This second country is very strong and has a powerful sense of self-determination as well as a will to defend it’s own interests above the interests of the US and any other country. That country defies our diplomatic efforts and forces the US into a position of having to resort once again to military force in order to secure our interests. We threaten this military action and then are left with no choice but to mount another invasion in order to secure our interests. Given that this new country has the will and the resources to defend itself in a far more formidable manner than either the Afghani’s or the Iraqi’s, then the US could find itself mired in a far more bloody and devastating battle. In any case, this new country also would become an enemy of the US because it is now defending it’s rights of self determination. The question facing General Powell is then, if his diplomatic efforts continue to be thwarted by Israel’s continued actions against Hamas, then is the US ready and willing to mount military action against Israel? The Bush Administration made a choice for the US when we mounted our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, in making that choice, we have made it very difficult for ourselves to back off of that choice. Fortunately, we have a seasoned diplomat in Colin Powell attempting to navigate this dangerously precipitous path. ------------ Email Scott Jones: scott.jones@medem.com Comment on this column in the forum. Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
