Diplomacy with Whom?
Former Secretary of State Albright was on TV this weekend, suggesting that the current Secretary of State fly off to the Middle East to engage in some “diplomacy.” “I still do think that we actually need to be more involved. And I wish that the secretary had announced that she was leaving (St. Petersburg and the G-8 Summit) … I believe that it’s not possible for the U.S. to get over-involved.” Well, yes it is.
Former Secretary of State Albright was on TV this weekend, suggesting that the current Secretary of State fly off to the Middle East to engage in some “diplomacy.” “I still do think that we actually need to be more involved. And I wish that the secretary had announced that she was leaving (St. Petersburg and the G-8 Summit) … I believe that it’s not possible for the U.S. to get over-involved.” Well, yes it is.
American diplomacy has often served to protect the perpetrators of violence from just retribution. Papering over terrorism with a “peace process” full of promises without hope of fulfillment was a hallmark of the Albright/Clinton era. With whom would Mrs. Albright suggest Secretary Rice engage in diplomacy? Hizballah? Syria? Iran? None is entitled to have its bacon (excuse the expression) saved by the Americans. Lebanon? The government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora can’t stop Hizballah firing at Israel and can’t return the two kidnapped soldiers, making it irrelevant for the moment. Israel? Why pressure Israel to stop responding to an act of war (kidnapping soldiers from across an international boundary) that has been escalated to the rocketing of Israeli cities? Israel is entitled to respond – as Secretary Rice has made clear.
We well remember Secretary Albright’s own forays into Middle East diplomacy – running down the driveway, chasing after Yasser Arafat as he left the American Embassy in Paris, begging for another chance to engage in “diplomacy.”
More interesting than rehashing her failures, however, is remembering her clarity upon becoming Secretary of State. Asked why she was opposed to the shuttle diplomacy concept of her predecessor Warren Christopher (whose vain pursuit of Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad is the stuff of shuttle legends), Mrs. Albright said, “Well, I’m not saying that shuttle diplomacy is treading water. I’m just saying that if there is nothing to do, and it’s a matter of just hand holding, that is not what I believe an American Secretary of State should do.” (September 1997)
Mrs. Albright believes that, “Iraq has diverted everybody’s attention from really looking at a whole host of other issues. I think that it’s very hard to say that [the Iraq war] has not made it worse … It is absolutely clear that it has made it worse.”
Replied Secretary Rice, “The notion that somehow policies that finally confront extremism are actually causing extremism, I find grotesque. For all of those who believe that we somehow had stability in the Middle East over the last 60 years and it’s now been disturbed, where do we think Hezbollah and Hamas and these other extremist forces came from? They weren’t born yesterday, these forces have been developing and threatening the Middle East and arresting positive developments for decades.”
The two agreed on just one point: “You don’t just pass a resolution and then hope that somehow it’s enforced,” Mrs. Albright said. “We support, at this point, an effort to make certain than when there is a cease-fire that it is one that is sustainable,” said Secretary Rice. We agree as well.