In a previous monograph, I discussed the fallacy of US Diplomacy in Libya.
Now I would like to expand the subject matter to include Western Nations and The Middle East.
Memo to Western World Leaders
Re: Middle East Turmoil
Subject: Don’t get happy.
There are, no doubt, many who are secretively happy to see the turmoil in the Middle East.
Diplomatically, they may express their concerns, regrets, desire to help, compassion, support, and so on. Still, inside, they are embracing the wrong impressions. They secretively believe that this turmoil will bring about not merely change in the Middle East, not merely a positive change in the Middle East, but a change that will result in truly favourable diplomatic and economic relations.
The problem arises from the fact that the Diplomacy of late falls into the following categories:
1. Diplomatic relations with those with similar, agendas and common goals.
Pro-forma Diplomatic Relations.
2. Diplomatic relations with those with dissimilar agendas and common goals.
Goal Oriented Diplomatic Relations.
3. Diplomatic relations with those with dissimilar agendas and common goals.
Expedient Diplomatic Relations.
4. Diplomatic relations with those with dissimilar agendas and dissimilar goals.
Tenuous Diplomatic Relations.
5. Anticipated diplomatic relations with those with dissimilar agendas and with divergent goals.
Now we have the need to find and engage in a mutually beneficial Diplomatic Agenda to accommodate those divergent goals.
Why will we have problems?
We have been dealing with government leaders who operate within a system of unilateral decision-making. (Disagreements, if any, are not expressed publicly and often times are not expressed privately, either.)
The old canard, “It takes ten people to say yes but only one person to say no.” does not apply.
The old system was simple. It takes one person to say yes. Full Stop.
Soon, if the revolutions result in regime change, the changes may or may not change the above system of decision-making. If the system stays the same, the West will have to contend with the divergent goals. If there is a new system, refer to the old canard.
A second reason we will have problems establishing Diplomatic Relations is that we are not equipped to accept the types of government that may arise from the changes in the different regimes.
Within new regimes, we will be contending with the following:
1. Pro-Western Regimes.
2. Anti-Western Regimes.
3. Regimes where most are Pro-Western and a few are Anti-Western.
4. Regimes where most are Anti-Western and a few are Pro-Western.
Our Diplomatic Relations will be different with different countries out of necessity. The differences in these relationships will give rise to contention both at home and abroad. The differences will be bargaining chips in Diplomatic Relations abroad and at home, they will become justifications for political rhetoric.
“Everybody knows what everybody knows. The rest is rhetoric.” – Slim Fairview from the Quotations of Slim Fairview ©
We are no longer engaged in relationships based on demonstrating sensitivity to a diversity of cultures. We are now about to approach people with divergent agendas, methods, and goals.
Their interests may not be our interests. There may be little common ground with some and much common ground with others.
We were told:
The friend of my enemy is my enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
We were also told:
It’s me and my cousin against my neighbor; but, it’s me and my brother against my cousin.
These we were told. Now it is up to us to establish Diplomatic Relations with a diversity of cultures where we’ve defined diversity as different from us.
Now we will have to redefine diversity as those who are different from one another.
It will be interesting to watch Western Nations establish Diplomatic Relations in the Middle East with any new regimes that may arise.
Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview