Pakistan: Friend or No?

I have two skills.  An analytical mind and the ability to speak in metaphors.

Analogy.

We have a round table and two chairs on the front porch.  In addition to Trygg, our cat, Trygg has about 8 to 10 free-range friends who show up regularly for breakfast and dinner.

Trygg likes to come and go through the window.  There is a latch.  I open the latch and push the window out.  Trygg jumps from the table to the chair and in through the window.  The other cats see this.  Only Buddy is influenced.

Buddy likes to stand up on the window sill, to try to push the window open.  He leaves paw prints on the outside of the window.  When I open the window for Trygg to come in, I leave fingerprints on the inside of the window.  The window gets dirty.

Now, the window needs to be washed.  If I wash the inside of the window first, Buddy looks like the culprit.  If I wash the outside of the window first, I look like the culprit.

My wife keeps tabs on what is going on.  Guess which side of the window I wash first?  However, as I said, my wife monitors the situation.  I am not going to fool my wife by washing the inside of the window first.

We are not going to make Pakistan look bad by washing our side of the window first.  We cannot claim we are washing our side of the window first, so we can better see where the outside needs to be cleaned.

Pakistan?  Friend or No?

I say,  friend.

Sincerest regards,

Slim

slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

The Middle East. Problem? Solution!

The Middle East

With approximately 5,000 years of wisdom and culture to build upon, the question is not, what is happening in the Middle East, the question is why?

I ask this question not from the Western Perspective. We had our revolution. The French have Bastille Day. The English have Runnymede.

While the American style government may not suit the people in the Middle East (The Arabs don’t want Western Government, The Arabs want Western Freedom.), and while citing The English may be poor salesmanship, there must be something within the Arab culture and history that will allow a peaceful transition into the future that is preferable to the efforts now being made to change the course of history.

It seems axiomatic. You can change the course of history but you cannot stop history from happening. You cannot stand in the way of history. It is coming. The conundrum: you won’t know what happened until it does.

Now, you can say, “You cannot predict the future.” However, that is not an appropriate rebuff to the person who says, “Get off the tracks, the train is coming.”

Then, too, there is the failed policy of shooting the messenger.

All this begs the question, ‘What can be done to smooth the transition?”

Arab leaders working from a propter hoc position. (Because of the fact that there is no immediate precedent for what is happening in the Middle East.)

Each leader, each nation, is attempting to come to an understanding of what is going on in his nation, with his people and how best to respond? True, there are religious differences. There are different economic circumstances. There are different global alliances—both historical and expedient. This, however, ignores the old saying; the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Leaders of all the Middle East nations would do well to follow the example of some of the Middle East nations. That example would be to have a conclave (A Private Meeting) of the Leaders of the Middle East nations and the Reform Movement Leaders. Look to a nation like Turkey to host the meeting.

Remember:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

Omar Khayyám

Regards,

Slim

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

What do we want? How do we get it?

US forces kill bin Laden in firefight in Pakistan - The Boston Globe

What do we want? How do we get it?

The issue of Afghanistan references my comments on the world relying on the Zero Sum Game approach to future planning.

It is easy to ask, "What do the Afghan people want?" However, different people in Afghanistan may have different agendas and goals. It is not sufficient to say, "What do we want, when do we want it?" The real issue is "What do we want, how are we going to get it?" Then you must add, "What do we have to give to get it?" Other Afghans have goals. Some are mutually exclusive. The Win-Win platitude is great. However, for both sides to get something, each side must give up something.

The question also relies on issues I’ve raised in my monograph, “The Impending Failure of Western Diplomacy in the Middle East.

Essential reading:

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/the-impending-failure-of-western-diplomacy-in-the-middle-east

And a viewing of my SlideShare ppt. presentation

The Future of the G 20 in Good Times and Bad

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/the-g-20-in-good-times-and-bad-5802178

Old Chinese Saying--A white horse is not a horse.

Chinese Wisdom: In the West, when you want privacy, you go into a lock room. In the East, when we want privacy, we go into an open field.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Santayana

Those who never learned history are doomed—period. Slim Fairview

From: The Quotations of Slim Fairview © 2011 Slim Fairview

Warmest regards,

Slim

Mail: slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

The Impending Failure of Western Diplomacy in the Middle East

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.

Regards,

Slim 

slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview