Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech yesterday correctly stressed the importance of productive dialogue between the United States and the nations of the Middle East. U.S. relations with the region are floundering at the moment, due to the Iraq war and President Bush's "War on Terror."
In her speech, Clinton pointed out that there have yet to be talks with Iran and North Korea. These two countries, with Iraq, made Bush's "Axis of Evil," yet Iraq received a disproportional amount of attention from the administration. Clinton understandably does not understand why Iran and North Korea go ignored, even though they likely have the nuclear arsenal the United States feared Iraq had.
Every recent administration before the current one went into talks with North Korea, if only to keep an eye on the country. Now, the United States has no idea what kind of arsenal North Korea has, and it could be at risk to our national security. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has already voiced her frustration at the lack of relations with North Korea, which Clinton echoed. One of Bush's key re-election issues was national security, yet potential crises in Iran and North Korea go unnoticed.
The Bush administration's unwillingness to engage in dialogue was a common complaint before the outset of the Iraq war. Even though the U.N. fact-finding team had not found any evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the United States went forth with the war in Iraq. Recent studies by the CIA have shown that Iraq did not have the weapons of mass destruction, as the United Nations showed in early 2003. Had the United States gone into further dialogue with the United Nations, Iraq and other countries, perhaps the current quagmire in Iraq could have been avoided.
This is not to say that all dialogue is automatically good. Some talks are little more than two parties patting each other on the back, with little produced in the end. Or dialogue can be used as a stop-gap, avoiding necessary action. Dialogue must be productive, with pre-set goals to be met and parties interested in creating results. Nowhere is this more important than in the Middle East.
Yet, Bush and his advisors do not seem to want to engage in productive dialogue. Their prevailing attitude is "act first, think later," and they expect other nations will duly follow suit. Those who do not agree with U.S. actions are demonized as opponents to freedom. This approach will not gain the United States any allies and will only hurt opportunities for dialogue down the road.
The Bush administration needs to realize that they are not alone in the world. In order to maintain stability, particularly in the Middle East, the United States must promote thoughtful discourse by all parties. Communication does not solve every problem, and as Bush often says, eventually we must stop talking and have the will to act. But if you do not discuss before acting - with both allies and enemies - stability is risked needlessly.<$>
