FRAMESHOP:FRAMESHOP: 3 WAYS TO TALK ABOUT 'PEACE'

Progressives may have noticed that in her trip to the Middle East as the top U.S. Diplomat, Condi Rice has been telling everyone that she is working towards an 'enduring peace.'  Rice doesn't want 'peace.'  She wants enduring peace.'  And by golly she will do everything she can to make sure there is no peace until she can guarantee that peace will be 'enduring.'  As a diplomat, in other words,  Secretary Rice has gone to the Middle East not to end a war, but to make sure that war continues for a while.

Welcome to the double-speak that passes for the President Bush's Middle East diplomacy.  While all other Presidents would send diplomats to the region to stop war, Bush sends diplomats to make sure the war does not stop. 

Rice's Rhetorical Roadblock
The problem, of course, is that we are already seeing in Iraq what happens when the United States tries to use war to bring about an 'enduring peace' in the Middle East.  It leads to (in this order): the collapse of national infrastructure, civil unrest and frustration, guerrilla rebellion, escalating violence, the rise of Islamic political-military gangs, allegiance with Iran. 

This is what happened in Afghanistan, this is what happened in Iraq, and this is what will happen in Lebanon if we head down that road again.   Twice in the past five years we have tried to use war to bring 'enduring peace' to the Middle East.  And twice it has made things much worse.

But what can Progressives say to get out of this logic?  Here are 3 suggestions to help us get past Rice's rhetorical roadblock and do a better job at talking about peace.

Suggestion #1:  'Three Strikes And You're Out!'
It is absolutely imperative that Progressives frame the debate on the escalation in the Middle East not just in terms of Israel vs. Hezbollah, but in terms of the continuing failed policies of the Bush administration.

In the past few days, Condi Rice has been saying that the destruction of Lebanon is a sing of the 'new Middle East.'  In other words:  she is continuing to work on the big plan to destroy and rebuild the Middle East.  But Democrats are not talking at that broad level.  They must do that right away.

To begin with, they should link the proposals for 'enduring peace' through continued war to the failed attempt to bring about peace through war in Afghanistan and Iraq. To set this frame, Democrats can say this"

• 'Three Strikes And You're Out!' Mr. President.
• First Afghanistan, then Iraq, now Lebanon? 
• We cannot afford to strike out in the Middle East by playing the same losing game
• Each time we throw war at the Middle East, we get more war--not peace

This is a basic baseball metaphor to focus the debate on the repetition in the Bush policy, and it can be a very helpful approach to take control of the debate.

Suggestion #2: 'Talk To Everyone'
At its very core, President Bush's conception of diplomacy is flawed, and Progressive who want to help bring about peace in the Middle East must point this out.  Why is it flawed?  Because President Bush believes that a U.S. diplomat should only talk to people with whom we already agree.

That approach is dangerously wrong.

As Ronald Reagan once said,"All great change...begins at the dinner table."  So rather than telling the diplomats from Syria and Iran that we will not talk to them--we should start by saying, 'We want to talk to everyone.'  Two people who are talking to each other are not shooting each other.  That basic point is the foundation of a diplomacy. Why? Because a conversation between two diplomats symbolizes equal status. And when both parties feel they have equal status in the conversation, then they are far more likely to look forward towards a solution for peace than to look backwards and blame others.  Welcome to Diplomacy 101.

So, to get past Secretary Rice's rhetorical roadblock to peace in the Middle East, Progressives should start saying immediately:

• We want to talk to everyone
• Everyone must be at the table
• We cannot have peace until everyone is talking (!)

The idea of 'talk' is the anti-thesis of the Bush approach, but it is so basic and so easily understood by everyone. 

Suggestion #3:  Stop Throwing Gasoline On The Fire
Ultimately, no diplomatic effort to bring about peace will be taken seriously so long as the diplomat shows up to the party with a big box of bombs that she gives to one part, but not the other.   

There's an old adage that goes something like this, "If you want to put out a fire, use water not gasoline."

By continuing to supply Israel with weapons--at this exact moment--the United States loses all credibility as a diplomatic force.  We become, instead, the person throwing gasoline on the fire.  Now...there are many reasons why someone might throw gasoline on a fire. In this case, it seems that President Bush believes that the more gasoline he throws on Lebanon, the more he will burn off the dangerous threat of Hezbollah. 

OK.  Fine.  It is unlikely that this will be the case.  But already we are seeing that the more Lebanon burns, the more children and innocent people get hurt.  So whatever the reason for supplying more weapons to Israel up to this point, if we want our diplomacy to succeed we must stop doing that right now.  To make this point, we must have the courage as Democrats and Progressives to say:

• To broker an honest peace, we cannot sell weapons to anyone currently fighting this war
• We can no longer throw gasoline on the fire
• We want to put out the fire, not prolong it

This basic acknowledgment is so important, so critical, that it would likely transform the entire dynamic of the current war in an instant.

It says nothing, for example, about supplying anyone with military assistance in the future.  In fact, it might even be a good idea for the United States and Israel and Lebanon to sit down at some point in the future and say,"OK, how are we going to work together on the military front to make sure that South Lebanon does not fall back into the hands of military groups living beyond the law?"  Not a bad idea.  But that cannot happen in the long run unless we are willing in the short run to stop throwing gasoline on the fire.

Conclusion:  Change the 'Peace' Frame To Help Work Towards Peace
Those who believe in peace in the Middle East must recognize immediately that President Bush is using his top diplomat to prolong war. 

As such, Progressives have a moral obligation to drive the debate and the dynamic of current politics in a direction that clears away the rhetoric and concepts blocking the road to peace in the Middle East.

And that obligation begins right now.

©  2006 Jeffrey Feldman

Link to this article using this URL:

http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2006/07/frameshop_3_way.html