FRAMESHOP:FRAMESHOP: TALK AS STRENGTH

In his speech to the UN, yeterday, President Bush pretended to be speaking "directly to" the people of the Middle East: "Today, I'd like to speak directly to the people across the broader Middle East...To the people of Iraq...To the people of Aghanistan...To the people of Lebanon...To the people of Iran...To the people of Syria...To the people of Darfur."

How strange that a man who has spent his Presidency avoiding interaction with the American people, should suddenly stand up and pretent to be speaking "directly to" the people of the Middle East.

And yet, this kind of pretend conversation with the people is precisely the frame that Bush is now using to advance his foreign policy folly: People of the Middle East, if you want to be "civilized," you must talk "directly to" me and ignore your own leaders.

I remember a time when the President of the United States was not afraid to sit down and talk with the leader of a foreign nation--no matter how hostile that nation might have been towards our country. Those were Presidents who knew that talk was strength.

Bush Hides From Talk With Ahmadinejad
Bush used this tactic in the run up to the war against Iraq. He made speaches in which he pretended to talk "directly to" the people of Iraq, while all the while he steadfastly refused to talk tot he leaders of Iraq--the very people who represented (for better or for worse) the people he was trying to talk to.

In diplomacy, as in life, "people" talk to actual people. But in President Bush's world, when he says that he is talking "directly to" the people, what he really means is:

"I am avoiding speaking to the one person being paid to speak to people like me--who was elected by his people to speak to me in these situations."

For Bush, whenever he says that he is "speaking directly to" the people of a given country, what that means is that he is really avoiding speaking to that country.

It is a trick he loves to pull.

Supposedly, there are diplomatic efforts underway behind the scenes between the U.S. and allies of Iran. But yesterday, President Ahmadinejad was actually at the the UN on the same day as President Bush.

And so one has to ask the obvioius--if President Bush is so eager to speak directly "to the people" of Iran, why not speak to the people's man when he is in the same building?

The answer cuts deeply to the logic of what stands for diplomacy in the Bush world.

Dimploacy That Divides
The key to diplomacy at all other times in American history has been to find ways to come together with foreign leaders to solve problems without war.

Even in the height of the crisis with the Soviet Union, President Kennedy shook hands with President Krusciev--two men who had the capability militarily to destroy the planet.

For President Bush, however, diplomacy is not about finding ways to come together to solve problems. Diplomacy is a game to be played with the goal of dividing a people against their leaders.

Now, Americans have plenty of concerns about the leadership of Iran--and so they should. That leadership has made statements and engaged in actions that are troublesome. But the job of our government--the task of our diplomatic corp--is to find ways to work with those leaders despite the difficulty, not just to divide them from their leaders.

Ironically, the man that Bush is trying to paint as the threat to "civilization"--Ahmadinejad--has tried on multiple occasions to speak "directly to" President Bush. First he wrote a long letter, he challenged him to debate, came to the United Nations.

In being shunned by President Bush, the result has been that President Ahmadinejad has--effectlively--spoken more directly to the American people than to our leader.

Re-Frame: Weakness Is Fear Of Talking
What we see in President Bush's behavior vis-a-vis Iran is weakness, the logic being:

[weakness] is [fear of talking]
[strengh] is [talking]

President Bush has failed in his diplomacy with the leader of Iran because he has run away from the conversation with President Ahmadinejad--and he has run away from the conversation with President Assad of Syria--and from the conversation with the Presidents of all other leaders in the Middle East.

Rather than talking to other leaders, President Bush has run away from the conversation to a safe place where he can stand on a podium and claim to speak directly to the people.

What Ameicans want and need is a President who embraces the conversation:

- A strong president would embrace the conversation
- Effective diplomacy does not fear talking to anyone
- Leadership in foreign policy begins with talk as strength

I doubt President Bush will do that any time soon with President Ahmadinejad. But once upon a time, American Presidents did talk to the leaders of nations hostile to the United States, and a result they showed the strength of our country and the leadership to avoid violence and destruction.

Hopefully, our next President will once again return to this tradition of a strong American diplomacy--where our President is not afraid to sit down and talk.

© 2006 Jeffrey Feldman, Frameshop