Progressive World Review

Thomas Friedman’s op-ed column in The New York Times attempts to teach us how to properly conduct negotiations with foreign governments.  Appropriately titled “It’s All About Leverage”, Friedman contends that you don’t talk with your foes without first possessing leverage,

As I have argued before: When you have leverage, talk. When you don’t have leverage, get some. Then talk.

While he doesn’t come out and say it, it’s clear how, in Friedman’s mind, you “get some,”

The fact is, Mr. Obama was right to say that he would talk with any foe, if it would advance U.S. interests. The Bush team negotiated with Libya to give up its nuclear program, even after Libya had accepted responsibility for blowing up Americans on Pan Am Flight 103. Those negotiations succeeded, though, not because Mr. Bush was better “prepared,” but because, at the time, shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Bush had leverage. Iraq had yet to fall apart.

“Get[ting] some” means invading sovereign nations and overthrowing their governments.  This isn’t the first time that invading Iraq was justified by the fact that Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program and while it’s debatable that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with Libya’s decision, the real point is, how astounding it is to suggest that it’s okay to invade and destroy a country, kill hundreds-of-thousands of its people because some other country is now less of a threat.  It’s precisely this hubristic, hegemonic attitude that has created the terrorist problem we face today.

To Friedman and his kind, talking with other countries isn’t about compromise or finding common ground, talking is nothing more than a precursor to possible military action.  There’s no point in discussing anything that you couldn’t take by force anyway,

Mr. Bush was also right: talking with Iran today would be tantamount to appeasement – but that’s because the Bush team has so squandered U.S. power and credibility in the Middle East, and has failed to put in place any effective energy policy, that negotiating with Iran could only end up with us on the short end. We don’t have the leverage – the allies, the alternative energy, the unity at home, the credible threat of force – to advance our interests diplomatically today. (emphasis added)

Never mind that negotiating with Iran could take the wind out of the sails of the more extreme elements in that country like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Bush’s incessant saber rattling towards Iran has only strengthened the hardliners in that country.  Another case in point is North Korea.  The Clinton administration had all but wrapped up an agreement with that country to end their nuclear aspirations when the Bush administration came in and cut off negotiations.  Now, several years after the fact and after North Korea obtained the bomb, Bush has restarted talks with Kim Jong.  Yes, Bush won what he wanted, six-party talks rather than dealing with them direct, but at what cost?  Surely it would have been better to continue negotiations before they developed the bomb, before they held most of the cards.

In fact, it’s the inability to recognize what really changes world events that is behind authoritarian ideals favored by the Bush administration and championed by the likes of Friedman.  In Friedman’s world, winning what’s in the best interests of the U.S. is paramount and while that may seem to make sense the problem is, exactly what is in the best interests of the U.S., it changes depending on who you talk to.  Invading Iraq was supposed to be in our best interest and Bush still believes that, but not most of America.  Typically, what’s meant by America’s best interests is in fact, corporate America’s best interests.

Additionally, Friedman’s style of negotiations involves a mindset that for every winner there must also be a loser.  By only concerning your self with your own interests, by “leveraging” negotiations so that only you are the winner, you may gain some short term victories but the long term results are bound to haunt you.  On a planet that has already suffered two world wars, foreign policy and negotiations with foreign governments must have as their goal what is in the best interests of the entire world.  World peace, ending poverty, these are not just idealistic but unattainable goals; they are the true path to the freedom and security that we all desire.  And negotiating settlements with foreign nations where everybody’s needs are met, where there are no losers, is not just pie-in-the-sky idealism, it is in fact, in our best interests.

When Osama Bin Laden plots terrorists acts against the U.S., when Bush invades sovereign nations, when Ahmadinejad expresses a desire to wipe Israel of the map, these men, all these men, are using fear to manipulate the majority to serve the needs of the minority in exactly the same manner that Hitler used and Friedman and his ilk are mere pawns in this unwinnable game.

–Paul Wilden

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.