Congressman Jim Leach thoughtfully mailed me a copy of comments he delivered recently to the Statewide Summit on Citizen Diplomacy held in Des Moines, Iowa. Since it’s not available online yet (that I can find) I’ve put the speech into the extended entry section.
This is the reply I put into the box on his gov’t website. Had I known beforehand the conference was attended by Madeleine Albright it would have been different:
Congressman Leach,
Thank-you for sending me a copy of the comments you delivered in Des Moines on citizen diplomacy. I remain very interested in your opinions on my foreign policy concerns, but continue to wonder why you imply they are aberrations and/or mistakes. It seems to me the United States has pursued a very disciplined if self-serving and ill-advised course for decades.
I am also disappointed you seem intent upon guarding an imaginary line in the sand crafted by historical revisionists. It’s distressing when a distinguished scholar like yourself (there are too few in your ranks) continues to forward the heinous lie that Arafat turned his back on a generous offer. I stress this not in defence of Arafat but of the truth. I hope that you of all people would do the same. The Truth About Camp David, by Clayton Swisher, is a good place to start your investigation should you decide to pursue one if for no other reason than defending this lie is anathema to the pursuit of the cultural diplomacy you propose. No other citizenry has been so brainwashed than the American people on the nature of the Palestinian people.
You said, “Combating hatred requires the development of respect for individual dignity and national cultures.”
The United States proves time and again it has no respect for the sovereignty of nations that refuse to sublimate their own interests to those that serve the interests of the U.S.. The seeds of hatred are not sewn by the dissemination of irrational perceptions but in reaction to real-time injustices. Congress cannot perpetuate these myths forever, compliant press or not, and you have the choice to reject them outright here and now. By what other tenet should cultural diplomacy be guided if not by absolute truth?
Sincerely,
Comments delivered by
Representative James A. Leach
Statewide Summit on Citizen Diplomacy
Des Moines, Iowa
September 24, 2005
Thank you, Governor Ray, for such a thoughtful introduction. It is a privilege to be introduced by Iowa’s greatest governor and most distinguished citizen.
Before addressing the subject at hand, I’d like to take a few minutes to comment on American politics and the international dilemma we face. In addressing these issues it is not my intent to digress, but to underscore the need for citizen and cultural diplomacy.
First, a quick survey of four courses in American politics.
Political science 101 is that the country is approximately one third Republican, one third Democratic, and one third independent. Grade school math tells us that one half of one third is one sixth. So 16 2/3 % nominally control each of the two parties, but because only one in four participate in primaries where candidates are chosen and platforms are established, it is really 1/24th of the electorate who control the direction of the parties. That 4% is very conservative on the Republican side and quite liberal on the Democratic.
Political science 102 is that in primaries for President, Republican candidates lean to the right and then scoot to the center in the general election; Democrats, vice-versa. But in the Congress 390 of the 435 seats are gerrymandered in such a way as to be safe to each of the parties. About half of these safe seats are held by Republicans and half by Democrats. Unlike Presidential candidates, safe-seat members not only lean to the philosophical edges of their parties in primaries, they stay there once elected because their only real challenge is likely to come from within their own parties. This leads both to greater philosophical extremism in Congress and greater political difficulty in crafting compromise legislative approaches.
Sociology 101 is simple. The kind of people nominated to the right and the left in safe seats don’t generally like or respect each other, thus contributing to an attitudinal dysfunctionality in Congress that is exacerbated by the close division in party numbers.
Finally, leadership 101. America has never been better led in business, the arts, every field of academia. It is politics that is letting the public down. Unaverage attitudes are held by too average politicians. The ideological hold sway, the less than impressive dominate the agenda.
In a country historically hallmarked by aversion to the extremes, does anyone believe there may not be a need for renewed citizen activism, especially citizen diplomacy?
Now to the international circumstance: the war in Iraq.
For many Iraqis, particularly the Kurds in the North and Shi’a in the South, there must have been some appreciation for the overthrow of Suddam Hussein. But it should not be hard for Americans to understand that our initial “shock and awe” rhetoric gallingly invited retribution from those negatively affected by our instigation of the war; it also should not be hard to understand that prolonged occupation of a country which encompasses an area of land where one of the world’s oldest civilizations prospered is humiliating to a proud people; and that the neo-con strategy of establishing a long-term military presence in Iraq with semi-permanent bases raises the risk of retaliatory terrorist attacks at home and abroad.
All wars evoke analogies to prior conflicts. Vietnam is on everyone’s mind. My sense is that references to our Southeast Asian experience are somewhat oblique, but important to ponder. Of particular relevance is the advice of a former Vermont Senator, George Aiken, who suggested we just declare victory and get out of Vietnam. Aiken’s advice was rooted in frustration, but wise as it was, represented more spin than reality. Victory wasn’t close at hand.
For many Americans, including me, this war has been difficult to justify. But all Americans, except perhaps a few who may be partisanly vindictive, should want as positive a result as possible, given the circumstances we now face. The decision to go to war may have been misguided and strategies involved in conducting it mistake-ridden; nonetheless there should be clarity of purpose in ending the conflict, with the goal neither to cut and run, nor simply to cut losses. At this junction of involvement we should define cogently our purposes and by so doing create a basis both for a viable future for Iraq and for a U.S. disengagement that respects the sacrifices of those who have served so valiantly in our armed forces and those of our coalition allies.
The key at this point is to recognize the WMD threat proved not to be a compelling rationalization for the war and emphasize instead the moral and philosophical case for overturning a repressive and cruel regime and replacing it with a constitutional democracy. This latter emphasis need not suggest or imply that all repressive regimes are fair game for intervention, nor that regime change is the exclusive American way, nor that other rationales for intervention don’t exist. But it is the case for intervention that shows the most concern for the Iraqi people as they look both to their past and to the new challenges of Al Qaeda.
Accordingly, in today’s circumstance, my advice, as one who voted against the war in Iraq, is for the Administration to realistically recognize what has not gone well but nonetheless to accentuate the positive, not as a rationale for continuing the war, but as the reason for disengagement.
Let me amplify.
All Americans, however wary they may be of the political judgments that have to date been made, should concur that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein and that it is positive that a dictatorial regime is being replaced with a democratically elected government. The cost of the undertaking may have been too high and the results counter-productive in many ways, but before the international situation worsens further, the administration would be wise to declare a degree of vindication in the elections likely to be held under a constitution this December and announce that this new sovereign circumstance allows for comprehensive troop drawdowns next year. Announcing a precise time table is less important than making a definitive commitment to leave, with articulation of a clear rationale for so doing. If we don’t get out of Iraq at a time of our own choosing and on our own terms, we will eventually be asked to leave, possibly ignominiously, by the Iraqi government, or be seen as forced to leave because of terrorist acts, which can be expected to continue as long as we maintain a military presence in the heart of the Muslim world. The key is that we must control and be seen as controlling our own fate.
All Americans should be respectful of the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. They have been placed in an untenable situation. If they had not been so heroic and in many cases so helpful in rebuilding neighborhoods and schools, the U.S. would face a far more difficult dilemma today.
But we have no choice except to assess whether Osama Bin Laden and his movement have not been given added momentum by the civilian-determined intervention in Iraq, and whether the ideologically advocated policy of establishing long-term bases or one of returning our troops home is likely to be the more effective strategy in prevailing in the world-wide war on terror.
A note about Al Qaeda is in order. Just as neither Iraq with its secular leanings nor any Iraqis were responsible for 9/11, so Suddam Hussein apparently considered Osama Bin Laden as much a rival as a soul brother. It is Western military intervention that has precipitated Al Qaeda’s rapid growth in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a “cause celebre” for its singularly malevolent anarchistic actions. If American withdrawal policy comes to turn on the question of anarchy – i.e., troops can’t be drawn down as long as suicide bombers continue to wreak havoc – we place ourselves in a catch 22 and, in effect, hand over decision-making discretion to those who wantonly kill. We allow the anarchistic few to use our presence as the reason for their actions and at the same time cause our involvement to be held hostage to their villainy. The irony is that as conflicted as the Iraqi police and army appear to be, we are fast reaching a stage where the anarchists may be more credibly dealt with by Iraqis themselves, if the principal rationale for violence – i.e., the American presence – disappears.
Here a footnote is relevant. The 1990s were hallmarked by two foreign policy mistakes in the Middle East. The first was the decision of the Clinton Administration to keep a visible military presence in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War. This was acceptable to the Saudi government, but not to the Saudi people. It is anyone’s guess whether 9/11 would have occurred if we had not based forces in the land of Mecca, for as this audience knows, it was not Iraqis, but primarily Saudis who participated in the coordinated strikes of 9/11. I make this observation because it bears on the mantra, updated with little review, that it is better to fight there than here. This may still be true, but it may also be true that fighting “there” may invite terrorism “here.” In short, there is risk in engagement and there is risk in disengagement. Determining which is greater is the principal question for U.S. statecraft in the coming months.
The second Middle East policy mistake of the 1990s was one of timing. As we look back on the last two decades, it is apparent that despite episodic bursts of attention, steadfast diligence and political will has been lacking at critical times in the Middle East peace process. For example, optimism surrounded the Oslo accord precipitated during the term of this President’s father. Yet the U.S. failed to follow through on a timely basis with steps to create a long-term framework for peace. To his credit, President Clinton at the end of his administration pressed for a breakthrough agreement at Camp David, but when Arafat turned his back on the most forthcoming peace proposal Israel had ever formally made, the intifada accelerated.
The incoming Bush administration believed that President Clinton had naively pushed to reach an agreement on his time frame and had needlessly increased tension by seeking resolution of a conflict that was not ripe. My sense is that the Bush team was half right. President Clinton had pressed on his time frame but had erred by being tardy instead of premature. If pressed four or five years earlier by the Clinton administration, an approach along the lines later offered by former Israeli Prime Minister Barak might have been more sympathetically received. And if the framework informally developed in the final weeks of the Clinton administration at the Egyptian town of Taba had been immediately thrust on the parties by the new Bush foreign policy team, which was initially well received in the Arab world, quite possibly a breakthrough agreement could have been made immediately after the transfer of power from President Clinton to President Bush. But just as President Clinton was apparently reluctant to embrace his predecessor’s foreign policy format, President Bush’s foreign policy team appeared loath to follow through on last-minute Clinton administration efforts. Discontinuity became a hallmark of both administrations’ transitions.
No one should doubt that Iraq has become America’s Gaza Strip. Ironically, it is Ariel Sharon who has given Washington a lesson: disengagement can be popular and effective.
How does all this relate to today’s subject: citizen diplomacy? Decisions of governments that create umbrages in the world require the counter-balancing involvement of citizens – those who agree and those who disagree with government policies.
Bureaucrats and politicians in Washington too frequently assume that relations between countries are principally a dialogue of one government to another. Actually, it is businessmen and businesswomen, unelected people of good will, be they artists, scientists or students, who are more integral to defining the tone of relations between states than elected officials. Cultural diplomacy generally proceeds and increasingly supersedes government-to-government relations.
But what precisely is citizen or cultural diplomacy? Sometimes the negotiations that are involved in formal government-to-government relations are defined as track 1 diplomacy. Citizen diplomacy is considered track 2. Traditionally, this track involves non-government officials attempting to advance policies consistent with views and objectives of the government. There are, of course, other tracks – businessmen making deals, artists and athletes performing, exchanges of education, labor and professional groups, conferences and media commentary, and individuals simply socializing with other individuals. Then there is free-lance diplomacy – private citizens attempting to make and shape foreign policy, perhaps in contrast or in competition with governmental policies. This free lance diplomacy is awkward and sometimes comes into conflict with constitutional precedents and legal restrictions, particularly our Logan Act, which dates to the 18th century.
I prefer to think of diplomacy in four tranches: 1) government-to-government; 2) free lance, which is frequently objectionable even if well intended; 3) citizen, which involves informal efforts at governmental problem solving; and 4) cultural, which encompasses all the other forms. As I read the material that precipitated this conference it is the fourth category about which this session is principally concerned. Hence my personal inclination would be for this assembly to place greater emphasis on the word “cultural” and refer more generally to “citizen and cultural” rather than simply “citizen” diplomacy.
No one should underestimate citizen and cultural diplomacy. Mutual understanding cannot develop if there are no bonds of trust. And bonds of trust can’t be formed unless individuals come to consider each other members of a common family.
There will always be disagreements between people. The challenge is to see that they are resolved in civil rather than violent ways. Whether violence is an integral element of the human condition or a learned response is a matter of conjecture. But non-violence is almost certainly a practice that must be learned. And the most effective form of social education is human contact. It is the humanization rather than the demonization of individuals from different cultures, particularly cultures that embody enemy status, which is so critical if non-violent approaches to problem solving are to be institutionalized. Without humanization – hand shakes of understanding – there can be no trust and hence no family or national security.
Iowa stands out as a state with many “ambassadors of good will,” people like Al Pinder of Grinnell, who I suspect in his 80-plus years has hosted more foreign visitors under State Department aegis than anyone in America.
Several weeks ago I was in North Korea and after getting clearance from the State Department and the National Security Council (NSC), proposed two exchanges. I gave the North Koreans a letter from Christopher Merrill, who leads the International Writers’ Program at the University of Iowa, inviting a North Korean poet to Iowa City. In addition, “Ambassador” Dan Gable agreed to host a wrestling exchange. The key to our state, after all, is the “3 R’s:” Readin’, ‘Ritin’, and ‘Restlin’! And you will hear this afternoon from David Skorton, our great University of Iowa President, who will tell you of his initiative to work with Muslim countries in Asia. I don’t want to preempt his speech, but please recognize how well he is reflecting American values and leading education in this state.
Exchanges matter. And it is a tragedy that America with its irrationally tough visa policy is posting a “foreigners unwanted” sign around the globe. We must do better. From first-hand observation I know how helpful the Bradley-Leach Act of the early 1990s was in spurring exchanges between the US and the newly democratizing states of the former Soviet Union. These exchanges not only created good will; they helped fertilize historic change in countries held so oppressively in check for so much of the 20th century by communism.
Citizen and cultural diplomacy is about the power of values, the power of the human spirit. Weapons can never hold populations in check forever or control the mind and soul of a people. Weapons could not sustain alliances of the East nor can they alone win the war on terror for the West. Values must be brought to bear on a human scale if people are to develop mutual respect. People in Washington too often assume that the only thing wrong with our foreign policy is lack of ability to convey our views to others. In this mind-set the assumption is that simply pouring money into better “public diplomacy” – i.e., salesmanship – will right our problems in the world. Actually, there is no substitute for good policy and no substitute for utilizing our greatest asset – the American citizen – in communicating common sense values.
America must launch a new cultural diplomacy offensive. We must do it because the world needs to breathe hope instead of fear; it needs to think in terms of respect, even affection, instead of hatred. America needs a renewal of its soul, and it must begin with a chastened sense of modesty. There may, after all, not be a country in the world whose people do not know more about us than we do about them.
When speaking to college students, I have over the past couple of years referenced a set of books that held particular currency in the 1960’s: the Alexandria Quartet by Lawrence Durrell. Each of the four books describes the same cluster of events in inter-war Egypt from the perspective of a different character. While the events are the same, the stories that unfold are profoundly different, causing the reader to recognize that one person’s perspective is at best a snap shot of reality. A clear picture cannot be pieced together without looking through the lens of a multiplicity of eyes and experiences. We need the experiences and judgments of others to sharpen our own insights. And we, too, have a story to tell.
North Korea is a case in point. Our diplomacy hasn’t always been realistic or helpful, but today we’re finally on the right track. It hasn’t been easy. The North Korean regime is the last Stalinist hold-out. Its leadership is rational but in part because of extreme isolation, its way of thinking is different than others. I told their top diplomat that North Korea appears to be applying non-Euclidean logic in a Euclidean world. They are more interested in preserving their regime than helping their people. In the 1990s one to two million starved to death; today most suffer from malnutrition. Indeed the average North Korean is six inches shorter than the average South Korean.
North Korea “earns” foreign exchange in four broad ways: Trade in weapons, export of illicit drugs, blackmail, and the counterfeiting of foreign currencies, principally the dollar. We want to insist on international legal standards, especially those related to the NPT, and logically a bargain is possible: We provide a security guarantee, offer normalization of relations; others supply energy and economic assistance; and they give up their quest for a nuclear deterrent. The problem is lack of trust on both sides, compounded by inordinate hate on theirs. In the most brainwashed society on the planet, hatred of America is a daily rallying cry. It will take time to adjust attitudes. But we have no option except to press formally on in the framework of the Six Party Talks and, where possible, as citizens to seek greater interpersonal understanding.
The old saw that “you can’t legislate against hate” holds a degree of truth. But that doesn’t mean it is not important for legislators to craft laws insisting on tolerant approaches to civil strife. Likewise, in foreign policy formal agreements may not stop hate or end national differences, but they can create an environment where tolerance can develop and non-coercive dispute mechanisms can take hold.
Diplomats signing documents can symbolize the beginning or end of formal government actions, but these efforts are never a substitute for citizen interactions. Combating hatred requires the development of respect for individual dignity and national cultures. This is why citizen and cultural diplomacy is so essential. It is also why moral philosophy – an understanding of the nature of man – is so central.
In this context I’d like to reflect for a moment on the seven deadly sins. Their origin is murky, but on the assumption that the only constant in human affairs is human nature, we must recognize that it is the personality of man as well as calculations of individual and national interests that drive relations between states. Of the weaknesses of man, it is relevant to draw a distinction between two of them – pride, the Achilles heel of politicians, and avarice, the darker side of commerce – and suggest that the first is more socially debilitating than the second.
The nature of politics is such that pride plays a disproportionately larger role than in other human enterprises. Political ambition involves accumulating and maintaining power; political figures shun above all embarrassment. There is a tendency to refuse to acknowledge errors, either explicitly with words or implicitly through policy adjustments.
Capitalist self-interest, on the other hand, is very different from political self-aggrandizement. Businessmen are the ultimate pragmatists. If, for instance, a book store manager were to read two books, like one and think less of the other, he might choose to inventory more of the one he found most engaging. But if customers come into his store and buy the other book, the manager wouldn’t re-order the one that didn’t sell. He’d put it on the discount shelf and, despite personal preferences, would re-stock the book he found less attractive.
The market system is about give and take, the balancing of the self-interest and judgments of many parties. Self-interest may not seem to be an attractive underpinning of moral philosophy, but the 20th century, above all others, demonstrated that incentive based free markets work better than centrally managed economies. As Mandeville so poignantly observed in his 18th century satire of capitalism, his poem The Fable of the Bees: “These are the blessings of the state, their crimes conspire to make us great.”
As America faces what could be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our history, a modern day Mandeville might write of American politics: “These, the traumas of our land, blind our sight and bind our hand.”
For the sake of the country, good politics demands implementation of good business approaches, and good business today demands an insistence on good politics.
America was established with an appeal to “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.” If the gospels according to George Tenet and Paul Wolfowitz are uncompelling to world audiences, the only “slam dunk” conclusion is that they should be put on a discount shelf.
When governments, like people, make mistakes; when they lose their bearing in the world; when ideological rigidity and arrogance become perceived problems, the case for counter-balancing citizen activism escalates. Issues of war and peace are above pride and beyond partisanship.
Here, reference to deadly words is in order. Evil exists in the world, but to label countries “evil” evokes religious contrasts and creates a basis for exactly what we don’t want to occur – a clash of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim civilizations. Individuals can be evil; so can deeds; but countries are composed of many people, the vast majority of whom love their country even though they may not like their government. To describe a country as evil is to risk rallying a people around their government, even if it is repressive, against the name caller.
Excessive pride can too easily lead to offensive words which can have deadly consequences.
It should be clear that we live in a world where accidents occur, where human foibles are real, where personal and social umbrages can be stark, and the only certainty is that unpredicted challenges will arise.
Everyone knows Lord Acton’s dictum that power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Of relevance to the topic of today’s discussion, I have a corollary: “Military power tempts and excessive power tempts excessively.” Preparedness can, of course, be an important deterrent to conflict. But governments are not above temptation. This is a problem we must continually keep in mind in our own decision making and that of others. North Korea, for example, has the fourth or fifth largest army in the world – 1.3 million men and women in uniform – and now appears to possess nuclear capacities. China has 500 missiles facing Taiwan. These military build ups are not abstract issues.
U.S.-North Korea tension is severe. Friction in U.S.-Chinese relations is growing. Americans are rightfully concerned about the trade imbalance and the human rights abuses on the Mainland. The Chinese are concerned about the violence in our culture and the break-down in traditional American family values. They would like us to be more Confucian as we would like them to be more Jeffersonian.
I was in Pyongyang and then Beijing when Hurricane Katrina hit our shores. While Americans came to learn of thousands of acts of citizen heroism and kindness, the rest of the world watched CNN and only saw cracks in our civilization. They looked at a great city racked by divisions of race and wealth; they witnessed governmental incompetence and were told of shots being fired at rescue helicopters, stores being looted, and alleged rapes being committed in a public stadium.
The America which responded so nobly to the tsunami that caused such havoc in the Indian Ocean looked inept in defending itself. Katrina may have been as cataclysmic a foreign policy as it was a natural disaster.
With the communications revolution there may no longer be such a thing as a local event. But there will always be local perspectives. As we forget too often, the power of nationalism is astonishing. People prefer to carve their own destinies, make their own mistakes. Nationalist sentiments coupled with leadership frailty are a dangerous brew. And when compounded by the innovations of science, mankind is in jeopardy. In the most profound social observation of the 20th century, Einstein noted that splitting the atom changed everything save our mode of thinking. It is in the context that thinking must change that the case for citizen and cultural diplomacy becomes so self-evident and the case for locating a citizen diplomacy center in a heartland city like Des Moines becomes so compelling.
The revival of people-to-people diplomacy should commence here. Now. Thank you.