Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
Engaging the World Anew
ISLAM AND THE WEST
By Daniel Brumberg
One of the emerging lessons of the Obama administration's foreign policy might be summed up as follows: The idea that presidential "direct diplomacy" with actors such as Chávez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro is feasible or likely to produce results is, well, naive.
--Jackson Diehl, The Washington Post
Is the idea of "direct diplomacy" with our most troublesome rivals dead, at least for the moment? Perhaps. Is the idea of engagement still alive and kicking? I hope so.
Whether or not our president was "naïve" in assuming that dialogue with the likes of Castro or Chávez would be useful is a judgment that I will leave to my readers. But there was nothing simplistic or innocent about the purpose and utility of an integrated strategy of engagement.
I emphasize "strategy" because any calculated policy of engagement is not about making nice with our enemies. Nor it is about deploying the charismatic or intellectual qualities of our national leaders and diplomats in a bid to magically win over (or at least positively influence) a narrow-minded autocrat such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Rather, the purpose is to communicate a readiness to reach out to a variety of political actors and organizations in ways that undercut the domestic, regional and global leverage of our most dangerous rivals. A sophisticated engagement strategy pokes holes in the veneer of unity that these rivals claim to defend, be it political, cultural or ideological, thus opening space for more pragmatic voices and actors.
Such a strategy no doubt entails risk, and can have unintended--even unhappy-- consequences. Still, the recent course of the Obama administration's diplomacy amply demonstrates that strategic engagement is worth pursuing.
Consider Lebanon. In the months leading up to the country's June 7 parliamentary elections, the Obama administration signaled a desire to forge a new relationship with the Muslim world. Washington's bid to open talks with Tehran undercut the efforts of Hezbollah to portray the US as an enemy of all Muslims, or of Shi'ites in particular. As I witnessed while serving as an election observer with the National Democratic Institute, Sa'ad Hariri and his allies in the pro-Western "March 14 Coalition" appreciated the sophisticated logic that animated Obama's efforts. And while I do not attribute the March 14 Coalition's unexpected electoral victory to Obama's June 4 Cairo speech, it would be wrong to deny or ignore the indirect but positive effect in Lebanon of the President's efforts to redefine and realign US-Muslim relations.
In contrast, the Iranian case illustrates how the road to hell can be paved with the positive intentions of strategic engagement. President Obama's bid to reach out to the Iranian people and their government inspired many Iranians to envision a reciprocal opening to Washington. Echoing these hopes were reformists such as Mir Hossein Mousavi, and hard-line apparatchiks such as Mohsen Rezai. In the lead up to the June 12 parliamentary elections, this former leader of Iran's Revolutionary Guard lambasted Ahmadinejad's economic and diplomatic incompetence while calling for a "constructive" approach to the United States.
Ahmadinejad and his allies in Iran's New Right got the message. One of the secondary goals of their electoral coup was to muzzle independent Iranian voices advocating dialogue with the new American president.
I am not suggesting that Ahmadinejad's opponents are a fifth column of U.S. influence. Nor am I suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that Obama's engagement strategy is responsible for provoking the June 12 electoral coup.
Still, as I discuss in Conflict, Identity and Reform in the Muslim World: Challenges for U.S. Engagement, any effort to shake up the calculations of our rivals, friends and potential interlocutors will produce diverse results, some of them good, others less so. While we cannot control all outcomes, over time strategic engagement could benefit both the United States and the Muslim world. Relinquishing this tool would be naïve and even counter-productive.
Daniel Brumberg is an Associate Professor in the Department of Government at Georgetown University and Acting Director of the Muslim World Initiative at the United States Institute of Peace.
By Daniel Brumberg |
September 11, 2009; 1:28 PM ET
| Category:
Georgetown/On Faith
,
Islam and the West
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Bishops Want Health-Care Reform |
Next: Muslims on the Mall
Posted by: prakash2009 | September 16, 2009 8:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why the President should not deal directly with Muslims or any other supporters of terror:
Posted by: ccnl1 | September 15, 2009 12:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why the President should not deal directly with Muslims or any other supporter of terror:
1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured
1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh
2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured
3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops, 3,469 killed action and 871 non-combat and 93,040 – 101,537 Iraqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]
5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.
6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.
7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.
8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.
9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.
10) Operation Enduring freedom in Afghanistan: US troops killed in action 562, 176 killed in non-combat situations as of 9/02/09
Posted by: ccnl1 | September 14, 2009 6:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The US president is naieve and inexperienced and like Carter is creating a nightmare for the future children.Carter was the wrong president at the wrong time and his mishandling of the Iranian revolution produced the problems the US has had since Iran's proxy Hizbollah blew up US marines in the early 80's.The author of this article is trying to be politically correct and not criticize
what should be criticized, Obama
inexperienced and dangerous foreign policy.Obama is the wrong president at the wrong time.Criticism of him has nothing to do with the race card as the evil president Carter is running around saying now.Criticism of Obama is just because he is an ineffectual leader who is causing great harm to the stability of the world by abandoning the protestors in Iran and its opposition, talking to dictators who are playing him like an idiot while they plan America's destruction,allowing the proliferation of nuclear weapons into the hands of Iran who sponsors terrorism throughout the world and especially in latin america which is now setting up missles to be used against the United States in the western hemisphere. Hizbollah is here!!!The author of this article is continuing the irresponsible behavior on the part of people who are supposed to hold the president responsible. The president cannot hide behind race when he is not making the right decisions and is not standing up as the leader of the free world. He has reduced the American presidency, the bully pulpit to a localized race debate rather than make the world safe for the children.Obama will go down in history along with Carter as the two worst, naieve and evil presidents in the history of the US.