DOC PREVIEW
Sac State ENGL 20 - Dining With The Devil

This preview shows page 1 out of 3 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 3 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Dining With The DevilBY MICHAEL ELLIOTT, columnist, Time Magazine April 22, 2002It isn't only in Israel and the West Bank that bodies lie in therubbled streets. At the current rate of killing, an additional 30or so Russian soldiers will have died in Chechnya by the timeGeorge W. Bush meets Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscowat the end of May. Don't ask how many civilian Chechens die inthe fighting each week. Nobody knows, though the number surelymounts as Moscow's long campaign to bludgeon Chechnya intosubmission proceeds unchecked.It would be interesting to know what Bush plans to say aboutChechnya at the summit. A reasonable guess would be: not much.Washington has pressing business to conduct with Putin, rangingfrom the latest round of NATO expansion to the conclusion of somesort of agreement on missile testing and the reduction of nucleararsenals. Since Putin suffers perpetual criticism from theRussian security establishment for allowing the U.S. to dowhatever it wants, Washington is unlikely to undercut him bymaking much of a fuss about atrocities in Chechnya.In normal times, none of this would be remotely surprising. It isthe way that great powers work. "American foreign policy," wroteNational Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in a 2000 ForeignAffairs article that became the template for the Bush approach,"should refocus on the national interest and the pursuit of keypriorities." For this Administration, missile defense and NATOexpansion are key priorities; the fate of Chechens is not. Butthese are not normal times, and after Sept. 11, the pursuit ofthe national interest was, supposedly, suddenly invested withanother characteristic. In a phrase that Rice herself has usedapprovingly, Bush's policy was said to demonstrate a "moral2clarity." In the war on terrorism, nations were either with theU.S. or against it; three rogue states constituted an "axis ofevil." As recently as April 4, Bush was insisting--and this isabout as clear as moral clarity can be--that "no nation cannegotiate with terrorists."He knows better now. The U.S. is negotiating with terrorists, forfew can doubt that Yasser Arafat has, at the very least, endorsedthe use of suicide bombs against Israeli civilians. "The broad,sweeping pledges made by the President have bumped into reality,"says Henry Hyde, Republican chairman of the House InternationalRelations Committee. For the Bush Administration to talk toArafat proves, as a senior European diplomat puts it, that "theperiod of relative simplicity when the line between good and evilcould be drawn with confidence has ended." The moral-claritycrowd--from American conservatives to Israeli politicians likeBenjamin Netanyahu--spent last week lamenting this new drift inAmerican policy.But sometimes it is the duty of political leaders to sup with thedevil. Many national-liberation struggles, not excepting Israel'sfight for existence in the 1940s, have seen violence againstcivilians: think Ireland or Kenya. Such outrages cannot be areason for never talking to those responsible for them, for,inconveniently, those individuals may also be--as Arafat is--theauthentic leaders of their people. That is why the Sri Lankangovernment is about to begin peace talks with the Tamil Tigers, agroup whose long use of indiscriminate terror, child soldiers,suicide bombs and assassination makes Palestinian radicals looktame. In 1995 it was the pressing American national interest toend the war in Bosnia that threatened to sunder the Atlanticalliance. To reach that goal, Richard Holbrooke, the U.S.negotiator, enlisted the support of Slobodan Milosevic. The Serbleader is a monster who is currently standing trial in the Haguefor war crimes. Moral clarity, presumably, would have suggested3that the U.S. follow some other course. And it is true thatBosnia today is not Kansas. But, as Holbrooke says, and isentitled to say, "the war is over."America's national interest now lies in finding ways to reducethe level of violence in the Middle East and move Israel and thePalestinians toward a political settlement. This is not"rewarding terrorism." It is, rather, a recognition that untilPalestinian aspirations are satisfied, the Middle East won't findstability and the U.S. won't find allies--either among Arabnations or in Europe--for taking action to remove Saddam Husseinand his weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.Moral clarity in foreign policy is a virtue, as all but the mostcynical, superior Europeans would concede. The blunt languagethat Bush used after Sept. 11 sent a message, and it was heeded.Countries like Pakistan and Yemen were left in no doubt as towhere their interests lay, and they acted accordingly. But in themuddled, shades-of-gray world of great-power politics, neithermoralism nor clarity can ever be enough. That lesson the BushAdministration has now learned. Pity about


View Full Document

Sac State ENGL 20 - Dining With The Devil

Documents in this Course
Oracle

Oracle

2 pages

Load more
Download Dining With The Devil
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Dining With The Devil and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Dining With The Devil 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?