Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : THE END OF THE WAR ON TERROR?
US public diplomacy: an idiotic fetish by R G Khouri 
US public diplomacy: an idiotic fetish By Rami G. Khouri Daily Star staff Saturday, August 29, 2009 If you wait long enough, sensible things always happen in America, often among the armed forces' senior command. One example was Commander of US Central Command General David Petraeus' recent affirmation that resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict fairly is "very central" to the mission of American troops and diplomacy in the Middle East. This would create a much more favorable regional environment for the US and its allies, dampen the appeal of militants and terrorist groups, and remove threats to American troops. Coming from General Petraeus, this sensible and rather obvious conclusion appears now to be more widely shared among top Obama administration officials, who resist the desire of Israel and its Washington lobbyist-proxies to deal with Iran, and instead focus simultaneously on promoting Arab-Israeli peace. A second, more dramatic, example of sensible analysis and courageous honesty is this week's article in Joint Force Quarterly by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen. He sharply criticized US government efforts at "strategic communication" with the Muslim world, noting that public relations alone will never generate the credibility the US seeks, if its foreign policy on the ground is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting. "To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate," Mullen wrote. "Each time we fail to live up to our values or don't follow up on a promise, we look more and more like the arrogant Americans the enemy claims we are." This is sensible and accurate analysis that Americans should listen to carefully, especially given its source. Since September 11, 2001, Americans - government, media, civil society, and plumbers everywhere - have been blinded by the rage they experienced due to the 9/11 terror attacks. An exaggerated focus on "Islam" and "Muslim extremists" was allowed to define intellectual analysis and foreign policy alike, stressing Islamic religion and culture over the policies practiced by all concerned, including Arabs and Islamic states as well as the US, Europeans and Israel. This led to two American wars that have not achieved their aims: military wars that have killed tens of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan without reducing terrorism threats, and "public diplomacy" campaigns that have mainly succeeded in revealing Americans' most erratic foreign policy eccentricities, intellectual weaknesses, and ideological vulnerabilities. The most recent example of that peculiarly American vortex where ignorance converges with pedantic arrogance and the crass distortions of special interest lobby groups was the recent creation of a bizarre new post in the US Department of State, the "office of the special representative to Muslim communities." The first person to fill this position, Ms. Farah Pandith, recently addressed a special Policy Forum at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), to discuss her new role and the US' approach to "Muslim engagement." WINEP is well respected in Washington circles as a mainstay of pro-Israeli thinking and a pillar of what may people refer to as "the pro-Israel lobby." So for the US government to launch a new office that seeks to engage Muslims by a speech at a leading pro-Israeli think and lobby tank is about as sensible as launching a New York Yankees Fan Club in Fenway Park in Boston, selling Manchester United scarves in Liverpool, or promoting Israel Bonds at a Palestinian Cultural Center in Chicago. Where, oh, where does the US State Department find the wellspring of political imbecility to do this sort of thing? Everything that Pandith said is exactly what Admiral Mullen seemed to criticize in his article. She listed an impressive list of activities to engage Muslim communities worldwide on the basis of "mutual interest and mutual respect," break down stereotypes, work with youth at the grassroots level, and build new partnerships via education, technology, business, sports and culture. All this sounds fine and dandy, but in reality it is splendid nonsense, reflecting a continuing, devastating American confusion about the linkages between religion, nationalism and foreign policy. Muslims do not need engagement or happy talk from hapless American innocents using pro-Israeli platforms. Muslims - if we are going to conduct this discussion in religious terms - need simply to be treated in a manner that allows them to exercise the same personal and national rights as Jews and Christians. That's it. Simple. None of Pandith's rhetoric has a chance in hell of going anywhere, while the majority of Muslims, Arabs and others in our region broadly perceive American foreign policy as being tilted toward Israeli priorities or the incumbency of Arab autocrats, as has been the case for about four decades now. Tough American patriots like General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen seem to grasp this, probably because they have escaped the diversionary lunacy of American "public diplomacy" and the choke-hold of single-interest lobby groups in Washington. Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly by The Daily Star. |