In the aftermath of Brasil and Turkey's resurrection of the uranium swap deal with Iran, and the US' subsequent dismissive reaction, a real shift in global politics is taking place. The end of US unilateralism is nigh, and we can gracefully acknowledge it, or go kicking and screaming. So far, if Secretary Clinton is any measure, we're choosing kicking and screaming. Two recent articles very succinctly present the problem, the shifting ground, and the need for the US to pivot on our policy. One is by former CIA officer Graham E. Fuller, and the other by Roger Cohen.
Turkey and Brasil are not rogue nations. They are both currently serving a stint on the UN Security Council. Many nations around the world of similar status, and nations who hope to gain status similar to Turkey and Brasil are watching. Do you think they like what they see? Do you think they view the US positively? Brasil exemplifies a nation in transition and one of the leading states of Latin America. Turkey provides a cultural bridge from Europe to Asia, is a NATO member, and manages to maintain a democratic secular government in a majority Muslim nation. They both put their prestige on the line and managed to negotiate a settlement very similar to what the US tried to do last fall. Mr. Fuller's article sheds some light on why they might have had more success than the US:
First, it is not only the terms of the deal that matter, but the messengers and atmospherics. Washington for decades has dealt with Iran – almost always indirectly – with considerable truculence and belligerence as the background music to "negotiations." This is business as usual – the world’s sole superpower demanding others to agree to its strategy of the moment. Christian Science Monitor May 24, 2010
Roger Cohen writes as well about existing attitudes and their influence on possible outcomes. In the words of former hostage and State Department Official John Limbert, "Americans see Iranians as 'devious, mendacious, fanatical, violent and incomprehensible.' Iranians, in turn, see Americans as 'belligerent, sanctimonious, Godless and immoral, materialistic, calculating,' not to mention bullying and exploitive." Cohen further observes however:
That’s Ground Zero in the most traumatized relationship on earth and the most tantalizing. Tantalizing because Iran and the United States are unnatural enemies with plenty they might agree on if they ever broke the ice. Limbert, a bridge-builder, has spent half a lifetime trying to deliver that message. It never flies. Poisonous history gets in the way. So do those that profit from poison. NYT, May 20, 2010 (emphasis added)
Who profits from this poison? On the US side, a military industrial complex that spends more on defense than the next 20 powers in the world combined. On the Iranian side, a repressive "Theocracy" that is continually moving closer to outright military dictatorship by the Revolutionary Guard with a thin veneer of Islamic justification. How do we get out of this cycle? Stop playing the same game. There's still a chance. Iran submitted the signed proposal to the IAEA on Monday. Turkey and Brasil still strongly back it. We can work through the UN Security Council to make the deal work and dial down tensions, or we can keep trying to get our way and insist that Iran--a country that spends the same as Sweden on their military--is some kind of colossal military threat.
If Secretary Clinton thinks China and Russia really want to see us push our way through on this she should read Mr. Fuller's piece. China and Russia may have responded last week to Clinton's arm-twisting in the short run, but do you really think their interests are in line with what Clinton is proposing? To quote Fuller again:
Yes, the terms of the agreement do matter somewhat, but what is far more important for them is the slow but inexorable decay of US ability to deliver international diktats and to have its way. This is what Chinese and Russian foreign-policy strategy is all about. Neither of these countries will, in the end, permit the US hard-line approach to win out over the Brazilian-Turkish one in the Security Council, even if the Brazilian-Turkish deal requires a little tweaking.
The world is watching too, and this is a test case. Just because this issue is not being covered much here in the US, don't make the mistake of thinking that attitudes are not hardening. Unilateralism is the language of Bush. It is time to live and work in a multi-polar world. As Roger Cohen's piece so aptly finishes:
Last year, at the United Nations, Obama called for a new era of shared responsibilities. "Together we must build new coalitions that bridge old divides," he declared. Turkey and Brazil responded — and got snubbed. Obama has just made his own enlightened words look empty.
It's not too late, yet.
PS:
For more background see these diaries from the previous week:
5/17/2010
5/22/2010
5/24/2010