The Carrot and the Stick
When you really break it down there are only two ways the US can influence a foreign country; by giving them a carrot, or by giving them the stick. Although many international relations scholars might disagree most of them are closet communists anyway. And how can you agree with prominent SAIS professors when they have names like Francis Fukuyama (say that 5 times as fast as you can). In my “model” a carrot denotes some type of concession or financial aid, like the $2 Billion we give to Egypt every year. The stick can best be described as any type of punitive action taken against a foreign country. It can best be exemplified in how we dealt with Baathist Iraq; we whipped 'em like a rented mule. But as the political order in the Middle East begins to collapse we have to ask ourselves, “who needs a carrot, and who needs the stick?”
At first glance it would be satisfying to find the biggest stick around and give it to every country in the Middle East. After all, $2 billion in pork (or as Israelis call it;white steak) a year isn’t even enough to keep Hosni Mubarak from screaming the, “Jews knocked down the WTC!”, which is the diplomatic equivalent of screaming, “David farted!” at a dinner party. You would at least think he could keep those thoughts to himself. But in fact, that degree of belligerance would not work in the U.S’ favor. Although we must use the stick effectively, we need to pass out some carrots as well.
The biggest example of this is with the Palestinians. Many Republican lawmakers think we could be tougher on the PLO. This is nonsense. The Israelis are tough enough. Unless we are willing to fire cruise missiles at mosques, we should leave the stick to the Israelis. If this is a game of good cop/ bad cop, we need to be the good cop. Israel already makes Dirty Harry look like that weenie from “Monk.” If the Palestinian people could see that denouncing violence helps their daily lives, they might not be so eager to blow themselves up. It shouldn’t be too expensive. How much money would you accept to not to go on a martyrdom mission?
But if we want peace in the Middle East, we need to lean on Israel as well. We currently underwrite their entire economy, with virtually no promises in return. Unless there really is “a small Jewish cabal that controls the world”, this needs to change. For every dollar that Israel continues to spend on building and supporting settlements in the West Bank, the U.S. should raise aid to Palestinians two-fold, as well as deduct that amount from what we would give Israel. I’m not to good at math, but if stereotypes are correct, the Jews are. Although it may hurt Republicans in Florida and New York, it would ultimately help the peace process in a practical manner. After all, if Mubarak is right, those Jews sure love money. Next: Iran gets the stick up their *ss
posted by Publius Valerius Publicola @ 11:01 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Actually, when you boil it down, the carrot and the stick are the two predominant, most easily understood forms of diplomacy. And that's why it works in the Middle East. They've been dealing with this simple approach for centuries.
actually there usually isn't much diplomacy in Middle Eastern history. there was nobody to mediate disputes in the desert. If somebody wanted to take your water, and was strong enough to do it...they did. Its' like Tom Friedman said, "In Middle East politics there is rarely a happy medium. When one side is weak, it will tell you, 'How can I compromise?' And the minute it becomes strong, it will tell you, 'Why should I compromise?'"
Basically...you're wrong...and a midget
I think you misunderstood the previous post. Both your point, and anonymous poster's point, demonstrate that the middle east doesn't deal with vagueries. They deal with absolutes, like: "I'll beat your ass". The middle east doesn't deal with conditional statements filled with if's, and's, or but's. The middle east does understand when you show them the stick, and promptly whip their ass with it. Likewise, they understand when you say you want democracy, and then pump money into democratic cuases, oppose despotic regimes, etc. They do not understand why you say you want democracy and then not-so-discreetly support authoritarian regimes. The wishy-washy, speak softly, middle of the road, contradictory stuff used in the past did not and will not work with the Middle East.
Bottom line, the Bush approach is the only approach.
I concede. Like my grandad used to say, "We need to go over there once every 20 years and whip ass whether they need it or not." In Arab politics, it is very hard to show weakness. Once you do, they act like sharks that smell blood. Thats why it is very hard to compromise in ME politics. Parties that are weak, tend to lash out like wounded animals. But I concede the point...You're still a midget though.
Your grandaddy was almost always right. I enjoy your Caucus Room.
Post a Comment
<< Home