Friday, September 19, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Stephen Zunes
Yes! Magazine / Op-Ed
Published: Thursday 24 November 2011
New legislation would make all diplomatic contact with Iran illegal.

In Defense of Diplomacy

Article image

Though most of our history books, as well as contemporary journalism, tend to focus on violence between peoples and nations, the vast majority of conflicts have been settled peacefully.  For centuries, it has been forbidden to “kill the messenger,” thereby enabling diplomacy between governments. Even in cases where countries have not had formal diplomatic relations, quiet negotiations – often initially clandestine and between low-level officials – have prevented cold conflicts from becoming hot ones.  Even war itself has generally not prevented ongoing diplomatic contact, which has often prevented escalation, limited civilian casualties, and made possible a speedier end to the conflict.

With the advent of air travel and instantaneous long-distance communication, the ease with which representatives of adversarial governments can meet has made diplomatic contact more timely and frequent. Meanwhile, advances in the study of negotiation and conflict resolution has made it more effective. Indeed, the improved quantity and quality of diplomatic contact has been a major factor in the dramatic reduction in inter-state wars over the past sixty years.

Unfortunately, Congress is taking up dangerous legislation which appears to be designed to make the risk of war more likely. The bill takes the unprecedented step of effectively preventing any kind of U.S. diplomatic contact with Iran. The Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 (H.R. 1905), sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the right-wing chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee, is a far-reaching sanctions bill which contains a provision (Section 601, subsection (c)) which would put into law a restriction whereby

"No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that. . . is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran;"

Never in the history of this country has Congress ever restricted the right of the White House or State Department to meet with representatives of a foreign state, even in wartime.

Despite not having formal diplomatic ties since 1979, there has been frequent low-level contact between the two governments on such issues as combating drug smuggling and Salafi terrorists. Recent examples include talks which facilitated cooperation in suppressing the Taliban and freeing three American hikers held in an Iranian prison. Such contacts would no longer be possible under this bill.

More seriously, the legislation appears to be designed to push the country toward a military conflict with Iran. History has shown that governments that refuse to even talk with each other are far more likely to go to war.

If this measure passes, it will establish a dangerous precedent whereby Congress would likely follow with similar legislation effectively forbidding any contact with Palestinians, Cubans and others.

The bill passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week and, with 352 co-sponsors from both parties, is almost certain to pass the House of Representatives as a whole.

As is often the case with legislation dealing with foreign affairs that puts limits on executive behavior, there is clause allowing for a presidential waiver. It is very limited, however, allowing the White House to waive the requirement only

". . . if the president determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States."

The problem is that diplomatic encounters — particularly with countries with which the United States has tense relations — often need to be arranged in less than a 15-day period. The entire Cuban missile crisis lasted only 13 days, for example. In the event of a crisis that threatens a military confrontation between the United States and Iran, the Obama administration would have to wait more than two weeks before having any contact with any Iranian officials, which by then could be too late.  Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. military is in the process of taking steps to establish a direct hot line to Iran in order to communicate should there be an incident especially in the Persian Gulf between U.S. and Iranian ships, an initiative which would be outlawed under the current bill.

Another problem is that meetings with governments with which the United States has no diplomatic relations are usually arranged secretly through back channels. Reporting a planned meeting to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, for example, as required in this legislation, runs the risk that at least one of its 46 members would leak the news to the press. The relatively moderate elements within Iran's factious regime would presumably not want to risk any meetings with Americans becoming known to hard-liners and would be forced to cancel such a meeting.

Another problematic clause in the bill, contained in the same sub-section, states that

"No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that... presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations."

Not only could what constitutes a "threat" to the United States or an "affiliate" with a "terrorist organization" be interpreted rather broadly, it could restrict investigation of possible terrorist attacks. It would have made illegal the recent sting operation that foiled the alleged assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador, for example.

The march to war with Iran appears to have the support a sizable number of liberal Democrats. Indeed, more than 40 members of the so-called "Progressive Caucus" have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill, including: Karen Bass, Robert Brady, Corrine Brown, Yvette Clark, William Clay, Emmanuel Cleaver, David Cicilline, Steve Cohen, Elijah Cummings, Peter DeFazio, Rosa DeLauro, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Bob Filner, Barney Frank, Janice Hahn, Mazie Hirono, Michael Honda, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Hank Johnson, Marcy Kaptur, John Lewis, David Loebsack, Ben Ray Lujan, Carolyn Maloney, Ed Markey, Jerrold Nadler, Frank Pallone, Jared Polis, Charles Rangel, Laura Richardson, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Linda Sanchez, Jan Schakowsky, Louise Slaughter, Peter Welch, and Frederica Wilson.

Fortunately, there has been a growing chorus of opposition, ranging from peace activists to veteran diplomats and intelligence officials.

For example, CIA analyst and Georgetown University professor Paul Pillar has criticized the bill, noting, "This legislation is another illustration of the tendency to think of diplomacy as some kind of reward for the other guy, rather than what it really is: a tool for our side."

Similarly, veteran diplomats Thomas Pickering and William Luers observed, "Besides raising serious constitutional issues over the separation of powers, this preposterous law would make it illegal for the U.S. to know its enemy," a principle which has been understood by strategic planners since first articulated by Sun Tzu in The Art of War in the 6th century B.C.

Though right-wing Zionist groups like the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have been lobbying in support, more moderate Zionist groups – like Americans for Peace Now – have come out against it, condemning the “outrageous nature” of the provision and noting “There are echoes here of the spectacularly self-defeating foreign policy approach of President George W. Bush, whose administration adopted the view that U.S. diplomatic engagement is a reward for good behavior, rather than a tool critical to protecting and promoting U.S. interests.”

Most importantly, the American people are on the side of diplomacy. A CBS poll found that only 15 percent believe that Iran as a threat that requires military action, while 55 percent of Americans think Iran can be effectively dealt with through diplomacy instead.

It is up to the people, then, to make sure that this dangerous legislation does not become law.

 Stephen Zunes adapted this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Stephen is a professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco and chairs the academic advisory committee of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.



Author pic
ABOUT Stephen Zunes

Dr. Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, where he chairs the program in Middle Eastern Studies. A native of North Carolina, Professor Zunes received his PhD. from Cornell University, his M.A. from Temple University and his B.A. from Oberlin College. 

 

habhpzhp

habhpzhp

Things that happen in the

Things that happen in the future are, by definition, not facts. Time for you to go back to kindergarten. These fear-based fantasies of yours are your constructions, designed to get you attention and respect when you can't otherwise get any, not facts or a reasonable probability of future events.

Fact: Iran will Acquire

Fact: Iran will Acquire Nuclear Weapons
Fact: Iran will Produce More then Required for its own Defense
Fact: At Least one or More American Cities Will cease to Exist OR 3 Nuclear Devices one off the East Coast one off the West Cost and one over the Chicago Area will Detonate 50 kilometers up creating an EMP pulse. Destroying Everything with a Commuter Chip In the United State. No phones,Cars,Planes,Electricity, No Nothing... The United States Ceases to Exist

Things that happen in the

Things that happen in the future are, by definition, not facts. Time for you to go back to kindergarten. These fear-based fantasies of yours are your constructions, designed to get you attention and respect when you can't otherwise get any, not facts or a reasonable probability of future events.

Let me explain my "ridiculous

Let me explain my "ridiculous and incomprehensible" statement so it is clearly understood. Who cares what bill is written, passed in committee, and then presumably passed by Congress... if it is wrong the President has the right, no the duty, to veto it. All it takes is courage. The real question is does this president have the stones to stand up to conservatives? I have not seen it as of yet. On the face of it this House bill, as reported in this article, is just plain idiotic for a whole host of reasons. All the president has to do is step up and squash it... and then send Secretary Clinton to Cuba. Have a good holiday, Sandra.

How true - that most

How true - that most conflicts are resolved:Take a look at the new 4-volume OXFORD INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PEACE (which has just won a prestigious Dayton Peace Prize)

I was wondering when the

I was wondering when the article would spotlight the Jews (oh, I'm sorry... Zionists) as an issue. You know, Professor, there is a real simple solution to this ridiculous legislation... that President Obama veto any bill presented to him for his signature, or if he doesn't have the courage to veto the bill, at least exhibit the courage to ignore the law if need be... even if it means impeachment.And while President Obama is at it... he should dispatch Secretary of State Clinton to Cuba immediately to begin normalization with that country. Again, that demands courage. As someone who voted for the president and would like to do so again, it is time for him to demonstrate more leadership and less posturing.

Snipe--you are ridiculous and

Snipe--you are ridiculous and incomprehensible--the article mentioned Zionist groups agreeing and disagreeing with this bill on Iran; certainly a pertinent issue to Israeli government politics.

The beginning of the Obama presidency was full of hope--I certainly was cheered by the prospect of Ms Clinton's diplomacy being used to address conflicts instead of military threats being thought of as the only American and strong tactic in dealing with problems anywhere in the whole world. Why diplomacy is viewed by conservatives as a "weak" way to deal with foreign countries is incomprehensible except as a symptom of testosterone poisoning and bribery from military contractors and others (like Haliburton) that have profited so greatly from the US's slaughter in the 21st Century.

Sandra You can't come up with

Sandra
You can't come up with One example to support your premiss { diplomacy is viewed by conservatives as a "weak" way to deal with foreign countries}
In fact Sandra you are wrong on several points
One- Is President Reagan was the last Conservative President.
two- Is the first Bush went to the UN and they ruled that Iraqis invasion of Kuwait was illegal.
Three- Is W Bush also went to the UN and formed a coalition in response to 911
Not only are your words not true but they give evidence of Incredibly Stereotypical Thinking of Conservatives. Maybe it's all your Estrogen

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...