Firas Al-Atraqchi: Diplomacy? What Diplomacy?
Diplomacy? What Diplomacy?
By Firas Al-Atraqchi
The catch phrases 'last ditch effort for diplomacy', 'going the extra mile for diplomacy', and 'nobody wants a war' have been regurgitated time and again by the media to lend a compassionate, psychologically balanced, and moral face to the impending war on Iraq.
All three of the above are misconceptions; a mechanism to beguile the world, and specifically the American public.
Chile's representatives in the United Nations today suggested giving Iraq three weeks to meet certain disarmament objectives. The initiative was compiled to bridge differences between U.N. Security Council members who were feeling pressured by U.S. efforts to secure the necessary nine votes for a U.N. resolution to pass. The Chilean initiative seems to combine Canadian, Mexican, and British efforts to overcome the diplomatic impasse.
The White House flatly rejected the initiative saying three weeks was far too much time.
Far too much time for what? For diplomacy?
The word diplomacy is not a difficult word to understand; simply put, it refers to "the art or practice of conducting international relations, as in negotiating alliances, treaties, and agreements." Apparently, the words war, invasion, and pre-emptive action are missing from this definition. In fact, diplomacy is indeed the act of avoiding war through alliances, treaties, and agreements.
That is what diplomacy means to the rest of the world and certainly to the Canadian government.
To the war cabal in the U.S. government, however, diplomacy means the securing of international legalization for an illegal war. Diplomacy is a smokescreen, a carte blanche (do not pardon my French!), an authorization to wage war. A laissez-faire for U.S. policies in Iraq.
Consequently, the war is broken up into two political spheres: one advocating diplomacy to avoid bloodshed, and one advocating diplomacy to wage war.
The fact that such a metaphysical conflict is even occuring flies in the face of every major historic development in the manner in which nations 'deal' with one another since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which marked the end of the Thirty Years War and was the first initiative towards international law.
Now, every international institution, every international law that creates an obstacle in the face of war efforts is classified 'irrelevant'.
How cheap and shameful. We are on the verge of regressing in historical international development. McLuhan's notion of a global village has now bastardized itself into global suspicion, hatred, and open warfare.
So, why was the Chilean proposal called a "non-starter"? Simple: It sets back the timetable for an invasion of Iraq and risks the prospect of derailing infantry morale in elevated desert temperatures. The war must start before temperatures reach 125 Fahrenheit.
We are going to war, ladies and gentlemen. Nothing Iraq or the Security Council could have done (or can do) stood a chance of stopping this juggernaut.
On Friday, six members of the Security Council dared to tell the U.S. they would not be dictated to even if they faced economic and political reprisals. The State Department went into damage control, pleading with the president to make a hasty speech regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and calling for an emergency summit in Azores, off the coast of Portugal.
The U.S., Great Britain, and Spain are to meet to discuss "last ditch diplomatic efforts".
In today's language, that means war.
Postscript: So the House changed french
fries to Freedom Fries. I suggest they also take out the
words justice, liberty, fraternity, egality, policy, police,
cosmopolitan, resistance, stamina, art deco, au pair, avante
garde, blond(e) (oh, this should be a tough one, eh!),
brunette, critique, coup, debutante, deja vu, encore, en
masse, finale, and 30 percent of the English language. These
words, and others, are originally FRENCH.