|
Edited on Mon Nov-14-05 04:51 AM by rucky
I think my latest stance on this will be pretty darn unpopular, but here goes:
It's been the de facto policy of the US never to negotiate with terrorists. I'm not sure when that started, but I could see how it would be political suicide to advocate otherwise.
What's the conventional wisdom of that policy? Obviously, the policy of not negotiating is not working out too well. About as well as our track record of buddying up to dictators.
The usual argument is, "that's just giving in to what they want."
Well if all the terrorists want to do is talk, then why the hell not? Nobody said anything about giving in to their demands. You can at least get to the root of what has brought this group of PEOPLE to such an extreme stance that it would lead to organized violence.
We can talk to our enemies without endorsing their actions. I would argue that - in the interest of peace - we MUST talk to our enemies. I learned that from an episode of the Brady Bunch when dad talks to bully's dad and get punched in the face, but realizes that his reflexive hitting back just made the problem work. Someone's gotta be the adult, here.
Back to my point: Our policies toward terrorism have been (under administrations beyond Bush) rooted in the assumption that there is absolute good and evil in the world.
You may call me naive to think that's wrong. I would say believing it is cynical, and will never solve the root of the problem.
THERE CAN NEVER BE PEACE AS LONG AS PEOPLE CHARACTERIZE OTHERS AS BASICALLY EVIL. Their deeds may be evil, but we have to go to the table under the assumption that people are basically good. Under institutional oppression, two things happen: the oppressed tend to group together, and solutions are discussed.
We need to offer our fellow human beings alternatives other than violence. The negotiating table seems to be the best avenue against more senseless killing.
4am rant over....Peace!
|