I'm certain virtually everyone has read the comic strip, Peanuts. I don't know if this is the most popular comic strip of all time, but I'm sure it's pretty close to the top. Charles Schultz captured so much of life in his characters and numerous books have been written to examine the social, philosophical and religious themes of his works.
In the philosophical vein, nothing is more illustrative than the actions of Charlie Brown, Lucy Van Pelt and the football. In case you never saw those strips, Charlie is going to kick the football while Lucy holds it. She has placed the ball in the kicking position and is holding it upright while urging him to kick it.
Charlie is reluctant because Lucy has always pulled the ball away in the past and he's pretty certain she will do it again. Lucy, on the other hand, continues to promise she will not pull the ball away and begs him to kick the ball. She's so good, that we even begin to believe (and hope and pray) she will not pull the ball away.
This is a continuing example of the seductiveness of diplomacy as the path to resolution of a conflict. We want Lucy to live up to her promises. We believe Lucy will live up to her promises. We hope Lucy will live up to her promises. However, the end result is always the same - Lucy pulls the football away at the last second so Charlie Brown falls flat on his back. And we sigh, knowing that we really knew she would do it, and wonder why we got our hopes up.
What is the difference between this continuing comic strip tale, and our misguided hopes diplomacy will work in similar places throughout the world? Confucius said it was a proverbial disgrace to stumble twice against the same stone. The world appears to be littered with those proverbial rocks.
The fundamental principle of diplomatic negotiation is that two or more parties will accept a compromise in the name of peace or some greater good. That's a great thought in the abstract and has worked at the end of many conflicts - but only after one or more parties is totally spent and unable or unwilling to continue. It has hardly ever worked to prevent conflicts, and I'll be willing to bet it hasn't worked very well in the long term.
A number of years ago, during negotiations at Camp David, Yassar Arafat was offered 98 percent of the Palestinian's demands for resolution of the conflict with Israel. He turned the offer down; reportedly because other nations informed him his financial support would dry up if he made peace with Israel.
A perennial Lucy, Kim Jong Il is assumed to be developing nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them throughout the Pacific region. He and his father have a long history of trying to destabilize the Korean peninsula and the region with threats, bullying and this latest ploy. North Korea has not developed a capability or weapon that it has not shared (sold) to nations who are unfriendly to the United States. Despite previous negotiated incentives to mollify them, they continue to pull the football away and then turn around and beg us to try to kick it again.
The war with terrorism did not begin on Sept. 11, 2001. It began on Nov. 4, 1979, when Iranian "students" seized the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and has continued with deadly attacks on U.S. citizens and interests throughout the world since that date. The wanton murder of thousands of Americans since then and the continuing slaughter of members of rival sects of Islam ought to be proof enough of the futility of diplomacy.
For diplomacy to have any hope, there must be common ground among the parties. I don't think their view of us as infidels, the great satan, and other terms of endearment speaks well for hopes of peaceful resolution. We'll keep listening to them and they'll keep pulling the football away until we actually kick the holder instead of continuing to try to kick the football.
Well, that's what's been on my mind.
