Tuesday, 9 May 2006

Did he read it?

The question I really want answered is this. Did the President read the letter sent by his Presidential colleague in Iran?

Before Condi got her mitts on it and started to dismiss the contents and denigrate the Iranian President, did the president handle the 18 pages and see the print in the letter?

President Bush might not have been eagerly twiddling his thumbs waiting in expectation to read from a government that has been at variance with the United States for 30 years.

However, this was symbolic, but the United States forgot the occasion and missed an opportunity to at least see if dialogue was possible.

The letter says a lot

Then, we are told the letter says nothing new in terms of the prevailing issues, I beg to differ; the letter does address the concern about how propaganda is being used to demonise states in readiness for military attack.

It addresses the concern that certain countries unfairly think they have exclusive rights to technologies to the exclusion of others; especially, where standards of eligibility differ – North Korea (resignation), Pakistan (détente), India (support), Israel (indifference), Libya (emasculation) and Iran (suspicion).

It highlights the Israeli/Palestinian issue as the crisis of our times and the inaction that makes the “Destroy Israel” rhetoric find support amongst Arabs.

It is interesting that President Bush did find time yesterday to talk to President al-Bashir of Sudan about the Darfur crisis seeking some resolution on troop support in Darfur.

President al-Bashir could arguably be no less a figure of hate than President Ahmadinejad, talk is always important.

Of whom little is expected

If I expected the letter to be accorded a modicum of courtesy in the reading, comportment in the reply and diplomacy in commentary, I would be naïve.

It is a shame that the smart and clever people in the United States government cannot muster a diplomatic coup when presented to ample opportunity.

They forgo the basics of diplomacy for lambast and bluster whilst young men and women of American might end up being sent to lose their lives for a cause that have not been well thought through because the avenues of conciliation were closed by their government.

One is beginning to think the advocates of regime change might just need that tonic in the White House too.

No comments: