Cultural diplomacy: Case study, Libya

I'm impressed. Read this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Gadhafis-Son.html

snip

This week's events -- including an unprecedented phone call between Bush and Moammar Gadhafi -- capped a halting, five-year rapprochement between the two countries that began in 2003 when the Libyan leader renounced terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The process gained traction in August when the U.S. and Libya agreed on the compensation deal.

The younger Gadhafi, who also met with human rights and environmental groups, said his main message was: ''We are good people, and nice. We'll make business. We'll invest, and we have friends here in the states and we have a new chapter in the relations.''

He said Libya's new sovereign wealth fund, a government-owned investment fund with almost $100 billion, ''wants to invest here in America'' despite the current financial crisis.

I'm not going to write a long tutorial on cultural diplomacy, and instead point this topic out to my readers to do whatever behind the scenes background reading that you like about Libya-USA relationships. However, I want to make some points that genuine diplomats should always keep in mind that they can learn from this success.

1) If both sides have a genuine desire to resolve differences, even the most impossible situation can be resolved, often with a success that never could have been anticipated.

If you think that there is incredible misery weighing down the Israel-Palestinian problem, with decades of horror on both sides that damage diplomatic good intentions, let me assure you, especially you younger readers, that the situation between Libya and the USA seemed just as doomed to never overcoming the past. With time and determination on both sides, incredibly we have reached this unforeseen good outcome.

So never "write off" the possibility of genuine cultural diplomacy brokering a shining break through in even the worse of situations.

2) Regardless of provocations, while it is allowable to make forceful responses to situations, never attempt to corner the other party so that they have no dignity.

As rough as the conflict was between Libya and the USA a healthy respect for each other was maintained throughout. This was, in part, because the main conflict between Libya and the USA took place years before a kind of personally demeaning "taunting" has become part of both the official governmental and political discourse and the public "talk radio" and other circuits. Again, contrast that with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, where both sides have used language seeking to mock and strip the dignity of their "opponent." Thus no genuine diplomacy results.

3) Set timetables for actions and stick to them, but let the process of normalization run a natural course of time.

Genuine diplomacy recognizes that two things take place. One is the negotiation and completion of specific actions. The other is allowing all parties to adjust (even to the point of the next generation coming of age and participating) at a pace that is natural to human nature and as a response to new perspective gained from each specific action step.

Once again, compare this to the Israel-Palestinian problem. It has become a ridiculous knot that cannot be untied because people refuse to set timetables for actions and stick to them, and allow normalization to, like a river "flow alongside." The Israelis in particular do not understand that one changes mindset on both sides alongside the honorable carrying out of specific diplomatic tasks and agreements. You can think of it like this, it is like the Israelis say, "Well, we will like and understand you only if you sign these agreements." If the Libya-USA relationship had followed the terrible example in the Middle East, we would not be reading the sincere words of mutual relationship and amiability on both sides that we see in this news article today.

Here is another analogy. If you are offered a job in a company, what if you said before you accepted the job "Well, before I agree, I want a guarantee that every company employee will like me when they meet me, and they will never do anything wrong against me." How likely is that? (Even Jesus certainly did not have that happen, hmm?) If one ties what one thinks of the other party and, further, refuses all natural forms of relationship building to develop until one or the other agreement is signed, that is damming up the natural development of genuine relationship, just as the employee who won't sign on without unreasonable conditions being met first. Thus Israel will not follow UN mandates because they envision first receiving some sort of emotional guarantee of the future, and as a result, they dam up that exact flow of goodwill (or at least fearsome respect) that they desire to have from the Palestinians and the Islamic countries that support them.

The Libya-USA relationship progress demonstrates that hard decisions and agreements on specific actions must be made and carried out, while then, alongside, the natural development of mutual understanding and progress in respect, and even liking, are allowed to develop without conditions.

Congratulations to all who have been involved in reaching the success of the Libya-USA relationship and one that I hope will only improve and benefit both sides (and not just for the investment money, ha). I hope that our future Secretary of State will follow these suggestions ;-)