Not Wars But Conversations

W hy shouldn’t a President sit down with leaders of other nations, particularly when we have problems with them? John McCain and HillaryClintonscoffedatBarackObama’ssuggestion that he would sit down with heads of state,eventhosewhoareperceivedasbeingour enemies.Thequestionseemstorevolvearound theideathatObamasuggestedthathewouldsitdownwithCuban, Iranian,andVenezuelanleaderswithoutpreconditionsfortheconversations .BothClintonandMcCainhavepeggedhisapproachto foreign policy as naïve, demonstrating his immaturity when it comestointernationalpolitics.Butthequestionthatweallshould beaskinginthemidstofallthispoliticalposturingiswhatiswrong withtalking? It seems to me that it is better to talk than to bomb, shoot, and kill. Talking is a far better option, particularly if it has the potential to avert the pain and destruction of wars. In wars no one really wins. There may be victors, but the price of winning is extremely high, and leaves an indelible scar on the face of humanity. This means that we have to overcome the macho male dominated approaches that have permeated our dealings in foreign policy and government-to-government negotiations. We have held on to mantraslike:“tothevictorsbelongthespoils,”“mightmakesright,” and“praisetheLordandpasstheammunition.”Butthisapproach has gotten us years of colonialism, the denial of legitimate claims, andtherefusaltoconsiderlegitimategrievances,particularlywhen ithasledtothestalemateofmygangofalliesoverhereagainstyour gangofalliesoverthere.No,wecannotcarryoninthiswaybecause a smaller globe necessitates models of reconciliation and not continued divisiveness through non-dialogue and non-interaction. It isafarbetterideatotalk. As a preacher I am reminded of the teaching that speaks about going to the altar with your gift, but cautions that if you have a grievancewithyourneighbor,yourbrotherorsister,youaretoput yourgiftdownandgoandmakepeacewithyourneighbor,brother orsister.TheideaisthatGoddoesnotwantgiftsandsacrificesasan empty expression of our faith. Rather, God requires that we make peace, even daring to make peace with those we don’t agree with. Reconciliation in the world and between neighbors is the highest giftthatanyonecanoffertoGod,accordingtothisteaching. Butinaworldwherethereareegostobemaintained,andpower dynamicswheretheotherisreducedtoanobject,thewaywehave functioned internationally is that civility is predicated upon what canIgainfromit,anduponwhetheryouwillsurrenderandsubmit to what I need. If we lived like this in families they would not survive ; and neither would neighborhoods and communities. Likewiseitisdestructivetofunctionintheworldfamilyinthisway . Fromafaithpositionandamongpeopleofconscience,weyearn for a new paradigm. Those of us of conscience and faith see the world through what others might call a naïve lens. Others call our desire to talk instead of posture an unreasonable and immature approachtothedangersoftheworld.Butfaithandconsciencedemandthatweapproachtheworldandourinteractionsinthiskind of naïve and unreasonable way. The position is called faith. We must have faith in the good character of other human beings, and eventually our refusal to participate in the bravado of machismo, threateningandfinger-pointingkindsofpolitics,willgraduallybut effectivelyconverttheworldtoanewwayofengagement. Recently, on a plane to Cleveland, Ohio, I was seated next to a businessman.Webegantotalkabouttheelections.Heforewarned me that he was a conservative. He mentioned to me that he could never vote for Obama because Obama had said that he would sit down with “our enemies.” In response to his assertion, I asked whetherornothehadeversatdownwithabusinessadversary,and inquired the reasons that he would do so. He stated that he would sit down with a competitor to further his business interest and to see if there was a way the two of them could develop a working relationship for a better and more efficient business edge. He added thatbothheandhiscompetitorwouldneedtogetsomethingcompellingfromthearrangementinorderforeachtoengagefurther .I told him that I understood that and it made perfect sense. Then I asked for him to think about this kind of business arrangement in theworldofinternationalpolitics.Ifitwasvalidforhimtositdown withacompetitor,wouldn’titalsobevalidfornationsandheadsof nations to sit down with the kind of mutual respect that he would bringtoabusinessmeeting? In business conversations there is recognition that each has something to offer, that each must give up something, and that each will potentially gain something. This is why we need to talk evenwiththosewhoareseenasourenemies.Inaworldwherenumerous nations hold the ability to destroy the world, and where morenationsaregainingthiskindofdestructivepotentialannually , it is imperative that we learn to talk and settle differences. To have the conversation, just as in the business arena, presupposes that each understands that they need the other to achieve their goals. This is also important in the international political arena – weneedeachotherifwearegoingtofeedtheworld,savetheworld from climatic catastrophe, and to maximize the human potential that exists around the globe. In order to have valid conversation eachmustbehumbleenough,andinordertofurtherfutureworking relationships each must make agreements that help to build friendshipandtrust. What I am advocating here may seem naïve and unreasonable on my part, but I have witnessed in the micro lasting relationships between previously bitter enemies built over conversation and the breakingofbread,andIhavetoask:ifthatisvalidpersontoperson, why wouldn’t that be valid and necessary nation-to-nation? I pray thatwehavetherealcouragetotalkratherthantofight.■ Rev. Graylan Hagler is...