Everyone knows that what diplomats and politicians say in public is often at odds with what they say in private. I offer a case in point reflecting my experience.
On 7 June 1981, the Israeli air force, flying American F-16’s escorted by F-15’s, attacked and destroyed the Osirak nuclear energy research reactor outside Baghdad, Iraq. Israel justified its pre-emptive attack to prevent Iraq from developing a nuclear weapon.
The incident became a major international issue. In the U.N. Security Council, speaker after speaker denounced the Israeli attack, for, among other reasons, violating international boundaries and ignoring recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections which reported Iraqi compliance with its safeguards. But the outrage which these diplomats expressed in public they dismissed in private because the facts known to them justified the Israeli raid. On 15 June 1981, the UK Permanent Representative’s statement to the Security Council, though expressing this outrage, told the real story:
107. It has also been argued that, whatever the legal rights and wrongs of the matter, the international community privately breathed a sigh of relief after the Israeli raid, the suggestion being that the Iraqi Government will not now have a nuclear-weapon potential for some further time to come.
What caused the “international community[’s] privately breathed … sigh of relief” was the disclosure of discomfiting facts about what was going on at the Osirak facility.
I learned the facts while consulting to the Department of Energy on matters dealing with nuclear proliferation. The French had been assisting Iraq with its civilian nuclear research program, particularly by providing it with uranium dioxide caramel fuel. They believed that such caramelized fuel could not be processed to separate the uranium for other—i.e. military—purposes. At about the time that Israeli jets were attacking Osirak, Israeli intelligence officers were briefing their French counterparts with proof that Iraqi scientists had separated uranium from the caramelized fuel. Embarrassed, the French quietly cancelled their contracts with and discontinued their assistance to Iraq. No one wanted to embarrass the French in public, so everyone resorted to private whispers to spread the truth within the diplomatic community. Thus, the UK statement.
I tell this story because, I believe, what went on then is going on now in the conflict between Israel and Hamas. The Arab governments, largely to avoid redirecting their citizens’ anger at Israel to themselves, are “loudspeaking” their outrage at the Israeli response to the Hamas attack and eschewing regional meetings to address regional problems. Hamas vigorously opposed these important meetings intended to advance a rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Some think that Hamas’s attack aimed to disrupt such a rapprochement; if so, it has so far succeeded.
But, under the right conditions, it is not likely to continue to succeed. For Gulf-state governments loathe Hamas. It is possible that, if Israel’s retaliatory attack succeeds in eradicating Hamas without jeopardizing its standing by excessive civilian casualties—Hamas would thus win the propaganda war and maintain regional instability—, these governments will resume regional meetings not only to advance a rapprochement with Israel, but also to develop a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine problem. Without Hamas to interfere or subvert that effort and with Israel’s participation, they would establish a Palestinian state with a unified government for the West Bank and Gaza, and support a “Marshall Plan” to make the new state politically and economically viable. However much one regrets the loss of life, one can hope that the dead on both sides will not have died in vain.
NOTE ON LOCAL ELECTIONS: The disparity between public statements and private practice has a local application. Both Kasandra Gandara, for mayor, and Tessa Abeyta, for councilor, have stated publicly that they favor transparency and accountability. But hypocrisy and dishonesty are evident. Both Progressives sit on the Public Safety Select Committee, a committee so secret that other councilors did not know it existed. Whether their work on this secret committee has criminally violated the Open Meetings Act, their private conduct at odds with their public words undermines good—that is, democratic—government.
Recommendations:
For mayor, Alexander Fresquez, sensible innovator: rank first (rank Kasandra Gandara seventh or leave her slot blank).
For district 2 councilor, Bill Mattiace, former mayor: rank first (rank Tessa Abeyta second or, better, leave her slot blank). City Council needs someone not only fully experienced in city government and, in this race, even-tempered, but also at least one voice and perhaps at least one vote different from those of councilors uniformly Leftish.
No comments:
Post a Comment