Is It Ever Right To Stop Talking?

I was happy to read Jimmy Carter’s op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times arguing in favor of broad engagement with foreign leaders. Indeed, the policy of enforced diplomatic isolation, which the United States has instituted against a number of countries, has brought few positive results. Time and time again, continued dialogue has yielded far more favorable outcomes.

What concrete benefits can we see from our policy of shunning discussion with Syria, for example?

Few, if any.

America’s refusal to talk has not led Damascus away from continued cooperation with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Nor has it elicited greater assistance in Iraq. Or consider the Iranian example: what are the effects of America’s longstanding refusal to sit down directly with Iranian leaders? How about continued Iranian involvement in Iraq and Lebanon, steady progress on the country’s nuclear program, and deteriorating relations.

Again, no tangible Iranian policy changes to speak of. American policy towards Hamas provides a similar narrative. It is now over two years since the United States declared a strategy of enforced isolation against the militant-cum-political group; it is difficult to see what has been accomplished.

Putting aside for a moment the general ineffectiveness of the strategy, what’s also troubling about the non-engagement position is that it closes the door to any and all types of cooperation. It implicitly suggests that there are some countries that just aren’t worth talking to, whose opinions and interests are somehow irrelevant or entirely irrational. But interests often overlap, even amongst the most hostile of bedfellows.

Iran, for example, has an interest in ensuring that the Taliban does not regain its hold on Afghanistan; additionally, they share a common goal with the United States of undercutting the influence of Sunni militants in Iraq. Syria and Hamas, not surprisingly, also share a range of common interests.

Although the tactics to achieve these goals may differ between parties, the underlying interests are often directly aligned. Why, then, should we not pursuit such avenues of cooperation?

There are certainly strong arguments for using other punitive tools, such as economic or military sanctions, to punish countries for their actions. But is there every a time to entirely cut off dialogue – i.e. engage in enforced diplomatic isolation - with another country? I’m not convinced that there is.

Even in the most hostile of relationships, a means for which to easily express anger and frustration, debate issues, and establish areas of limited cooperation should always be available. In fact, it is particularly in these most combative of situations that it is especially important to ensure that the door for discussion be left ajar.