Misunderstanding Colombia (and everywhere else)
Pity the pundits in the United States, who insist on misunderstanding Latin America. Case in point: Colombia. Charles Krauthammer, for example, lambastes the "soft power" of diplomacy and lauds Alvaro Uribe for sticking only to hard military power:
Both in Europe and America, the sophisticates worship at the altar of "soft power" -- the use of diplomatic and moral resources to achieve one's ends.
What this reveals is a stubborn Bushesque insistence on a black and white vision of the world, one that is sadly widespread in the U.S. You see, today El Tiempo reports that Uribe is trying to open up dialogue with the FARC to establish some sort of negotiated demobilization. In other words, soft power. Uribe's policy is to use both.
In May President Bush gave a speech to the Knesset, which included:
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before.
Fortunately, Bush is roundly ignored. Negotiations--soft power--can sometimes achieve your goals in ways that military operations alone cannot. In some circumstances, far fewer than the Bush administration thinks, military power is required. But mocking negotiations in the Colombian case ignores reality.
15 comments:
Of course, it's not just negotiations with the whole group. It's also the government's demobilization program that has helped encourage thousands of FARC members to desert. Encouraging desertions and offering reintegration benefits is a strategy combining soft and hard power that has proven especially effective.
I thought this was an interesting commentary.
-M.Sharpe
Though the FARC has already
come out and criticized its members who were tricked.
"I thought this was an interesting commentary.
-M.Sharpe"
If by "interesting" you mean sloppy and full of misguided sympathy for FARC.
If not, then...I guess here's where people usually go "LOL".
Of course, it's not just negotiations with the whole group. It's also the government's demobilization program that has helped encourage thousands of FARC members to desert. Encouraging desertions and offering reintegration benefits is a strategy combining soft and hard power that has proven especially effective.
"Soft power" has a different meaning than Boz's cavalier use of the term would suggest. Greg also plays a bit loose with the term's meaning. Here, the terms "soft power" and "hard power" are being treated as if they were equivalent to the figurative carrot and stick. Joseph Nye, who developed the concept of "soft power," described it as the capacity of a society to spread its ideology and values to others. Nye certainly believes that soft power requires a willingness to negotiate, but negotiations in and of themselves are not soft power.
I meant "soft" in terms of opposite of "military force," not in terms of the Nye definition. It can be used both ways.
It would've been useful for me to clarify the use of terms in the post following what Justin wrote, which I did not do. That might in fact be an interesting topic for a future post. I was mostly focused on refuting Krauthammer's argument about the futility of negotiation.
That might in fact be an interesting topic for a future post.
Indeed, "soft power" is an interesting concept that --in spite of Nye's work-- has yet to be sufficiently studied.
I'm just amazed you have the stomach to read an article by Charles Krauthammer.
It was coincidence, actually--it was reprinted in the Charlotte Observer and I did a double take when I saw the word "Colombia."
I'm just amazed you have the stomach to read an article by Charles Krauthammer.
I had a friend who tried to commit suicide by overdosing on pills. Three of us got together and read a Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol and Jonah Goldberg. He immediately tossed his cookies.
Saved by wingnuts.
It was coincidence, actually--it was reprinted in the Charlotte Observer and I did a double take when I saw the word "Colombia."
But your double-take isn't in order because Uribe's strategy isn't what you think it is. Even the Associated Press --which is extremely kind to Uribe-- points out today that his government is scuddling any negotiations by shunning French and Swiss negotiators. Uribe likes to speak out of two sides of his mouth so as to seem all things to all people, but the bottom line is that Uribe most certainly prefers the stick.
No doubt Krauthammer has awful prescriptions, but his description of Uribe's approach is pretty close to the mark.
I did a double take because such columns rarely discuss Latin America.
I did a double take because such columns rarely discuss Latin America.
Okay, but you don't really give us any credible reason to doubt Krauthammer's characterization of Uribe's approach (which is a separate matter from his endorsement of that approach).
Post a Comment