The Same Ground Rules
One of the worst habits that people can get themselves into is believing that everyone believes in and plays by the same rules. I believe it was Thomas Aquinas (I'm quite sure someone will correct me if I am wrong) who defined arrogance as: "I am the measure of all things". It is a normal human trait to measure everything and everyone by an internal yardstick and to compare on that basis. That is not all a bad thing, either. You have to have an internal set of values and beliefs and it is not wrong to compare others to what you believe in and that you hold important. It is, however, a severe miscalculation to believe that everyone else uses the same yardstick. They do not.
So it is with nations, internal values that may be broadly (although not necessarily universally) shared by citizens of a given country or region may well not be shared by other nations and groups. In fact, it is much closer to the truth to say that it is unreasonable to say that every nation plays by the same rules. To do so is a particularly insidious form of cultural elitism, in fact. Across broad categories of governments, there are many shared values. For instance, true democracies, in the modern sense of the word, share certain values about human rights and human freedoms. Certain false democracies (Cuba for example) pay lip service to the word democracy but citizens there do not enjoy anything remotely close to the kinds of freedoms enjoyed in the US or Europe.
Many nations today that refer to themselves as democracies only pay lip service to the word democracy in fact. Nations that hold elections where only one party is allowed are not really democratic. Nations that elect presidents for life are not, either. Some nations that do hold multi-party, regular elections may have separate controls from other sources, such as religious figure, who actually trump civil government. For those in the West to assume, automatically, that these nations will play with the same rules is naive at best, willfully blind at worst. So with that long introduction, Michael Rubin from the American Enterprise Institute takes a hard look at Iran's track record when it comes to negotiations. It is not a good picture at all. This is a longish paper, so I will direct readers over there for all the details. Rubin details the history of Iran since the Khomeini revolution and its blatant violation of what are considered international norms. But his conclusion is not encouraging.
While diplomacy necessarily involves talking to adversaries, it is dangerous to assume that both Washington and Tehran operate from the same set of ground rules. From its very inception, the Islamic Republic eschewed the convention of international relations and diplomacy. Khomeini sought to establish a theocracy on Shi‘ite religious principles. As such, his writings are illuminating. In several essays, he spoke of the Shi‘ite concept of taqiya, religious dissimulation. Railing against the plots of the West in a series of lectures delivered in Najaf in 1970, Khomeini spoke of the necessity to engage in such religiously sanctioned lying.[50] While many analysts are unaware of taqiya and many academics stigmatize discussion of its extent and derivations for fear of portraying Iran in a negative light, the concept nonetheless influences Tehran’s diplomacy. If the Islamic Republic perceives itself as under threat,[51] its leaders may not only feel compelled to lie, but may also feel justified in so doing. From a religious and political perspective, the ends justify the means. Hence, Khomeini saw nothing wrong with his state-ment to the Guardian, shortly before the Islamic Republic: "I don’t want to have the power of government in my hand; I am not interested in personal power."[52] Tehran may still conduct diplomacy to fish for incentive and reward–and they may demand apologies and use the rhetoric of victimization to win further concessions and position–but, at its core, Iranian diplomacy is insincere. The Iranian leadership will say anything and do anything to buy the time necessary to acquire nuclear capability.
Think about one important thing if you advocate more negotiations.
I am the measure of all things.
(UPDATE: I have not been able to track the exact definition of arrogance I mention down to Thomas Aquinas. I did find this reference to a similar quote from a Greek philosopher, Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things". I remember a teacher, who had been in a Jesuit seminary but had decided not to enter the priesthood, telling me that definition one day. I thought he had said it was Aquinas that had said it, referring to arrogance, but I may be misremembering or he may have misquoted all those years ago. Regardless, I still think the basic idea I wrote about still holds. If anyone does have any idea who defined arrogance in these terms, I'd appreciate a citation.)
Other Links to this Post
-
Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » The Big Lie — Saturday, 2 September , 2006 @ 1:48 pm
By Roland Hesz, Monday, 4 September , 2006 @ 2:45 am
“defined arrogance as: “I am the measure of all things”. ”
According this definition almost the whole world is arrogant.
Including North Korea, China, Russia, United States, Iran, etc.
Now either the definition is wrong, or the most denied accusation, that the USA is arrigant is true.
(Same appliest to Russia, France, Germany, North Korea, etc. of course.)
Now, when two - or more - arrogant people try to negotiate anything, that will likely fail.
I am curious about the outcome of this decade.