Sunday, April 13, 2008

Shouldn't The Use Of "Quiet Diplomacy" Be Equilateral?

From Hadley: Skipping Olympic opening ceremonies is`cop-out':

It would be a "cop-out" for countries to skip the opening ceremonies at the Beijing Olympics as a way of protesting China's crackdown in Tibet, President Bush's national security adviser said Sunday.

The kind of "quiet diplomacy" that the U.S. is practicing is a better way to send a message to China's leaders rather than "frontal confrontation," Stephen Hadley said.
Why the disparity between how we send messages to China with how we send messages to Iraq and Iran? Why didn’t we use “quiet diplomacy” to send a message to Saddam Hussein? Why is Barack Obama critisized when he suggests using “quiet diplomacy” with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Why is not going to the opening ceremonies a cop-out?
"This issue [of the boycott] is in some sense a bit of a red herring," Hadley said in a broadcast interview. "I think unfortunately a lot of countries say, 'Well, if we say that we are not going to the opening ceremonies we check the box on Tibet.' That's a cop-out.
But this is not:
President Bush has given no indication he will skip the event. "I don't view the Olympics as a political event," Bush said this past week. "I view it as a sporting event."

0 comments - Post a comment :

Post a Comment