There is hardly a sentient being anywhere, who does not have an opinion regarding the fiasco unravelling in the Middle East. The downing of an American Chinook troop helicopter this week showed how vulnerable the US military is on its own. The American complex in Baghdad is being pelted by mortars and words almost daily - reminders of the 20th anniversary of the carnage in Beirut. The US Embassy in Lebanon’s civil war-torn capital - diplomatically seen as US soil, sovereign territory - was then cravenly attacked by suicide bombers. While condemnation then was swift, the international community took no steps - leaving the Americans, as always, to fend for themselves.
The “anniversary” two weeks ago was globally noted almost with shrugs and dismissal. The situation has been the same for so long - terror rules, because the terrorists have no fear. Our hands are tied, we do not wish to learn from history; thus the status quo goes on and on.
In Europe, opposition to what is seen as American imperialism is growing. Even in the Baltic States, where the leadership is aware of the importance of having the USA as an ally, questions are being asked about the role ofinternational soldiers in Iraq and Afganistan. Wounding of our own uniformed boys far away from home will do that - change a distant conflict into a personal concern.
Although the USA is the world’s most successful democracy, measured in terms of centuries and by public opinion - why else does everybody from oppressed countries want to immigrate there ?- it is almost as if there is one set of rules for the Yanks, another for the rest of the world.
Consider what is taking place in Russia these days. The arrest and imprisonment - on apparently trumped up charges - of the country’s richest businessman, YUKOS head Mikhail Khodorkovsky, has serious ramifications. Nor only was the oil tycoon a major philanthropist, he was the first to Westernize his company, do business openly.
YUKOS has American partners who probably can’t believe what is happening. To their credit, even some EU officials have said they want reassurances after the arrest. They have expressed concerns on how the affair is being conducted, want to be sure that the rule of law is being applied in a fair and proportional manner.
We know that Russia is far from the open democracy that it claims it is aspiring to become. And the often draconian, severe measures taken by the Americans post 9-11 have made many wonder about the extent of individual liberties there. Yet, there is no comparison.
Quite frankly, it is becoming more and more obvious that there is a problem with openness in today’s diplomacy.
This was best underscored by Anne Applebaum in a recent Washington Post column (10/08/2003). She calls it “A Failure to Communicate”.
Applebaum did not identify what country she was in recently, for the sake of her hosts, but commented on how diplomats there had absolutely no idea how to express opinions clearly. She reflected on an offical dinner/speech. The foreign minister of the host country delivered a speech that was “extremely polite and elaborately embellished” - yet said nothing. At one point, the minister stated firmly “Here in Country X, we are comfortable with American leadership”.
The Americans attending the speech were quizzed by Applebaum about the speech - and most were either disparaging, or just rolled their eyes.
Applebaum realized that the problem was linguistic, a deep problem indeed.
The European diplomatic tradition is to deliver a public speech that is not going to ruffle feathers, offend anyone, not say anything directly. Clarity is rude, and as Applebaum notes, obfuscation a virtue.
Americans are different. They believe clarity is a virtue, and obfuscation rude. This is hardly a new comment, has been made by Henry James and Mark Twain among others in philosophical, satirical and fiction writing. Applebaum, as an experienced observer of Eastern European affairs, is convinced that these very old differences in the use of language, and in the making of speeches, has lately grown much wider.
Further: “ confronted with standard diplomatic waffling, an American, nowadays, is likely to assume that the speaker’s vagueness indicates moral weakness as well.” Mind, Americans like Donald Rumsfeld are too forthright at times - off-the-cuff does not work in Europe, and alienates Europeans.
But, Applebaum believes that Rumsfeld has been unfairly singled out - his style merely epitomizes a wider change. She puts it bluntly - it is difficult these days “to convince anyone else of our point of view.” America and the rest of the world are “no longer speaking the same language.”
The fall-out is reflected in the growing numbers of the dead. Suicide bombers in Beirut then, Baghdad now. Killed and wounded servicemen in American and other, including Baltic, uniforms.
Contrasting this with how Russia is able to act with impunity, and how the West - read, in this case not only the USA but also emphatically the EU - shrugs, is material enough for a book, not a short column. For in Russia, as in the EU, as in America, different tongues are being spoken. The international community, especially the European Union, where the Baltic States will gain membership in 2004 must make a choice as to what needs to become lingua franca.
•
( Anne Applebaum’s 1994 book “Between East and West: Across the Borderlands of Europe” [Pantheon, New York] is a highly illuminating read for those interested in the language/communication dichotomy of today’s diplomacy, especially with regard to Russia. The shaping power of the past - the meat of the nut above - is still present in Russia’s sphere of influence, her book does much to explain the murky covert reasons for the present YUKOS scandal. Recommended further reading on this discomforting, but very real issue that will not go anywhere soon.)