World News Cafe

A few days ago I was spending my day off at the World News Cafe on floor nr. 3 in Kulturhuset (House of Culture?) in Sthlm. By the way, I think I'll make this my new hiding place now since I'm actually starting to grow tired of the library at Rådmansgatan. But so, at the World News Cafe you're provided with a world wide range of newspapers while having the nice opportunity to sit down and drink your coffee or zip your espresso. It's nice and..it's a lot of people. Unfortunately I would like to say sometimes I guess but its exhilarating to listen in on a loud conversation in French and try to make out some of it. Rude you might think. I say that's what makes the Cafe interesting really. To see how all those different newspapers bring all these different people together, into that same place where we all thirst for knowledge and that black substance which enables us to drink it.

I started reading The Guardian and my eyes instinctively got sucked into an article on "Pelosi challenges Bush policy by visiting Syria". This is so bizarre. By holding talks with President Bashar Assad in Damascus the speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, challenged the Bush administration's stewardship of American interest in the Middle East. This, as she was breaking with its [the US' -or I'd rather say Bush's] policy of isolating Syria. Towards the end of the article it said that Mr Bush on Tuesday had criticised her visit, telling reporters that "sending delegations hasn't worked. It's just simply been counter-productive". And the ongoing war hasn't?! If this is the view he takes upon diplomatic talks in the Middle East, as failures, I'm afraid to think of his definition of success...well, I guess we kinda know it...
But I'm sorry for running into Mr Bush's boring end. That's like giving you the wrong conclusion before you've had the chance to read the (right) thesis statement.

So here's the main body of the article and my main message here today:

The Guardian Thursday April 5 2007

"Her [Nancy Pelosi] status as the third most senior elected figure in Washington makes her visit to Damascus the most serious challenge to the Bush administration's strategy of isolation in four years. However, questions about the sustainability of that policy were further underlined by a separate visit to Damascus this week by three Republican congressmen. 'This week is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria and we hope to build on this visit', said Tom Lantos, the chairman of the house committee on foreign affairs, who accompanied Ms Pelosi".

Then Syria's foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, said something very good. He said: "The visit proved the importance of keeping the diplomatic channels open. These people in the United States who are opposing dialogue, I tell them: dialogue is...the only method to close the gap between two countries."

I pray for Syria's foreign minister, Mr. Walid al-Moallem, and the people in the United States not opposed to dialogue (Nancy Pelosi surprisingly being one of them here today), I pray for your dialogue and the lives you will affect through it.



Today's UN question: What is UNESCO?

Answer: UNESCO - the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO is working to create the conditions for genuine dialogue based upon respect for shared values and the dignity of each civilization and culture.

A peaceful solution?

It began with negative reactions (!) towards Britain's way of dealing in a diplomatic way with the Iranian authorities. That's what caught my eye at first in this hazel over the British sea men held hostage in Iran for crossing Iranian sea territory. Whether they did that or not is a different discussion in itself but what has come to concern me now is, when it comes to the aftermath, that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has blown this event into rather undiplomatic proportions. Don't take me wrong on this. The fact that I'm questioning Mr. Ahmadinejad's measures is only because I wish to entrust him with being capable of thinking in other terms than fighting the Western world e.g. the Devil. Not that I blame him at times but within limits. So anyhow, the aftermath that I'm speaking of here is mainly the fact that Mr. Ahmadinejad, soon after the fifteen British men and women were to be released awarded the three Iranian military men (officers) that captured them. All this while in his speech referring to a contribution to world peace and the Iranian good will as reasons for releasing them (the fifteen British sea men). Hmm...

Suppose that what the British have claimed to be true all along, that they were situated within Iraqi sea borders the whole time, is a fact, you can do nothing but admire the way that this situation have been dealt with. Then I salute the British officials for not listening to president Bush calling for harsher methods (we all know what that means right) but that they'd rather appeal to the United Nations, recognising the immense importance of the dialogue taking place as related to the international peace organ. What hurts though is that the Iranian president looks upon this act as treating Iran and other Arabic and Asian countries in a condescending and racist (!) way. Here, the UN has a long way to go and to work on for future bridge building between countries that label the UN as being the forum for Westernised countries. However, the failure to realize this may in this case draw upon a different point.

Getting back to where I started, my main point with this text was (or turned out to be) this; A dialogue takes place; the British is concerned with solving the situation by diplomatic means; the Iranian president goes along the same line of thought; the fifteen British sea men are to be released - BUT - this is not accomplished through diplomacy being put in practice but, according to Mr. Ahmadinejad, as a result of Iran's good will towards (Western?) men.

My concern is this: If this is the case [Iran being out to demonstrate her good will towards men], why was an argument made out of this event [Fifteen British sea men crossing Iranian sea border] in the first place? If Iran is truly out to demonstrate herself as a contributor of world peace. All this in mind, suppose that what the British have claimed to be true all along is true, that they were situated within Iraqi sea borders the whole time...

What is diplomacy anyway...

I don't know if you've read or heard about the latest news on the sudden conflict (already blown out of proportion but still to be taken seriously) between the Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt and the Cuban UN-ambassador, Juan Antonio Fernandez Palacios. This concerning perhaps the most critical issue and heart of the matter when it comes to the nature of diplomacy - Communication. I feel disappointed today, not at either Mr. Bildr or Mr. Palacios, no. But at the communicational reproachment that is taking place between them, and between every other diplomat, statesmen or minister nowdays...

And behind this there's an even more miserable truth to it that's been puzzling my mind for quite some time now - the lack of seeking an agreement that will lead to some kind of understanding between two people of a different opinion. The essence of diplomacy is it not!?

It's the singular. An agreement. And a different opinion. Not different opinions but a different opinion. It seems like we, as people (at least in the Western world due to a stressful society related to time and structure) are genetically inclined to decide very quickly what kind of person we're dealing with and put our label on him/her. That probably does not account only for Westerners (please forgive me my ignorance), but anyhow we're judging people. And isn't that what diplomacy is about: people. It's dealing with real people as representatives. It's not dealing with a country really, it's dealing with a representative for that country. So my point is, if this applies to the diplomatic profession(s), the outcome will be (as seen quite often today) judging people, and therefore one country, based on one assumption made in one area of discussion at one occasion. Emphasis on one.

You take this attitude and add the communicational reproachment and we have a diplomatic fiasco like this one...