Bahrain's Unrest

[Dayuhan]

Personally, I do think the US has tremendous influence and that negotiations from a US leader is far more than some "lecture."

I don't think we're discussing negotiations here. Negotiations take place between two parties on matters of mutual interest. We're not in a position to tell the Saudis or the Bahrainis that we want to "negotiate" over their domestic policies. They don't have to negotiate with us over those matters, which they do not see as legitimate subjects of interest for us. We cannot compel them to negotiate, or to do as we think they should.

How would we feel if the Chinese told us they wanted to negotiate with us over our domestic economic policies, and impose intrusive conditions on our fiscal policies? Arguably they've a right, as a major creditor, but I doubt we'd take it too kindly.

It's all very well to speak of generic "influence", but using that influence to achieve any specific goal is a bit more complicated. Changing the behavior of people who don't want to change requires specific, immediately applicable carrots and sticks. If we want others to do as we say they should, we have to offer immediate tangible reward or penalty... and what have we go to offer in this case?

As a general rule, making statements we aren't willing to back up with specific action makes us look like ineffectual windbags, and is to be avoided.

But I'm open Spc Dayuhan, you're in charge. What is your plan?

For Bahrain? I don't have a plan. I don't think we need a plan. We'll state that we think the Government should pursue political reform and move toward democracy, but acknowledge that as a sovereign nation they've no obligation to do as we say. This we have, essentially, already done. They will, of course, ignore us. Then we wait and let things sort out as they will. We are not in a position to direct or manage events. We can state that we won't assist the Bahraini government against domestic insurrection, but that's a non-issue because they already know that and they won't ask for our assistance. There's really no need for us to be any more involved than that.

We do not want to be seen preaching sermons to Muslim governments, because people don't pay attention to the substance of what we preach. They just see us preaching our gospel to Muslim governments, and it comes off as intrusive, arrogant and contemptuous behaviour.

I realize that I get pissy and obnoxious and repetitive on the subject, but it's frustrating to see the repeated advocacy of solutions that we haven't the capacity to implement. Good governance is a wonderful and admirable solution. I've no doubt that it would be an effective solution. Unfortunately we cannot govern Bahrain or Afghanistan, Libya or Saudi Arabia, ourselves. Neither can we persuade or compel those who rule to govern the way we think they should. It's a great solution, but it's not a solution we can impose.

In a broad sense, I think we need to recalibrate our foreign policy ends to match our means and our capacities. Too often in the recent past we've pursued goals that we haven't the capacity to achieve, and it hasn't worked out well for us. People who bite off more than they can chew tend to choke: we've a limited chewing capacity at the moment, and we need to choose our bites very carefully.