If you read political journalism (and I do), 2013 has been a very successful year for Secretary of State John Kerry. He is credited with restarting moribund Israeli/Palestinian peace talks, orchestrating a potential breakthrough with Iran on its efforts to pursue nuclear weapons, and reached an accord to destroy Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons.
I am cautiously optimistic. U.S. policy makers have been trying to untie the Gordian Knot of Israel and Palestine for decades. Netanyahu does not strike me a peace maker even if a deal is in the best interest of Israel. On Iran, there is a real chance to change the calculus in the broader Middle East. Iran as something other than belligerent could alter the trajectory of American foreign policy in the region from what it has been for the past 30 years. However, I have my doubts that the power structure in Iran is willing to pursue some form of true reconciliation. Most significant to me is the elimination of the chemical weapons in Syria. Unfortunately, this success will probably be overshadowed by the continued Syrian civil war. As a result, a true achievement will be forgotten in the shadow of this conflict.
As interesting as the substance (or lack thereof) of Kerry's accomplishments, what interests me more is the discussion of Kerry's willingness to gamble on peace initiatives. The prevailing narrative is that Kerry has no further political ambitions and thus can try and fail at diplomatic initiatives (unlike his predecessor, Hillary Clinton who may well seek the presidency). Maybe this narrative is correct. If so, I am troubled by it. Is U.S. foreign policy really so constrained by a fear of failure? What counts as failure?
The idea that failing to get Israelis and Palestinians to sit for peace talks constitutes a failure of American foreign policy is ridiculous. It might be a sign over our lack of influence over the parties but I cannot view it as a failure. To me, the U.S. should simply be advocating for a peaceful resolution of the dispute at all times, not engaging in occasional efforts to restart the process. If Israelis and Palestinians can not or will not reach agreement, that is not evidence that America has failed. America fails only when it fails to keep pushing the parties toward a solution. Similarly, the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Failure is not failing to come to an agreement on Iran's nuclear program. Failure is armed conflict over Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. should be pushing Iran to reach an accord on its ability to build nuclear weapons, via sanctions and diplomacy. Because an accord has yet to be reached is not evidence of failure.
Perhaps we need to think more carefully about what diplomatic failure looks like. America's foreign policy goals are moving targets. Trying to reach those goals through diplomatic means is progress even if the U.S. fails to get all it wants. Perhaps the problem is that foreign policy is being viewed through a more political lens by the media resulting in a winners and losers narrative. To me, foreign policy is a long game. To win that game requires persistence as well as a willingness to take risks. Hopefully Kerry will tune out this win/loss narrative and continue to gamble on the possibility of a better world.
