By Graylan Scott Hegler
WHY SHOULDN'T A PRESIDENT SIT DOWN WITH leaders of other nations, particularly when we have problems with them? John McCain and Hillary Clinton scoffed at Barack Obama's suggestion that he would sit down with heads of state, even those who are perceived as being our enemies. The question seems to revolve around the idea that Obama suggested that he would sit down with Cuban, Iranian, and Venezuelan leaders without preconditions for the conversations. Both Clinton and McCain have pegged his approach to foreign policy as naive, demonstrating his immaturity when it comes to international politics. But the question that we all should be asking in the midst of all this political posturing is what is wrong with talking?
It seems to me that it is better to talk than to bomb, shoot, and kill. Talking is a far better option, particularly if it has the potential to avert the pain and destruction of wars. In wars no one really wins. There may be victors, but the price of winning is extremely high, and leaves an indelible scar on the face of humanity. This means that we have to overcome the macho male dominated approaches that have permeated our dealings in foreign policy and government-to-government negotiations. We have held on to mantras like: "to the victors belong the spoils," "might makes right," and "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." But this approach has gotten us years of colonialism, the denial of legitimate claims, and the refusal to consider legitimate grievances, particularly when it has led to the stalemate of my gang of allies over here against your gang of allies over there. No, we cannot carry on in this way because a smaller globe necessitates models of reconciliation and not continued divisiveness through non-dialogue and non-interaction. It is a far better idea to talk.
As a preacher I am reminded of the teaching that speaks about going to the altar with your gift, but cautions that if you have a grievance with your neighbor, your brother or sister, you are to put your gift down and go and make peace with your neighbor, brother or sister. The idea is that God does not want gifts and sacrifices as an empty expression of our faith. Rather, God requires that we make peace, even daring to make peace with those we don't agree with. Reconciliation in the world and between neighbors is the highest gift that anyone can offer to God, according to this teaching.
But in a world where there are egos to be maintained, and power dynamics where the other is reduced to an object, the way we have functioned internationally is that civility is predicated upon what can I gain from it, and upon whether you will surrender and submit to what I need. If we lived like this in families they would not survive; and neither would neighborhoods and communities. Likewise it is destructive to function in the world family in this way.
From a faith position and among people of conscience, we yearn for a new paradigm. Those of us of conscience and faith see the world through what others might call a naive lens. Others call our desire to talk instead of posture an unreasonable and immature approach to the dangers of the world. But faith and conscience demand that we approach the world and our interactions in this kind of naive and unreasonable way. The position is called faith. We must have faith in the good character of other human beings, and eventually our refusal to participate in the bravado of machismo, threatening and finger-pointing kinds of politics, will gradually but effectively convert the world to a new way of engagement.
Recently, on a plane to Cleveland, Ohio, I was seated next to a business man. We began to talk about the elections. He forewarned me that he was a conservative. He mentioned to me that he could never vote for Obama because Obama had said that he would sit down with "our enemies." In response to his assertion, I asked whether or not he had ever sat down with a business adversary, and inquired the reasons that he would do so. He stated that he would sit down with a competitor to further his business interest and to see if there was a way the two of them could develop a working relationship for a better and more efficient business edge. He added that both he and his competitor would need to get something compelling from the arrangement in order for each to engage further. I told him that I understood that and it made perfect sense. Then I asked for him to think about this kind of business arrangement in the world of international politics. If it was valid for him to sit down with a competitor, wouldn't it also be valid for nations and heads of nations to sit down with the kind of mutual respect that he would bring to a business meeting?
In business conversations there is recognition that each has something to offer, that each must give up something, and that each will potentially gain something. This is why we need to talk even with those who are seen as our enemies. In a world where numerous nations hold the ability to destroy the world, and where more nations are gaining this kind of destructive potential annually, it is imperative that we learn to talk and settle differences. To have the conversation, just as in the business arena, presupposes that each understands that they need the other to achieve their goals. This is also important in the international political arena -we need each other if we are going to feed the world, save the world from climatic catastrophe, and to maximize the human potential that exists around the globe. In order to have valid conversation each must be humble enough, and in order to further future working relationships each must make agreements that help to build friendship and trust.
What I am advocating here may seem naive and unreasonable on my part, but I have witnessed in the micro lasting relationships between previously bitter enemies built over conversation and the breaking of bread, and I have to ask: if that is valid person to person, why wouldn't that be valid and necessary nation-to-nation? I pray that we have the real courage to talk rather than to fight.
Rev. Graylan Hagler is National President of Ministers for Racial, Social and Economic Justice of the of the United Christ, and Senior Minister of Plymouth Congregational UCC in Washington, DC.
