When Secondary becomes Primary

It's amazing how often processes are outlined as a series of steps and the next, SECONDARY step is elevated to the desideratum and the ultimate goal is forgotten.

Lawyers and Diplomats do this as an index of their professional accomplishments. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. entered into negotiations to avoid nuclear war. Protracted discussions resulted in treaties which the U.S.S.R. side cheerfully disregarded as soon as the ink was dry. The agreements became the goal of the diplomats, at least on the U.S. side. On the Soviet side, the goal seems to have been to get concessions without giving back. Finally, President Reagan adopted the mantra of "Trust...but verify." 

People of the Left seem peculiarly vulnerable to this weakness. Jimmy Carter has repetitively gotten putative agreements only to realize ( later than everyone else ) that he was "rolled" by such worthies as Brezhnev, two Kims, Aristide, Arafat, Chavez and assorted other tyrants. The Oslo Accords envisaged the Palestinian side reining in terrorist activity in return for coming back from Tunisia and myriad "goodies." Terrorist activity actually increased and education of new generations of terrorists was enhanced. Oslo was supposed to be a step along the road to reconciliation and proved to be an impediment.

Likewise, the "Road Map" laid out steps to be taken by both the Israeli and Arab sides to generate mutual trust and confidence, leading EVENTUALLY to the formula of two states living in mutual safety and security. Then Annapolis incredibly jettisoned the steps required on the Palestinian side reining in terrorism and providing mutuality of recognition and respect and the secondary goal of a Palestinian state assumed the aspects of a final goal. Implicit in ANY agreement, and so not usually spelled out, is that the parties have the power and will to execute any agreements they make. Abridging any of the terms of a contract usually invalidates the whole contract unless permissible deviations are spelled out. The number of violations of the Oslo Accords is myriad and the critical confidence-building steps undertaken by the Palestinian side have not been made. 

There is also the small matter of causality. Fatah is reputed to have been created in reaction to the 1967 War but it was started in 1964. If the Israelis were supposed to take odd-numbered steps and the other side the even-numbered steps, the failure to take step #2 is ascribed to failure to implement #7. 

***

http://tinyurl.com/cggoe7

Naïveté Invites Aggression

The history of arms 'control' isn't good.

• By DAVID LEWIS SCHAEFER
  

In response to North Korea's rocket launch, President Barack Obama has committed the U.S. to reducing our supply of nuclear weapons, urged the passage of a ban on nuclear weapons testing, and through Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, proposed scaling back our missile-defense program. In short, Mr. Obama apparently believes that the chief lesson to be learned from Pyongyang's missile launch is the need for more arms-control initiatives.

As a means of reducing the dangers of nuclear proliferation and nuclear war, this makes no sense. Once a country passes a minimal threshold, there is no reason to suppose that increasing its nuclear arsenal heightens the likelihood of its use. The only means of deterring rogue states from using (or more likely, threatening to use) nuclear weapons once they have acquired them are first, the capacity to threaten a much more massive response, and second, an effective program of missile defense...