Religion, Rhetoric, and the Negotiating Table?

In brief, my research paper investigates how the United States’ historical founding has made Americans receptive to religious rhetoric and messages communicated by their political leaders. By acknowledging the inextricable link among God, religious liberty and freedom and understanding the religious language in which this connection is made, we can begin to comprehend how America’s religious roots continue to shape United States’ foreign policy.

In this article, Cooper highlights how the Bush administrations’ effort to “propound an intellectual and moral doctrine that eschew[s] talking to foes” has backfired and has led to 11th hour negotiations and concessions made by the United States earlier this year. Despite this “openness” to talk with nations considered part of Bush’s ‘axis of evil’, there is still a sense of reluctance and unwillingness to negotiate.

The question at stake is why did the Bush administration adopt a “no talk” policy for foe nations in the first place? What “moral doctrine” prohibited such talks with enemy nations? Although the answers to these questions are complex, we can begin to understand this strategy by exploring the philosophy behind the approach.

Bush’s rhetoric in public addresses (and conferences) gives insight as to what that philosophy might be. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush used the term “axis of evil” to describe foreign nations that were “arming to threaten the peace of the world” and that were active sponsors of “hatred”. By demonizing enemy nations, Bush effectively portrayed these nations as sponsors of evil and terror. In doing so, he drew a distinct contrast between us and them. We were the deliverers of freedom, and they were the purveyors of evil. This sense of mission was evidenced by one of the delegates in the Israeli-Palestinian summit in 2003 who claimed that Bush declared he was on a “mission from God” when he decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yesterday, our class discussed the possibility of using religion as a means to justify our political actions abroad, for example, the establishment of allies like Israel. If religion can be used to promote pro-Israel sentiments, can a “religious” philosophy like that constructed by Bush be used to “create” enemies? Although there is legitimacy behind why nations like North Korea and Iran are considered U.S foes, does this “religious philosophy”, and in turn, its rhetoric affect how the U.S sees other nations? And by the same token, does this philosophy and rhetoric affect how other nations perceive us? If so, do you think this has affected our foreign policy, particularly at the negotiating table?

In the NYT article, Abbas Milani, an Iran expert at Stanford University, questioned the approach that the Bush administration was using. “I don’t understand what they are
doing”? He was particularly struck by the Condoleezza Rice’s “provocative acts and words” when she described the situation with Iran earlier this year: “if Iran did not respond in the next two weeks to an offer of incentives, the United States and other major powers would go back to the United Nations Security Council for additional sanctions against Tehran”.

According to Milani, her actions and words could offset any chance that Iran’s leaders would suspend their uranium enrichment programs. Experts and insiders have also noticed the incongruity of the administration's approach. They've described this approach of open talks and strong rhetoric as “erratic” and “schizophrenic”.

This "erratic" approach and reluctance was best articulated by Ms. Perino, the White House Press Secretary, when she was asked if North Korea and Iran were still part of Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ if the United States was in negotiations with them. She responded:

''I think that until they give up their nuclear weapons programs completely and verifiably, I think that we would keep them in the same category,'' Ms. Perino said.

Can the Bush administration’s sense of reluctance and unwillingness to negotiate be explained by the moral and religious paradigm constructed by Bush after the attacks on 9/11? And has this paradigm affected U.S foreign policy approach to recalcitrant nations?