And that leads to a second possible scenario: if such a conference were to be initiated by other parties --governmental or non-- and invitations were extended to all the world's nations, would the Bush administration agree to attend?
One can imagine a certain amount of pressure that might build if many other major nations got behind the idea, especially if people like Carter and Gorbachev and the others lent their considerable prestige to the event. But would that pressure be enough?
Hope springs eternal, but it is difficult to imagine the Bush administration agreeing to participate in such a conference even in the face of such pressure. Along with the (albeit tacit) humility that agreeing to such a conference would entail, it would also involve a willingness to surrender a degree of control to others.
With this American leadership having done everything they could over the past half dozen years to gather power to themselves --by hook or by crook-- how realistic could it be to imagine they would voluntarily give away control even of this limited sort? And how realistic could it be to imagine that they would do something so uncharacteristic out of some love of goodness and world peace?
It could happen but, again, it seems too far out of character to count on.
And if the Bush administration were to refuse to participate in such a conference, would that be sufficient to kill the idea altogether, or is there still the possibility for something worthwhile to happen at such a conference?
The United States is not the only world actor whose willingness to participate might be questionable. (One can hardly assume that every relevant player on the world scene is in favor of "Less Conflict, More Security.") But if the world's dominant power is not represented, that void would especially jeopardize the value of the conference. Some kind of American involvement would be better than none. And so the idea arises that perhaps there could be an unofficial American delegation.
Like the governing committee of the conference, this delegation would be composed of people with sterling reputations, and from diverse backgrounds. One would like for this diversity to include Democrats and Republicans: perhaps our living past presidents (two from each party), or our living past secretaries of state. And other names that come to mind are people like Walter Cronkite, William F. Buckley, Bill Moyers, Howard Baker...
But then also, two problems immediately come to mind.
First, how many such people would agree to participate with the U.S. government having declined to attend-- especially the Republicans among them? It is likely, I would guess, that even if not every desirable delegate would agree to participate, a credible and impressive delegation could be assembled.
And second, since the unofficial delegation cannot conduct American foreign policy, and since there is at least an ethic against certain kinds of unofficial meddling in international affairs, what would such a delegation be legitimately able to do?
With only another two years to go until the Bush administration is out of office, perhaps a conference with only an unofficial American delegation could serve the purpose of envisioning what kinds of movement toward a world with "Less Conflict, More Security" might be possible. Such envisioning can serve as a kind of guide for possible future courses of action, once American power is in more constructive hands.
But finally, one might also have to consider the possibility that the idea of an alternative American delegation would not successfully rescue the conference from the impact of a refusal from the Bush administration to participate. This could be either because the assembling of such a delegation would prove impossible or because the interest of other world actors in participating would evaporate in the absence of an official American delegation.
In this most pessimistic scenario, would the idea of this conference then just be a total waste?
Not necessarily. In this idea, something may remain of value even in the absence of an actual conference. Again, the envisioning process sometimes proves in itself to be valuable.
One can imagine a certain amount of pressure that might build if many other major nations got behind the idea, especially if people like Carter and Gorbachev and the others lent their considerable prestige to the event. But would that pressure be enough?
Hope springs eternal, but it is difficult to imagine the Bush administration agreeing to participate in such a conference even in the face of such pressure. Along with the (albeit tacit) humility that agreeing to such a conference would entail, it would also involve a willingness to surrender a degree of control to others.
With this American leadership having done everything they could over the past half dozen years to gather power to themselves --by hook or by crook-- how realistic could it be to imagine they would voluntarily give away control even of this limited sort? And how realistic could it be to imagine that they would do something so uncharacteristic out of some love of goodness and world peace?
And if the Bush administration were to refuse to participate in such a conference, would that be sufficient to kill the idea altogether, or is there still the possibility for something worthwhile to happen at such a conference?
The United States is not the only world actor whose willingness to participate might be questionable. (One can hardly assume that every relevant player on the world scene is in favor of "Less Conflict, More Security.") But if the world's dominant power is not represented, that void would especially jeopardize the value of the conference. Some kind of American involvement would be better than none. And so the idea arises that perhaps there could be an unofficial American delegation.
Like the governing committee of the conference, this delegation would be composed of people with sterling reputations, and from diverse backgrounds. One would like for this diversity to include Democrats and Republicans: perhaps our living past presidents (two from each party), or our living past secretaries of state. And other names that come to mind are people like Walter Cronkite, William F. Buckley, Bill Moyers, Howard Baker...
But then also, two problems immediately come to mind.
First, how many such people would agree to participate with the U.S. government having declined to attend-- especially the Republicans among them? It is likely, I would guess, that even if not every desirable delegate would agree to participate, a credible and impressive delegation could be assembled.
And second, since the unofficial delegation cannot conduct American foreign policy, and since there is at least an ethic against certain kinds of unofficial meddling in international affairs, what would such a delegation be legitimately able to do?
With only another two years to go until the Bush administration is out of office, perhaps a conference with only an unofficial American delegation could serve the purpose of envisioning what kinds of movement toward a world with "Less Conflict, More Security" might be possible. Such envisioning can serve as a kind of guide for possible future courses of action, once American power is in more constructive hands.
[Question: What are the legalities and customs that would relate to what an unofficial American delegation could or could not do?]
But finally, one might also have to consider the possibility that the idea of an alternative American delegation would not successfully rescue the conference from the impact of a refusal from the Bush administration to participate. This could be either because the assembling of such a delegation would prove impossible or because the interest of other world actors in participating would evaporate in the absence of an official American delegation.
In this most pessimistic scenario, would the idea of this conference then just be a total waste?
Not necessarily. In this idea, something may remain of value even in the absence of an actual conference. Again, the envisioning process sometimes proves in itself to be valuable.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
