Don't Discount Diplomacy: Lawrence University Professor Says Military Might Isn't Sole Solution to Ending Terrorism

APPLETON, WIS. -- While the prospects of harsh military reprisals against those responsible for the recent terrorist attack on New York and Washington, D.C., is likely inevitable, a Lawrence University government professor says the role of diplomacy cannot, and should not, be forgotten in fighting the war on terrorism.

"Once their footsteps are traced, some proportional violent response is clearly justified against the perpetrators of this vile deed. But we should understand that violence always begets violence and diplomacy, when effective, is a far less costly way to achieve our goals," says Charles Ahlgren, a former senior foreign service officer who spent 30 years in the U.S. State Department.

Ahlgren joined the Lawrence government department this fall as the college's Stephen Edward Scarff Memorial Visiting Professor. He will teach the courses American Diplomacy: Ethics and the National Interests and Politics of Globalization.

Arguably the biggest diplomatic challenge facing the United States, according to Ahlgren, will be convincing Arab leaders to become engaged in the fight against terrorism. It's a task that will require both powerful persuasion and a delicate touch.

"We must pressure them to cooperate, but that pressure must be applied in a manner that will not push them off onto the wrong side of the fence or spark violence in other regions with large Islamic populations, such as Southeast Asia.

"As we prosecute this 'war,' we need to not only act in concert with our allies as much as possible, but also to engage in close dialogue with Arab states. The promises of cooperation we've received from many of the Islamic states is encouraging, but the true test will come when we take military action. Many moderate Middle Eastern leaders will find themselves caught between our specific requests and the danger of regime destabilization posed by backlash from radical Islamic fundamentalists.

"Our diplomatic efforts will have to walk a thin line and be much more sensitive, creative, and understanding than it frequently has been in the past."

However justified it may be, Ahlgren warns military retaliations against any country come with inherent problems and carry potentially profound ramifications.

"Punishing any country, particularly one in the Middle East, will be extremely dangerous," said Ahlgren, who spent part of his time in the State Department teaching courses in military and diplomatic history and national security at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa. "There is already widespread hatred of, and anger at, the United States because of our support for Israel. We must tread very carefully here, lest we inflame the whole of the Islamic world against us. We must carefully limit our military reprisals to those targets that are convincingly deserving all the while keeping in mind that Israel's policy of incursion and violent reprisals against terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza has not stopped terrorism there."

Just as this fight against terrorism is being called "a new type of war," Ahlgren says a new type of diplomacy will be needed to combat it. He underscores cooperation, multilateral engagement and an attack on the fundamental causes that fuel acts of terrorism as the keys to meaningful diplomatic resolution.

"We must cooperate much more closely with our allies in formulating foreign policy, not just on terrorism but on all issues," says Ahlgren, whose diplomatic appointments have included service in U.S. embassies in Caracas, Venezuela, Wellington, New Zealand, Pretoria, South Africa and Singapore. "The 'selective multilateralism' approach pursued in the first eight months of the Bush administration is no longer viable, if it ever was.

"We must seriously engage the Muslim world and the Palestinians on their real grievances if the war on terrorism is ever to end. We must develop a much better understanding of what the Islamic world is all about and devote the kind of resources to Middle East and Central Asian studies that we devoted to Southeast Asia during the Vietnam era.

"And finally, we must not define our post-Cold War enemy as terrorism alone. A new, comprehensive foreign policy strategy is needed that seriously deals with the problems of poverty and inequality both between, and within, nations throughout the world. Those conditions are our enemies, too, and are at the root of much of the terrorism threats we now face.

"Some may argue that we can't afford to deal with these types of problems at the moment. But if we as a nation had shown greater compassion and had spent on foreign aid and diplomacy over the last decade or two, the $40 billion now so willingly being allotted to cover just the initial costs of the September 11 tragedy, would the carnage of terrorism visited upon our nation still have occurred? We have to ask ourselves how long we will continue to be penny-wise and pound-foolish in funding our international public goods."