Peace is not achieved by force, but rather via rapprochement between conflicting parties resulting from earnest talks, writes El-Sayed Amin Shalabi* For a long time, the Bush administration ruled out negotiations with Tehran, claiming that any talks with the Iranians would amount to appeasement, the term commonly used to refer to allied attempts to reign in Hitler ahead of World War II. But recently, the Americans changed their mind. US Undersecretary of State William Burns will go to Geneva Saturday to meet with the EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana and Iran's nuclear negotiator, Said Jalili. A Department of State spokesman said that the move is a strong signal to Iran that the US is committed to a negotiated settlement. The history of diplomacy is filled with parallels. Following the Napoleonic wars, a series of conferences held in 1814 and 1815 gave Europe a century of peace. During the 19th century and most of the 20th century, Argentina and Brazil were at loggerheads. But their relations improved all of a sudden in 1979 and 1980, when their leaders -- both military dictators -- sat together and sorted out their differences. During the Cold War, US President Richard Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, met with Chinese leaders Mao Zedong and Chou En-lai. The encounters ended years of hostility between the two countries, although China was at the time supporting North Vietnam in its guerrilla resistance against the US. Ronald Reagan, who once described the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire", agreed to hold talks with Gorbachev. The exchanges led to disarmament agreements and eased tensions between the two superpowers. The current US administration refuses in principle to talk to its adversaries, but it did send an envoy for talks with North Korea and the episode ended with Pyongyang agreeing to dismantle a nuclear facility in Yongbyon. When Malaysia became a country in 1963, Indonesia used economic blockade and sent its troops to intimidate the new nation. Once General Suharto replaced Sukarno in 1966, the new Indonesian leader started talks with other Asian countries on ways to end the confrontation. The rapprochement that followed between Indonesia and Malaysia paved the way for the creation of ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) in 1967, an organisation that has kept the peace in the region ever since. Following the 1973 War, shuttle diplomacy led to the first and second disengagement agreements on both Egyptian fronts. This was to be followed with the Egyptian peace initiative, president Anwar El-Sadat's visit to Jerusalem in 1977, and the signing of the Egyptian- Israeli peace treaty. The Oslo accords followed nine months of Norwegian-sponsored talks. Although the accords failed to achieve their full potential because of Israeli transgressions, they remain the basis for current and future talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The accords also opened the way for the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and for Israel's recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. More recently Syria, which was one of the main critics of the Camp David accords, agreed to pursue direct or indirect talks with Israel via Turkish mediation. The history of diplomacy shows that negotiations are the most rational way of containing tensions and promoting cooperation and peace. One can only hope that the US will pursue a policy of diplomacy rather than military power once a new administration is in office. * The writer is executive director of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.
