By JOHN NORTH

The United States should change course in its foreign policy from pre-emptive strikes and pre-emptive wars to negotiation and diplomacy, according to retired U.S. Ambassador Marshall McCallie.

He noted that taking hard-line stances with foreign countries “may play well at home,” but tends to antagonize other countries’ leaders, who, in turn, are pressured by elements within their own societies to respond with hard-line stances. As a result, relations between the two countries tend to steadily worsen, McCallie said.

“In general, talking to an adversary is a good idea, if only to keep the lines of communication open,” McCallie told an audiece of about 50 people this past Tuesday at UNC Asheville’s Owen Conference Center.

Referring to a recent opinion column in the Asheville Citizen-Times, he said the author contended that America’s choice is to “face down an opponent and avoid being bamboozled.” McCallie termed that option as “too stark and simplistic.”

In speaking generally about foreign relations, he said, “Let me say up front — this subject is not simple.”

McCallie’s presentation, titled “Talking to Our Enemies,” was presented as part of the Great Decisions lecture series, sponsored by the World Affairs Council of Western North Carolina. Following his 30-minute lecture, McCallie fielded questions from the audience.

McCallie, who was the U.S. ambassador to Namibia and deputy ambassador to South Africa, said the following are requirements for negotiating successfully:

• Acute perceptiveness
• Forethought
• Good intelligence
• Avoid lying and, instead, establish an air of competence and integrity.

“There’s no replacement for the long view” in foreign relations, McCallie noted.Therefore, he said, opportunities in negotiations are more effectively seen, not as a chance to gloat over the failure of an opponent, but instead as a chance “to reshape the landscape” in relations between two countries.

He praised U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross’ view that “statecraft and thoughtful diplomacy” must be exercised by America to enable it to achieve peace and prosperity.

Ross detailed this viewpoint in his book, “Statecraft: How to Restore America’s Standing in the World.”

“In essence, he (Ross) recommends that we identify threats and opportunities” in foreign relations, McCallie noted.

Moreover, he said, Ross “is right in recommending establishing a factual basis for analyzing situations” in foreign relations. “You must get the facts first.”

McCallie explained that “there may well be multiple opinions on the other side” and that a “nuanced approach” can open the door for those elements to exert themselves successfully, resulting in improved relations between two countries.

However, a “hard-line approach” tends to enable an opposing country’s hard-liners to hold sway, resulting in  increased hostilities between nations, he said.

To that end, he said President Bush’s hard-line references preceding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq “were the mirror image of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini” saber-rattling.

Most recently, he said, Iraq’s former dictator, Saddam Hussein, “provided an intial impetus for a war that could have been avoided” by implying that he had weapons of mass destruction. In the ensuing war, many people have suffered and died — “and that’s why good intelligence is so important.”

Continuing, McCallie said “talking with the enemy or mediating with combatants does not mean rolling over.” And such a policy requires much patience.

“In general, I see few enemies of the United States in the world today,” he observed. “Instead of enemies, I see potential competitors.”

One unquestionable enemy of the U.S. is Al Qaeda, McCallie said. In dealing with the Muslim terrorist group, “we must think strategically.”

At that point he noted, “It’s some ways, it’s hard to talk about U.S. foreign policy without talking about Iraq.” McCallie admitted that, before the war, he did not grasp the possible consequences of it.

He then referred to a new book, “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, that notes the enormous cost of a war that “in fact, did relieve the world of an unsavory dictator,” but never uncovered the alleged weapons of mass destruction.

“The war in Iraq is a wake-up call for us,” McCallie said. “Whether we should be in Iraq, we’re there. The question now is: For how long?”

In a fluid world, he added, “it might be wise for U.S. forces not to be stationed in any specific places,” thus provoking the hostility of the locals.

As for Iraq, McCallie said the question is: “How do we get out?”

To some degree, a U.S. withdrawal would involve dealing with Iran and Syria, which “is controversial,” he said. To do so successfully would  mean imposing no preconditions and engaging in comprehensive negotiations.

“In my view,” he asserted, “what won’t work is to continue the status quo.”

Giving McCallie hope is the existence of a technocratic class in Iran “who realize that the only way for Iran to advance in the world is to at least have decent relations with the United States.”

While Iran is concerned about the threat of a strike by the U.S. on its nuclear facilties, America, instead of taking a confrontational stance, should “speak directly to Iran” about mutual concerns and interests, he said. “There is no need to stoke the fire of Al Qaeda.”

As for China, which he termed the “next great strategic competitor for the United States,” rather than an enemy, McCallie said that its current military buildup “might not seem so odd” and threatening, “if we saw the world from a Chinese perspective.

Specifically, he said China is surrounding by countries that could pose a military or economic threat, including Russia to the north, Japan to the west, India to the south and even North and South Korea to the south.

China recently shot down one of its own weather satellites to demonstrate its technological and military prowess to the world, perhaps in response to perceived threats, such as America’s development of an anti-ballistic millie system in Alaska, McCallie said.

“We must eliminate any possibility of miscommunications between the U.S. and China,” he said.

He added, “The best move by the United States is to strengthen international institutions that the U.S. and its allies helped to set up over the last century.

“We should include China in the Western order — and give it room to prosper.”

Regarding Cuba, he termed the U.S. trade embargo on that country as “an anachronism done for domestic political considerations,” an apparent reference to American leaders’ opting to avoid antagonizing the highly vocal — and organized — Cuban-American voting bloc by liberalizing relations with Cuba.

“Years of isolation have not opened Cuba’s prison doors,” McCallie said, noting that there are “at least 200 political prisoners in Cuba today.”

“It’s time for the U.S. to begin a series of negotiations to normalize relations with Cuba ... It would remove a burr in America’s saddle in Caribbean relations,” too.

Concerning Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez, he said, “I suspect our wisest strategy is to give him a fairly wide berth — and leave it to his neighbors to reel him in.”

As for dealing with “non-state actors,” namely Al Qaeda, McCallie said the U.S. must isolate itself from its radical factions and “we must remove ourselves from the battlefields of the Muslim world” in an honorable way. Then, the U.S. needs to “quietly and effectively” support factions that oppose Al Qaeda’s radicals.

He then turned to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, noting, “We must open a conversation with Hamas and “I know this is not a good week to support that.”

He added, “Unless there are openings with Iran and Syria, we will have little leverage ... Needless to say, Israel would have to be equally involved ... After we engage Iran and Syria, I hope we can negotiate with Hamas and Al Qaeda.”

To achieve warmer relations between countries, McCallie said cultural, educational, athletic and scientific exchange programs have worked wonders in the past.

He admitted that “there are times when, for political reasons, negotiating doesn’t work, but cultural diplomacy can help ... It provides a face-saving way for countries to contemplate ways to achieve rapprochement.”

McCallie said, “Smart diplomacy can’t be concluded in a vacuum or with power politics.”

He concluded by citing a recent survey of the world community that asked which countries are the most destabilizing on the planet. The three that topped the list were Israel, Iran and the U.S., McCallie said.

During a question-and-answer period that followed, the retired ambassador was asked to define Al Qaeda.

It is “a loosely associated group of individuals in various countries,” he said, with the objective of opposing Western “order” and “a willingness to use a form of terrorism that does not exclude the civilian population.”

Al Qaeda would “like to impose a form of religious tyranny that most Muslims don’t support,” McCallie said. “That’s why I want to pull out U.S. soldiers and let the Muslims sort out the problem ... It’s very difficult to solve another family’s feuds.”

Further, he added, “That’s why we should negotiate with Hamas and Hezbollah,” which are less extreme than Al Qaeda. Instead of seeking to control the world order, Hamas and Hezbollah “are concerned (mainly) about getting control of a certain territory,” McCallie said.