Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Find peace amid politics

Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2000 | 9:55 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

By the time you read this, history may have been made. The likelihood, of course, is that it will not yet be done.

While most of the public remains decidedly unglued to the New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina debates among the various candidates for the presidency from both major parties, President Clinton has been working hard, very hard, in an effort to bring and keep the Syrians and Israelis together in Shepherdstown, W.Va. For, as long as the two longtime enemies remain in the same locale, the odds favor the fact that they will keep on talking.

And what they are talking about is of the utmost importance to every American as well as everyone else around this world. For, if the two neighboring countries in the volatile Middle East can figure out a way to get past the easy stuff -- what we will call the face-saving rhetoric -- perhaps they can address what has kept them apart since the beginning of time. If that happens, of course, the path of history heading into the 21st century will look very different from the course that region of the world had set for itself in the now-historic 20th.

Both the media and the pundits have been steadfast in their insistence that the people of the United States aren't nearly as concerned with foreign affairs -- and we shall lump the Middle East peace process into that category -- as they are with matters domestic like taxes, welfare and Social Security. That may be technically true but only as to degree. For, if the questions were put right to the voters, they would certainly affirm their belief in and desire for peace in that vital part of the world. The problem, of course, is that the questions are rarely asked in a way that allows the people of this country to fully express their views. Thirty second sound bites work equally bad both ways.

So while the horse race in Maine and other early primary states continues being handicapped by those without much else to report on, the president continues to spend significant political capital trying to keep both sides joined in this historic opportunity to create the framework to end the decades of needless and horrific killing. And while there are some disappointments -- there are bound to be some since the two sides just started talking in earnest a few days ago after years of distrust and enmity -- the bottom line appears to be more positive than negative.

So why is it that the American public accepts what they are fed in the media concerning their lack of interest in matters of foreign policy? Why do the polls reflect a determination by the voters to think about matters far closer to home, thus giving the lawmakers in Washington a supposed green light to turn their backs and our policy away from global issues and hot spots that threaten our national security?

My guess is that it is mostly a misunderstanding, and by that I mean that the pollsters and the pols don't understand a very basic tenet of American life. And that is that the American people expect our elected representatives -- that's the president and the Congress -- to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare without being told to do so every time a poll is taken. In short, it is part of the job we have elected the folks in Washington to do and we don't need to be asked about it every other week.

For example, if a poll taker explained to the public that continued military action in the Middle East not only threatened a steady and continued supply of oil to this country and other industrialized nations -- the disruption of which would drive prices through the roof, inhibit our ability to defend our nation in time of war, and further destabilize a region of the world loaded with weapons of mass destruction -- but that those actions would also have a severe and devastating effect to our own lives here at home, don't you think the answer to the question about promoting the peace effort would be near unanimous in support effort?

Proof of what I say can be seen in the nation's newspapers and on our television sets every day. The peace talks in West Virginia are buried back in the A sections, or worse, while stories of politically motivated and mostly unrealistic tax cuts and primary fights take up too much space on the front pages. The dangerous result of that kind of news coverage is either an uninformed electorate or a nation focused too far inward at the expense of any effort to help find the solutions to these ugly problems.

While Clinton has been shuttling back and forth from the White House to the secluded site for the talks, the news analyses has focused almost exclusively on what might be an eventual price tag for the United States and her allies to pay to support an era of peace. That results in a shortsightedness that has the potential of poisoning the process "back home," as the people in the region are led to believe that the rest of the world is not willing to help make and keep a very difficult peace. That's a perception that isn't true, but we all know about perceptions.

The question should never be how much the peace might cost us, but how much this continued state of war will certainly drain from our treasury of dollars and national resolve to ensure a safer world for our children. Our president understands what is at stake, as do many of the lawmakers who are not spouting off so much of what they don't know. The danger is in the words of those who are playing politics with what may be the only chance for a Syrian engagement in serious peace talks. There must come a time when seriousness takes precedence over political gain. I suggest that this is one of those times.

There will be plenty of time to debate the dollars or troop deployment that may be needed to assure the parties that peace can happen and people can grow up together as friends, not enemies. For now, though, there is serious work being done. It may not happen this week or next, but it can happen if we pay attention and keep the politics on the back burner.

Peace in the Middle East had been mostly an illusion in the last half of the 20th century. We stand on the brink of a reality that can change forever the way we think and act toward all the nations of that vital area of strategic U.S. interest. To get it done, though, requires some grown-up thinking and acting.

They are trying hard to do that in Shepherdstown. Shouldn't the rest of us try to do the same?

archive