Related Resources

Mr. Ancram began his presentation by addressing the need for the United States to talk to, rather than isolate, its enemies. Although countries often refuse to recognize those they deem adversarial, there is often much more knowledge to be gained and progress to be made through engagement. In fact, he said, “It is our enemies that we need to get to know.” Drawing parallels between the United States’ strained relations with a number of countries in the Middle East and England’s protracted strife in Ireland, Mr. Ancram asserted that exploratory dialogue could be a catalyst for change and could lead to a potential amelioration of tensions in the Middle East.

Drawing upon examples from the “Northern Ireland School of Conflict Resolution,” Mr. Ancram identified a number of applicable lessons from the Irish conflict for the Middle East. First was the fact that the war in Ireland could not have been solved without dialogue as no long-term solution would have been possible without engaging enemies. Faced with an adversary that was unwilling to give up its violent tactics, the British gradually realized that the fighting would perpetually continue if the opposition was not drawn into dialogue. Mr. Ancram pointed out that in the 1990s, the United States pressured the British to talk to the Irish; yet faced today with a similar situation, the United States has been perplexingly reluctant to initiate discussions with Middle Eastern actors that have not renounced violence.

Highlighting specific nations, Mr. Ancram described a number of situations where immediate dialogue is imperative. He asserted that the stability of Iraq is dependent upon the United States’ willingness to engage Iraq’s neighbors — Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. As a secular Arab state, Syria could potentially play an important stabilizing role in Iraq; being a major regional power, Iran should also be included in discussions. While the current Iranian regime is considered radical by many observers, not engaging this nation is shortsighted both in regards to Iraqi peace and a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In response to critics, Mr. Ancram asserted that engaging enemies does not require the abandonment of one’s value system; it merely requires the political will to pursue progress via non-traditional methods.

Mr. Ancram also discussed the inclusion of organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah in peace negotiations. Past events have proven that military action — simple brute force — will not defeat these groups and thus it is necessary to acknowledge their perspectives. While Hamas and Hizbullah do not officially recognize the existence of the state of Israel, their willingness to negotiate with Israel over issues such as water amount to a de facto recognition. Mr. Ancram also mentioned that Hamas, which is a territorial organization, prevents the entrance of radical organizations like Al-Qa‘ida. It is therefore not only possible, but also wise, to search for common ground and engage these groups.

While many regard Mr. Ancram’s philosophy of engagement as appeasing the enemy, he noted that real appeasement amounts to merely turning a blind eye to that which is unacceptable. Exploratory dialogue, however, is different — it utilizes soft power in order to make progress in situations where hard power, or military force, has proven unproductive. Mr. Ancram stressed that dialoguing with enemies creates the potential for better understanding, improved relations, and a more comprehensive and effective policy.