Spring 2011 101 Reconstruction graded

In his article entitled “Why We Must Talk,” Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store argues that conducting diplomatic dialogue, especially with the Middle East, should be the first choice that the international community should take in regards to ongoing or potential conflict. Store supports his main argument with three sub-arguments, which are each supported by three premises. Store’s first sub-argument is that diplomatic dialogue wouldn’t replace military action, but would rather help us go beyond using military action fueled by fear and misunderstanding. In support of this argument, Store states that when “used correctly, dialogue is the essential diplomatic tool that allows us to pursue our common interests in an increasingly complex and fast-moving world.” Also, Store mentions that “military force alone is ill-suited for dealing with a growing number of situations that currently shape international and interstate relations.” As mentioned, Store doesn’t believe that diplomatic dialogue should replace military action, nor would the international community be willing to talk with everyone. However, Store adds that, “I believe it is important to resist the temptation to disavow on moral grounds dialogue with any group or state whose ideology and aims we view as dubious or dangerous.”

For the second sub-argument, Store supports his main argument by arguing that diplomatic dialogue could have potentially improved certain situations in the Middle East. Store supports this sub-argument with three premises, the first being that because of a lack of negotiations with “the Palestinian unity government in 2007, a government that included all Palestinian factions…the unity government was ignored, young people were radicalized, [etc.]” all of which made prospects for peace even more difficult. If there had been attempts at negotiations, Store states that, “it would thus have [been] recognized that the Palestinian factions had made a historic effort to unite.” As a second premise, Store mentions that the past events in Egypt have shown that many in the West have fears of radical Islam taking part and this “has dissuaded policymakers from supporting democratic changes and engaging in dialogue with various civil society groups in ways that we regularly do in many other parts of the world.” As a third premise to this second sub-argument, Store admits that “we cannot, of course, be sure that diplomatic talks and contact would have been more successful,” but he believes that it is “unlikely that they would have been less successful.”

As Store’s third sub-argument, he argues that diplomatic dialogue would allow us to see the necessity for learning to communicate with people different from us. As his first premise, Store explains that “we need to recognize that we can no longer concentrate so heavily on negotiations with elites,” but rather through diplomatic dialogue, “we need to support political solutions that will take effect at the popular level.” As his second premise, Store states that “in a world in which information technology gives the voices of diffuse groups much more potential influence, we have no choice but to engage them [through diplomatic dialogue].” Furthermore, Store concludes that, “without a political process of dialogue that encompasses all representative groups, governance will remain flawed and fragile.”