Diplomacy

Hind Kabawat

Throughout history diplomats have used a little known device to break impasses, or stand-offs, between sovereign states. That device was called the “back channel.” So when King Henry VIII, of England, was “not talking” to the Pope about his desire for a divorce, he might have conceivably used a “third party” (someone friendly to both the royal court in London and the papacy in Rome) to keep the dialogue open—and potentially resolve the conflict. I would like to put forward the case that “back-channel diplomacy” should be much more broadly defined to include a great many different types of bilateral contacts between societies that are often at “loggerheads” with one another. Contacts that are educational, cultural, economic as well as political and diplomatic. So, let me begin this discussion by stating its fundamental premise: what unites human beings is fundamentally more important than what divides them. It may seem self-evident but just reflect how hard it is to achieve that when it comes to Syrian-US relations. So what is to be done? Well, first of all we can begin by building bridges since expatriate Syrians (and other expatriate communities around the world) are in a unique position to do this. With our knowledge of our “new” countries--Canada, the U.S., etc.—and our profound understanding of our homeland, we have the ability to create and nurture important “back channel encounters” between the West and the Middle East. Such encounters could be educational exchanges, or hosting visiting professors, or student exchanges, etc. As an illustration of what can be accomplished by such programmes, let me commend the great work of Syria’s ambassador in Washington, H.E. Imad Moustapha. When diplomatic contacts between the US and Syria were more or less