Being clear
by Anders Hove

Everything connected with foreign policy these days is "clear." It is the word of the moment. After making its debut during the Bush years, "clear" has been on an indefatigable rampage ever since. Nothing can stop it. Not even - perish the thought - muddle.

And you have to decide whether you agree with me that we have a clear interest, after what we saw in World War I, World War II, in the Cold War and all the people who died, in a Europe that is united, not divided; democratic, not dictatorial; and secure and at peace, not racked by ethnic cleansing -- and if you believe that's good for us economically and politically, over and above the humanitarian issue. I do. I believe the case is clear. Especially when you remember - let me say one more time - if you go home and look at a map tonight you ought to get down and look at it - this is a conflict with no natural boundaries. 3/23 Clinton, Address to American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

When the Kosovo conflict broke out, once again, everything became "clear." Wondering why this might be, I followed the sage advice of our president and "got down" with a map, to see just how clear this might be. Now that Kosovo has become a boring, topic-of-last-month, I want to report my results to you. And Mr. Clinton, if you're reading this, let me know if this jibes with what you found when you "got down" with your map of the Balkans.

My own map, endorsed by the U.S. State Department, shows that nothing could be more obvious than the borderless nature of any conflict that takes place in the Balkans. One of the first things I noticed was that all of the shapes representing countries touch one another. The exception is NATO-member Italy: in this map, it appears to be separated from the Balkans by the Adriatic. We all know that conflict cannot spread over water - unless! Unless NATO itself is involved, in which case, even water cannot stop conflict from spreading.

One mitigating factor that had me worried at first was that all of the countries shown on my map have different colors. Can conflict spread across colors? The map provides no clue. Here is where I began to fret that I had not bought a legitimate map from Rand-McNally: I could not call up an independent source to check up on the color-properties of conflict. Obviously, the State Department's position is that conflict can spread across colors: it's their map, after all - they could have colored it however they wished.

Intuition tells me that each color is unique. Blue is so peaceful. Who could start a war while gazing at the cover of Cold Mountain? But colors other than blue - red is a case in point - strike me as vastly warlike. Even the green ol' Garden of Eden sparked a war: the war of the sexes. So, upon reflection, I reasoned that wars on my map would spread just fine as long as they didn't come up against any blue-colored countries.

And this map is literally covered with non-blue countries!

Anyway, after looking at this map, the case, as President Clinton puts it, became clear. This notwithstanding President Clinton's later caveat that, "Now, I will say again, this is not a slam-dunk. This is a difficult issue." Mr. President, let's not limit ourselves. In the Balkans, we have learned, everything is "clear" - let us not confuse ourselves by bringing the "slam-dunk" issue into the picture. Many otherwise clear issues have been made unclear, or at least less-than-clear, by holding them to that higher "slam-dunk" standard. "Clear" should be enough. If their remarks are any guide, your staff would agree:

We are sending a very clear message to Belgrade. Any attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government of Montenegro would only fuel wider instability, and lead to deeper isolation for Yugoslavia, and escalate the conflict with NATO. 4/2/99 James Rubin, State Department briefing

We are very clear that we're not going to accept anything short of the four objectives... 4/5/99 James Rubin, State Department briefing

We have made very clear that there has to be unity of command. 6/14/99 Secretary of State Madeline K. Albright, remarks

The strategy has as its objective - and I think we need to be very clear about that ... 3/28/99 Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, remarks

Well, he has to choose peace or we have to try to limit his ability to make war. That's what we're trying to do. And I think that's been very clear. 3/25/99 Clinton, remarks at photo op

Our mission is clear: to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's purpose so that the Serbian leaders understand the imperative of reversing course. 3/24 Clinton, televised address to the Nation

When it comes to clarity, nobody can out-clarify the Pentagon. In one recent speech, Secretary of Defense William Cohen thought one assertion of clarity was insufficient. Instead, things were "clear," "very clear," or "perfectly clear," for a grand total of six clears, not including those related to weather conditions. Consider:

When I announced the first NATO airstrikes against Yugoslavia I stated a clear military goal: to degrade and diminish the Serb military. 6/10 Secretary of Defense William Cohen

Secondly, it's also been very clear -- you've written about it; many other people have written about it -- that this is a 19-member alliance and that targets have been considered for a number of reasons throughout... 5/3 Ken Bacon, daily Pentagon briefing

Now, once again, as Mr. Bacon in a very clear way made the analogy that mistakes happen. 5/8 Gen. Chuck Wald, daily Pentagon briefing

Second, it's very clear that the NATO air campaign is having an impact on the ability of the country [Yugoslavia] to support its military, not just in Kosovo but throughout the country. 5/21 Bacon, daily Pentagon briefing

I am reminded by the advice I once received from a fellow American while touristing in Europe: when speaking to foreigners - when trying to "send them a message," so to speak - it's not enough to talk good English. You have to talk louder! My regret is that, at that time, I was ignorant of the word "clear," its immense utility in communicating what would otherwise be unclear, confused, or self-contradictory statements, and its power to generate right-thinking among one's hearers.

Compare - tourists in the old days:

I need to change this MONEY! YES! MONEY! Have DOLLARS, want DINARS! You GIVE me DINARS for DOLLARS, YES?

Today's tourist, equipped with clarity:

It is clear that I need to exchange my currency, which is denominated in dollars, to your currency, which, clearly, is denominated - just to be clear - in dinars.

And again, the old-style tourist:

No, the MARRIOTT HOTEL. In PARIS. Yes, PARIS! MAAA-RREEE-OTT. OTT! MARRIOTT! We need to find. Soon. MARRIOTT HOTEL. PLEASE! BONJOUR?

Today's savvy Pentagon-trained tourist:

Our objective is clear: the Marriott Hotel in downtown Paris. Room 5010. Previous tenants out, us in, with baggage. Clean towels, little bars of soap. We've been very clear on this all along. Comprende?

Old, unclear things can be made easy with one simple step. A handy example:

To be, or not to be: clearly, that is the question:
We've tried to be clear about whether 't is nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them. Just to clarify: To die: to sleep,
clearly, no more; and clearly by a sleep to say we end
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is clearly heir to,--'t is clearly a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd.

The English language, once seen as a barrier to communication, is now a cinch. No better way to tell a hawk from a handsaw than to insert the word "clearly" into one's diction somewhere along the way.