Recently, a large adoption organization hired a new president. A few months ago I had the pleasure of having dinner with him and several members of his staff while attending an adoption tradeshow in Texas. I stick out a little in the child welfare community because of my conservative political views in a liberal-dominated field. It was very important for me to build a bridge with this organization’s new president because of the potential that our organizations have to work together to make a difference for children worldwide. I have been shunned by others in the adoption field who don’t agree with some of my views, and I was concerned about how this person would respond to me.
At that time Nacy Pelosi was making headlines for her diplomatic visit to Syria against the wishes of President Bush. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino had said about Syria, that “This is a county that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Senora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad “probably really wants people to come, and have a photo opportunity, and have tea with him, and have discussions about where they’re coming from. But we just think it’s a really bad idea.”
So, very early in my conversation with my new colleague I brought up this situation, and I explained that I disagree with the position of President Bush. I believe in the old maxim that we should keep our friends close and our enemies closer. I explained that if President Bush does not agree with Syria, that eliminating communication isn’t going to solve the problem. If we want to influence foreign governments, we have to start by building friendships. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and President Bush should be vacationing together. They should try to find the elements where they do agree, such as humanitarian aid projects, and focus on how they can work together on those projects. Then, after a friendship has been built, there will be a much greater opportunity for those organizations to work together to solve more complicated issues. When we focus on differences walls are built, and the opportunity to positively influence is greatly diminished.
I know that it is not the role of a congresswoman to be an ambassador for the United States to foreign countries. That aside, instead of criticizing Nanci Pelosi, the Bush administration should have been focusing on improving their relationship with Syria. I was very encouraged to see last month that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with her Syrian counterpart in the first high-level diplomatic contact between Washington and Damascus in more than two years.
No two governments and no two people are going to agree on all of the issues all of the time. The Bush administration regularly disagrees with each of its’ major allies about a variety of issues. If both of us think and act exactly the same, one of us is redundant. So, the difference between whether a country is an ally or an enemy is not whether we agree with them or not. Instead, it is whether or not we are willing to focus on the issues where we agree and work together on those issues.
I explained to my dinner guest that night, that this same concept is true in the adoption community and in other relationships in our life. None of the adoption organizations and no two people are going to agree with each other on all issues all of the time. Instead of focusing on the very small percentage of issues where we disagree, we need to focus on working together on the 95% of the issues where we do agree. Then, once we have a friendship, there is a much greater likelihood that we will be able to work together to resolve the issues where we disagree. Or, if not, the worst-case scenario is that we will be able to synergistically work together to make a difference on the 95% of the issues where we agree.
Posted on June 8th, 2007 by Nathan Gwilliam
Filed under: Adoption, Ethics, Family, Life Lessons, Social Enterprise
[...] 2007 I wrote a blog entry in which told a story about being confronted by someone who strongly disagreed with me on a [...]