FINALLY, thanks to Obama and an increasingly message-savvy Democratic party, the correct approach to dealing with distasteful regimes now has the right rhetorical framework, which can be boiled down to this phrase: “strength is diplomacy.”
Moreover, those who don’t talk to people they don’t like are …
- Politically weak (afraid of a photo opp with a bad guy)
- Shameless (pandering to Cuban-Americans in order to win Florida, for example)
- Ineffective (not talking has gotten us nowhere)
Those who do talk to people they don’t like (keeping in mind that merely talking is not appeasement) are …
- Traditional (continuing the long American tradition of talking with the enemy)
- Strong (as in not hiding in Washington behind blustery statements)
- Diplomats (no further explanation needed)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121141264811412395.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Hi,
I meant to leave a comment last time. I thought this was an interesting and thoughtful perspective on Obama’s foreign policy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121141264811412395.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Bob:
Thanks for the comment and link.
I think Rove’s article is more concerned with scoring political points than parsing Obama’s ideas on foreign policy. He never clearly distinguishes Obama’s approach from Nixon’s and Regan’s. Yes, both of the latter did a lot of behind the scenes preparations before high-level talks, but that is exactly what Obama has proposed to do as well.
Rove writes: “On Sunday at a stop in Oregon, Sen. Obama was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria.” If I remember correctly, he was comparing the threat those regimes pose to the threat the Soviet Union posed throughout the Cold War. Correctly, he said that these ‘Axis of Evil’ countries don’t pose as large a threat when compared to the USSR—not exactly a controversial stance. When he knowingly takes quotes out of context, Rove’s entire argument becomes suspect.
What’s more, Rove, as Bush’s former all-in-one adviser, clearly has a horse in this race and is unlikely to be truly honest in his appraisal of views that are contrary to his own. Also, if there’s ever a person who should have less influence on matters of foreign policy, it is Karl Rove, who is partly responsible for turning world opinion against the U.S.
Russia was a much larger, i.e., physically greater threat, but with today’s threat of nukes such criteria are no longer most important and thus Obama’s downplay of their threat is irresponsible. Rove’s main critique of Obama still holds. Obama still has to explain, in specifics, why and what he thinks he can do. McCain is going after him on this point and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the election to come. Here is another critique of Obama’s policy of unconditional talks.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/149gqohu.asp
I’m still not convinced that Obama did indeed “downplay” the threat of N. Korea, et al. Saying that Threat A isn’t as big as Threat B is not the same thing as saying Threat A is immaterial.
Additionally, I don’t think Obama views mere talks as a panacea, as Goldfarb suggests. (Side note: I’m impressed with Goldfarb’s grasp of history). Talks with rogue counties like Syria may or may not work. But in general, talking is a good way to work through differences and find common ground. Not talking, on the other hand, has pretty bad track record. If anyone seems to understand this, it’s Bush, who has become much more talkative with rogue countries than he was early in his presidency.
From the Weekly Standard Blog:
Just as he did with Barack Obama, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg scored an interview with John McCain. Once again, the results were fascinating. A couple of snippets:
JG: What is the difference between an American president negotiating with Ahmadinejad and Ehud Olmert negotiating with the Syrians?
JM: You don’t see him sitting down opposite Bashar, do you? (Bashar al-Assad is president of Syria.) I mean, that’s the point here. It was perfectly fine that Ryan Crocker spoke with the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad. The point is you don’t give legitimacy by lending prestige of a face-to-face meeting, with no preconditions.
JG: But Obama has shifted off that position.
JM: Sure, and the next time he sees where he’s wrong, maybe he’ll shift again. The point is is that he doesn’t understand. Look, in the primary, he was unequivocal in his statements. And now he realizes that it’s not a smart thing to say. I didn’t say he wasn’t a smart politician.