We Should Talk to Our Enemies

[Maikeru-sama]

One of the sharpest and most telling differences on foreign policy between Barack Obama and John McCain is whether the United States should talk to difficult and disreputable leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. In each of the three presidential debates, McCain belittled Obama as naive for arguing that America should be willing to negotiate with such adversaries. In the vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin went even further, accusing Obama of "bad judgment … that is dangerous," an ironic charge given her own very modest foreign-policy credentials.

Are McCain and Palin correct that America should stonewall its foes? I lived this issue for 27 years as a career diplomat, serving both Republican and Democratic administrations. Maybe that's why I've been struggling to find the real wisdom and logic in this Republican assault against Obama. I'll bet that a poll of senior diplomats who have served presidents from Carter to Bush would reveal an overwhelming majority who agree with the following position: of course we should talk to difficult adversaries—when it is in our interest and at a time of our choosing.

The more challenging and pertinent question, especially for the McCain-Palin ticket, is the reverse: Is it really smart to declare we will never talk to such leaders? Is it really in our long-term national interest to shut ourselves off from one of the most important and powerful states in the Middle East—Iran—or one of our major suppliers of oil, Venezuela?

During the five decades of the cold war, when Americans had a more Manichaean view of the world, we did, from time to time, cut off relations with particularly odious leaders such as North Korea's Kim Il Sung or Albania's bloodthirsty and maniacal strongman, Enver Hoxha. But for the most part even our most ardent cold-war presidents—Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, none of whom was often accused of being weak or naive—decided that sitting down with our adversaries made good sense for America. They all talked to Soviet leaders—men vastly more threatening to America's survival than Ahmadinejad or Chávez are now. JFK negotiated a nuclear Test-Ban Treaty with his mortal adversary, Nikita Khrushchev, just one year after the two narrowly avoided a nuclear holocaust during the Cuban missile crisis. Perhaps more dramatically, Nixon, the greatest anticommunist crusader of his time, went to China in 1972 to repair a more than 20-year rupture with Mao Zedong that he believed no longer worked for America.

All of these cold-war presidents embraced a foreign-policy maxim memorialized by one of the toughest and most experienced leaders of our time, Israel's Yitzhak Rabin, who defended his discussions with Yasir Arafat by declaring, "You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with very unsavory enemies." Why should the United States approach the world any differently now? Especially now? As Americans learned all too dramatically on 9/11 and again during the financial crisis this autumn, we inhabit a rapidly integrating planet where dangers can strike at any time and from great distances. And when others—China, India, Brazil—are rising to share power in the world with us, America needs to spend more time, not less, talking and listening to friends and foes alike.

The real truth Americans need to embrace is that nearly all of the most urgent global challenges—the quaking financial markets, climate change, terrorism—cannot be resolved by America's acting alone in the world. Rather than retreat into isolationism, as we have often done in our history, or go it alone as the unilateralists advocated disastrously in the past decade, we need to commit ourselves to a national strategy of smart engagement with the rest of the world. Simply put, we need all the friends we can get. And we need to think more creatively about how to blunt the power of opponents through smart diplomacy, not just the force of arms.

Newsweek CONT'D

[DaBoys4Life]

no negotiation that's a sign of weakness!!

[Phrozen Phil]

Maybe the question is: Do you want America to be feared or respected? The last eight years have been about brinkmanship and war. Unless some form of dialogue can exist, then war would likely become the inevitable option.

[iceberg]

the real answer is - it's not that simple.

will iran go "wow, we hated bush but we'll stop nuclear ambitions now w/obama there cause he's cool".?

i don't think so. they want israel dead so "talking" isn't the answer. it also does legitimize things that we critisize and that already puts you in a bad position.

i am all for trying to talk it out but you can't just waltz over to their side and expect to be respected for doing so. if *they* want some changes then they need to come onto a common ground also...preconditions.

[Phrozen Phil]

Originally Posted by iceberg

the real answer is - it's not that simple.

will iran go "wow, we hated bush but we'll stop nuclear ambitions now w/obama there cause he's cool".?

I don't think so. they want israel dead so "talking" isn't the answer. it also does legitimize things that we critisize and that already puts you in a bad position.

I am all for trying to talk it out but you can't just waltz over to their side and expect to be respected for doing so. if *they* want some changes then they need to come onto a common ground also...preconditions.

Fair enough. I'm not suggesting for a moment that anybody go "waltzing over", but I do think that, with a solid mandate, the new President could certainly approach the othr side from a position of strength. Bush was so utterly incompetent at diplomacy that he squandered much of the good will that was expressed after 9-11.

The Iranians are full of bluster and hostility, but a more measured approach might get some better mileage in terms of getting them off their screaming and shouting routine.

[Trouble]

Originally Posted by Maikeru-sama

We Should Talk to our Enemies

Just ask Israel how well it works by talking and making concessions with your enemies.

Most of our true enemies are terrorist countries, and unfortunately violence is the only language they understand.

[Phrozen Phil]

Originally Posted by Trouble

Just ask Israel how well it works by talking and making concessions with your enemies.

Most of our true enemies are terrorist countries, and unfortunately violence is the only language they understand.

How do you think they made peace with Egypt? Consider history before you respond.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Phil

How do you think they made peace with Egypt? Consider history before you respond.

if we do nothing *but* consider history, there will never be peace in that region.

[Jordan55]

As Teddy Roosevelt, once said
Walk Softly and carry a Big Stick, but in keeping with the subject you can see the success the Europeans have had with talking to Iran.
And Reagen made it perfectly clear to Muammar Abu Minyar al-QADHAFI, in Libiya. Talking didn't work there either.
In a perfect world maybe, this just in WASHINGTON (AP) - Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens has been convicted of lying about free home renovations and other gifts he received from a wealthy oil contractor. unfortunately the world isn't perfect, now lock this ******* up for a good period of time.

[Phrozen Phil]

Originally Posted by iceberg

if we do nothing *but* consider history, there will never be peace in that region.

I'm all for doing something, but Israel made peace with Egypt based on a leap of faith by two leaders with vision. If you recall, the U.S. had a part in making that happen. Let's not forget a large group of Palestinians who have no ability to control their own destiny and no opportunity to return to the land of their birth. Until the issue of Israeli settlers in the West Bank is resolved, it will be tough to make meaningful progress. That's just for starters. I agree completely that Israel should have stable and secure borders and that it's neighbours should acknowledge it's right to exist, but it's not as simple as picking a side and ignoring the others.

[Trouble]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Phil

How do you think they made peace with Egypt? Consider history before you respond.

Go tell that to an Egyptian. In a recent poll conducted in Egypt, 94% of all Egyptians see Israel as thier #1 enemy. Egyptian military soldiers have been caught supporting and helping Hamas terrorist cross borders to inflict violence of Israel.

Consider what's presently going on before you respond.

[joseephuss]

Originally Posted by Trouble

Just ask Israel how well it works by talking and making concessions with your enemies.

Most of our true enemies are terrorist countries, and unfortunately violence is the only language they understand.

Talking does not equal making concessions. You can have talks without negotiating. I don't see the problem with sending lower level administration officials had having initial talks with other countries. I truly don't.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by joseephuss

Talking does not equal making concessions. You can have talks without negotiating. I don't see the problem with sending lower level administration officials had having initial talks with other countries. I truly don't.

you mean like preconditions?

so mccain is right? just wondering where you're going here.

i'm all for opening up channels to talk. however, it must come from respect or you're gonna get bent over out of being nieve.

[Phrozen Phil]

Originally Posted by Trouble

Go tell that to an Egyptian. In a recent poll conducted in Egypt, 94% of all Egyptians see Israel as thier #1 enemy. Egyptian military soldiers have been caught supporting and helping Hamas terrorist cross borders to inflict violence of Israel.

Consider what's presently going on before you respond.

Is that the same poll that has McCain winning?

[Trouble]

Originally Posted by joseephuss

Talking does not equal making concessions.

I never said it did.

Israel has done both and look where it's got them.