Glenden BrownObama is Right, Clinton is Wrong
At the cnn youtube debate, Obama was asked if he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuala and Cuba and he responded by saying, absolutely, yes, he would be willing to meet with them, adding:
the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.
. . . Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq — one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.
They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.
Obama is absolutely 110% correct. I believe it was Winston Churchill who once said, “Talk, talk, talk is better than war, war, war.” One of the sayings I’ve long valued is “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” The historic peace churches - the Quakers and Mennonites - have long known that peacemaking requires different ways of engaging with other people and that you must engage with other people to make peace; they also understand that peace is not the mere absence of war, instead. Peace is not simply the period between wars. Peace is the time during which societies grow and flourish, during which individuals are free to live and thrive and have families.
Everything Obama said makes perfect sense - you don’t have to trust them entirely to work toward finding common ground. The Bushista policy of not talking but rattling sabres has done nothing to strengthen our position in the world - it has damaged moderate movements in places like Iran and has certainly driven North Korea and Iran to work toward developing nuclear weapons. Obama is clearly saying “It’s time for a real and meaningful change from the Bush policy of not talking to people, of making war, of engaging in incredibly foolish actions and expecting the outcomes to somehow be magically good.”
Hillary Clinton immediately jumped on Obama, saying . . .
I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.
I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.
And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.
And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.Â
Why wouldn’t the US president want to meet with Hugo Chavez? Why wouldn’t the US President want to meet with the leaders of North Korea, Iran and Syria? I’m not even sure what Clinton was thinking when she said “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes . . .” That doesn’t make any sense? What’s going to happen? The President engages in high level diplomacy with Kim Jong Il. It’s just not a bad thing. Clinton did reassert the need for diplomacy, which is positive. I guess I don’t know why in the world it would be bad to meet with these leaders.Â
Clinton’s biggest error, however, was in the way in which framed her answer and subsequent statements from her campaign such as this one:
Her campaign later circulated a memo to reporters saying it was a “mistake†to commit to presidential-level meetings without precondition “with some of the world’s worst dictators” and portrayed her remarks as showing her depth of experience
Essentially, Clinton is putting her answer within the neocon frame and using it to attack Obama. She’s wrong - has there been a foreign policy issue on which the neocons were right? Why would we set preconditions for a meeting - for instance you must have elections before will meet with you. Our not meeting won’t force them to have elections. And they’re getting along fine without us. Basically it’s an excuse for inaction.
Ironically, if you read the Clinton 08 website, Hillary’s policy goals are laudable - they include statements about getting the hell out of Iraq. But, at a basic level, like far too many Democratic office holders, Hillary Clinton at least passively accepts the neocon frame about security. It makes me wonder if she can be trusted with foreign affairs.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Part of why I support Obama is that he’s repeatedly shown himself to have the right answers, and the right reasoning to get to those answers, which I think will make him wise as president.
July 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
If the question is, are we going to return to a sane foreign policy which involves keeping channels of communication to all nations, friend and foe, then Obama is right. If the question is does the next president want to meet personally with all the world’s worst dictators during his first year in office, well, I hope Obama didn’t commit to that.
What I like is that when anyone criticizes Obama, he hits back harder and in a smart way. Hillary wants to label him as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded: “I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out.”
July 26th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Hillary said the same thing that Obama said, but provided more detail. Your assertion that Hillary is wrong on this issue is, well, wrong!
July 26th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Hillary should have passed up the opportunity to be antagonistic and condescending. It didn’t help her.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
What Hillary and Obama said sounds similar - but it’s not similar.
Hillary offered a view of diplomacy consistent with the neocon worldview where diplomacy is a sign of weaknes - she said she doesn’t want to make a bad situation worse, she doesn’t want to be used for propaganda purposes; such statements only make sense if you see diplomacy as a sign of weakness, as a tool for getting what you want. This is the neocon worldview embraced by the Bushies - they refuse to negotiate with anyone on the principle that negotiation cannot succeed, then when they do try diplomacy they set up so many roadblocks and preconditions that they guarantee it won’t work. Hillary’s statement about preconditions makes no sense - why should some other nation meet our conditions just to talk to us.
Hillary’s campaign has also attacked Obama for his supposed naivete on this topic. Superficially, they’re supporting the same thing but the devil’s in the details and Hillary is offering details that don’t inspire me.
Obama, on the other hand, is saying, “Hey, we have to talk to folks. Refusing to talk only makes things worse, it creates problems. We have to behave differently in the world after the damage done by the Bushies and their dishonest rhetoric and their dismissal of diplomacy.” Obama didn’t eschew any high level diplomacy or aides making prior arrangements, all the steps Hillary embraced. But, he also didn’t say, “We’ll only talk if we can get what we want,” which it sounds to me is what Hillary is saying.
July 26th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
The question for me is, how can the undisputed sole superpower even begin to adopt the posture of just another neighborly member of the world community? Isn’t it in our stars to be exceptional? Neo-con or neo-earthling?
I wonder if we’ll be able to fish this out.
July 26th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
When the bullets and bombs are flying, and no real victor is in sight, diplomacy IS weakness. It is the primary danger of going to war half cocked. Any words in the middle of a fight to the death just mean “uncle” in any language.
War is for those that cold cock, not for talkers.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
[...] Proves That Hillary Clinton as President Is just as Bad as George W Bush as President!!!! if you Have not Read Clinton Bashing over at one Utah. You probably should Read it now. It says that Clinton is Being just as bad as [...]
July 27th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Obaqma is absolutely right. If he’s elected maybe we can finally pull our head out of our butt and get onto some diplomacy to save this planet
July 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
obama can do nothing, he has kneeled and kissed the aipac ring, and that means nothing in the ME will change, or he will battle the money that will oppose him.
Why do you think he kissed it anyway? He too, wants to be president, for what appears to be purely selfish reasons, no matter what the smokescreen coming out of his mouth says.
July 27th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Caveat said:
President Theodore Roosevelt said:
July 27th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Revenge is best served cold, and safely enjoyed at a distance.
Sicilian proverb.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Richard - I was thinking of TR’s quote as I wrote my original post. The Bushies have generally adopted the exact opposite it as their governing philosophy and we’ve seen the consequences.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Well Glendon, Teddy was fighting spaniards, not Parthians. Does not matter if you are quiet or blustery, big stick,(what is shock and awe?) They are a different kind of enemy, brutal, intelligent, and committed, something that spaniards once had, but no longer, by the time time Teddy got to them, they were all done. The Parthians are counter-punchers, and weaken an enemy, while their hubris lasts, then they destroy them. Crassus’ end is a good example, 56 BC, Battle of Carrhae. They captured him and poured molten gold down his throat. The emperor of Rome. Who needs a stick?
Parthians? Fighting exactly the same way as ever. Invaders rarely return once the lesson has been taught.