Talking With Enemies
During a Democratic candidate forum (I won't call it a "debate") last week a "You-Tube" participant asked if the next president should meet with the leaders of "rogue nations" such as North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela during the first year in office. (This question illustrates how more questions of real substance come from the general public than from reporters)
Sen. Barack Obama said he would, and Sen. Hillary Clinton said she would not be used for "propaganda purposes". Obama cited the examples of former Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, both of whom met with Soviet leaders.
At first, it might seem like the Illinois senator has it right: after all, why not talk with your adversaries? It can't hurt, and you might solve some problems and establish friendlier relations.
A closer look indicates that an ill-conceived summit meeting can hurt, and the examples of Kennedy and Reagan do not make Obama's case at all.
Every President from Franklin Roosevelt to George H W Bush met with Soviet leaders, but the USSR was then a world power of comparable size and strength to the United States. It made sense for American presidents to deal with Nikita Khruschev and Leonid Brezhnev as equals in the international arena. However, none of the "rogue nations" today are in any sense another Soviet Union; for a future US President to have a "summit" with Castro (whichever one is well enough to attend) or Kim Jong-Il would confer upon the rogue leader an unearned status as the equal of an American president. Hillary Clinton correctly noted that this would be a propaganda coup for the rogue.
Since the President of the United States does not routinely meet with the leaders of every nation on earth, a meeting with a rogue leader might be perversely portrayed as a reward for bad behavior. Certainly some foreign politicians, such as President Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela, trumpet their contempt for this country as source of acclaim from anti-Americans the world over. A public meeting with such a politician might be an occasion for him to scold the President of the United States before the international press.
The record of past summit meetings is not entirely benign, as Obama apparently believes, but is actually quite mixed. For example, the Vienna meeting between President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Khruschev in the Spring of 1961 was disastrous: the Soviet dictator perceived our young president as weak, and proceeded to place missiles in Cuba within the next few months. On the other hand, President Lyndon Johnson's meeting with Premier Alexei Kosygin in Glassboro, N J, after the Six Day War did cool down tensions between the two great powers. Similarly, President Nixon's state visit to Mao Tse Tung (aka Mao Ze Dong) in Peking ( aka Beijing) in 1972 opened the way to a drastic improvement in US-Chinese relations, which continues today.
For the next President to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is especially problematical, since the latter is not really the highest authority in Iran! The true boss is Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini, the head of the Guardian Council, who is not known to receive foreign visitors at all. A true summit with Iran may not be possible.
Still, it might bet worthwhile for the next President to meet with Ahmadinejad if the Prime Minister of Israel would be a full-participant in the talks. There is historical precedent for such a 3-way summit: President Carter brought Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachem Begin to Camp David in 1977, and the result was a peace treaty that has already lasted 30 years. Getting peace talks going between Israel and Iran is much more important than arranging them with the Palestinian Authority, although it might also be much harder. Since Iran is willing to talk to the US, but not to Israel, the next president could play a useful role in bringing them together.
Meeting between the US President and foreign leaders can be productive, but there must be an agreed agenda and the real potential for substantive progress on specific issues. Otherwise, such gabfests are no more than photo opportunities and public posturing.
Sen. Barack Obama said he would, and Sen. Hillary Clinton said she would not be used for "propaganda purposes". Obama cited the examples of former Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, both of whom met with Soviet leaders.
At first, it might seem like the Illinois senator has it right: after all, why not talk with your adversaries? It can't hurt, and you might solve some problems and establish friendlier relations.
A closer look indicates that an ill-conceived summit meeting can hurt, and the examples of Kennedy and Reagan do not make Obama's case at all.
Every President from Franklin Roosevelt to George H W Bush met with Soviet leaders, but the USSR was then a world power of comparable size and strength to the United States. It made sense for American presidents to deal with Nikita Khruschev and Leonid Brezhnev as equals in the international arena. However, none of the "rogue nations" today are in any sense another Soviet Union; for a future US President to have a "summit" with Castro (whichever one is well enough to attend) or Kim Jong-Il would confer upon the rogue leader an unearned status as the equal of an American president. Hillary Clinton correctly noted that this would be a propaganda coup for the rogue.
Since the President of the United States does not routinely meet with the leaders of every nation on earth, a meeting with a rogue leader might be perversely portrayed as a reward for bad behavior. Certainly some foreign politicians, such as President Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela, trumpet their contempt for this country as source of acclaim from anti-Americans the world over. A public meeting with such a politician might be an occasion for him to scold the President of the United States before the international press.
The record of past summit meetings is not entirely benign, as Obama apparently believes, but is actually quite mixed. For example, the Vienna meeting between President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Khruschev in the Spring of 1961 was disastrous: the Soviet dictator perceived our young president as weak, and proceeded to place missiles in Cuba within the next few months. On the other hand, President Lyndon Johnson's meeting with Premier Alexei Kosygin in Glassboro, N J, after the Six Day War did cool down tensions between the two great powers. Similarly, President Nixon's state visit to Mao Tse Tung (aka Mao Ze Dong) in Peking ( aka Beijing) in 1972 opened the way to a drastic improvement in US-Chinese relations, which continues today.
For the next President to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is especially problematical, since the latter is not really the highest authority in Iran! The true boss is Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini, the head of the Guardian Council, who is not known to receive foreign visitors at all. A true summit with Iran may not be possible.
Still, it might bet worthwhile for the next President to meet with Ahmadinejad if the Prime Minister of Israel would be a full-participant in the talks. There is historical precedent for such a 3-way summit: President Carter brought Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel's Menachem Begin to Camp David in 1977, and the result was a peace treaty that has already lasted 30 years. Getting peace talks going between Israel and Iran is much more important than arranging them with the Palestinian Authority, although it might also be much harder. Since Iran is willing to talk to the US, but not to Israel, the next president could play a useful role in bringing them together.
Meeting between the US President and foreign leaders can be productive, but there must be an agreed agenda and the real potential for substantive progress on specific issues. Otherwise, such gabfests are no more than photo opportunities and public posturing.
Labels: Hillary Clinton, Obama, summit
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:45 AM
1 comments
