Thursday, May 22, 2008
Obama's Outreach to U.S. Foes Is Questionable
WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama's willingness to meet Iranian, Cuban and other hostile leaders who would not get face time from John McCain stands as a distinctive element of his foreign policy.
Distinctive, yes, but clearly defined? Not quite.
Obama gets cheers at his rallies when he declares there is nothing to fear, and potentially much to gain, from talking to enemies as well as friends.
But U.S. diplomacy is not that simple and neither is his position.
This week, Obama qualified his past statements that he would meet the Iranian leadership directly and without precondition by saying he did not necessarily mean Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's hardline, anti-American president.
Nor is it certain lately at what point he, as president, would speak personally with some of the dictators he says should be engaged.
This, despite months of assertions that his willingness to sit down with foes sets him apart from Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and now McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, who challenges Obama on that point.
THE OLD SPIN:
In a Democratic presidential debate last summer, Obama was asked if he'd meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without precondition and during his first year in office.
"I would," Obama said.
Since then he has frequently reiterated his belief that no preconditions should be set.
"When you say preconditions, what you're really saying is, 'I'm not going to talk to you until you agree to do exactly what I want you to do,'" Obama said. "Well, that's not how negotiations take place."
Challenged by Clinton in multiple debates, Obama allowed that while he would not set preconditions, he would have "preparations" and would not rush to see certain leaders right away.
The precise difference between preconditions and preparations has not been spelled out. What's clear is that low-level talks would precede any summit, as happens now.
Clinton called him naive. She said she would not risk the prestige of the presidency by negotiating directly with countries such as Iran until they had agreed to change their ways.
Obama called that a case of old Washington thinking.
The new thinking, however, appears not to have been thought all the way through.
THE NEW SPIN:
Obama objected on CNN this week to "this obsession with Ahmadinejad" and explained guardedly: "I would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders if we had done sufficient preparations for that meeting.
"Whether Ahmadinejad is the right person to meet with right now, we don't even know how much power he is going to have a year from now," Obama added. "He is not the most powerful person in Iran."
He said he would expect "to meet with those people who can actually make decisions" in Iran on its nuclear program, its aid to terrorists and destabilization in Iraq.
He did not explain how he would get around Iran's president to other people of influence.
Similarly, prominent Obama supporters have jumped into the debate to say he has believed all along that one does not go blindly into negotiations with dictators.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, for one, is drawing distinctions between Iran and Cuba.
A veteran of semiofficial negotiations with dictators, he said Obama should be open to meeting Cuban President Raul Castro, but "I think you don't talk to Ahmadinejad. You talk to some of the moderate clerics."
Obama's campaign is carefully picking its words on Cuba as the Illinois senator campaigns in Florida this week, mindful of the opposition by many exiles to too much liberalization of U.S. policy.
The matter of what constitutes a precondition for negotiations with Castro is one sticky point.
Susan Rice, Obama's foreign policy adviser, outlined what resembled preconditions Wednesday when she talked on MSNBC about what Cuba must do for an Obama administration to deal fully with that state.
Obama favors relaxing restrictions on family travel and remittances between the island and the U.S.
But Rice identified "concrete progress" toward true elections, the freeing of political prisoners and a free press as a requirement to "initiate a process through engagement."
That did not sound like an invitation to sit down and talk any time soon.
WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama's willingness to meet Iranian, Cuban and other hostile leaders who would not get face time from John McCain stands as a distinctive element of his foreign policy.
Distinctive, yes, but clearly defined? Not quite.
Obama gets cheers at his rallies when he declares there is nothing to fear, and potentially much to gain, from talking to enemies as well as friends.
But U.S. diplomacy is not that simple and neither is his position.
This week, Obama qualified his past statements that he would meet the Iranian leadership directly and without precondition by saying he did not necessarily mean Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's hardline, anti-American president.
Nor is it certain lately at what point he, as president, would speak personally with some of the dictators he says should be engaged.
This, despite months of assertions that his willingness to sit down with foes sets him apart from Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and now McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, who challenges Obama on that point.
THE OLD SPIN:
In a Democratic presidential debate last summer, Obama was asked if he'd meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without precondition and during his first year in office.
"I would," Obama said.
Since then he has frequently reiterated his belief that no preconditions should be set.
"When you say preconditions, what you're really saying is, 'I'm not going to talk to you until you agree to do exactly what I want you to do,'" Obama said. "Well, that's not how negotiations take place."
Challenged by Clinton in multiple debates, Obama allowed that while he would not set preconditions, he would have "preparations" and would not rush to see certain leaders right away.
The precise difference between preconditions and preparations has not been spelled out. What's clear is that low-level talks would precede any summit, as happens now.
Clinton called him naive. She said she would not risk the prestige of the presidency by negotiating directly with countries such as Iran until they had agreed to change their ways.
Obama called that a case of old Washington thinking.
The new thinking, however, appears not to have been thought all the way through.
THE NEW SPIN:
Obama objected on CNN this week to "this obsession with Ahmadinejad" and explained guardedly: "I would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders if we had done sufficient preparations for that meeting.
"Whether Ahmadinejad is the right person to meet with right now, we don't even know how much power he is going to have a year from now," Obama added. "He is not the most powerful person in Iran."
He said he would expect "to meet with those people who can actually make decisions" in Iran on its nuclear program, its aid to terrorists and destabilization in Iraq.
He did not explain how he would get around Iran's president to other people of influence.
Similarly, prominent Obama supporters have jumped into the debate to say he has believed all along that one does not go blindly into negotiations with dictators.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, for one, is drawing distinctions between Iran and Cuba.
A veteran of semiofficial negotiations with dictators, he said Obama should be open to meeting Cuban President Raul Castro, but "I think you don't talk to Ahmadinejad. You talk to some of the moderate clerics."
Obama's campaign is carefully picking its words on Cuba as the Illinois senator campaigns in Florida this week, mindful of the opposition by many exiles to too much liberalization of U.S. policy.
The matter of what constitutes a precondition for negotiations with Castro is one sticky point.
Susan Rice, Obama's foreign policy adviser, outlined what resembled preconditions Wednesday when she talked on MSNBC about what Cuba must do for an Obama administration to deal fully with that state.
Obama favors relaxing restrictions on family travel and remittances between the island and the U.S.
But Rice identified "concrete progress" toward true elections, the freeing of political prisoners and a free press as a requirement to "initiate a process through engagement."
That did not sound like an invitation to sit down and talk any time soon.
