Thursday, February 21, 2008
Cuba
This is a matter on which I imagine Pickle readers may disagree, but the first question in tonight's debate - "Would you meet with the new Cuban administration?" - and Senators Clinton and Obama's responses reminded me of the moment I made up my mind that I would support Barack. It was when he said he would be open to meeting with Ahmadinejad, she hit him for it, and he stuck to his guns. I got an email from a friend the other day complaining that Obama said he would listen to arab leaders about Israel. There's too much bloodshed in the world right now for our President to indulge in the luxury of not talking, not listening. Care must be taken, and I'd like to hear responses, but I think I believe that categorically.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Of course you are right, Dan, to support Obama and his openness to talks! The proof is in the pudding. If we take a look at the countries we haven't talked with in the past, it's pretty clear that the "no talking" policy has a strong correlation with poor outcomes. North Korea: they now have nuclear weapons (and now we are finally talking to them after years of failed policy). Cuba: Castro just stepped down on his own accord after being in power for probably longer than any modern head of state. Iran: they are perhaps at the peak of their power, greatly influencing the most important region of the world.
Way to go America! We really showed those guys by not talking with them!
Of course, the failed policies in these countries cannot be attributed solely to refusing to talk with them. Many other factors come in to play. But the point still stands that refusing to talk has a poor track record.
If talking ultimately leads to a dead end, then so be it. But requiring the other side to, in effect, surrender before the United States comes to the table has never worked. It only encourages more resistance and bad behavior. And leads to undesirable outcomes.
Thanks Peter. As Obama quoted JFK last night, "We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate."
Who will respond? In the conduct of foreign policy, what does talking cost you? Thoughts, anyone?
Dan, you’ve stumbled on one of the great magical devices of politics. I call it the “Podium Echo” (coin this phrase). Simply say something from behind a podium and listen for the echo. I remember when Bush played this position of NOT talking to foreign leaders that oppose him as a “strength.” He was standing behind a podium and, alas! People echoed this sentiment! It will take logic to mute this echo and I see that The Pickle has been released from the spell. Hopefully Obama or someone else behind a podium can awaken others.
You ask “what does talking cost you?” I’d like to find out; we already know what war costs.
Post a Comment