http://www.newsmax.com/politics/obama_diplomacy_fact_check/2008/05/22/98043.html
Obama's Outreach to U.S. Foes Is Questionable
Thursday, May 22, 2008
WA****NGTON -- 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 leader****p 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 Wa****ngton 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 sup****ters 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.
|
