Re-Viewing Appeasement

Let’s re-View the posting of May 18th, and give its topic a partial onion peel so as to better focus on the questions raised by Barack Obama’s recent muddled utterances regarding foreign policy.

In the Democratic debate of July 23, 2007, Obama responded to an audience member’s question:

“Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?”

Obama replied:

“I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.”

When President Bush recently made his comments in a speech in Israel warning about the dangers of following a diplomatic policy of appeasement, Obama quickly took umbrage, inferring that this was a criticism of his proposals for foreign policy. Since Bush hadn’t mentioned any names, Obama’s reaction is even more telling.

That the State Department’s headquarters is referred to as Foggy Bottom is not without reason. Modern diplomacy is an arcane art form that has evolved over the centuries and its practice, especially in dealing with hostile states, is complex. Applying subtle pressures and offering enticements to countries in an effort to have them move away from untenable policy positions is a multifaceted and orchestrated effort. While it is not wise to cut off communications entirely with unfriendly countries, such communications are usually relegated to indirect diplomatic channels. Events of state, such as a presidential visit, are typically reserved for those countries with a demonstrated effort of cooperation and friendship with the United States. A presidential visit to a country that has consistently adhered to hostile and aggressive policies seems to be a counter-intuitive strategy, at best.

Democrats are quick to point to President Nixon’s famous visit to China and Ronald Reagan’s meetings with the Soviet leadership as examples of presidential diplomacy initiatives with ostensible enemies. But these historic steps were made possible only after extensive diplomatic groundwork cast them in an appropriate diplomatic framework.

Also troubling are Obama’s inconsistencies in evaluating the potential threat from countries like Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. Last week in Oregon, he dismissed the threats posed by these countries. The next day, however, he recanted, at least with respect to Iran which he then admitted posed a significant threat to its region and American interests. There is talk of him climbing a learning curve on foreign affairs, but a grounding in the basics of international affairs seems a prerequisite for a presidential candidate.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Karl Rove summed up this issue as follows:

“On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said in Florida that in a meeting with the Iranians he’d make it clear that their behavior is unacceptable. That message has been delivered clearly by Republican and Democratic administrations in public and private diplomacy over the past sixteen years. Is he so naive to think he has a unique ability to make this even clearer?

If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions , he owes it to the voters to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmedinejad or North Koreas Kim Jong II will not deeply unsettle our allies.

If Mr. Obama fails to do so, voters may come to believe that he is asking them to accept he has a “Secret Plan” and that he is hopelessly out of his depth on national security.”

What seems eerily missing from Obama’s position statements is an understanding of the mechanics of modern diplomacy. His hands-on approach may well have been effective in dealing with recalcitrant factions in Chicago politics, where squabblers were convinced by the strength of Obama's arguments to reason out their differences. But whether the tactics used to organize the South side will work in Tehran, is open to serious question. Recognizing, rightly, that his lack of experience hurts his candidacy, he has asked voters to look, instead, to the quality of his judgment. Unfortunately, the heads of state on which he plans to call may be much less impressed with his eloquence and charisma than are the Democratic voters.