In Monday’s debate, and with the benefit of having time to think through her response, Hillary Clinton posed as the foreign policy sophisticate to Barack Obama the bold leader who did not hesitate to say that he would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela. My colleague David Corn argues that Obama has committed a major blunder reflecting his lack of foreign policy experience.
(My colleague Ari Berman posted his smart and sharp counter to David’s argument on behalf of those like Hillary Clinton who are “steeped in the nuances, language and minefields of foreign policy.” But I feel strongly enough to weigh in on this debate.)
Those “nuances and minefields” can also be traps. Witness how far Clinton’s nuanced experience got her when confronted with the 2002 Iraq war resolution.
David may well be right that Obama’s opponents will try to exploit his response. But from a foreign policy point of view was Obama’s response so wrong and Clinton’s so right? Her husband’s administration generally followed Hillary’s approach; during his two terms President Clinton did not meet with Fidel Castro or with Hugo Chavez or with the leaders of Iran, Syria, and North Korea –while generally pursuing a policy of trying to isolate these countries. But what did the Clinton approach actually accomplish? The respective regimes of Castro in Cuba and Chavez in Venezuela have only grown stronger, and more influential in Latin America. Although Syria was forced to withdraw its military forces from Lebanon last year, the regime of Bashar Assad is as firmly entrenched in power as was his father’s. And in spite of the odious politics and qualities of Ahmadinejad, Iran carries more weight in the Middle East than it did doing the early 1990s while American power and standing has declined considerably.
Indeed, both Clinton and Bush may have missed a historic opportunity to open a new chapter with Iran when reformer Mohamed Khatemi was elected in 1997. Had President Clinton taken the bold step Obama suggested and had met without precondition with President Khatemi in 1998 or ‘99 instead of pursuing sanctions, might not the democratic reformers be in power in Iran? Might we not have a healthy and growing trading relationship with an economically reformed Iran? Might Iran have capped its nuclear program and cooperated with us in managing regional relations including the peaceful downfall of Saddam Hussein? We do not know because the foreign policy sophisticates thought it was too politically risky for President Clinton to make such a bold move.
Above all, foreign policy is a matter of simultaneously projecting American confidence and American humility. In signaling that he was willing to meet with the leaders of these countries, Obama was signaling that the United States has the confidence in its values to meet with anyone. But he also signaled a certain humility that reflects the understanding that the next president must reach out to the rest of the world and not merely issue conditions from the White House and threaten military force if it does not get its way.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.
© 2007 The Nation
Obama also said, in a different forum a couple of weeks ago, that he would not pursue impeachment because impeachment was reserved for serious or grave offenses, and that Bush and Cheney had committed no such offenses. I kind of lost interest in him after that. Those who fail to impeach are complicit in the ongoing major war crimes.
He might talk to these leaders but only to voice the same old policies and enforce the same old ultimatums. Obama represents nothing new or different.
Funny how common sense is perceived as somehow bold and refreshing. Remember folks we are living in a time wherein right is wrong and wrong is right. So many things are made complex when in reality they are very simple.
Of course a good leader would talk to every other leader. Playing coy does not make good foreign policy unless you think you are invincible and omniscient. Foreign policy experience is vastly overrated. Give us a good thinker with an open mind and a clear conscience.
Obama is no genius to state the obvious either. He is no hero to say what they all should be saying. It only shows what a sorry lot we have to choose from.
Obama learned foreign policy at the hand of Richard Lugar. He’ll be there telling the Aristides of the world to not come back into our hemisphere.
Hillary is saving her statement on the Iraq Authorization for when she is nominated and IS the candidate.
The statement will be: “I wanted to trust George Bush, and I did. And it was a mistake to trust George Bush and the Republicans.”
Thank you, Katrina. The Hillary camp’s attacks are total opportunist nonsense. And harmful. Of course lower-level diplomats make preparations for meetings. Duh. Everyone knows what “without preconditions” means. Hillary’s people know it too.
I’m still voting for the Green Party or a more progressive party in 2008. Later for the Democrats.
The Dems can’t be trusted.
Article: “Those “nuances and minefields” can also be traps. Witness how far Clinton’s nuanced experience got her when confronted with the 2002 Iraq war resolution.”
Yes, I have known electronics salesmen and seen firsthand that they are the ones who by more electronic junk than any other kind of person. Politicos are the same. They play with the snakes for long enough, one day they wake up to find they’re a snake …but by then it doesn’t matter because all they know is snake-ness. Experience can occasionally mean Inflexibility.
I hear Clinton’s point about propaganda …be sure that the crazy 1% ruling Iran would use any talks as that. All the more reason we should be increasing our presence in those countries in smarter ways, like Voice of America and American Universities …rather than boots on the ground, which pleases propagandists more than anything. And, in any case, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk!
Katrina Vanden Heuvel seems to argee that Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea are threats deserving “a policy of trying to isolate these countries,” with “isolate” a euphemism for destabilize, overthow, and re-establish Imperial control. Her American Exceptionalism is prominently on display in a manner that destroys any further pretense at being someone deeply concerned with establishing peace and justice, and instead advocates for a “kinder, gentler” form of Imperial control. “… increasing our presence in those countries in smarter ways, like Voice of America and American Universities …rather than boots on the ground …” is still Imperial control prompted by American Exceptionalism–if only they’d become more like us…..
karlof1–My thoughts exactly.
Katrina–You shouldn’t let that hysterical rich boy brat, Tucker Carlson, get the better of you, by using potshots at liberal stereotypes–like sipping chardoney”. You were on your way with the “snarky comment, but you need to plow into him and call him on it. I hate the way his voice shrilly rises into a prissy whine and his liberal bashing is out of bounds. He needs a spanking.
Obama is a fast learner. In fact, his ability to nuance gets better everyday. So much so, he’s hardly recognizable as the person he used to be when he cared about people, as opposed to improving his nuancing skills. What a grand disappointment.
karlof1, I disagree that Voice of America and the like is even comparable to imperial control. Historically, it’s purpose has been the diffusion of ideas which contrast authoritarian governments (such as the Soviet Union). Like me watching BBC World or Deutsche-Welle …I don’t consider myself under British or German imperial sway, but I rather appreciate the different slant and new ideas. A lot of people abroad listen to VOM at risk to their safety, which is a testament for their similar hunger for new ideas. They take what they like and ignore the rest, like a salad bar. To say this stems from US Exceptionalism is silly but to the point of believing that certain traits of our wretched system are better than certain traits of, say, Iran’s wretched system. In any case, the listener chooses. That’s democracy, not imperialism.
So Corpobama is marginally better (his answer was, anyway) on this point that Klintstone.
He still wants an INCREASE (!!) in the size of the already-bloated US military; he was for the bankruptcy bill and the telecommunications horror; he refuses to come out for single-payer health insurance, preferring to keep the insurance pigs in it; he refuses to take a nuclear attack on Iran off the table; and so on.
CORPOBAMA IS A KORPORATIST. He is not deserving of serious consideration. Katrina, you should be reserving your comments for criticisms of his many korporatist errors, not wasting words on such a minor point.
Obama DID get it right on THIS question. It strikes me as odd that those in power (Dems and Repubs) are willing to take huge risks in the international arena as long as the “risks” involve the use of military force (or threats to use it). Their faith in violent means of resolving conflicts near and far shows their fawning worship of THAT means of “protecting US interests”. Why are they so unwilling to take risks to make peace by talking to people? Hillary claims they might use it for propaganda. So what? I want a leader who is going to take REAL risks to find peace and I don’t care if they or the US ends up looking kind of stupid or naive. These people don’t understand the true responsibility that goes with power. Take some real risks dammit.
“… Had President Clinton taken the bold step Obama suggested and had met without precondition with President Khatemi in 1998 or ‘99 instead of pursuing sanctions, might not the democratic reformers be in power in Iran? Might we not have a healthy and growing trading relationship with an economically reformed Iran?…”
And…had we have had a non-corporate president and Green/Independent dominated Congress, all this would have happened without hesitation. We need non-corporate contolled political parties and individuals in national office. Obama said, Hillary said…what difference does it make? Their decisions are and will always be based on the good of the corporate profit, not humanity. Maybe if “The Nation” would look to real alternative non-corporate political solutions we wouldn’t have to read articles about the Democratic Party beauty pageant as the ONLY political news. Register Green. www.gp.org
The Democrats are the “Ghosts of former selves party”. They run on ghosts and their own lies. There is something wrong with mainstream established Democratic party thinking (that is they are bought by big business). It looks like it has infected Obama at this point.
My reps in NJ, Menendez and Lautenberg, voted yes on Bush agenda legislation, such as the Military Commissions Act, after spending millions on anti-Bush campaign ads.
We need to elect alternatives to the two parties, need to build a base in congress of progressive, responsible people who will support responsible policy. It’s time our money is used for things that benefit us… schools, medical care, better transportation, etc.
Honestly I think Obama is more of an immature egomaniac than I first thought.
auspiciousbunny: “The Democrats are the “Ghosts of former selves party”. They run on ghosts and their own lies.”
Beautifully put. And articles like the above enable them to go on haunting us. No wonder so many of us have become such completely deranged cynics.
Thank’s Ms. Vanden Heuvel and Mr. Corn. My cancellation of my Nation subscription, back when they refused to take a stand against Clintons wars back in 1998, remains a good decision.
Let us NEVER forget that in 2002 to 2003, Marc Cooper, David Corn and Eric Alterman, Todd Gitlin, and the other members of the Cruise-Missle Left, supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
If one thinks VOA, BBC, etc., don’t project the bias of their Imperial sponsors, one has not done enough research into their roots as propaganda organs and tools of control. Small d democracy is ideally a bottom-up–not top-down–phenomenon; state/corporate media are top-down tools that only exist to advance state/corporate interests.
PJD–a while back on another thread, you asked about Germany’s reason for starting the First World War. Fritz Fischer published the best account using documents uncovered by allied forces after WW2–”Germany’s Aims in the First World War.” On pages 32-33, he shows the Kaiser foreshadowed Hitler’s use of race as the reason for war: “The imminent struggle for existence which the Germanic peoples of Europe (Austria, Germany) will have to fight against the Slavs (Russians) and their Latin (Gallic) supporters finds the Anglo-Saxons on the side of the Slavs…. Chapter 2 of the Great Migrations … is over. Now comes Chapter 3, the Germanic peoples’ fight for their existence against Russo-Gallia…. it is not a question of high politics, but one of RACE [emphasis in original] …. what is at issue is whether the Germanic race is to be or not to be in Europe.” Further, his main advisor Moltke “remains convinced that a European war is bound to come sooner or later, and then it will, in the last resort, be a struggle between TEUTON and SLAV…. BUT THE ATTACK MUST COME FROM THE SLAVS” [empahsis in original]. Much more is revealed in this very important book, one I’d wager extremely few readers of CD have heard of let alone read.
karlof1: “If one thinks VOA, BBC, etc., don’t project the bias of their Imperial sponsors, one has not done enough research into their roots as propaganda organs and tools of control. Small d democracy is ideally a bottom-up–not top-down–phenomenon; state/corporate media are top-down tools that only exist to advance state/corporate interests.”
It is below discussion that VOA and BBC project their own bias …duh! What is your point? You have not done enough research into the subject of projecting bias if you don’t realize that you do it, I do it, and everybody does it. The question is, does the bias of a foreign authority harm anybody here? If the alternative is Islamist state media, then I think it’s safe to say it does not. Viewed from the recieving end, it isn’t control; it’s options. If the foreign broadcaster/university is too far off, it’s not going to get any listeners/students anyway.
You can throw the word “imperial” around all you want (maybe the most abused term in English after “freedom”), but it is clear you have not done enough research into that subject if you are using the word in this case. Take the salad bar metaphor again. I take what I want, leave the rest, but don’t accuse the salad bar of having an “imperial” relationship with me.
Advancing state interests? You may need to do a bit more research into this subject because your understanding seems shaky. You divide democracy cleanly into two categories, bottom-up and top-down. Ridiculous! Life and democracy can not be divided up like a eugenicist’s map! Is it bad even when the people’s interest happens to be the same as that of the state? Often that’s the case. Is it bad that millions of clandestine listeners in the former Soviet Union were exposed to something at least a little different than what The Party allowed in? I challenge you to give me one good example of how something like BBC or Detsche-Welle or my local Goethe-Institute may be expanding British/German state/corporate interests on me, and negatively so.
what does it matter whether obama gives the Imperial Decree himself or hilary does it thru one of her underlings?
katrina v.h. is a total waste of time.
How did we get to the point that Chavez is mentioned in the same sentence as Castro by default? By journalists?
Did Chavez grant leases for Soviet missiles pointed at Miami? Does Chavez round up and kill political opponents?
What in God’s name is going on here? This is a disturbing development. It’s also very interesting that his name is grouped with a series of “bad dictators.” As pointed out here in various threads, Chavez has been democratically elected multiple times — even after a shameful and farcical recall election.
I am surprised any responsible journalist could agree to apply the term “dictator” to Chavez and equate him tacitly with Castro.
Obama also said that those who were opposed to the immigration bill were “racist”. Just another bastard politician. Elect your neighbors and reject all that the major parties throw your way.
VERN & MEG: Good observations.
Karlof1: Interesting history lesson. Gracias.
Obama is just another corporate donkey among corporate donkeys.
Castro doesn’t “round up and kill political opponents” either. Please stop listening to the propaganda from the Miami gangsters.
When someone in Cuba is imprisoned or quite rarely, executed, it is for attempted terorist acts against Cuba, including assassination attempts. Nearby Florida alone executes a lot more criminals than Castro has in the past couple decades.
In contrast, five Cuban investiators who were merely atempting to assist the FBI in investigate Miami gangster terrorist plots against Cuba, were kangaroo-tried by the US and given life sentences for no crimes at all. Apparently they discovered something they shouldn’t have. Even after a federal judge threw out their convictions two years ago, Bush found a judge to reverse it. So they are still in federal prisons.
In an empire, there are only two political questions of much importance: (1) who NOW wears the purple; and (2) who WILL wear the purple in future.
Americans are being quickly acclimated to these truths by (1) the VERY premature campaign for president, presently in progress (for the full four-year term, beginning 20 January 2009); and (2) Congress and the judiciary disqualifying themselves from participation in the government, by carefully AVOIDING confrontations with the president. [How can one claim to be a fighter (contestant), without climbing into the ring occasionally?]
There is historical precedent. On the single occasion Elizabeth I sought her parliament’s advice on a matter of foreign policy; parliament protested their incompetence to advise her! Foreign affairs, they argued, were the province of “statesmen.”
Two rigged presidential elections, in 2000 and 2004, have persuaded many Americans their emperors are no longer elected–certainly not by them. Yet, the lack of significant, or indeed of any protest, to the ending of elections, must mean the country by and large PREFERS Diebold’s wizardry to the power struggles and frequent violence, which so often accompanied the imperial succession in other realms.
So, without a bang or a whimper, we go placidly into that good night.
Why does everyone automatically buy into the MSM’s false premise? Chavez and Castro are dangerous enemies? Why is diplomacy even a question? I can understand North Korea, because they’re self-isolated and dealing with them is difficult. I don’t even see the problem with Syria or Iran. We act like five-year-olds because the Iranians got sick of our violently repressive right-wing puppet dictator, the Shah? We’re willing to send our detainees to Syria to be tortured, but we don’t treat them like a sovereign nation? Fake issues. Fake news.
Castro is hated by the US because before the revolution, the country was basically owned by the US… after the revolution, they kicked out the american corporate predators and reclaimed the country for the people… Same idea in with Chavez… he refuses to implement “economic reform” that would privitize the country for American corporations. Refuse to sell out to the americans and you’re an evil dictator. Also, nobody holds a grudge like the US gov’t. Silly really.
Excellent points, brucetylerwick.
Katrina V.H.
Dont listen! you do great work.. keep it up.. you are a voice of reason.
Diplomacy is nothing more nor less than engagement. Declining to engage with players who challenge us is a fear response. Hillary is so focused on the appearance of strength that she isn’t even starting to apply her very capable intellect to assessing what is real strength, and what is appearance. Yes, Obama was right. He didn’t even break stride to consider how to couch his response to political advantage. Good. The important thing, I think, is to throw support behind solid reasoning and sound judgement wherever it arises, and forget about personalities (genders, races, fashion…etc.)for a while. Forget the horse race. Maybe one or another of these would-be nominees (in addition to Kucinich) will snap-to and get it. We need to be way way beyond buying a salesjob. If we can’t demand and get real accountability from our government, then it’s time to go back to the drawing board (as in reinventing the whole schmear).
I did not scroll through this one or the 89 from the previous but I think that jaded prole has it right.
ＨＯＷ ＡＢＯＵＴ Ａ ＲＥＡＬ ＤＥＢＡＴＥ？ ＨＵＨ， ＷＨＡＴ＇Ｓ ＴＨＡＴ？
In terms of whether or not it’s a good idea to talk to ‘the bad guys’, how ridiculous can one question get? Of course it’s a good idea - if you are real, if you are capable of speaking the truth, if you are capable of seeking the truth, if you are not arrogant in your national identity, － if you are not a fake. Unfortunately, whether it is Obama or Clinton, neither one of them seems so ‘real’, although Obama seems more so (however more so is not good enough!)
And in terms of this whole question and it’s answer being reflected upon and batted around, why does it only involve Obama and Clinton? Because we are all suckers all the way to the end. What debate? I didn’t see anything even resembling a debate, did any of you? It’s all just a show and nobody is going to do a damn thing about it － we know it’s a show but we watch it and talk about it anyway, knowing it’s bullshit. Sheep.
So here is my question to those of you with enough influence in the media who do apparently seem to read these blogs from time to time;
Why don’t you spearhead (individually or as a group) a loud and vocal effort to have a real debate that would involve all of the candidates talking about many issues over a period of two to three days, all day?
It could be run non - profit, on the internet or c-span．
ＴＯＯ ＬＯＮＧ？ ＮＯＮＳＥＮＳＥ！ ＴＯＯ ＲＥＡＬ．
All these damn corporate politicians should be rounded up and put in jail, Smarmocrats and Repugnicants alike.
I mean it.
It just makes me sick that such ignorant people get elected to run our country. We MUST reform our elections and ban ALL fundraising - we own the damn airwaves - we will make them give equal time to all the candidates, we’ll give them some cash to campaign for a couple of months (forget this year and half BS and no fancy private jets - they can fly coach like the rest of us!) and then we’ll TEACH THE PEOPLE that the point of voting is to VOTE ONE’S INTERESTS and not who they think has the most money or the best chance of winning. And we ban all the stupid polls so the media doesn’t get to declare the winner before the election.
Whew. I must be dense. I read the article several times and I don’t understand the criticisms.
Obama aside, the policy of trying to punish leaders we disagree with by not talking to them is a proven failure. That’s the point of the article. I don’t see anything about defending American exceptionalism — quite to the contrary — the article argues precisely the opposite citing that exceptionalism as a failed policy.
One could have constructed this article without mentioning any names at all. But of course what motivated it was the tussle over the issue between the two front-running Democratic rivals.
In other words, if you agree that we should seek diplomacy with all nations at the highest level, you agree with Obama, no matter that you’ve convinced yourself to detest him. Likewise, if you believe that we somehow punish leaders with whom we disagree by refusing to speak with them, a policy carried to the extreme by George Bush, then you’re agreeing with Hillary. That seems to be the position of American exceptionalism to me, and is the position that the article criticizes.
So frankly I’m really not following what all this furious flagellation is all about.
You have to hand it to Carville and Begala. They know how to inflate nothing into an issue. They somehow layered on a very literal interpretation to Obama’s comments about meeting with alleged enemies and then contrasted Clinton’s ‘knowledgeable’ response as a contrast.
Of course the whole thing is nonsense. It’s obvious that if Obama was President he would use the mechanics of diplomacy and protocol to conduct foreign policy. His reponse was ‘I would meet with…’ not I would personally grab my phone, call them up and have a personal chat.’
So, the whole issue is totally stupid but that is what elections are about; stupid sidebars. No discussion of universal health care, the environment, Iraq exit strategy, mounting debt, etc. Just a nit picking manufactured fight about whether the call would actually be made by Obama and how this shows his inexperience vs. Hillary’s total grasp and book knowledge of diplomatic protocol.
Come on, let’s get on to the real issue. How about that cleavage Hillary was showing during the debate. What’s up with that? Inquiring minds want to know!
Obama learned foreign policy at the hand of Richard Lugar. He’ll be there telling the Aristides of the world to not come back into our hemisphere.-macchendra
Do you mean salesian priest and democratically elected Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide?
Not that I put much stock in your opinion, but who do you think Barack Obama would prefer to be president of Haiti?
Why the F is Venezuela lumped in with these other countries?
Venezuela may be the most democratic country in the hemisphere.
When this question was posed any decent Dem should have rejected its premise and actually informed those interested about the real facts in Venezuela.
samiemma: Yes, exactly. Though I’d say that any decent progressive should have rejected its premise…but the Democrats are hardly progressive, and the Nation’s writers aren’t much better.
I have a longer response to van den Heuvel’s article here.
Isenhower once said that he “would go anywhere,anytime for the cause of peace”. I hope that Barack would pick up on that and use this to support his arguement. Isenhower no doubt knows all about the horror of wars.
Simply stated, Hillary is already courting the so-called swing voters, many of whom feel the democrats are too naive in their desire for diplomatic solutions.
Obama is playing to the base, trying to win the nomination, while doing so, I think he needs to portray his diplomatic willingness as strength and characterize those playing upon the misamplified fears of the electorate as cynical calculators.