Is Up Down Again?
I will not back away from my statement that the Jr. Senator from Illinois represents a certain kind of hope that I find compelling in a presidential candidate. But when it comes to foreign policy, especially in nuclear negotiations, his insistence on direct diplomacy actually makes him sound tied to failed policies of the past. It makes him seem as if he doesn’t understand the realities behind our present success with N. Korea, let alone have a clear vision of the future of nuclear negotiations in a more volatile region of the world.
When I hear him talk about the US emphasizing something like one-on-one negotiations with Iran I can smell failure and humiliation. This is not to say that the only option is to blow Iran back to what it was before Cyrus the Great (ironically Cyrus the Great, the only non-Jewish leader praised in the Old Testament).
Sorry, didn’t mean to go Old Testament on ya.
But to hear Senator O talk about N. Korea forgetting that what put us on the road to success was our refusal not to play games one-on-one while the regime stalled, redirected its efforts and tried to find separate negotiators or confederates to play against us. Everyone forgets that Clinton (through former Pres Carter) negotiated a wildly unsuccessful agreement with N. Korea that gave them carrots up the ass and helped the idiots of that sick regime to redirect their efforts and eventually develop a far more real nuclear threat…and just in time to have a rocket program to potentially deliver the goodies to Seoul or Tokyo.
All while starving their own people.
eeeeeeYikes!
We should’ve given the carrots to the N. Korean people so they didn’t have to eat fucking bark.
Back to the present, nuclear negotiations w/ N. Korea were instigated (in part) by our unwillingness to talk to them one-on-one (a move I blasted gbushy for at the time I think I called it the Marcel Marceau approach to diplomacy, say nothing, just irritate all parties)…then they were brought to a realistic and desirable conclusion when conducted side-by-side with other powers in the region who have more at stake, more to offer, and more with which to punish the guy who stole Harry Cary’s glasses.
In Iran it is crucial that any negotiations designed to curb their nuclear ambitions include AT LEAST the fucking Russians. Doing otherwise gives Iran and Russia more power and influence than they have had in years and all at the expense of our interests in the region.
Sen. O supposedly exudes a forward-thinking image. Not in foreign policy. His discussions of talks, sticks and carrots, the value of getting our ideological foes to the negotiation table comes right out of foreign policy papers from the 1970’s.
The US has another player, with much to gain or lose that it can bring in to larger talks with Iran – China!
China’s thirst for oil, increasing global influence and nuclear experience make it the perfect partner in these things.
By the way, in bringing Russia and China into talks with Iran about developing nukes also helps us engage in ongoing dialogues with regimes that trouble us on a variety of levels. All the differences between the parties could lead to disaster, sure…
But the benefits of reaching a meaningful agreement are worth the risk.
//and quiet frankly doing something that radical with two vertices on the “Axis of Evil” (I know it’s dumbass talk but I wanted to get geometrical with this shit)…doing something that radical, that to me is forward thinking.
When I hear him talk about the US emphasizing something like one-on-one negotiations with Iran I can smell failure and humiliation. This is not to say that the only option is to blow Iran back to what it was before Cyrus the Great (ironically Cyrus the Great, the only non-Jewish leader praised in the Old Testament).
Sorry, didn’t mean to go Old Testament on ya.
But to hear Senator O talk about N. Korea forgetting that what put us on the road to success was our refusal not to play games one-on-one while the regime stalled, redirected its efforts and tried to find separate negotiators or confederates to play against us. Everyone forgets that Clinton (through former Pres Carter) negotiated a wildly unsuccessful agreement with N. Korea that gave them carrots up the ass and helped the idiots of that sick regime to redirect their efforts and eventually develop a far more real nuclear threat…and just in time to have a rocket program to potentially deliver the goodies to Seoul or Tokyo.
All while starving their own people.
eeeeeeYikes!
We should’ve given the carrots to the N. Korean people so they didn’t have to eat fucking bark.
Back to the present, nuclear negotiations w/ N. Korea were instigated (in part) by our unwillingness to talk to them one-on-one (a move I blasted gbushy for at the time I think I called it the Marcel Marceau approach to diplomacy, say nothing, just irritate all parties)…then they were brought to a realistic and desirable conclusion when conducted side-by-side with other powers in the region who have more at stake, more to offer, and more with which to punish the guy who stole Harry Cary’s glasses.
In Iran it is crucial that any negotiations designed to curb their nuclear ambitions include AT LEAST the fucking Russians. Doing otherwise gives Iran and Russia more power and influence than they have had in years and all at the expense of our interests in the region.
Sen. O supposedly exudes a forward-thinking image. Not in foreign policy. His discussions of talks, sticks and carrots, the value of getting our ideological foes to the negotiation table comes right out of foreign policy papers from the 1970’s.
The US has another player, with much to gain or lose that it can bring in to larger talks with Iran – China!
China’s thirst for oil, increasing global influence and nuclear experience make it the perfect partner in these things.
By the way, in bringing Russia and China into talks with Iran about developing nukes also helps us engage in ongoing dialogues with regimes that trouble us on a variety of levels. All the differences between the parties could lead to disaster, sure…
But the benefits of reaching a meaningful agreement are worth the risk.
//and quiet frankly doing something that radical with two vertices on the “Axis of Evil” (I know it’s dumbass talk but I wanted to get geometrical with this shit)…doing something that radical, that to me is forward thinking.
posted by edP | 8:25 AM
7 Comments:
DC & PDawg - I swear I wrote this post this morning...before we had our kitchen discussion.
Funny how O'Bama gets what other dems don't, or so his rhetoric implies, but his take on foreign policy is so decidedly unhip that I'm coming to the conclusion he does not stand a chance.
Maybe it's true that what we find refreshing will eventually be tempered by more years in the party and soon he'll sound like the rest, pushing class warfare and making big promises with our money.
I think that Obama does plan to include our allies in any negotiations with Iran but what we are seeeing right now is that bringing China or Russia with us to negotiate will be increasingly difficult as we have little in the way of leverage. We owe China so much money that we can't really do anything to compell them to do what we want.
Well said. I like Obama, but his ideas on Iran are troubling.
Yo - keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer. I think negotiation with Korea or Iran might have risked our reputation (as far as negotiating with nut cases), but invading Iraq has ruined it in a spectacular fashion. I'm actually excited about a president willing to become part of the international community for some reason other than commerce.
("gotta get that oil!" cough cough)
Chris, even though I am no defender of gBushy, I would argue that the role we played in the 6 party talks (instigated by gbushy's refusal to sit down one-on-one with the madman Kim Jong Illlll) more closely resembles what the US should do in future negotiations with rogue states ESP when it comes to weapons rather than the tired old lines Sen. O through out on Meet the Press. He may have been speaking to a certain audience when he said "We want to sit at the table with our enemies" but the way he described it sounds like tired old bullshit to anybody who understands where such talks (minus the USSR) led in the past...
This is not to say that the Jr. Senator from Illinois is not an attractive candidate to me but I was surprised and disappointed that his negotiating approach with Iran sounded so...I dunno, old and outdated.
Isn't he supposed to bring fresh ideas to Washington and put a fresh face on American diplomacy?
We had a kitchen discussion?
I say you go with marble counter-tops, despite what the junior Senator from Illinois has to say about the benefits of linoleum.
Post a Comment
<< Home