How to Improve Foreign Policy
April 28, 2008
As former President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State Condi Rice continue to spar over Carter’s recent meetings with Hamas’ leaders in the Middle East, one thing is for sure – the U.S. needs radical change in its foreign policy.
Personally, I’m not a big fan of Carter. I remember the “national malaise” of which he so famously spoke, and waiting with my father in long, long gas lines. As a President, he was pretty much useless. However, I’m not so quick to condemn his overseas trips and apparent “snuggling” with those who wish to see our demise. On the contrary, he may actually make himself useful.
The Bush administration’s black and white, cut and dry “with us or against us” foreign policy is crippling and makes us look silly. Why? Because we arrogantly declare that we will not even speak with some states (and pseudo-states) unless they meet preconditions. This is self-defeating for two reasons. First, these preconditions will never be met because it’s like asking foreign leaders to castrate themselves in front of their own constituents – not gonna happen. Second, we criticize some states for committing human rights violations that often pale in comparison to those of our closest allies (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Canada…ok, maybe not Canada). Did we hope nobody would notice the double-standard?
Thus begins an unbreakable cycle of childish reactions. As a consequence, many of our national interests are not served because our foreign policy is short-sighted and very often imperialist. Until we break that cycle, which only Obama seems to have the courage to do, we will not be able to pursue our interests to their fullest and major conflicts will go on with no sight in end. Obama said he would talk directly with Iran and Syria and got hammered for it by the status quo (aka the Washington Consensus). I say go for it. Meet face to face…get on Air Force One and have tea in Tehran…eat Kimchi in North Korea…smoke a stogie in Havana. Break the cycle. Shake things up. Make it clear that starting right now all lines of communication are open. Instead of refusing to talk and telling the world that they (i.e. Iran, N. Korea, Cuba) are just bad people, give the world the opportunity to see for themselves. Take the first step, let them be the ones who screw it up. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Comments
7 Responses to “How to Improve Foreign Policy”
Got something to say?
Stay connected and subscribe to comments.
-
VOTE FOR THECANDIDACY.COM
I’m no fan of Georgia’s most famous peanut farmer, either. But I do believe we have little to lose and everything to gain by talking with our adversaries.
In any event, it would be great theater watching Air Force One land on tarmacs in N. Korea, Iran and Cuba. And we should do it without much prior notice: just gas up that big beast and call Kim and the boys when we get close. The world would love us, and change the dynamic surrounding our reputation very quickly.
The COS is on vacation or I would have added a caption to the photo of Carter above. It is from Michelle Malkin’s website and is how Carter is typically portrayed by conservatives. Hey, sometimes he makes it easy.
Very true.. You can’t resolve a problem without talking about it.
Well said — and timely given Rev Wright’s speech last night to the NAACP.
Rev Wright’s theme was that just because people are different, that doesn’t mean that they’re bad — and — you should stand in their shoes in order to get their viewpoint before judging. A subtext was that different people from different backgrounds not only act differently to situations, but often “learn” differently.
The speech will be parsed by the media and snipets will be played out of context, but there really wasn’t a mean word said and there was a lot to ponder.
We need to “break the cycle” in a lot of areas.
The double standard is not that new and its underlying rationale has been far from crystal clear. Ironically, no nation´s cultural values are undergirded by the principles of tolerance and dialogue than those of the United States. And Randy is right … dialogue, even with an arch enemy, can do wonders to thaw the most frozen killing field. However, I do believe that the US has recoiled into that atavistic stance because foreign policy has been tinted by the sweet victory and survival of capitalism and democracy in the wake of the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism. Perhaps we believe now that we can commit no blunders in our foreign policy because we won the Cold War.
[...] to face??get on Air Force One and have tea in Tehran??eat Kimchi in North Korea??smoke a stogie ihttp://thecandidacy.com/2008/04/28/how-to-improve-foreign-policy/Bush accused of gagging critic of Iran policy World news The …The White House yesterday faced [...]
RHM-Quid Pro Quo,
Trying to judge who should and who should not be officially spoken to may not be easy, but IMHO it is necessary. This is especially important for a U.S. president. When a U.S. president engages a foreign leader, the world’s eyes are on him/her. This then creates a degree of transfer of the U.S. presiden’ts “bully pulpit” to that particular foreign leader. It also converys a tacit acceptance of that foreign leader’s importance and implies his/her opinions matter. Like it or not, this also adds legitimacy in the world’s eyes.
However, I don’t rule out low-level diplomacy. That’s almost always worth a try. It worked with Libya.
Jimmy Carter has always been incompetent in world affairs. Any successes he might claim came about despite him and not because of him. Since he was elected president he has been perceived as being a “rube” by virtually every despotic/criminal/terrorist leader in the world. His meeting with Hamas did nothing to change that perception. I would agree that his meeting produced little of consequence either way. When it was all said and done, he came out of it being seen as a rube. Though, personally, I found his meeting a bit embarrassing and it compelled me to write an article. Afterall, he is an ex-president and still respected by two or three people.
Regards,
P.R., Jr.
(P.S., very well done, professional site…kudos!)