Foreign policy is a curious and delicate thing. Presidents set the tone and the State Department implements the policy. In this era, we face a global threat in the War on Terror, as well as a number of individual threats that are too easily grouped together as one. The challenges we face are numerous and complicated. Every country we face in conflict has its own set of issues with its own set of solutions; therefore, trying to apply history to our present and future can be tedious. There are, however, lessons to be drawn from our history of successes and failures.
The quote, “We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate” is attributed to our youngest President to date, John F. Kennedy. Indeed, in his short Presidency, he faced some of the most gripping foreign policy decisions, with threats from Cuba and the Soviet Union culminating into the Cuban Missile Crisis. He demonstrated a strong, unbending will that ultimately kept our country safe during our most dangerous time. He also sat down to negotiate with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, and held his ground while doing so. (My Comment)
Ronald Reagan met numerous times with Mikhail Gorbachev during the 1980s. He correctly tethered our foreign policy with the Soviet Union to their domestic policy and the freedoms of the Russian citizens. As the Soviets gave their citizens more political freedoms, the USSR withered away, the regime eventually toppled, and the Berlin Wall came down. The first political prisoner released by Gorbachev, Natan Sharansky, in his book The Case for Democracy, sums up the linkage Reagan made, stating:
“In fighting with the Soviet regime, we dissidents came to appreciate the power of the solidarity of the free world. We believed that a state’s respect for the rights of its own citizens should be the criterion by which to measure the state’s intentions. In the readiness of democratic leaders to link their relations with other states to the extent those states respected human rights, we saw great potential for the development and expansion of freedom across the globe.”
In my admittedly novice opinion, this should be the basis for all foreign policy decision-making. As citizens gain freedoms, they will internally push the nation towards true democracy, which is the foundation for a lasting peace. Both Kennedy and Reagan understood the power of proper negotiation, and the implications of anxiety or appeasement. They understood the moral implications of just diplomacy, as Hans Morgenthau to “bend, not break” the will of our opponents. Most importantly, Kennedy and Reagan understood that their words and deeds represented a free society and would convey the benefits of joining in their ranks.
Improper negotiations can have devastating effects. Before the onset of the American Revolution, Patrick Henry warned us of improperly negotiating with the British, saying, “I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.”
History Repeats Itself
Last month, before Israel’s Knesset, President George W. Bush parsed, “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
I encourage you to read the entire transcript, located here. In saying these words, the President was indicting a mindset that has repeatedly failed throughout history for purely human psychological reasons. When you give up a little bit to a megalomaniac, it becomes difficult for them not to ask for more. If you back off a line drawn in the sand, your opponent will continue to advance. Those who fail to realize this are destined to fall victim to repeat the lessons of our past.
Bush’s comments obviously made Barack Obama jump up in his proverbial chair, as those words hit a particularly raw nerve. It is common knowledge that in the CNN-YouTube Debate, Barack Obama agreed that he would meet – without preconditions – with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as President. While it’s true that mere diplomacy is not appeasement, negotiation without preconditioning can easily lead to exploitation, and either embarrassment or appeasement.
On this point, Obama veered off-course, refused to admit his misstatement, and made this stance his doctrine. He will certainly hear about this up through November. In the debate, he went on to reference Reagan and Kennedy, as I did in the introduction, but obviously he is not aware of the mechanisms behind their negotiations. Take a look:
“Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.
“And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We’ve been talking about Iraq – one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they’re going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.
“They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.”
These statements, along with Obama’s willingness to meet with dictators without preconditions, may have been the target of President Bush’s comments in Israel. Obama would pull troops from Iraq, based on a timetable, with no regard for the situation on the ground. This fits the mindset of his liberal upbringing, and his true policy supporters (not the ones fainting as a result of his Messianic oratory and tendencies).
To be sure, not all Democrats, or even liberals, favor appeasement or antiwar sentiment. Appeasement – in the name of peace – seems to be the agenda of the far left, and the antiwar movement in particular. It is of note here that the ultraliberal organization MoveOn.Org endorsed Barack Obama long ago, an endorsement he concurrently accepted. This organization is so antiwar it was opposed to American intervention in Afghanistan. After 3000 Americans died in 9/11, MoveOn.Org began a petition calling for “justice, not escalating violence” in Afghanistan. These instances expose the naivety from which the antiwar movement has sprung.
For Obama, being antiwar in general – that is against any war – means in the case of Iraq, he would be sure to get it right once in a while. This indeed has been the basis of his Presidential campaign. Obama’s Iraq War dissent set him apart from the other Congressmen running for President, as he opposed the war before he entered the Senate in 2004 (For the record, Representative Dennis Kucinich also dissented the decision, and voted in the negative in October 2002).
Is Peace Progress?
No war sure sounds nice. So, on a side note here, ask yourself: Is there ever a just war? It sure would be hard to explain these antiwar sentiments to the living veterans of our World Wars, who stood up in the face of tyranny, and in the case of World War II, fought two wars at once. Explain it to our Civil War ancestors, from the North and the South, who simultaneously fought for freedom. Explain it to the Sons of Liberty, who declared independence and fought a much larger military – a literal empire – for the freedoms we enjoy today.
War is not an easy thing. It was not easy then, and is still not easy for the rough men who stand ready to do violence on our behalf. This truth is reflected in Thomas Paine’s famous words from the American Crisis, December 1776: “These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.”
Furthermore, contrary to the summer soldiers and the campaign posters, Peace is not Progress. Peace is what kept the Soviets quiet when their neighbors were marched in the Gulag. Peace is what kept dissenting Germans quiet as the Jews were beaten into the railcars, into Auschwitz, into the incinerators, never to be heard from again. It’s for these souls, these freedom fighters, that others have given up their personal peace to fight. Explain to them there is no just war.
Proper Negotiations
If peace is not progress, how do we progress in diplomatic efforts without bending our will or breaking the will of our opponents? Well, the Bush Doctrine states that, “We don’t negotiate with terrorists,” and “You are either with us or against us,” allowing no neutrality in the War on Terror. In President Bush’s own analogy, those who would test America’s resolve would find it firm. As we progressed into Bush’s second term, however, we have been confronted by multiple threats, with multiple treaties broken by North Korea and Syria, and in fact, acts of war, or casus belli, committed by Iran against our soldiers in Iraq. While we have not responded to these countries with military strikes in the sense of “Cowboy Diplomacy,” we have not sought peace through appeasement, either. Thanks to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, we may ratchet our sanctions, or conduct multilateral talks, but we do not bend. At least, we haven’t in the last eight years; who knows what tomorrow might bring.
Looking back, we realize Neville Chamberlain tried to find peace through appeasement. As Prime Minister of Great Britain, he tried to tell the British citizens that Hitler would not attack them as he marched across Europe. (If you’re ever on Chris Matthews’ Hardball, it would be good to know the following). In giving up half of Czechoslovakia in the Munich Agreement, Neville Chamberlain believed Hitler would stop there, and peace would prevail, and to the joy of the Britons, stated, “My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.” He thought wrong, though, and it cost him his legacy, as well as the countless lives of an averted history.
Delta of Difference
The lesson to be learned from the hyper-diplomacy we have recently endured is to be firm, but present when necessary. Condoleezza Rice admits to negotiating with Iran behind the scenes, effectively jettisoning the Bush Doctrine. Not a bad move on her part, actually. The distinction to make between this Administration and the Obama doctrine is that President Bush himself does not – and will not – meet unconditionally with Ahmadinejad, or the Castros, or Kim Jong Il. In the parlance of our times, we don’t roll like that.
This distinction needs to be specifically drawn between Obama and the far left, and the Republican candidate, John McCain. In my opinion, McCain and his less-than-excited conservative wing cannot hammer enough on this singular point. For the far left, peace is more precious than freedom and security better than liberty. The naivety, and subsequent hazard, of those who would sacrifice our standing in the world while exploiting the presidency beckons exaggeration. Put frankly, their misconception of foreign policy endangers global democracy. On my next and final post of this series, I will stress the necessity of a coalition for success in November against the ideals of big government discussed in the last post, and antiwar sentiment discussed here.
“Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.” – John Adams, April 1777
