DIPLOMACY MYTHS THE LEFT LIKES TO TELL

What follows is how those on the left explain the fact that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, has chosen to begin to personally engage the thuggish tyrant from Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Although most Americans approve the idea of contacting international, anti-American bad actors like the election fixer Chavez on some level, the majority prefer that it not start at the top of the diplomatic chain with the President.

After all, Jimmy Carter has been down to see Hugo. Several Hollywood types have been there so that they could publicly bad mouth their country, led by that intellectual giant Sean Penn. Of course, Cindy Sheehan was invited to come down and bash George Bush. And leftist signer Harry Belafonte is a good friend and whole hearted supporter of Hugo's. Not to mention virtually every international petty dictator, punk, thug and fellow tyrant, Putin included. Nice company for our President to join.

Certainly we should talk with these people. But this is a job for the professional diplomats at the Department of State or for special envoys who serve at the pleasure of the President. The leader of the free world should not expose himself to the chance to be blindsided in front of the watching world by a punk like Chavez. That's fine for a Senator Obama, not a President Obama.

Note the comments inserted in the article below relative to the key points being presented. See the bold caps for some different perspective.


Why Obama Shook Chávez's Hand
He campaigned on a new approach to diplomacy.
By JAMES P. RUBIN

Beneath the attacks on President Barack Obama's performance at recent meetings abroad lie two fundamental questions about American foreign policy. The first is the extent to which Washington should make changing despised leaders of other countries a primary goal. NOTE TO THE WHITE HOUSE: YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE HUGO CHAVEZ. THAT IS A BAD CHOICE OF GOALS. The second is how to use the power of the presidency. NOT TO MENTION, IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE FOR THE PRESIDENT TO BE USED AS A PROPAGANDA TOOL FOR DESPOTS DOMESTIC POLITICAL AGENDAS.

What the chorus of Mr. Obama's critics is ignoring is that the 2008 election was, in part, a referendum on President Bush's policy of regime change and his approach to diplomacy. TO SOME EXTENT, AGREED. BUT HOW AND IN WHAT NEW DIRECTION? NOBODY VOTED ON THAT! CANDIDATE OBAMA WAS NEVER CLEAR ON THAT.

Candidate Barack Obama could not have been clearer. CORRECTION: HE FLIP FLOPPED AND WAS NEVER CLEAR. He was going to talk to foreign leaders directly whether the United States agreed with their policies or not. And the purpose of this new diplomacy, Mr. Obama emphasized, was not to change regimes around the world but to advance American interests. His opponent, Sen. John McCain, took the opposite view. He wouldn't be seen in the company of Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. AND THUS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUNKED BY THAT THUG. And as far as Iran was concerned, Mr. McCain would demand that Tehran capitulate on a series of issues as the price for a meeting with the president. SO FAR, MR. OBAMA HAS DEALT WITH IRAN ON THE SAME LEVELS AND IN MUCH THE SAME FASHION AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. NO SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE TO DATE, JUST A WINDOW DRESSING CHANGES.

Despite the results of November's election, Mr. Obama's critics are judging him on the basis of the old Bush calculus. MAYBE A FEW CRITICS, BUT NOT MOST AMERICANS AS NOTED ABOVE. Whether it is Venezuela or Cuba, they assess Mr. Obama's actions based on whether or not they immediately contribute to the downfall of a regime. If not, then they go off in high dudgeon.
Worse yet, Mr. Obama's critics are using the same logic that contributed to early failures in Iraq. They say the president's politeness to Hugo Chávez, for example, should be judged by the standards of the Cold War. They point to the fact that dissidents in Eastern Europe were heartened when President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire." But that truth doesn't always translate to other parts of the world. If Iraq has taught us anything, it is that not all countries respond the same way when a dictator falls. Unfortunately, many heirs to the Reagan tradition haven't learned that policy by analogy is a risky business. SO IS POLICY BY UTOPIAN DOCTRINE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE IS NO MEANINGFUL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT IT HAS EVER WORKED. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT CAN BE SAID THAT REAGAN DID ACHIEVE SOME SUCCESS.

Whether the challenge is Afghanistan, Pakistan or nuclear proliferation, the new administration seems determined not to be distracted by the advocates of regime change or the likes of Hugo Chávez. Instead, the Obama administration has used recent summits in London, Prague and Trinidad as a way to restore respect for the U.S. abroad, and to build the base of support that is necessary to achieve larger goals. THIS IS LEFTIST MYTHOLOGY COMBINED WITH JUST PLAIN WISHFUL THINKING. NOTHING OBAMA HAS DONE TO DATE HAS CREATED ANY ADDITIONAL RESPECT FOR THE UNITED STATES. MANY ON THE LEFT IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HAD A LONG AND VISCERAL DISLIKE FOR GEORGE BUSH. THEY HAD NO RESPECT FOR HIS PRESIDENCY, HIS ADMINISTRATION OR HIS POLICIES. IT WAS BUSH, NOT THE UNITED STATES, THAT THE LEFT AROUND THE WORLD HATED. NEVER CONFUSE THE NATION WITH THE INDIVIDUAL POLITICIAN.

Mr. Obama not only has a different view than Mr. Bush about the ends of U.S. foreign policy, but he has also promised to use different means than his predecessor. Mr. Bush believed that he could extract concessions from recalcitrant governments as the price of admission for dialogue with the U.S. When it came to preventing North Korea from building nuclear weapons, or Iran from developing nuclear technology, the Bush policy failed. AS DID THE CLINTON POLICIES BEFORE BUSH, AND THE OBAMA POLICIES TO DATE. LET'S HOPE THINGS CHANGE! Denying direct access to U.S. officials did not compel the governments in Pyongyang or Tehran to reverse course.

Soon enough Mr. Obama's critics will be howling that he is meeting with the leaders of problematic countries with no dramatic concessions to show for it. But again, they will be missing the point. As he made clear during the campaign, the president believes direct diplomacy is a tool in America's arsenal. It is not a prize to be won. DIRECT DIPLOMACY HAS A ROLE. BUT IT DOES NOT START WITH THE PRESIDENT, IT ENDS WITH HIM.

Mr. Obama's new diplomacy is well-suited to an era of democratic government and instant communication. By refusing to snub Hugo Chávez, Mr. Obama makes it harder for dictators and anti-American activists to demonize the U.S. HARDER? NOT REALLY. THEY HAVE GONE ON AND WILL CONTINUE TO GO ON DEMONIZING THE WORLD'S BEACON OF FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY AND CAPITALISM. NOTHING OBAMA HAS DONE OR WILL DO CAN CHANGE THAT REALITY. Of course, national security is not a popularity contest. But since governments around the world are increasingly democratic, they must respond to the attitudes of their people. VENEZUELA IS NO LONGER DEMOCRATIC AND, IN FACT, IS RAPIDLY HEADING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. A popular America has more leverage at the negotiating table on issues from trade to terrorism. While Republican operatives may dismiss the significance of having a president the world admires, the fact is that Mr. Obama's popularity brings tangible benefits we have lost over the last eight years. THIS IS CLASSIC FAR LEFT PAP. PEOPLE ON THE STREETS LIKE OBAMA THEREFORE THE UNITED STATES IS MORE POPULAR AND WE CAN ALL FEEL BETTER. THAT, ALONG WITH $2.50, WILL GET YOU A CUP OF COFFEE AT STARBUCKS. LEFTISTS ARE ABOUT FEELING BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES, NOT OUTCOMES. THOSE WHO HATE THE UNITED STATES MAY LIKE OBAMA BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THEIR ANTI-AMERICAN BENT ONE BIT. THEY WILL BE HAPPY ONLY WHEN AMERICA FALLS, AND NOT ONE MINUTE BEFORE. ONCE AGAIN, DO NOT CONFUSE THE NATION WITH THE INDIVIDUAL POLITICIAN.

If the president's critics continue to judge him by Bush-era standards of diplomacy and regime change, they are going to have a lot to shout about over the next four years. But the majority of Americans who supported Barack Obama will withhold judgment and give the administration the opportunity to implement its initiatives on climate change, nuclear proliferation, Afghanistan and Iran. THERE YOU HAVE IT: THIS WHOLE PIECE WAS REALLY ABOUT THE FULL AGENDA OF THE LEFT, HIDING IN THE GUISE OF COMMENTARY ABOUT HUGO CHAVEZ. THE FACT IS MOST OBAMA SUPPORTERS ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION YET. COUNT ON THIS FACT GOING FORWARD: THEY WILL! They may even give the new policies time to work.

Mr. Rubin, an adjunct professor at Columbia's School of International Affairs, was an assistant secretary of state under President Bill Clinton.
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sphere: Related Content