Criticism of Senator Barack Obama's stated willingness to engage American's adversaries and enemies has been, like so much else, reduced in this campaign season to simplistic notions that he, as president, might actually talk to this or that particular leader who may be odious, dictatorial or a sponsor of violence. Pundits, elected officials, the press, and political competitors- in a self-inflicted uproar- are either ignorant or uninformed about how international relations are conducted. The United States has a long history of talking both publicly and secretly to bad guys. They forget to remember that the U.S. talked to Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, Hafez Al Assad, Yassir Arafat, and Kim Jong-Il.
The president of the United States' primary responsibility to protect American national interests requires engaging adversaries as well as enemies. Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin who was assassinated, always reminded his opponents that to make peace, Israel had to talk to its enemies, not only its friends.
The president invoked the reviled "appeasement" to Israel's Knesset. At the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel's statehood, there could be no more inappropriate place to speak of appeasement, especially when its intent was to strike at the Democrats while far from home. Once again, the President, bound by his concept of good and evil, is a prisoner of an idealogical commitment which apparently does not allow reality testing. Foreign and defense policy making is not black or white. The gray area is neither here nor there, not right or wrong, but it is where most national security decisions are wisely considered. Values and morality are critical for the United States, but decision to protect American interests require constant compromise.
Senator John McCain has also politically exploited the president's faux pas while in Israel which raises the question whether McCain's reputation for independence and national security expertise are justified. His unfortunate embrace of the president's remarks and his attacks on Senator Obama are small minded and ill advised, even in a presidential campaign when reason is replaced by rudeness.
Talking to adversaries or enemies is not a reward. It is simply the most direct and most often effective way to persuade others to modify their behavior and to better understand the views and interests of the United States. Direct talks also gives US negotiators a window into what drives the behavior and policies of adversaries and enemies. Understanding the "other" implies neither approval or acceptance.
Unfortunately, the United States traditionally gets attached to individual leaders rather than to nations. In the Middle East, a volatile and complicated region, we attached ourselves to the Shah, Sadat, Saddam Hussein and Arafat among others. When they left the scene or defied the U.S., America was at a loss. Foreign policy is often shaped through the prism of the perspective of a favored leader. Some of the anti-Americanism so prevalent today is a direct result of the United States embracing a man, rather than communicating and understanding the culture, public opinion and needs of that leader's country. The European colonial experience prepared them to engage the nation, and not only its leader. European relations tend to be constant and can be maintained even when the man at the top goes. For the United States, when the man goes, Washington is usually out in the cold which often results in years of hostile relations detrimental to the national interest.
Whether or not, Senator Barack Obama - if he becomes president, would meet directly with any particular leader is irrelevant. The next President must understand how the world works in an era of transnational threats which require multilateral approaches and new forms of engagement.
What is frightening about this brouhaha in the midst of the presidential campaign is that respected political leaders and others are showing just how parochial, out of touch they are and that the reality of globalization does not seem to inform their opinion or their views. What's at stake for the United States is far too important to blame it all on politics.
Unilateralism and isolation in the world today actually damages American national interests and its proper role in the world. Instantaneous communications across cultures provides an extraordinary opportunity for the United States to lead, to be bold, to return to core values and provide a model and an example for others.
The international community, allies and foes alike, crave American leadership to save the planet, to resolve conflicts, to promote health and science and so much more.
Just imagine if the United States had engaged years earlier with China, the PLO, Iran, North Korea and so many others who were left isolated from American diplomacy, influence and values. Non-engagement creates mythology about the "other" on both sides and usually contributes to increased tension, even conflict. When talks ultimately begin, as they always do, overcoming the mythology that comes from lack of contact not only takes a long time, but has a serious negative impact on developing an honest and worthwhile dialogue. We handicap ourselves, the strongest nation with the biggest economy, by refusing to engage with those who might threaten us.
US relations with Iran is a case study of self-imposed isolation. In fact, American intelligence knows something, but not very much about Iran, its intentions, its internal political, economic and strategic calculations. The same is true of Iran as today's leaders are not those who were educated in the United States. The enormous gap of understanding and knowledge on each side can result in miscalculations with extreme consequences. Isolating Iran, name calling and threats, even sanctions, have not modified Tehran's behavior, in fact the contrary is true. Iran's reform movement was overcome by less educated, more radical leaders whose very survival depends on maintaining tension and animosity with the United States. As the sole superpower, the likes of which the world has never seen before, the United States refusal to engage on a wide range of outstanding issues may have contributed negatively to the very real problem between Washington and Tehran.
Another critical case is energy security. Elected officials, candidates and others claim that the US must be independent of foreign energy and threaten to punish allied oil producing countries. Yet, neither the White House or the Congress has been willing to develop a sane and realistic energy policy, legislate the laws needed to reduce emissions, improve energy efficiency, promote conservation and find new technologies. The lack of a decent transport system in the United States, the gluttony and lack of foresight of American automobile manufacturers and incredible waste have allowed the American people to live in a fool's paradise for far too long. The United States uses 25% of the world's energy which cannot and should not be sustained.
Energy security for the United States and the globe does not depend on the oil suppliers. Energy security depends on American leadership to raise the issues truthfully and to develop a strategy which must be implemented rapidly within the United States and in cooperation with the international community. The American people are resilient and will do what is necessary to promote energy security, but their elected
leaders are not. They prefer slogans rather than coming up with serious policies to respond to the energy crisis.
Americans are unhappy and want change because they see in their own lives that so much is terribly wrong in this great nation which has sapped their confidence. What ails us can be fixed over time. Americans deserve better than a president who talks of appeasement, a Republican nominee who exploits it and elected officials and others who fill the airwaves with foolish and nonsensical hyperbole that this superpower loses something by engaging its adversaries and enemies. It's a non issue which potentially damages the future of the American people.