By CALVIN WOODWARD – 11 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama's willingness to meet Iranian, Cuban and
other hostile leaders who would not get face time from John McCain
stands as a distinctive element of his foreign policy.
Distinctive, yes, but clearly defined? Not quite.
Obama gets cheers at his rallies when he declares there is nothing to
fear, and potentially much to gain, from talking to enemies as well as
friends.
But U.S. diplomacy is not that simple and neither is his position.
This week, Obama qualified his past statements that he would meet the
Iranian leadership directly and without precondition by saying he did
not necessarily mean Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's hardline, anti-American
president.
Nor is it certain lately at what point he, as president, would speak
personally with some of the dictators he says should be engaged.
This, despite months of assertions that his willingness to sit down with
foes sets him apart from Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and now McCain,
the likely Republican presidential nominee, who challenges Obama on that
point.
THE OLD SPIN:
In a Democratic presidential debate last summer, Obama was asked if he'd
meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea
without precondition and during his first year in office.
"I would," Obama said.
Since then he has frequently reiterated his belief that no preconditions
should be set.
"When you say preconditions, what you're really saying is, 'I'm not
going to talk to you until you agree to do exactly what I want you to
do,'" Obama said. "Well, that's not how negotiations take place."
Challenged by Clinton in multiple debates, Obama allowed that while he
would not set preconditions, he would have "preparations" and would not
rush to see certain leaders right away.
The precise difference between preconditions and preparations has not
been spelled out. What's clear is that low-level talks would precede any
summit, as happens now.
Clinton called him naive. She said she would not risk the prestige of
the presidency by negotiating directly with countries such as Iran until
they had agreed to change their ways.
Obama called that a case of old Washington thinking.
The new thinking, however, appears not to have been thought all the way
through.
THE NEW SPIN:
Obama objected on CNN this week to "this obsession with Ahmadinejad" and
explained guardedly: "I would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders if
we had done sufficient preparations for that meeting.
"Whether Ahmadinejad is the right person to meet with right now, we
don't even know how much power he is going to have a year from now,"
Obama added. "He is not the most powerful person in Iran."
He said he would expect "to meet with those people who can actually make
decisions" in Iran on its nuclear program, its aid to terrorists and
destabilization in Iraq.
He did not explain how he would get around Iran's president to other
people of influence.
Similarly, prominent Obama supporters have jumped into the debate to say
he has believed all along that one does not go blindly into negotiations
with dictators.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, for one, is drawing distinctions
between Iran and Cuba.
A veteran of semiofficial negotiations with dictators, he said Obama
should be open to meeting Cuban President Raul Castro, but "I think you
don't talk to Ahmadinejad. You talk to some of the moderate clerics."
Obama's campaign is carefully picking its words on Cuba as the Illinois
senator campaigns in Florida this week, mindful of the opposition by
many exiles to too much liberalization of U.S. policy.
The matter of what constitutes a precondition for negotiations with
Castro is one sticky point.
Susan Rice, Obama's foreign policy adviser, outlined what resembled
preconditions Wednesday when she talked on MSNBC about what Cuba must do
for an Obama administration to deal fully with that state.
Obama favors relaxing restrictions on family travel and remittances
between the island and the U.S.
But Rice identified "concrete progress" toward true elections, the
freeing of political prisoners and a free press as a requirement to
"initiate a process through engagement."
That did not sound like an invitation to sit down and talk any time soon.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jgNrscc8uvyp-L659qdXVCK2OAhgD90QHUQO0
No comments:
Post a Comment