Nixon Went to China…
April 19, 2009 – 1:32 pm…Reagan signed the IMF arms control treaty with Gorbachev, and now Obama has opened to door to Cuba, Iran and Venezuela. If his actions serve America’s interests, as those of his predecessors did, we should applaud him. Negotiating with hostile powers, if done in the national interest, is Realpolitik, a nd all the ideological braying nonwithstanding, it deserves our support.
Nixon used China to counterbalance the Soviet union; Reagan used IMF to reduce nuclear tensions at a time when nuclear weapons were the Soviet Union’s only trump card; Obama could advance America’s interests by his engagement with the Taliban’s enemies in Teheran, while opening Cuba to American trade and smoothing relations with one of our hemisphere’s largest oil exporters. This is not to say that he will, or that these are his motives; it is to say that the diplomatic charm offensive is not, of itself, a bad thing, and can only be judged objectively on the fruit it produces.
Nixon could go to China because he had ‘street cred’ as our leading anti-Communist, something for which his memory is still hated for on the Left. Reagan could sign an arms control treaty because he, too, had the credibility with his own constituency to do so. Obama lacks the long ‘tough guy’ record that his predecessors had, but he does have a different kind of ‘cred:’ With Iran, his anti-war stance; with Venezuela nad cuba, a shared leftist orientation, and with all three, being a black kid who attended a Muslim-run school overseas who has relatives living in Africa and Asia, and who is not an old-boy, Skull & Bones alum. He may not use these attributes to his, and our advantage, but he has them, nonetheless. He is ‘different’ enough to have a window of opportunity to engage our enemies without having the baggage, in their eyes, of his predecessors. We can only hope that his Secretary of State is channeling Tricky Dick instead of Eleanor Roosevelt this time around…
3 Responses to “Nixon Went to China…”
I agree with the basic premise you present. I struggle with equating China and Russia with Iran and Venezuela though. Something to many do in news and events analysis is make relative equations that aren’t apt or aren’t logical.
Obama is a poseur and if his posing “succeeds” it will be in spite of his priorities rather than due to them. Negotiating with evil is rarely successful and generally propagates more of the same.
By Nik on Apr 20, 2009
I have long felt that we needed to end the 50 years of failed policy in Cuba. Even with the embargo, we are the 7th largest importer to Cuba. Cuba could quickly grow into a valuable trade partner, and we could see a dramatic shift in policy as prosperity grows.
Even with all the hard-line rhetoric that Chavez used during the Bush years Venezuela still needs foreign Investment to sustain its growth. We have no problem dealing with other countries that have engaged in this type of rhetoric before, so why should this be different. I think the China analogy is a valid one when compared to Venezuela, and should act as an example of long term engagement to facilitate change. Nixon would not recognize today’s China, now a member of the WTO, and embracing a pseudo capitalistic economy while retaining its core communistic government.
Iran, on the other hand, is nothing like China. I fully believe that they are the biggest threat to stability in the Middle East, and for that reason alone I agree that we need to engage in a dialog, and with a real intent to find a win / win solution to our issues. Will we find common ground? That is yet to be seen.
I think that Mr. Obama is savvier in his understanding of global culture and is using that to rebuild bridges burnt by eight years of shoot from the hip foreign policy. I may not agree with everything his administration is doing, but I think that reengaging with Cuba and Venezuela is in our best interests. Not unlike Nixon, this move also checks Russia, who is trying hard to rise back to the glory days of the USSR.
By RestlessKnight on Apr 21, 2009