My friend Jeromy had some comments in response to my post about Obama and Iran.
How much do we legitimize actions like the one cited here (and the hundreds that have been reported like it) when we sit down to the table with a guy like Ahmadinejad?
See, I've heard this argument before and I just don't get it. We live in a world with people who see things much differently than we do here in America. We live in a world where not everyone likes us. We need to learn to live with that and effectively deal with it. If we take the stand that you have to do what we want before we will even talk to you, then we are only going to make more enemies. Ahmadinejad is not popular in his country as can be seen by recent protests. If we tell Iran we won't talk to them unless they do what we want and constantly beat the war drum, we are only going to whip up a national fervor there. Those people protesting Ahmadinejad will rally behind him against the arrogant American threat.
Dialoging does not mean condoning. We should never be afraid to talk to anyone. In fact, we will accomplish much more through meaningful discourse backed by incentives and the threat of a stick than we will through arrogant posturing.
On Obama himself, Jeromy said:
I think Obama's intentions are decent, but realistically he's positioning himself for an election, which means the rhetoric about foreign policy, while it sounds good, is not nearly as simplistic or practical as he makes it sound.
You can make that argument about any politician running for any office ever. Of course they are going to say things that may sound simplistic. No one would pay attention to Obama's 500-page Dissertation on American-Iranian Relations. Especially in our sound-bite era, politicians break things down as small as possible. That's the way our system works.
The reason I like Obama is because (with the exception of Ron Paul), he is the only candidate that really comes off as genuine and different than most every other politician. He's not afraid to tell people things they aren't going to like (e.g. his speech to Detroit automakers). He's not talking about sticking it to the Republicans or doubling Gitmo or torture being cool or giving free money to everyone. No, he's talking about coming together and making a better America.
Yeah, yeah, he's saying that to get elected (like every other person who runs for office). Well, it sounds good; he sounds like he genuinely means it; and it sounds better than what the other candidates are saying. That's why I support Obama.
2 comments:
You know I had to respond to this one. :)
A few arguments to make:
1. Diplomacy is not like going out to dinner with a buddy. Every action, every word, every small iota has serious insinuations. Just sitting down at a public table with another country speaks volumes about the relationship with that country.
2. You're right, they are a very different culture than ours, which leads to two things. First, you rightly suggest that >"If we take the stand that you have to do what we want before we will even talk to you, then we are only going to make more enemies...If we tell Iran we won't talk to them unless they do what we want and constantly beat the war drum.." But Obama himself bears this very attitude, just in different order- "Now Obama says he's willing to go to Iran to talk without preconditions, reward Iran with positive changes in behavior..."
Reward them with positive changes in behavior? That's no different than not sitting at a public forum with them because of previously bad behavior. Same attitude, different tact. Second, the culture issue is incredibly pertinent. The Iranians view our current tact very differently than we do, and they would view open diplomacy differently than we do. You have to remember, this is an honor-based culture in which relationships are based upon strength and respect. If we expect to go in and make nice and come out with a healthy relationship, we're dead wrong. And I don't mean that we have to beat our chest and play tough guy; I mean we have to understand that in this culture diplomacy like Obama is suggesting will have a different affect than if we were sitting down with, say, France.
3. Regarding Obama personally- Although I probably would pay attention to a 500- page dissertation on American-Iranian relations, I would settle for a two-page document with just a couple of specifics. Just three years ago Obama was singing a different tune , talking about missile strikes, sanctions, and the unpredicability of the Iranian government. Three years ago it was popular to take a "tough stand" against Iran, now its popular to play the diplomatic card. And you're right, the argument I made could be said about most politicians because that's the nature of the game. And yet you said in your post after the quote that you support Obama exactly because of the kind of this kind of statement. If statements like this ARE generic and meant to gain favor, is it wise to base your support for him on such rhetoric?
Do we "take our ball and go home" because Iran's not playing by the rules? Absolutely not. But do we formally sit down at the world trade and commerce table with them without recognizing the oppression, torture, and hatred that flows from the hands and mouths of the Iranian government? How is it that the same people who are ready to throw Bush out for water boarding (I count myself in this group) are also willing to legitimize a man and government who openly admits, even glorifies, decades of atrocities and torture?
Cold shouldering is not the answer, but a koom-bay-a session, as Obama seems to suggest, is not the answer either.
Here's a good example of movement forward in tense relations- Pope Benedict and the King of Saudi Arabia recently met at the vatican for about 1 hour. Saudi Arabia does not allow public Christian worship and the Saudi government is just as oppresive as other Middle East regimes (we don't hear about it as much because we have good oil relations with them). The Pope and the King sat down outside of a political venue to begin to form a relationship with the intent of reconciliation. There were few political motives and very little to gain frm the meeting. Eventually, this relationship might result in a healthy Saudi Arabia AND a healthier Vatican. What's the difference, you ask, between this meeting and Obama's diplomatic views? The conversation has to begin somewhere other than the diplomacy table, where EVERYTHING has strings attached.
You're right, conversation needs to happen, and it needs to be a priority for the next administration But not at the public table of trade and commerce, not yet.
As for Obama- I hope he gets the Democratic nomination, because I still think he's the lesser of the many mistakes that we could make. But I am absolutely not convinced of his true intent and goals. His speeches are simply pages ripped out of the JFK and MLK, Jr. playbooks, which sound great....but are they backed by conviction or merely a ploy to win an election? Time will tell...
Post a Comment