Obama's Diplomacy

Did you catch Obama's remarks yesterday? Paraphrasing, he pointed out that Iran became a problem because the Bush administration removed Sadam's government from Iraq that resulted in the removal of Iran's chief enemy. Further he blamed the current problem in Gaza on the Bush administration for pushing for and wanting elections in the Palestinian Authority, even though Israel warned that Fatah would likely lose and resultantly place Hammas in power.

Two issues to draw from this. Firstly, the issue of Iran's nuclear program and the support of groups like Hezballah and Hammas. According to the N.I.E. released a few months back, Iran's secret nuclear program was moving along ful steam towards weaponization until the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Whereupon, Iran not only halted its program, but even informed the United Nations' I.A.E.A. that it had a nuclear program. Also the issue of Iran supporting Hezzballah and Hammas suddenly became an issue upon which their government reasonably assumed that further support of these groups could place them in military conflict with the United States. Iran unilaterally halted such support long enough for Hezballah to suffer its collapse that happened in Lebanon, and also forced Hammas to consider political solutions because its source of armaments dried up.

Secondly, the Bush administration's efforts to promote a democratic initiation to the Middle East countries as a policy goal became possible. Jordan held elections that were not rubber stamp events. Syria relinquished its occupation of Lebanon and for the first time in decades free and fair elections were held the resulted in a stable government. Egypt held its first reasonably free elections since before Nassar was in power. Iraq held elections for the first time since the end of the British Mandate. And even the Palestinian Authority held elections that were free and fair for the first time ever since the end of the British mandate.

If the United States policy was through the second half of the Twentieth century and has remained to be policy in this century that the United States will support the removal of dictatorships in violation of the United Nations Charter and the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, then why would Obama view such a continuation of this policy as being wrong? Further, since the declaration of President Wilson on the necessity and right to free and democratic elections in 1919, the United States has sought to promote democratic political systems that hold free and fair elections as a central need to peaceful government, why would Obama hold that the Bush administration's continuation of this now almost one hundred years old policy to be wrong?

Obma posits that he would speak to our enemies. Holding out the examples of Nixon going to China, Carter going to the P.L.O., and even Kennedy meeting with Kruschev as times when the President has met with enemies, he neatly depends on the historical ignorance of the American public as to the details of such events. Few remember for example that Nixon's visit was in reality an attempt to further enlarge the divide between Soviet and Chinese Communism as well as personally inform the Chinese leadership that Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao would be grounds for war if China invaded. Few people remember that Carter's meeting with Arrafat was then end game in a diplomacy that had crossed the time period of three preceding Presidents and also was at a time when the P.L.O. was seeing its power-base erode to the point that it was finally willing to seek a diplomatic and political resolution. That is a far and marked difference in why previous Presidents negotiated with enemies than is the case with Obama seeking to parley with nations and leaders who not only do not want to parley but also see no need to parley with any President of the United States.

The fact that Obama sees the political method of being elected to office and governmental control by Hamas as being something that should never have been allowed brings to light the plausible conclusion that for whatever reason Obama supports democracy only if it is without consequence.

Why should we vote for a political leader who would no longer openly confront the worst leaders in the world, who would meet with any leader no matter how detestable, and who would avoid democratic institutions if it meant possible negative ramifications to the United States?