Of all political issues about which I feel strongly (and there are many), the issue for which I have the strongest feelings is United States foreign policy.
Early on in this presidential race, before I really jumped on board with any candidate, it was Ron Paul who impressed me most--and it was because of foreign policy.
Dr. Paul talked about diplomacy. He talked about cause and effect. He talked about a humble policy, rejecting war-mongering, rejecting preemptive war, rejecting torture, respecting international laws. He said we should talk to our enemies and try to understand why terrorists commit the acts they do.
He was ridiculed by all the Republican candidates.
Eventually I shifted support to Barack Obama about a month before Iowa. I embraced his domestic agenda, but I was most persuaded, again, by his foreign policy--far more in line with Ron Paul than Sen. Clinton.
Obama, like Paul, opposed the invasion of Iraq. So did former President Carter. Hillary Clinton did not. She fell in line. She trumpeted the White House talking points as did John Kerry.
Now, I know folks like to point out how Obama only made a speech. They say it was easy for a Democratic candidate in Illinois to do so. They say he voted the same as Clinton upon finally entering the Senate. However I reject those arguments. Listening to an early interview, when asked specifically how he would have voted, Obama said he would have done the same as his Senior Senator, Dick Durbin, and voted "nea." That's telling. From whom would you think Obama would have taken counsel on this difficult decision had he been in Senate, given his own reservations?
Another critic of the original invasion was Jimmy Carter. He wrote an op-ed in March 2003 entitled "Just War -- or a Just War?" He offered sobering words opposing a rush to war.
'Just war' is the theological doctrine of military ethics, in line with Christian theology. An element of the theory expresses that war is only justified in response to direct aggression or a direct act. Ron Paul mentions the 'just war' theory often. Obama himself is a reader of Niebuhr, a Protestant theologian who related Christianity to modern diplomacy.
I offer this information as insight into all these men's thinking when it comes to foreign policy.
Carter, Paul, and Obama all opposed the Iraq invasion and one must conclude they were influenced by 'just war' thinking. They saw, clearly, that invading Iraq was an unprecedented, preemptive, and aggressive invasion of another country which posed no immediate threat, thus failing to fulfill the 'just war' threshold for engaging in military action with another country.
Now, that brings me to focusing specifically on Jimmy Carter, whose new editorial in the New York Times prompted me to write this post.
This editorial, titled "Pariah Diplomacy," was published yesterday. It's a very telling editorial from Mr. Carter, and upon reading it, one has to think that we should all be taking a lesson from Mr. Carter when it comes to foreign policy. A big lesson.
Current U.S. policy is absolutely bone-headed. The U.S. in dealing with countries it disagrees with, often adopts a policy of isolation. By isolating a country you simply exacerbate a fixable problem--effectively, burdens will fall on the people, who eventually become desperate, eventually reach out to fringe elements, and then anti-Americanism breeds and eventually comes back to bite us.
Jimmy Carter rejects isolation as tool of foreign relations. He recently visited with Hamas leaders. He was criticized for this. Hamas has been labeled a terrorist organization by the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. has boycotted Hamas leaders the Syrian government. Carter recounts how Hamas displaced the Fatah party in Palestinian legislative elections in 2006. Carter offers that Hamas "gained a reputation for effective and honest administration." "As victors, Hamas proposed a unity government with Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah as president and offered to give key ministries to Fatah, including that of foreign affairs and finance."
Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity often cite Hamas as radical terrorists. A fearsome militant group. I'm sure they think Carter is a radical, too. Now, should we look at that situation--a 'terrorist' group winning a majority in legislature--as a whole country's descent into radicalism? Should we fear the situation? Should we then isolate the country, sanction it?
No. Not according to Carter. Carter's response was this: "Since there can be no peace with Palestinians divided, we at the Carter Center believed it important to explore conditions allowing Hamas to be brought peacefully back into the discussions. (A recent poll of Israelis, who are familiar with this history, showed 64 percent favored direct talks between Israel and Hamas.)"
What a shock! Direct talks? No way, not with terrorists.
But clearly Carter is on to something. Now, he has said some controversial things regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, relative to the U.S. alliance with Israel. But what he understands is that isolation is simply not the answer. Isolation has never yeilded effective results in the past.
Carter observes a rift in this situation. He knows no reconciliation can be made without all major players involved. Progress can't be made from the sidelines, by alienating one member, by favoring one about all. Israel, apparently gets it too. Mr. Carter states, "Israel cannot gain peace with Syria unless the Golan Heights dispute is resolved. Here again, United States policy is to ostracize the Syrian government and prevent bilateral peace talks, contrary to the desire of high Israeli officials."
He then offers a list of responses from Hamas leaders from Carter officials that are intended to enhance peace prospects in the region.
Now, should we take Hamas at their word? Well, what choice do we have? Carter doesn't pretend to offer concrete answers to great international disputes like these, unlike the current administration, which I'm sure believes God is on their side in all situations.
The point here, and this is part of Carter's open-ended conclcusion, is that "the path to peace lies in negotiation, not in isolation." And not in saber-rattling either, which Republican congresspeople and some Democrats like to do.
Now, from what Obama has said, it's safe to say his sentiments largely reflect Carter's. We should indeed talk directly to foreign leaders, even the so-called bad guys. Negotiation is the way forward. Direct negotiation of major players. And Obama is right. He gets criticized but he is right.
Hillary Clinton objects. She thinks a meeting with the president is a privledge. There ought to be preconditions. Obama disagrees. Hillary uses harsh language against Iran. She recently suggested we would "obliterate" the entire country if they used force against Israel. She calls Obama "irresponsible" for suggesting the president hold meetings without preconditions.
Who is really responsible? If it's not clear, it should be. We would be wise to take advice from Mr. Carter.
0 comments:
Post a Comment