Open Diplomacy Responsible, Not Naive
posted 24th July 2007 in 2008 Reasons, Barack Obama, Democrats, George W. Bush by Mother Davis
Mother Davis sits out on the front porch as she thinks,
I’m disappointed in Hillary Clinton.
Yesterday, when asked if he would commit to meeting with the leaders of Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Iran and North Korea, Barack Obama said that yes, indeed he would. Obama pointed out that American Presidents held summits with the leaders of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. He also mentioned that the attempt to use the withholding of diplomatic contact as some form of punishment has not been effective.
Barack Obama is right, of course. It’s been three decades since Iran and the United States had a diplomatic relationship, and the lack of diplomacy has not resulted in the overthrow of the Iranian theocracy. On the contrary, lack of contact has made the regime more radical. George W. Bush’s policy of not talking to North Korea’s leadership made the nuclear crisis in that country worse, not better.
In 2009, the new President will have the chance to overcome the foreign policy mistakes of the Bush presidency, and the best way to do that is to clearly demonstrate that the days of American obstinacy are over. Showing a willingness to listen to, and talk to, the leaders of all nations.
Hillary Clinton, tied to the policies of her former President husband, did not react well. She seemed miffed at the idea of a new President being willing to talk to world leaders to whom her husband would not. With a knee jerk reaction, Clinton defended the way that things have been done in Washington D.C. for years. She called Barack Obama’s proposal “irresponsible and frankly naive.”
It’s a sad day for the Democratic Party when the supposed front-runner for President of the United States refers to talk as “irresponsible”. The only thing to which face-to-face talks between the American President and leaders of other nations is irresponsible is the status quo. Frankly, the status quo is rotten. As for naivete, well, naivete is much to be preferred to fatalism.
Hillary Clinton’s snide remark at Barack Obama’s vision of a new era of open diplomacy is the most stark reminder of the difference between these two candidates. Hillary Clinton is a fixture of the past. Barack Obama has the courage to look to the future, toward progress.
When it comes to diplomacy, Barack Obama is the candidate who has the right to refer to himself as a progressive. Hillary Clinton, in comparison, seems too backwards-thinking, afraid and proud to extend a hand of reconciliation.
For the sake of world community, Barack Obama looks like the better choice to me.
Getting out of her rocking chair to greet a neighbor,
Mother Davis
(Source: Associated Press, July 24, 2007)
 |  |  |
This calls for the quesiton – why limit your choice ? Obaama also said that Nukes were also not off the table when it came to Iran. I did’nt realize that Congress had declared war. You do not also have to be a friend in order to not be an enemy.
Iran only needs to save face to become an ally if not a friend. If we and the UN, instead of humilating their president in front of his people, said we all want to help you with Nuclear Energy, then Iran can become a Model Islamic Nation with many business partners. So why then would they need a nuclear bomb.
Further, let’s consider building Iran another Refinary where they only have one. Now Iran has a better capability of benefiting from their oil. Why not make a deal that says give us low prices in helping you ? Then the Saudi’s will have to drop their pants or their oil prices too !
Its not a matter of thinking out of the box, but not letting yourself be stuff in one. The Democrats, nor Republicans are capable of this.
Sincerely Yours,
Orion Karl Daley
Presidential Candidate for 2008
for the Strategic Future of our nation
Balanced Party http://unity2008.org
New York, NY, USA -
“So why then would they need a nuclear bomb.”
You should end a question with a question mark. They’ll still want a nuclear bomb to wipe Israel off the map. Oh, did you forget that they’re leader promised this? Here’s a refresher of his statements:
“We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them.”
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”
“Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations.”
“The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”
“If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d’ tre, Israel will be annihilated.”
“Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed.”
“Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm.”
and Mother Davis, good analysis. I agree with Obama in the need for communication between nations, even if their governments choose to be enemies with each other.
Well written, Mother Davis.
i’ve come to feel that Hillary is a Democrat in the same way that Lieberman was a Democrat (in name only).
I am going to repost this here, as it is a similar thread and I don’t want to miss the chance to talk about this with interested folks:
I am not sure how to phrase this question, I am struggling with how to understand the implications for diplomacy of two things. One is a more theoretical pacifist idea that war and violence of any sort represent true weakness, both in belief and action, of ones own ideas, true conviction leading to a willingness to die speaking the truth to power and resisting it like Ghandi, or the other notion that talking and diplomacy, consensus and compromise represent weakness and lack of conviction.
Also, is this part of the difference between the Clinton and Obama approaches?
Dear President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
I commend you for wanting to talk. This is the first step in building bridges regardless of the reception. It is not important to me that you question the holocaust, or the rights of Israel at the moment. If I have a say, I would look for Israel to be the biggest banking community in the Middle East, where all nations that surround it, can obtain financing and assistance for building agricultural economies. Please consider, that one nation does not have to be the friend of another in order to have it as its ally.
I think Israel’s purpose in fate is to be a financial economy in order to serve your area of the world. In your position you can help make this realized. Further, it would be a great place to obtain financing for a second refinary. It also speaks in great measure of you actions as a world leader in peace.
I sent something before,( Iran Policy ) that I hope you will have a chance to look at. Perhaps on the plane home or before hand to share with your UN counterparts.
Peace can be achieved in finding economic solutions where it is currently easier to find excuses to hate others. Waging Peace through stratagic economic solutions is detailed in the Foreign Policy section of a book I wrote. Some reviews are included below.
Keep Reaching out, as it calls for others to as well no matter how proud we tell others that we are.
Sincerely Yours,
Orion Karl Daley