Analysis: Democratic Debate Produces Summit Flap, Flip-flop

A flap has broken out as a result of remarks made in July's presidential debate in which Sen. Barack Obama supports meeting with leaders we disagree with, while Sen. Hillary Clinton was caught the next day having flip-flopped in on the same issue.

First, let us summarize the exchange as it happened Monday night. In remarks widely repeated the following day, Sen. Barack Obama in reply to a question on whether he would be willing to meet individually with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Cuba, said, " I would, and the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - what has been the guiding principle of this administration - is ridiculous."

In response to the same question, Sen. Clinton said that she couldn't "promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes." The following morning when she spoke to the Quad-City Times she characterized Sen. Obama's response as "irresponsible and frankly naïve." She also stated the obvious by saying she would use envoys to test the waters.

Meanwhile, Anthony Lake, an Obama foreign policy adviser who was national security adviser early in President Clinton's administration, defended Obama's statements.

"A great nation and its president should never fear negotiating with anyone and Senator Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so - just as Richard Nixon did with China and Ronald Reagan with the Soviet Union," Lake said. Lake rephrased the famous Kennedy quote to "never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."

Curiously, the AP wire service caught Sen. Clinton flip-flopping . They quoted her stating in February that "You don't refuse to talk to bad people. I have consistently urged the president to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength, not weakness."

This raises an interesting question by every interested voter: Why is it that in July Sen. Clinton refuses to talk to foreign leader we disagree with, while in February she was all for it? Perhaps the answer is that the CNN and YouTube cameras were recording her every word, and she had to appear to be a steady and savvy candidate.

It also raises other questions of what makes these leaders different from those who led the "evil empires" of the Soviet Union and China (usually referred to as Red China at that time)? Do you remember the demonization of those regimes?

Let us look briefly at the current chief executives of the "Evil Empire Little League."

Venezuela's chief executive is the controversial Hugo Chavez. His tumultuous career lacks only an Evita to glamorize his campaign to improve the lot of the poorest citizens. He launched the Bolivarian Missions to combat disease, illiteracy, malnutrition, poverty and other social ills. He has funded a universal healthcare system, and made land grants to Amazonian native peoples. Infant mortality has declined 18% from 1998 to 2006. He offers free medical school tuition to 100K doctors if they pledge to work in poor communities. He is infected less with Marxism and more with the Pan-American philosophy of Simon Bolivar. And just to show what a forgiving kind of guy he is, instead of replying in kind to the US support of an attempted coup in April 2002 - he gives subsidized heating oil to American poor folks, and was the first foreign government to offer aid in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

The Bush administration refused the offer. Mr. Bush's confidence in "Brownie's" ability was proved right, wasn't it? In spite of the two thousand miles that lie between Caracas and New Orleans, somehow I am sure that Mr. Chavez's aid would have arrived sooner than that of FEMA.

Cuba is still led by an older, yet still formidable Fidel Castro. His recent health scares have forced him to face his own mortality and name his brother as his successor, although no one can predict which Castro will head Cuba by the time a new American president is inaugurated. Castro's Cuba has been in the news lately due to the spotlight from Michael Moore's visit in filming "Sicko." For a mere $251 per person per year, their health system gets comparable results in terms of longevity to the bloated, broken US healthcare system. While there are many poor people, they are not starving and they are not illiterate. While Cuba and the US differ widely in their approach to problems, I cannot see that recognizing Cuba would cause any imminent harm to our national security or other interests. What it would affect is a candidate's votes in Miami.

Iran's Pres. Mahmoud Ahmedinejad lives a Spartan existence with his family in an apartment. He directs oil money to soup kitchens, housing subsidies, and helping the young get jobs. He states that nuclear bombs are "illegal and against our religion." Ironically, Iran is an oil exporter that has to import refined gasoline for domestic use. Their need for an independent energy supply is just as real as ours, as their production is tailing off. While every caution should be used to prevent nuclear proliferation, Iran should not be treated too differently from Japan, which is heavily dependent on nuclear energy and is prohibited from having an arsenal.

Syria's Pres. Bashar al-Assad has released political prisoners, and condemned the Harir assassination. While Syria has long been suspected of supporting opposition groups in other countries, we must still maintain diplomatic channels and cordial relations.

North Korea's Kim Yong-il is the Imelda Marcos of wine, with 10K bottles in his wine cellar as peasants die of starvation in the street. He favors lobster, caviar, and even sushi flown in from Japan. He has 17 palaces to choose from when he wants to pillow his head, and is said to be an ace golfer who frequently makes holes in one. Yet he is little different from scores of tyrants that the US has supported, including Marcos, the Shah of Iran, etc.

What does set these leaders apart from any that have won US support, is that they have chosen to go their own way and forge their own ties with their neighbors. We have lost trade partnerships in oil and other key commodities because we thought we could lead them, carrot-and-stick style, to toe the US line. Instead, oil producers like Venezuela have chosen to sell their production to China instead. Americans drink second-rate sodas with corn syrup instead of Cuban sugar in them. (In an interesting aside, one of the first acts when the US invaded Iraq was to nullify contracts to sell Iraqi oil to China, Russia, France, and Germany. Those contracts reportedly have been awarded to US and UK oil companies.)

Sen. Obama is right to point out the ridiculousness of the American approach to diplomacy, which has been to withhold contact and trade in the false belief that doing so will bring our enemies to their knees. It only drives them to more extreme allies, just as banning trade with Cuba drove them right into the arms of the Soviets.

We have been uncomfortable with the results of foreign elections that did not turn out the way we thought they "should." Why are the votes of foreigners less valid than those of Americans? It is as if our government would nullify any election that happened to choose a socialistic winner. We have to accept the result, if we have accepted the process.

Furthermore, the only lasting treaties were those that were negotiated directly by the parties involved, of their own free will. The best example is the Camp David accord, which has held firm for over a quarter of a century in spite of the deaths of the principal signers. Perhaps the only way the US could successfully arrive at an accord with any of the above nations is if some neutral country offered to host a conference.

Volunteers, anyone?