Negotiating or Just "Talking": Appeasement, Political Posturing or Rational Behavior?

The recent speech by President Bush in Israel regarding possible adverse consequences in direct discussions with Hamas and Iran, terrorist groups and hostile nations, respectfully, and the Democrat responses, point out the somewhat inconsistent and irrational rules we have imposed on ourselves to determine when we engage or ignore bad people.

In 1961, President John Kennedy, in his Inauguration Address, said, "So let us begin anew-remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."

Later, President Kennedy expressed concern that he had been perceived as "weak" by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and that perception may have led to the Cuban missile crisis. Whether that is accurate or not, the point remains that discussions with adversaries should be encouraged, if only to reduce the chance that our will and determination is misunderstood. Discussions of and negotiating of differences with those who are our friends may resolve irritations between nations but issues that threaten regional peace will only arise with those, in descending order, who hate us or mistrust us or do not agree with our values.

The latest controversy involves meetings with and discussions with terrorist groups, such as Hamas or Hezbollah, or with hostile governments, such as Iran. Could discussions lead, directly or indirectly, to a lessening of hostility against the United States and its allies, notably Israel?

I don't know but it seems to me that the arguments raised against such discussions do not satisfy me.

The primary reasons for not having meetings and discussions with these groups are, first, they would lend status and credibility to the groups, a legitimacy, if you will; second, the meetings would have adverse consequence to the United States; third, the United States would be morally tainted by even speaking to North Korea's Kim Jong-Il or Iran's Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Former Secretary of State James Baker is said to have told the president diplomacy means talking to one's enemy, not just one's friends. If no negotiations ever happened between hostile states, negotiations would have little, if any, value.

All three major candidates for president have expressed similar views and have acknowledged, for example, that Hamas is an elected force in the Palestine parliament. James Rubin, writing in the Washington Post, reports on an interview with John McCain:

"Two years ago, just after Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News's 'World News Tonight' program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

"I asked: 'Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?'

"McCain answered: 'They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East'.'"

Senators Clinton and Obama have also stated their willingness to discuss issues with hostile groups or nations. Accepting the beneficial possibilities of negotiations as a general principle does not mean we should go ahead and talk unconditionally with every one of its enemies. Opening formal, direct negotiations with another state is a tricky business, and it confers a degree of prestige and legitimacy on their spokesperson interlocutor. No American president would want to confer the kind of legitimacy implicit in a one-to-one presidential meeting on a loathsome character like Ahmadinejad, who only recently referred to Israel as a "stinking corpse". But leaders come, and leaders go, and it is foolish to assume that subsequent Iranian leaders will be as politically toxic as Ahmadinejad. Casting whole states as implacable enemies, as the GOP rhetoric is inclined to do, make encouraging domestic political change harder in states like Iran and undercuts American bargaining leverage over these regimes in the short term.

Moreover, saying that one will negotiate with enemies does not mean that a Democratic president would be willing engage in public and unstructured negotiations with them; there would be substantial groundwork to ensure no embarrassment occurred during the meeting. Moreover, no American president would consent to a meeting with Iran or North Korea without scoring some initial political concessions prior to the meeting. To suggest - as Republican commentators often do - that President Clinton or President Obama would immediately sign up to unstructured and unconditional negotiations with a character like Kim Jongg Il following their election is political silliness or stupid.

Talking to our enemies does not mean giving in to all of their demands. The US is perfectly capable of having direct, functional exchanges with nasty regimes with which it has shared interests without conferring on them full diplomatic status or even formal recognition. For example, the US has been quietly having discussions with Iran in Baghdad, and has been bargaining over nuclear weapons with North Korea even thought the US and the DPRK remain technically at war. Israel and Syria, it was just announced, are having talks. The Bush-McCain attack here suggests having a discussion is the same as conceding all of one's key points. Not every hostile leader or group the United States faces is a Hitler-like creature who will pocket each concession and demand more; some would be willing to engage in a substantive dialogue, and to moderate their demands, if the US dropped the bellicose rhetoric and put the prospect of full diplomatic recognition on the table.

The GOP line on diplomatic negotiations with so-called "rogue states" or hostile groups presumes a world in the which the US is so powerful that it can sit sullenly in a corner until other states come begging to it, having already conceded all of the major points of dispute. This world no longer exists. Due to the Bush Administration's policies, in particular the disastrous war in Iraq, the US has diminished political and economic power, and can no longer assume that the world will be compelled by the sheer force of its will to come around to its position. If anyone assumes that this world still he exists, he is living in a dangerous fantasy and has not taken note of the damage done by the Bush administration to American power and prestige.

We continue to deal with hostile groups and nations in a totally irrational and inconsistent manner, often for domestic political aims. For example, for over a half-century, we have refused to have meaningful, comprehensive discussions with Cuba. We have imposed a domestic quasi-embargo, often ignored when it suits us, as a result of the political pressure of immigrants from that island. (We treat those who enter our country, illegally, from Cuba far different from those from other countries - for the same reason.) The rest of the world trades freely with Cuba and has open relations with the Cuban government; we still await its collapse.

At the height of the Cold War, we maintained diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, since 1972, we have had normal relations with China. Ronald Reagan, the idol of the Conservative movement had no qualms about discussions with Russia; he wasn't afraid of being tainted!

I don't know if there is anything to be gained by negotiation and discussion, but I am mindful of Churchill's comment that "jaw-jaw" is better than "war-war".