10/17/08

One of the major fault lines in this election has been over the willingness to talk to our adversaries. Sen. Obama has stated he is prepared to diplomatically engage rogue regimes, while Sen. McCain has insisted on setting “pre-conditions” before any talks are able to occur. Over the last few weeks, Senator McCain and the conservative opposition to diplomatic engagement with adversaries has appeared more and more extreme and now seems to be a position held only by a fringe minority of conservative foreign policy thinkers. Since Labor Day, five former Secretaries of State, including three Republicans, have all expressed the need to diplomatically engage Iran and Russia without preconditions. General Petraeus said that negotiating with insurgents who had “our blood on their hands” in Iraq had greatly helped reduce violence and that negotiations with the Taliban may be necessary. Additionally, the Bush administration, seeing the ineffectiveness of its past approach and the one advocated by Sen. McCain, resumed negotiations with North Korea and appears to be on the verge of opening a consulate in Iran. What Senator McCain has consistently failed to understand is that sitting down and talking to your adversaries is exactly how war is avoided and how peace is made.

John McCain has vigorously condemned engaging Iran through tough diplomacy, but reality is undermining his approach. McCain has accused Obama of showing “inexperienced and reckless judgment,” for wanting to hold talks with Iran, which in his mind would only empower “an implacable foe of the United States.” However, a consensus has emerged among the foreign policy community that the McCain approach is unworkable, and that only Obama’s strategy stands a chance of succeeding. In 2006, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group came out in favor of talks “without preconditions.” More recently, 5 former secretaries of State expressed approval for a strategy similar to Obama’s, including McCain advisor Henry Kissinger, who believes that talks without preconditions can begin at the Secretary of State level. Henry Kissinger said, “I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic.” The Bush administration has also come around. This summer, the third-ranking U.S. diplomat attended talks with Iran, aimed at persuading Iran to halt activities that could lead to the development of atomic weapons. It was “the first time such a high-ranking U.S. official has attended such talks.” [Washington Post, 5/19/08. Iraq Study Group, 12/06. Former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, 9/15/08. CBS, 7/15/08]

Bush administration talks with North Korea appear to have made progress in stemming North Korea’s nuclear development. This week “North Korea said Sunday it will resume disabling its key nuclear complex after the U.S. dropped the country from a terrorism blacklist a breakthrough expected to help energize stalled talks aimed at ending the country's atomic ambitions.” President Bush, when speaking about talks with North Korea, said “Diplomacy takes a while,” he said, “We’re spending time, diplomatically, making sure that voice is unified.” Condoleezza Rice wrote in the Wall Street Journal “in the final calculation, do we think our current policy is better than the alternatives? Yes, we do. We believe that the six-party framework is the best way to learn more about the threat posed by this closed and opaque regime, and ultimately, together with partners, to eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons and programs.” Yet “Sen. John McCain broke... with President Bush's new policy on North Korea, co-authoring an opinion article with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) in which he called for a return to Bush's original demand of a complete, verifiable, irreversible disarmament of North Korea's nuclear programs.” [Washington Post, 10/12/08. MSNBC, 7/6/06. Wall Street Journal, 6/26/08. Washington Post, 5/26/08]

Bush administration is beginning to engage Iran diplomatically. This summer, President Bush “authorized the most significant American diplomatic contact with Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, sending the State Department’s third-ranking official to Geneva for a meeting this weekend on Iran’s nuclear program, administration officials said Tuesday.” David Ignatius also reported recently that, “With Iran, probably the biggest foreign policy challenge for the next president, the Bush administration plans to take a helpful step in mid-November by announcing the opening of a U.S. interest section in Tehran. That will break the ice and make it easier for the next president to begin the kind of dialogue with Iran that's necessary. The administration had planned to announce the interest section in August, but Russia's invasion of Georgia and worries about U.S. election politics intervened.” [NY Times, 7/16/08. Washington Post, 10/12/08. Henry Kissinger, 9/15/08. MSNBC, 7/6/06]

Gen. Petraeus has said that we need to speak with our adversaries. In a speech to the Heritage Foundation Gen. David Petraeus said that negotiations with insurgents in Iraq were with “people that were shooting at them, shooting at us. They have our blood on their hands, in some cases. But again, this is how you end these kinds of conflicts.” Petraeus also said that negotiations with some members of the Taliban could provide a way to reduce violence in the sections of Afghanistan trapped in an intensifying insurgency. “If there are people who are willing to reconcile (with the government), then that would be a positive step in some of these areas that have actually been spiraling downward... The key there [Afghanistan] is making sure that all of that is done in complete coordination, with complete support of the Afghan government.” “Petraeus said negotiations with insurgents willing to consider reconciliation could reduce violence by isolating hard-core militants, which is what occurred in Iraq's Anbar province when Sunni tribesmen joined U.S. forces against al Qaeda. ‘You've got to set things up. You've got to know who you're talking to. You've got to have your objectives straight,’ the general said.” [LA Times 10/9/08. Reuters, 10/8/08]

Peace is made through negotiations. While President Bush and Senator McCain called Senator Obama an “appeaser” last spring for advocating talking to Iran and Syria, Israel has decided to negotiate with Syria. Israeli President Shimon Peres recently commented on the prospects for talks with Syria, that “if Syrian President Bashar Assad is serious about reaching peace with Israel, he should either visit Jerusalem or invite the prime minister to Damascus for talks.” And "If [former] Egyptian President Anwar Sadat has not come to Jerusalem and addressed the Knesset, there would not have been peace with Egypt.” Meanwhile a Syrian journalist reports that "Damascus will do all it can to further talks. It is examining every small move with hope on the way to peace." Similarly, the future of Iraq will be determined through political reconciliation, where warring adversaries will have to sit down and talk. At a hearing last week, Congressman Delahunt convened participants in the Northern Irish and South African peace processes. These former adversaries were now working with the Iraqis attempting to demonstrate that peace through negotiations is possible. [Padraig] “O'Malley, a veteran peacemaker who worked on reconciliation efforts in South Africa and Northern Ireland, said he believes it is important for the Iraqis to hear about the experiences of those whose countries were once divided by warring factions... O'Malley said, explaining why he brought leaders from South Africa and Northern Ireland to share their experiences with Iraqis. ‘They identify with each other. They can bond in a way that they can't bond with people from more normal societies, and that should be recognized and more efforts made to broaden the table at which people from divided societies can sit together and help other people from divided societies.’” [Haaretz, 5/30/08. Boston Globe, 10/9/08]

To engage our allies and our adversaries we need a diplomatic surge worldwide. The American Academy of Diplomacy and the Stimson Center just released a report titled A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future. This report seeks to address the crisis in America’s diplomatic readiness. The report says “our foreign affairs capacity is hobbled by a human capital crisis. We do not have enough people to meet our current responsibilities. Looking forward, requirements are expanding. Increased diplomatic needs in Iraq, Afghanistan and ‘the next’ crisis area, as well as global challenges in finance, the environment, terrorism and other areas have not been supported by increased staffing. Those positions that do exist have vacancy rates approaching 15% at our Embassies and Consulates abroad and at the State Department in Washington, DC. USAID’s situation is even more dire. Today, significant portions of the nation’s foreign affairs business simply are not accomplished. The work migrates by default to the military that does have the necessary people and funding but neither sufficient experience nor knowledge.” Diplomacy cannot take place if there is no one to do the talking. Even the pentagon chief, Defense Secretary Gates, has said “Our diplomatic leaders – be they in ambassadors’ suites or on the State Department’s seventh floor – must have the resources and political support needed to fully exercise their statutory responsibilities in leading American foreign policy.” [AAD and Stimson Center, 10/08]

Quick Hits

Afghan officials say that a NATO airstrike killed 25-30 civilians. NATO confirmed that the strike occurred but was “unable to confirm any civilian casualties.”

The State Department is so understaffed that “our foreign affairs capacity is hobbled.” The Defense Department has taken over many of its responsibilities, continuing the “militarization of diplomacy.”

European and Asian stocks rose cautiously following yesterday’s gain on Wall Street. U.S. stocks fell at the open on the news that the rate of housing construction fell 6.3% in September, to a pace not seen since 1991.

The U.S.-Iraq security deal appears to be nearing completion. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is said to be briefing Congressional leaders and asking for their support, though the administration will not seek their formal approval.

The commander of U.S. Special Forces is in Afghanistan and Pakistan to review the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

Oil prices fell below $70 a barrel, a 14-month low, down from $145 in July and falling $40 a barrel in three weeks. OPEC is alarmed and will hold an emergency meeting next week.

Israeli troops shot and killed a Palestinian in the West Bank, the third such incident in three days. The Israeli Army states that the three killed were holding or preparing to throw firebombs. Tensions are rising in the West Bank.

Another U.S. missile strike in Pakistan killed six, all suspected of being militants.

Russian oligarchs are looking for government funding as the financial crisis continues.

Human Rights Watch announced that Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is blocking investigations into connections between his U.S.-sponsored government and paramilitary groups.

Media freedoms granted to foreign journalists during the Olympics are set to expire. China has not yet announced whether they will be renewed.

Anti-government protests erupted again in Thailand. The powerful Army chief suggested the Prime Minister should resign, but vowed not to attempt a coup.

A large G.O.P. donor overcharged the Pentagon for deliveries of fuel, making tens of millions of dollars in profits.

A report based on declassified documents found that U.S. policies may have contributed to provoking the Islamic Revolution in Iran.