(HOST) There are indications that a presidential campaign between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain would be likely to focus on American foreign policy. This morning, commentator Barrie Dunsmore, a veteran diplomatic and foreign correspondent for ABC News, takes a look at the early skirmishes.
(DUNSMORE) The visits of Senators Obama and McCain to South Florida this week are a reminder that for half a century both Republicans and Democrats have taken their cues about how to deal with Fidel Castro from Florida’s Cuban community. Getting the exile vote may be good politics, but it has resulted in bad Cuba policy.
The CIA once considered trying to assassinate Castro with exploding cigars. With John Kennedy as President, the United States and the Soviet Union came frighteningly close to World War III when the Russians put nuclear weapons into Cuba. Every President since has tried to use trade embargos, boycotts and intimidation of Latin American leaders to try to put the squeeze on Fidel. But after five decades Cuba has not become a democracy. And Castro’s continued defiance of Washington significantly bolstered his support at home while enhancing his anti-American influence in much of the Third World. Perhaps during the Cold War American policy made some sense, given that Castro was a key client of the Soviet Union. But the Cold War has been over for nearly two decades.
Still, listening to John McCain’s speech last Tuesday about the dreaded dangers inherent in meeting with Fidel’s brother Raul, who is now in charge, one heard the clear echoes of the long discredited policies of the past.
Senator Obama’s willingness to talk to some of the world’s bad guys has needed adjustments. He initially said a few months ago that he’d be willing to talk to leaders in Cuba, Iran, North Korea or Venezuela without pre-conditions. Hillary Clinton immediately jumped on that as "naïve." This week McCain strongly portrayed Obama’s openness to such talks as evidence that he is both inexperienced and reckless when it comes to national security.
Obama’s critics deliberately make no distinction between pre-conditions for a summit – and preparations for one. John McCain’s pre-condition for sitting down with either Castro brother is, in effect, that Cuba must first commit to dismantling its economic and political system. Likewise, President George W. Bush’s pre-condition for high level talks with Iran is that Iran must first freeze its nuclear program, before there can be discussions – on freezing its nuclear program. Such pre-conditions preclude any chance that serious diplomacy can even begin.
Obama’s latest position is that, while he is not setting preconditions, he would certainly want significant preparations for any such talks. Those usually begin at the ambassadorial level, then go up the diplomatic chain eventually to the Secretary of State before the President ever commits to a summit. The goal is to find out what the other side’s bottom line objectives are; to explore common ground the two countries might share; and to find out what concessions the adversary might be willing to make in return for better relations with the U.S. That process can take many months – and it doesn’t always succeed. But, if one truly prefers to settle major disputes through diplomacy rather than war, that’s how it’s done.