Senator Clinton and Senator Obama asked if she'd be willing to sit down with the next leader of Cuba. How'd they do?
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
Senator Obama: the starting point is the well-being of the Cuban people. He would meet without preconditions (unlike Senator Clinton), but would do a lot of preparation.
Those looking for policy distinctions, there's one. Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.
And as usual he's following her lead. Cuba would have to show that they are changing, Obama agrees. There would be ground work needed. Obama agrees. There would be negotiation. Obama agrees. Clinton would make sure CHANGE is actually happening. Obama would meet unconditionally.
THAT is a substantive policy distinction.
He's following her position.
Thus, I think both candidates are right that we need to talk with our enemies. But what Obama fails to understand is that diplomacy is essentially a series of carrot and stick negotiations, where each country tries to use its leverage on the other in order to influence the other's policies. One of the most important carrots in the US toolbox is the State visit, and access to the big guns in general. It is a matter of great prestige and validation to countries who receive it. It also is most effective for ceremonial purposes, e.g. treaty signing, atta boys, etc. The President doesn't come unless the work is finished, i.e. after months and in some cases years of groundwork have been laid. Coming early doesn't help the process, especially if the other country has yet to demonstrate any progress on human rights, political freedom, etc. It's like giving a kid his allowance before he's finished raking the lawn. Where's the incentive to finish?
One thing I will mention is that there are often times where Presidents can unofficially meet with our country's enemies. If both leaders are in attendance at the same meeting, say at the UN, they might be seated next to each other or with a friendly buffer in between. But that's rare, and usually happens only when the other country has signaled that it wants to compromise.
sorry for blathering, here's the transcript:
RAMOS: Thak you very much (SPEAKING IN SPANISH). Thank you so much for being with us, and let me start with a little news. After nearly half a century in office Fidel Castro resigned as the head of the Cuban government. Ninety miles off the coast of the United States, we might have a new opportunity. The question for you, Senator Clinton: Would you be willng to sit down with Raul Castro, or whoever leads the Cuban dictatorship when you take office at least just once, to get a measure of the man? CLINTON: Well, Jorge, I hope we have an oppotunity. The people of Cuba deserve to have a democracy. And this gives the Cuban government, under Raul Castro, a chance to change direction fro the one that was set for 50 years by his brother. I'm going to be looking for some of those changes: reeasing political prisoner, ending some of the oppressive practices on thepress, opening up the economy. Of course the United States stand ready. And, as president, I would be ready to reach out and work with a new Cuban government, once it demonstrated that it truly was going to change that direction. I want to brin the region together, our European allies who have influence with Cuba, t try to push for some of those changes, and to make it very clear that, if Cuba moves toward democracy and freedom for its people, te United States will welcome that. CLINTON: And as president, I wuld look for opportunities to try to make that happen and to create the mmentum that might eventually lead to a presidential visit. But therehas to be evidence that indeed the changes are real; that they are taing place; and that the Cuban people will finally be given an opportunty to have their future determined by themselves. RAMOS: Very siply, would you meet with him or not, with Raul Castro? CLINTON: would not meet with him until there was evidence that change was happening, becuse I think it's important that they demonstrate clearly that they arecommitted to change the direction. Then I think, you know, something lik diplomatic encounters and negotiations over specifics could take place. But we've had this conversation before, Senator Obama and mself, and I believe that we should have full diplomatic engagement whe appropriate. But a presidential visit should not be offered and given wthout some evidence that it will demonstrate the kind of progress that i in our interest, and in this case, in the interests of the Cuban people. BROWN: Senator Obama, just to follow up, you ad said in a previous CNN debate that you would meet with the leaders of Cuban, Iran, North Korea, among others, so pesumably you would be willing to meet with the new leader of Cuba. OBAMA: That's correct. Now, keep in mind that the starting point fr our policy in Cuba should be the liberty of the Cuban people. And I think we recognize that thatliberty has not existed throughout the Castro regime. And we now have an opportunity to potentially change the relationship between the United Statesand Cuba after over half a century. I would meet without preconditins, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda, and o that agenda was human rights, releasing of political prisoners, openig up the press. And that preparation might take some time. But I dothink that it's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its nemies. In fact, that's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference. (APPLAUSE) OBAMA: One other thing that I've said, as a show of good faith that we're interested in pursuing potentially a new relationship, what 've called for is a loosening of the restrictions on remittances from faily members to the people of Cuba, as well as travel restrictions for famly members who want to visit their family members in Cuba. And I think that initiating hat change in policy as a start and then suggesting that an agenda get set up is something that could be useful, but I wuld not normalize relations until we started seeing some of the progress hat Senator Clinton was talking about. BROWN: But that's different from your position back in 2003. You called US. policy toward Cuba a miserable failure, and you supported normalizingrelations. BROWN: So you've backtracked now... OBAMA: I support the eventual normalization. And it's abolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure. I mean, th fact is, is that during my entire lifetime, and Senator Clintons entire lifetime, you essentially have seen a Cuba that has been isolated, but has nt made progress when it comes to the issues of political rights and persoal freedoms that are so important to the people of Cuba. So I hink that we have to shift policy. I think our goal has to be ultimately normalization. Butthat's going to happen in steps. And the first step, as I said, is chaging our rules with respect to remittances and with respect to travel. And then I think it is important for us to have the dirct contact, not just in Cuba, but I think this principle applies generally. I recall what John F. Kennedy once said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. And this moment, this opportunitywhen Fidel Castro has finally stepped down, I think, is one that weshould try to take advantage of. (APPLAUSE) BROWN: Senator Cliton, do you want a quick response? CLINTON: Well, I agree, absolutey, that we should be willing to have diplomatic negotiations and proceses with anyone. I've been a strong advocate of opening up such a diplomatic process with Iran, for a number of years. Because I think we should lok for ways that we can possibly move countries that are adversarial tous, you know, toward the world community. It's in our interests. Its in the interests of the people in countries that, frankly, are oppressed, like Cuba, like Iran. But there has been this differencebetween us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting, withut preconditions, with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relation. And it should be part of a process, but I don't think it should be offered in the beginning. Because I think that undermines the apacity for us to actually take the measure of somebody like Raul Castro or Ahmadinejad and others. CLINTON: And, as President Kennedy said he wouldn't be afraid to negotiate, but he would expect there to be a of preparatory work done, to find out exactly what we would get out of it. And therefore, I do think we hould be eliminating the policy of the Bush administration, which has een very narrowly defined, and frankly against our interests, because wehave failed to reach out to countries, we have alienated our friends, and we have emboldened our eneies. So I would get back to very vigorous diplomacy, and I would ue bipartisan diplomacy. I would ask emissaries from both political paries to represent me and our country, because I want to send a very clearmessage to the rest of the world that the era of unilateralism, preempion and arrogance of the Bush administration is over and we're going to... (APPLAUS) BROWN: Very briefly and then we're going to move on. (APPLAUSE) OBAMA: I think, as I said before, preparation is actually absolutey critical in any meeting. And I think it is absolutely true that ither of us would step back from some of the Bush unilateralism that's aused so much damage. But I do think it is important precisely becaus the Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations that the president take a more active role in diplomacy than might have beentrue 20 or 30 years ago. Because the problem is, if we think that meeing with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think tha reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time. And I think that it'simportant for us in undoing the damage that has been done over the lastseven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.
a couple of comments:
1. get a measure of the man??? He was Fidel's #2 for the whole time! I think we know what kind of man he is.
2. A lot of how you interpret Obama's comments depends on what exactly he means by 'preparations'. Does he mean just having a dictator promise to be a good boy? (funny, I can't think of a single female dictator -- perhaps Catherine the Great?) Or does he mean prepare a list of discussion items (which I'd imagine you'd do anytime you meet with anyone). He later says that normalization will happen in steps, but it's not clear whether he thinks the first step includes direct Head of State talks. It's really pretty muddy.
3. The intellectual framework for "opening up" as a mechanism for leveraging an enemy comes largely from Kissinger and later Reagan's foreign policy. It was highly successful in Russia and China, but that was largely due to the leadership of Deng Xiaoping and Mikhail Gorbachev. I don't think it'll work on Chavez or Ahmadinejad. We may be better off waiting until they drive their countries into the ground and more receptive leaders emerge.
4. I think Obama blundered (but most of the country won't notice) with bringing up President Kennedy during a conversation on Cuba. Students of history know that foreign policy, and specifically foreign policy dealing with Cuba, was Kennedy's achilles heel, and one that can be directly attributed to his inexperience when he took the office. We're lucky the world didn't get blown up as a result of his mistakes.
5. I do like Obama's comment that the next President has to take a more active role in repairing the damage from Bush. I just don't think this is an effective means of doing that. I also get the feeling that he knows this now, and that he is trying to move towards the correct position without giving Hillary too much fodder. I could be wrong, but that's the feeling I get.
OBAMA: "It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda, and o that agenda was human rights, releasing of political prisoners, openig up the press. And that preparation might take some time. But I dothink that it's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its nemies. In fact, that's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference."
Agenda. Points for Cuban government to meet; i.e. 'pre-conditions'. Diplomacy...
This sounds exactly like what Senator Clinton has been saying for a while now. I'm glad Barack finally came to his senses, and was smart enough to try and move toward the correct position. The one Hillary has already stated.
CLINTON: "And this gives the Cuban government, under Raul Castro, a chance to change direction fro the one that was set for 50 years by his brother. I'm going to be looking for some of those changes: reeasing political prisoner, ending some of the oppressive practices on thepress, opening up the economy. Of course the United States stand ready. And, as president, I would be ready to reach out and work with a new Cuban government, once it demonstrated that it truly was going to change that direction."
