[NYTr] Obama Favors "Talking It Out" with Venezuela

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Chicago Tribune blogs - July 31, 2007
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/07/talk.html

Talking it out with enemies is often best tack

By Erick Zorn

Trying to talk things out doesn?t always make them better. Anyone who?s
ever let fly with a deeply regrettable remark in the heat of an
argument knows this.

But a more important rule of conflict is this: It?s usually harder to
hate someone after you?ve  spoken calmly with him, face to face.

At a distance, our enemies are cartoons --  simple, two-dimensional
characters with only loathsome traits and evil intent. 

Up close, they become human --  complex, three-dimensional figures with
ordinary qualities that help put their loathsome traits and evil intent
into perspective.

What brings this to mind is the dispute touched off last week by the
response of Democratic presidential hopeful Sen.  Barack Obama  (D-
Ill.) to the following question, asked of him during a debate:

"In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a
peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type
of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without
precondition, during the first year of your administration, in
Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria,
Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that
divides our countries?"

"I would." Obama answered quickly.

He added, ?The notion that somehow not talking to countries is
punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle
of this administration -- is ridiculous.?

This answer was perfectly in line with common sense and every day
experience.

In the neighborhood, on the job, at school or in the home, talking to
those with whom we?re at odds is the way we seek common ground and
understanding about our differences. 

Dialogue often shatters stereotypes.  Conversational give-and-take
tends to lead to workable compromises.

It?s why we have peace talks, not an exchange of  peace memos. It?s
why the United Nations is a place, not just a Web site. 

Personal interaction doesn?t always work, of course. Sometimes sitting
across a table from someone makes you hate him all the more.   

But talking beats heck out of the silent treatment,  particularly the
punitive silent treatment -- a  generally aggravating tactic used
primarily in junior high school  and in the stylized world of
international diplomacy.   

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the front-runner among Democratic
presidential hopefuls in national polls, branded Obama?s
pledge ?irresponsible and, frankly, naïve.?

She said that she wouldn?t agree to such meetings ?before (I) know what
the intentions are. I  don't want to be used for propaganda purposes,?
she said. ?I don't want to make a situation even worse.?

What cautionary tale does Clinton have in mind in which the mere fact
of a U.S. president  talking with a foreign leader made a situation
worse? Or when such talking diminished us in the eyes of the world?
What success stories inspire her faith in preconditions that stand in
the way of international negotiations? 

Clinton Spokesman Phil Singer offered no examples, though I pressed him
for some.

?Sen. Clinton has repeatedly said we need to engage in vigorous
diplomacy to put an end to the cowboy approach of the Bush years,? read
his formal response to me. ?But she doesn?t believe we should give away
the leverage of a meeting with the U.S. President before discussions
even begin with anti-American leaders like (Cuban leader Fidel) Castro
and (Venezuelan president Caesar) Chavez, and people like (Iranian
President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad who deny the Holocaust happened.?

The idea of high-level conversation as a plum we grant only to those
leaders who satisfy our demands and sanity tests has the virtue of
being standard U.S. diplomatic practice.  This is true not just in the
current administration, as Obama said, but in Democratic and Republican
administrations going way back.   

It?s a tradition, not just a notion, to see meeting and talking with
our enemies not as a necessity or opportunity, as it is in real life,
but as a  form of capitulation, an atta-boy prize,  a show of respect
and even affection gilded by approving pomp. 

And how?s that been working for us lately? 

It?s certainly a question worth talking about.