[NYTr] Christopher Dodd (BARF): "We Must Talk to the 'Bad Men' Too" Huh?

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

[Don't lose your lunch.  This is Christopher Dodd, explaining why he
doesn't want to go bomb Hugo Chavez. His revisionist history of the
Reagan-era crimes against Nicaragua in the 1980s (and his opposition to
them at the time) is deplorable. "We must talk to the 'bad men' too" ???
Presidential candidate whores say the damndest things. But maybe the
headline isn't his. -NY Transfer]


The Financial Times - Aug 14, 2007
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/200a6904-49ff-11dc-9ffe-0000779fd2ac.html

Op-Ed:

We must talk to the bad men too

By Chris Dodd

In the 1980s I travelled many times to Nicaragua, where I met President
Daniel Ortega. At the height of the cold war, I was subject to
criticism in some quarters for meeting a leader with ties to the
Soviets. But my goal wasn't to become friends with the Sandinista
president, it was to press him to renounce violence as a political tool
and allow the people of Nicaragua to choose their next leader.

Despite opposition from the Reagan administration, Congress voted to
restrict US funding of the Contra rebel forces and Mr Ortega later
agreed to elections. In 1990 Violeta Chamorro won and Mr Ortega
respected the results by stepping down. As a result, Nicaragua today
has an imperfect democracy but a democracy nonetheless.

At the recent CNN/YouTube Democratic presidential debate, we were all
asked whether, as president, we would meet leaders of Syria, Cuba,
Venezuela, Iran and North Korea without preconditions. With American
security at stake and our reputation in the world in tatters, it was a
chance for us to demonstrate how we might use diplomacy to help America
lead on the global stage in the 21st century.

But rather than using this opportunity to showcase to the country their
diplomatic bona fides, two candidates - senators Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton - have chosen to squabble and make irresponsible
statements.

To be sure, there was little disagreement on the stage about the Bush
administration's diplomatic failures. In six years, Mr Bush and Dick
Cheney have weakened America by refusing to meet representatives of
certain nations, irrespective of their importance to US interests and
security.

However, we were not asked whether as president we would try to correct
the failed Bush-Cheney course - how could we not? Rather, we were asked
how we would use our experience and judgment to plot a new course.

John F. Kennedy famously said that we should never negotiate out of
fear, but never fear to negotiate. This was something his one-time
rival, Richard Nixon, understood, when he went to China and met Mao
Zedong. Reagan also understood this, calling the Soviet Union the "Evil
Empire" in one breath and meeting Mikhail Gorbachev in the next. Theirs
was a generation that gave us the Marshall plan, Nato, arms control
agreements and the UN institutions that helped ensure 60 years of
relative peace and security.

Our leaders created systems and structures for the postwar world
because the world's problems could not have been tackled without
inter-national co-operation and US leadership. This international
architecture strengthened America's global leadership and enhanced US
security.

This administration, on the other hand, is walking away from those
institutions, treating diplomacy as if it were a gift to our enemies.

But with due respect to senators Clinton and Obama, on this question
they are not only wrong to turn this into a political debate; they are
also wrong on the substance. The notion that America should treat these
five countries the same is naive at best, irresponsible at worst.

Meeting Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad would be a mistake; no leader who
denies the Holocaust ever took place and actively calls for the
destruction of Israel should be rewarded with a face-to-face meeting
with a US president - although in a Dodd administration this would not
preclude American diplomats from meeting other high level Iran-ian
officials.

In contrast to Iran, I would be open to meeting other difficult
leaders. Indeed, I have already met Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez as a
US senator on the foreign relations committee. I have also met Bashar
al-Assad, because engaging with him was - and is - in America's
interest.

What is not in America's interest is letting the actions of bad actors
fester. For all its flaws, Syria should play an important role in
stabilising Iraq, and a constructive role in achieving a two-state
solution for Israel and the Palestinians. Syria can also enhance
Israel's security by applying pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah while
ceasing interference in the political life of Lebanon. Likewise, by
engaging with Mr Chávez in Venezuela - to whom we are somehow losing a
PR war - we can re-establish US leadership in our own hemisphere and
shine a light on the importance of upholding democratic institutions
and practices in his country. And while no one likes Kim Jong-il, if we
can de-nuclearise the Korean peninsula by engaging with him, we should.

Responsible leadership engages with the world. It does not needlessly
provoke nuclear powers by declaring in favour of specific military
actions, as Senator Obama did recently.

The next president must understand that diplomacy is essential to
repairing our nation's fractured world relationships. He or she must
recognise that the choice between coddling tyrannical leaders or going
to war with them is a false choice when the US is no longer acting
alone. When the US is once again a leading, strong moral voice in the
world, it will be the terrorists and the tyrants who are isolated, not
the US. And if my colleagues would stop scoring political points in the
media for a moment to recognise that, they would probably realise that
that is one point on which we all agree.

[The writer is a Democratic US senator from Connecticut and
presidential candidate.]