The McBush policy of non-engagement begins to come undone

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain gave a red meat speech to conservative Cuban Americans in Miami to criticize Barack Obama for his position on being willing to negotiate with leaders of countries with which the U.S. disagrees, and in particular, for suggesting that gradual normalization of relations with Cuba might bring about the democratization of Cuba faster than continuing the decades old hard line position favored by conservatives.  (The U.S. trade embargo and travel restrictions to Cuba in place since 1963 have proven to be entirely ineffective in achieving the democratization of Cuba).

Andrew Romano at Newsweek’s Stumper blog provides insightful analysis:

"Obama’s stance on Cuba isn’t a clear-cut as the Arizonan led his audience to believe today–nor is McCain’s itself. During his 2000 presidential campaign, in fact, McCain "stood out for supporting normalizing relations with Cuba, even if Fidel Castro remained in power, provided the government went through certain steps to democratize the country," as the New York Times put it today. During a 2000 CNN interview, McCain said, "I’m not in favor of sticking my finger in the eye of Fidel Castro," and reiterated his support for a "road map to normalization" similar to Vietnam’s. And despite saying this afternoon that "the embargo must stay in place" until the Cuban regime "schedule[s] internationally monitored elections," McCain told the Miami Herald in 1999 that he would be willing to wait on that goal before beginning steps toward normalization. And so on. For McCain, the shift is a matter of tone–from moderation to politically-expedient hawkishness–rather than policy. Still, they make his attacks on Obama’s own moderation–the Illinois senator may not favor "preconditions," but he’s always advocated for "preparations" that involve "human rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press"–somewhat harder to swallow. In the end, Obama and McCain’s policies towards Cuba don’t differ all that much (even if their approaches to its leader do)–after all, neither would remove the embargo without significant political concessions. But their attitudes–and rhetoric–are miles apart, as McCain homes in on traditional hard-liners and Obama targets a younger generation that favors engagement (and his plan to allow for unlimited family visitation and remittances to the island)."

In fact, on an episode of Hardball on May 1st, 2000, McCain was asked by Chris Matthews what he thought about relations with Cuba, and he said he was open to concessions and a "a road map for negotiations," saying that the only precondition he would demand would be that the Cuban regime empty its political prisons…

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Tuesday night took umbrage with several positions taken by the McCain campaign, including the Arizona Senator’s criticism of Obama for pledging to engage with Iran.  Engagement is not, and should not be confused for, capitulation, he argued.

"I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way…."

Hagel was a political thorn in McCain’s side on Tuesday night, repeatedly lavishing praise on the presumptive Democratic candidate and levying major foreign policy criticisms at the GOP nominee and the Republican Party as a whole.  At one point, Hagel even urged the Arizona Republican to elevate his campaign discourse to a higher, more honest level.

"If you engage a world power or a rival, it doesn’t mean you agree with them or subscribe with what they believe or you support them in any way," he said. "What it does tell you is that you’ve got a problem you need to resolve. And you’ve got to understand the other side and the other side has got to understand you."

Chuck Hagel Takes On McCain, Repeatedly Praises Obama – Politics on The Huffington Post

Adding insult to injury, President Bush announced on Wednesday a loosening of U.S. restrictions that will allow Cuban Americans in the United States to send cellphones to family members in Cuba. (Apparently he didn’t get the memo). The president said it was now up to the Cuban government to decide whether it would allow its citizens to receive the phones.

The new policy follows Cuban announcements that citizen there would be allowed to own cellphones and computers, and that DVDs and toasters would be available in coming years. With computers, Bush said, they would have open access to the Internet, now prohibited, and with toasters, he added, they should live under an economic system in which they could "stop worrying about whether they have bread every day."  Bush allows Americans to send cellphones to relatives in Cuba – Los Angeles Times

One big shoe to drop on Wednesday which undercuts the McBush policy of non-engagement was the joint announcement by Israel and Syria that they have begun indirect talks through Turkish mediators, relaunching peace talks that broke off in 2000.  Israel, Syria Confirm Peace Talks in Turkey – washingtonpost.com  This followed the announcement last week that Israel is also involved in indirect negotiations with Hamas to arrange a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip.

The Bush administration had sought to isolate Syria for what the United States says is Syria’s malign interference in Lebanon and Iraq. The U.S. administration’s hostility to Syria has been seen as one of the main barriers to the talks.  Just last week in his speech to the Israeli Knesset, Bush criticized negotiations with terrorist organizations or state sponsors of terrorism as being "appeasement." 

It turns out that Israel was already engaged in negotiations with its enemies when Bush made his comments to the Knesset. 

The talks with Syria and the decision to make them public had been coordinated and agreed with the United States. The United States on Wednesday praised Turkey’s mediation role and said it had been informed of the discussions.  Israel and Syria Say They Are Holding Peace Talks in Turkey – New York Times

No doubt, opposition political parties and Israeli settlers living on the Golan Heights will accuse Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of "appeasement" if Israel ever agrees to return the Golan Heights to Syria.  Will McCain criticize Olmert of being "naive" for negotiating with Syria?

The other big shoe to drop on Wednesday which undercuts the McBush policy of non-engagement was the announcement of a negotiated agreement to resolve the 18 month old political crisis in Lebanon. 

After 18 months of deadlock the country’s U.S.-backed government and the Hezbollah-led opposition came to terms after five days of negotiations in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar.  Lebanese Political Factions Reach Agreement – washingtonpost.com

The Qatari Emir, Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa al-Thani was reported to have intervened personally Tuesday night to clinch the deal, after returning from a trip to Saudi Arabia where he attended a Gulf Cooperation Council meeting. The Saudis are important supporters of the current Sunni government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

The Doha talks came after an Arab League delegation headed by Qatar mediated a deal between Lebanese factions that ended a week of violence earlier this month in which more than 60 people were killed during street clashes between gunmen loyal to Hezbollah and Sunni backers of the government. Agreement Struck in Lebanon to End Political Crisis – New York Times

The agreement enhances the political standing of Hezbollah.  Nevertheless, the United States’ top diplomat for the region, David Welch, welcomed the agreement as "a necessary and positive step" that will let the country’s political process move forward.

So the U.S. proxy government in Lebanon has negotiated an agreement with the terrorist organization Hezbollah, a proxy for the "state sponsor of terrorism" Iran, and the Bush administration declares it "a necessary and positive step."  The Bush administration has departed from its own policy of non-engagement again (previously Libya and North Korea). Will McCain criticize Bush of being "naive" for having approved an agreement which enhances the status of Hezbollah in Lebanon?

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) grilled Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Tuesday.   Admiral: Tehran ‘irresponsible’  Specter said he is most concerned about the Bush administration’s refusal to fully engage Iran in diplomatic discussions. Specter said that past talks with the Soviet Union, Libya and North Korea proved helpful and that similar progress could be made with Iran.

If the government refuses to engage Iran, "we’re missing a great opportunity to avoid a future conflict," Specter said. He urged Defense Secretary Robert Gates to challenge President Bush’s policy on Iran.

Sec. Gates would not defend Bush’s comments in response to Specter’s questions.  Think Progress » Gates refuses to defend Bush’s ‘appeasement’ remark.  While Gates tried to wiggle out of the question, saying “I don’t know exactly what the president said,” Specter took the opportunity to chide Bush for his comments he made recently to the Israeli parliament: