Conservative Liberal

FDR would have been a Republican today.

Negotiating with the enemies

Here is another article mentioned by Dennis Prager, this one about negotiating without preconditions:

May 22, 2008
Op-Ed Contributors

Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed

IN his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy expressed in two eloquent sentences, often invoked by Barack Obama, a policy that turned out to be one of his presidency’s — indeed one of the cold war’s — most consequential: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy’s special assistant, called those sentences “the distinctive note” of the inaugural.

They have also been a distinctive note in Senator Obama’s campaign, and were made even more prominent last week when President Bush, in a speech to Israel’s Parliament, disparaged a willingness to negotiate with America’s adversaries as appeasement. Senator Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy’s legacy: “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.”

…………………………………………………………………………….

Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

Read it all.

Powered by Qumana

June 1, 2008 - Posted by | Uncategorized

2 Comments »

  1. Hi. I am a long time reader. I wanted to say that I like your blog and the layout.

    Peter Quinn

    Comment by Peter Quinn | June 1, 2008 | Reply

  2. Obama is a pacifist who voted _against_ designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation. He condemned Clinton’s promise to ‘totally obliterate’ Iran if it used nukes against Israel. Iran nuking Israel would be the most extreme situation possible, and the fact that Obama wouldn’t defend Israel even then (despite America being a economic-military superpower with no limit to what it can achieve) is so revealing that no further questions need to be asked. And no speeches to AIPAC will undo this, because what we write or say is completely irrelevant, what we do is the only thing that counts. Obama has a record of pro-Iranian votes (deeds), and a record of voting against the proposed missile shield, in addition to his condemnation of Clinton. That means that the interests of America’s allies (including its chief ally Israel) can be suspended by Obama anytime, even though the US has legal obligations towards Israel.

    Obama is like General George McClellan, who was famously asked by Lincoln, ‘if you won’t use your army, may I borrow it?’. So, Senator Obama, if you won’t use America’s strong military to defend America’s endangered allies like Israel, step aside – John McCain will.

    Comment by zbigniewmazurak | June 10, 2008 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: