As we were discussing the American election in my IR class today, the topic of Obama's willingness to negotiate with so-called "rogue states" versus McCain's pre-emptive strategy came up. The class is made up of mostly left-leaning political supporters - myself included - and we were arguing away. Then one of the staunch conservatives compared Obama's diplomacy option to Neville Chamberlain. I nearly blew a gasket.
First off, how was Chamberlain's strategy even considered negotiating? It's called appeasement, and there is a difference. All he did was say "yes Hitler, violate the treaty of Versailles and build up your army, but please don't go to war"; "yes Hitler, invade the Sudatenland, but please don't go to war"; and then proclaimed peace in our time. How is that negotiating? Negotiations involve participation from both sides, as well as an awareness of what is going on from both sides. The situation was different. Obviously if Chamberlain had read Mein Kampf and seen Hitler's dictatorial moves, he would not even think to appease the man. It's obvious he was going to war no matter what - that is part of the fascist ideology.
Now on to Obama. How is a willingness to talk to leaders of states that might possibly have different worldviews than you the same as Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler? These states are generally regarded to be Iran, North Korea, and perhaps the Taliban in Afghanistan. Well guess what. Middle Easterns tend to not like it when their countries get bombed without consulting them; without pursuing all other options. If Obama were to talk to the leader of Iran (I'm blanking on his name) and perhaps arrange diplomatic negotiations and even a nuclear treaty with Iran, war could be averted. North Korea is a little different because Kim Jong-Il is a dictator through and through, who has set up a strangely insulated state. But negotiating treaties with them the best that one can is better than going to war with them, especially if they have nuclear capabilities. You can't just label a state rogue without talking to it first.
A top British diplomat in Afghanistan has recently stated that the best strategy would be to talk to the Taliban. Yes they hosted terrorists, but they were still democratically elected. The people of Afghanistan voted them into power. Wouldn't talking to them at least be a good show to the Afghan people that we are not in there just to set up a Western regime and leave, but to set up the best regime possible for the Afghan people, and the regime that they want? It only seems fair.
Then again, when was the last time fairness to the people was part of American foreign policy in the Middle East. It's self-interest through and through, despite whatever grand humanitarian intentions they attempt to cloak it with.
