Karl Rove on Obama's foreign policy rhetoric

YES, MANY of you may snigger at the thought of a Bush administration lackey offering advice on foreign policy, but I thought this was an excellent article.

Obama has regularly called for a dialogue with several countries hostile to the United States, particularly Iran. The apparent Democratic Presidential nominee claims that what he's advocating is nothing new, adding that "Nixon went to China" etc etc. Not only is this one of the most overused phrases in politics, but Obama is bang wrong on the circumstances surrounding rapprochement with China - as Rove points out.

"I recommend that he read Henry Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy.

The Chinese didn't change because of a presidential visit. In another book, "Diplomacy," Mr. Kissinger writes that "China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union." Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited.

The same is true with other successful negotiations. President Ronald Reagan prepared the ground for his meetings with a series of Soviet leaders by rebuilding the U.S. military, restoring confidence in American intentions, and pressuring the Soviets by raising the specter of a missile defense shield.

Reagan knew rogue states only change when they see there are real consequences of their actions, and when it is in their interest to change. This requires patience, vision, hard work and the use of all the tools, talents and relationships available to the U.S. We saw a recent example when Libya, fearful of American resolve after 9/11, gave up its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. These programs, incidentally, were more advanced than Western intelligence thought.

Reagan knew he must not squander the prestige of the American presidency and the authority of the United States by meaningless meetings that serve only as propaganda victories for our adversaries. Mr. Obama seems to believe charisma and smooth talk can fundamentally alter the behavior of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba."

Although the bulk of America advocates greater diplomacy and engagement with hostile states, I think that this comes with the caveat that negotiations are conducted through strength. I may stand corrected, but I would be surprised if the majority of Americans support Obama's stance for unconditional negotiations. Anyway, if Obama wants to lecture people about Kissingerian foreign policy he should have a read of Diplomacy - it's a cracking book.