Dodd: 'We Must Talk to the Bad Men too'
Howard Salter
August 28, 2007
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has been fighting for air time to have his policy ideas heard during the race for the Democratic nomination for President. With many observers having already narrowed the nomination down to Senators Clinton and Obama, the Dodds, Bidens, Richardsons, et al have had very little breathing room when it comes to exposure in the mainstream media.
Recently, Dodd authored an interesting op-ed in The Financial Times (an internationally renowned newspaper from London; thus, the British-style spelling in Dodd’s op-ed), where he very clearly – and obviously politically strategic – drew a line between the apparent anointment of Clinton or Obama as the party’s nominee.
In his piece, Dodd drew from personal experience, to illustrate his own gravitas in the foreign policy arena.
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.”
Later in his op-ed, Dodd very clearly lays out the case for a renewed effort on behalf of the United States to engage with the rest of the world through various international institutions. He also weaves in a slap at the current White House policy, while also creating some space between himself and Clinton and Obama.
Our leaders created systems and structures for the postwar world because the world’s problems could not have been tackled without international 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.”
Dodd’s use of the word “naïve” is direct poke at Obama, whose recent foreign policy speeches have been bold and applauded in some corners, while also characterized by some as an illustration of his lack of experience. Finally, Dodd lays out the challenges facing not only the next president, but for the two front-runners for his party’s nomination.
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.”
Dodd is absolutely correct that the next president – Republican or Democrat – has some heavy lifting to do in order to repair our nation’s relationship with other countries around the world and with various international institutions, especially the United Nations. Senator Obama and Governor Richardson, have also made this point a cornerstone of their foreign policy platform.
Now, if only all the candidates would join in and engage in a robust debate and discussion about our country’s role in the world with the American voter, we’ll all have a safer and better world to look forward to for the benefit of future generations.
Recently, Dodd authored an interesting op-ed in The Financial Times (an internationally renowned newspaper from London; thus, the British-style spelling in Dodd’s op-ed), where he very clearly – and obviously politically strategic – drew a line between the apparent anointment of Clinton or Obama as the party’s nominee.
In his piece, Dodd drew from personal experience, to illustrate his own gravitas in the foreign policy arena.
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.”
Later in his op-ed, Dodd very clearly lays out the case for a renewed effort on behalf of the United States to engage with the rest of the world through various international institutions. He also weaves in a slap at the current White House policy, while also creating some space between himself and Clinton and Obama.
Our leaders created systems and structures for the postwar world because the world’s problems could not have been tackled without international 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.”
Dodd’s use of the word “naïve” is direct poke at Obama, whose recent foreign policy speeches have been bold and applauded in some corners, while also characterized by some as an illustration of his lack of experience. Finally, Dodd lays out the challenges facing not only the next president, but for the two front-runners for his party’s nomination.
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.”
Dodd is absolutely correct that the next president – Republican or Democrat – has some heavy lifting to do in order to repair our nation’s relationship with other countries around the world and with various international institutions, especially the United Nations. Senator Obama and Governor Richardson, have also made this point a cornerstone of their foreign policy platform.
Now, if only all the candidates would join in and engage in a robust debate and discussion about our country’s role in the world with the American voter, we’ll all have a safer and better world to look forward to for the benefit of future generations.
Print
Email
