Printable Version

Story originally printed in the La Crosse Tribune or online at www.lacrossetribune.com

Published - Sunday, May 18, 2008

Richard Mial: Why is talking to adversaries regarded as ‘appeasement?’

Does it always make sense for the United States to avoid talking to, or otherwise engaging, those we regard as adversaries?

I ask this for two reasons. First, now that Fidel Castro has stepped down as supreme leader of Cuba, does it still make sense to refuse even to try to engage that country?

And were we really right to avoid any dealings with Cuba even with Castro in charge? Talking to someone you regard as an adversary doesn’t necessarily mean giving up the store — or “appeasing” evil.

I’m guessing that the isolation of Cuba was more political than strategic — more tied to the wishes of the large Cuban expatriate community than to any real security needs.

The second reason for talking about how we deal with our adversaries is President Bush’s speech to the Israeli parliament Thursday, during which he denounced people who would negotiate with “terrorists and radicals.”

That comment may or may not be directed at Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who has already been criticized by fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain for suggesting that it would be useful to have talks with our adversaries.

The problem with automatically denouncing the idea of engagement with adversaries is that, sooner or later, the United States will do it. That’s called diplomacy. During the Cold War, when the former Soviet Union was our sworn antagonist, U.S. officials regularly engaged the Soviets, at different times and on a variety of issues.

The common allegation among the anti-engagement crowd is that wanting to talk to your adversary makes you similar to those who “appeased” Hitler and the Nazis before World War II.

But U.S. officials don’t just chat with leaders from other nations. There has to be a purpose. The best thing I’ve read lately about this was in a column last week by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

“The right question for the next president isn’t whether we talk or don’t talk,” Friedman wrote. “It’s whether we have leverage or we don’t have leverage. When you have leverage, talk. When you don’t have leverage, get some — by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore.”

Diplomacy can be focused and tough-minded. Saddam Hussein, bad man that he was, posed no immediate threat to the United States because we had him boxed in diplomatically (by working with allies on sanctions and weapons inspection) and militarily (by limiting where his airplanes could fly).

But we lost patience with that approach and launched a pre-emptive war. We’ve seen how well that’s worked out. Before we decide to invade somebody else, let’s try diplomacy and working with allies instead.

We could do much worse — and have.

Contact Opinion page editor Richard Mial at (608) 791-8232, or by e-mail at rmial@lacrossetrbibune.com.