"Détente" is a French word meaning a relaxing or easing.
During the seventies it also became an English word applicable to an international situation in which countries that had been at odds with each other adopted a policy aimed at reducing tensions through diplomacy and other means.
In particular, it was applied to the foreign policy espoused by President Nixon and Henry Kissinger, his National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, in reference to their dealings with the Soviet Union. The result was a thawing in the Cold War which lasted until the Reagan years when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
One of the reasons that America opted for a policy of détente in the first place was that the Vietnam War had left the nation with a severe strain on its financial capabilities.
And now, today - well, actually tomorrow - the issue of détente is once again on the table in the Democratic battle for the nomination between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
During the campaign, it has become obvious that there is a clear distinction in the approach of these two candidates to foreign policy matters pertaining to the Middle East.
Aside from the fact that Obama states that he supports a nearly full withdrawal within 16 months while Clinton avoids a specific timetable, and the fact that Obama says he is opposed to permanent military bases in Iraq while Clinton has been largely silent on the issue, the most significant difference, in my opinion, has to do with diplomacy.
Obama has stated on numerous occasions that he would make it an early priority to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the leaders in the region, including Iran and Syria, in an effort to reduce tensions and restore stability. Clinton, on the other hand, has not been as forthcoming, stating early on that she would not meet with Iran in the first year of her administration.
What Obama is advocating, without saying the word, and what Clinton seems to be opposing, is a policy of détente. This is a major difference between the candidates since diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, defines, more than anything else, the foreign policy of a nation.
Given the circumstances in the region, and particularly Iran's increasing influence which, in large part, is as a result of the policies of the Bush administration, many believe that a dialogue between the United States and Iran is an essential step to resolving the problems that exist.
Others feel that only a hard-line approach will work in the long run.
Last year, Foreign Affairs, which is published by the Council on Foreign Relations, had this to say on the subject: "The Islamic Republic (Iran) is not going away anytime soon, and its growing regional influence cannot be limited. Washington must eschew superficially appealing military options, the prospect of conditional talks, and its policy of containing Iran in favor of a new policy of détente. In particular, it should offer pragmatists in Tehran a chance to resume diplomatic and economic relations. Thus armed with the prospect of a new relationship with the United States, the pragmatists would be in a position to sideline the radicals in Tehran and try to tip the balance of power in their own favor. The sooner Washington recognizes these truths and finally normalizes relations with its most enduring Middle Eastern foe, the better."
On the other hand, in support of a hard-line approach, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this, last October: "the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world."
Given the possibility that the next president may be a Democrat, the vote in tomorrow's Super Tuesday's primaries may be critical in determining whether this nation will embark on a foreign policy of détente, aimed at easing tensions with Iran, or one of continued containment, with its attendant series of international problems.
Dave McGill, News Correspondent
Dave's column, "The Contrarian," generally published every Wednesday, to Gather Essentials: News will sometimes present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day, and will occasionally also appear on other days of the week
Dave has been a senior officer of a large eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development
You can find all of Dave's "The Contrarian" columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian...... Keep up with Dave's other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network - just click here: http://atadaskew.gather.com........ You'll find Dave and other News Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other News experts at News.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 49
> would make it an early priority to initiate a meaningful
> dialogue with the leaders in the region, including Iran
> and Syria, in an effort to reduce tensions and
> restore stability.
I'd just like to remind you that this does not mean anything,
Like most of Obama's feelgood statements.
Tear it apart and all it says is that we must have been
the problem to begin with and if we now change our
attitude and act nice the middle east leopard will
change its spots.
Any of these sticky situation has had ample opportunity
to clear things up. Obviously in the case of Iraq Bush was
rabid to attack and would not allow displomacy.
Obama is merely saying he is going to open a channel,
which is only possible for him to say because of people's
frustration with Bush, not because that channel does
not exist, or it is our fault.
Well said Dave, as usual.
Also, until either one of these candidates is actually in the White House and has the intelligence that only a president can have (not intellectual intelligence - but information), we (and they!) don't know for sure what they will do. The situation can change in a flash. Who's to say that Obama won't some day say to Iran that it's our way or the highway?
It's just as important to consider what kind of person/negotiator the candidate is - what does their character reveal about how they solve problems - and what kind of team will they assemble?
Obama - open to new ideas, younger, fresher approach?
Clinton - previous Clinton administrators, experienced hardliners?
Only a very smart, articulate, visionary president who believes things can turn around and the answer is change, not looking to the 1990's for answers. We've got to curb these wars, tighten our belts to pay off Georgie's bills, and yet find the money for the kids to go to college and Grandma to get her Rx. This country is a macrocosm of every American family except the top 10%. We need to stop letting them buy our presidents.
Hillary wants to garnish wages to pay for insurance the government picks for us. Obama believes we will all pull together and buy insurance when he makes the ins. companies give up on prior conditions and only covering a few therapy sessions per year. That, coupled with what you've said, Dave make me happy to mark my ballot for Obama tomorrow.
Just my opinion.
1. Iran has been killing Americans in Iraq.
2. Ahmadinejad believes he is a messianic figure.
3. Iran has gamed the IAEA on their nuclear program, so it is likely that "trust but verify" agreements won't work any better than Albright's did with the North Koreans.
4. Iran has surrogates, like Syria and Hamas, that it can direct to act against us, so détente could be difficult to enforce.
5. Israel might just decide that survival is more important than our support.
On the other hand, a hard line doesn't work with messianic leaders who are convinced that God is on their side. With Iran's shaky economy, Obama might find an economic button to push that could yield results. As long as we "trust but verify" it could work.
Good article as usual. I don't believe that the actions of either of the candidates, once they become the president, will vary significantly, regardless of what they say on the campaign trail. Once they take that office and responsibility I believe either would attempt to lifve up to their oath of office and make decisions accordingly.
There are some that welcome open dialogue and consideration of diverse ideas in seeking peace ... there are others that would close off all avenues of expression (much as some on Gather delete comments that argue against their way) and "fight" it out to the end ... there are many of the latter mind set that think that Muslims in general and especially Iran are intending to destroy those of other belief systems ... those fears reinforce just what the present administration really wants to do ... have it out with them now using nuclear weapons ... we had better all be very careful who we vote for or we may get just what the next leader really wants ... most mouth the words peace, but their actions point to conflict.
The important issue is how does America advance its interests in the world, how does it achieve better international relations and outcomes for America and its allies?
We've seen how the lack of diplomacy works, we've seen how "first-strike" bullying works and we've seen how ultimatums work. They leave us with more death, more violence, more turmoil, more disfunction abroad and an escalating cost both in America lives and in economic health to maintain this broken foreign policy.
Talking to Iran and Syria does not mean that Obama phones them up and says: "Hey, my bad. We were being juvenile and we're sorry. Can you guys come out to play."
Part of talking to them can be talking tough. But it is far more effective to talk tough face to face than to do it through the media. That just makes you sound like the guy who's got a big mouth on the other side of the bar but is bound to shut up when the object of his loud scorn saunters over to duke it out.
By opening up a dialogue it is also possible to use the "carrot and stick" approach. Rather than endlessly threatening dire consequences ("everythings on the table") until the threat becomes meaningless, you can outline for your adversary the cost of continued conflict as well as the benefits of enhanced co-operation.
Iranians are not an aliean species. They are human beings. In the final analysis what they want is not so different from what everyone else wants. Being able to talk about these common issues should not be so hard.
Forget the blame game. Who's the problem, the USA or Iran? Well, within the USA most are pretty darned sure that Bush has been a big part of the problem and within Iran I'm sure plenty of people see Ahmadinejad as part of the problem.
I'm sure there's enough blame to go around.
I think Hilary's right to be guarded about foreign policy, especially Middle East policy. The new President will have to learn exactly what mess the Bushies are making first, uncovering who knows what secret operations, before making any declarations, before taking any steps. I think she's playing it smart.
> Part of talking to them can be talking tough. But it is far
> more effective to talk tough face to face than to do it
> through the media.
It leads to the same place. Obama gets points for saying
it in a way that tweaks the naive - in style - I guess that
is good in that it is effective and is mobilizing people to
vote for him. It just has the opposite effect for me. I don't
like it and I don't trust it. That is also not a right wing
scare tactic, don't be a bore. There is no tactic that Obama
alludes to using or can use that is any different that what
has gone before, you are just gullible to believe that
because you dislike Bush so much.
The debate we should be having is not whether or not it was a good idea to intervene here or there, if we should have done this or that differently, whether we should stay in Iraq six months or a hundred years.
The debate we should be having is, whether or not the U.S. military should continue to be the policeman of the world, whether we really need to spend trillions of dollars a year maintaining over 700 military bases in 130 nations around the globe. Whether or not the President has the authority -- legally or morally -- to send U.S. troops into hostile countries overseas, without an explicit Declaration of War by the Congress.
We need to take a serious look at whether military intervention overseas is worth the hatred it cultivates towards us. A kind of cost-benefit analysis is in order, I believe.
Is whatever benefit the Military-Industrial Complex, the media, the bankers who reap the interest from all the debt we get into, and the power-usurping federal government draws out of being at war, worth the hundreds of thousands of dead foreigners and the inevitable blowback we will face?
That's what we ought to be thinking about when deciding whether or not to vote for any one of the media-backed Stepford Candidates, or else the lone voice for freedom and sane government, Ron Paul.
> (and a knack for knowing what not to say too much
> or too loudly),
Actually, I don't think you can say that. Obama has been
very careful to lead people to think certain things about
him ... I liken his candidacy to the vetting of a Supreme
Court Justice with a minimal paper trail. I think more and
more the lack of specifics on Obama is hiding a major thing,
and I'd like to know what it is.
More and more I see McCain looking good, and I really
want to vote for a Democrat. I keep telling myself I
need to vote for Obama if he get the nomination, but
honestly, I do not think I can.
I think there are differences between the two, and
one of them is that Hillary Clinton is open and clear
about what she is, whereas Obama is hedging and
saying meaningless phrases that allow stupid people
to think what they have about him, and that is a
nasty dangerous characteristic that I like less
and less as this campaign unfolds.
Well said!
bruce,
What is it about McCain that is "looking good" to you?
That he thinks the U.S. military should be in Iraq for a hundred years? That he knows diddley-squat about economics? That he calls himself "a fierce free-trader" in one breath, and then touts his affinity for tariffs, subsidies, and price controls the next?
That he wants to give illegal aliens amnesty, because they too are "God's children?" I ask; what about the innocent women, children, fathers, and grandparents in Iraq? Are they not God's children also?
Should there be any legal or moral restraints on the U.S. President's power to murder foreigners? Should they at least be required to follow the Constitional prescription for declaring war before commiting mass murder?
What say you?
That is if he is elected. Where I stand right now is that I'd vote for Hillary Clinton. I would have prefered Joe Biden. I am not ready to trust Obama and I do not think he can win the election, particularly if the Republican seems like less risk to most American voters. Obama cannot get elected. So if Obama got the nomination I would expect McCain to win, and I am not sure who I would vote for. I'd like to think I'd vote for Obama because of social issues and domestic policy, but he is too untested, he is too ambitious and I am just not sure.
I am just happy that this election I can live with any of them. That's the big difference with me. Ever since 2000, a year I had been looking forward too since I was kid, the 21st century, everything went to hell, and I blame Bush, and he is going to be gone soon.
I was going to take your post and questions seriously, but this crap about murdering foreigners and mass murder is a useless cheap shot.
I would prefer a President do better than Bush,but you know, this was a failure of the President, the VP, the Congresss, the Supreme Court, the Military, the CIA, and the people. This mess though Bush started it is the whole country being dysfunctional.
You just cheapen the issue and make it impossible to discuss when you go on about the Constitution and mass murder. Where is that conversation going to go Steve ... what do you say. How are you going to stop mass murder?
The previous administration thought that we should talk to everybody not just our friends. they solved a lot of problems with out sending our young men and women to die in other lands. Even the so-called axis of evil was willing to talk but all of those talks were tossed out when George the II came into power, and look what that method accomplished, war and the threat of war.
Explain it to me again how a pair of Draft Dodgers managed to make some actual War Heros (Gore & Kerry) into being not as Patriotic as they were? Bush hid out during the war in the Texas Guard because he had money and family connections, while Cheney stayed in school with 7 deferments, long after he got both a BA and a MA.
I served in the U. S. Air Force, from 68 to 72 and I would have been happy to stay in school and at home while in the Michigan Guard, if I had had the family connections to get in. I didn't even know about it until I had been in for two years. At the time it was a well kept secret to benefit the well connected.
> managed to make some actual War Heros (Gore &
> Kerry) into being not as Patriotic as they were?
> Bush hid out during the war in the Texas Guard
> because he had money and family connections,
> while Cheney stayed in school with 7 deferments,
> long after he got both a BA and a MA.
The only explanation for that is that people
employed logic like this:
> Our current administration has felt that we don't
> need to bother to talk to any of the people we
> disagree with, just drop some bombs and they will
> straighten up.
Honestly, I agree with your sentiment, but once
you give in to the "dark side" and start using
arguments like this the whole discussion gets
skewed with results just like you noticed.
Thank you for pointing out that we've been in Europe for over 50 years. And I might ask: Why?
Do you realize how much it costs to maintain a military empire? ever heard of the "Fall of Rome?"
And that point leaves aside the moral and legal aspect.
I'm dead serious: From what authority does the President get the power to commit mass murder?
Do you have a better term for what has been done in Iraq? We were not attacked by Iraq, by their government, or by a single Iraqi person -- EVER, in our entire history.
So by what moral authority did our government have the right to send the military in there and start killing people?
In my world, when your actions directly result in the death of someone who is not threatening your safety and who has no _proven_ intention of threatening your safety, in an act of naked aggression, that is murder.
When your actions result in the deaths of thousands of people who were not threatening you and many who held no ill will whatsoever towards you, that is mass murder.
All the b.s. retroactive justification for the invasion and the self-serving platitudes about "spreading democracy" will not change that. Thousands of innocent Iraqi's are dead, many more are maimed and disfigured, and many more than that are displaced or homeless. And even many more than that are living in a world of s**t with barely any electricity, no sewage or running water, violence outside their front door every day; and you wonder why they would want to take up arms?
I will say I respect you for not invoking "the troops" in your response to me. Intellectual dishonesty, accusing criticism of the actions of the state of being somehow a slight towards the soldiers who only follow orders, disgusts me to no end. Thank you for, so far, being above that.
Obviously, Bush doesn't speak French. It's too bad that the powers that be don't realize that diplomacy is needed with our "enemies", not with our allies.
Bruce K - it's certainly worth a try. What's going on now isn't workingl
L.Albert Miller - if Clinton is elected, that would be 28 years of the country being run by the Bush's and the Clinton's. ENOUGH ALREADY.
jJack - did you tell a joke? How is your presidental campaign going? How many delagates do have? *chuckle*
> Europe for over 50 years. And I might ask: Why?
See: the cold war
Christ Steve. Are you now going to argue that
since we did not have nuclear disaster that the
whole cold war era was unncessary and we should
not have had it. Europe erupted in war peridodically
throughout all western history, and the last two
sucked in the whole world, that's why we were
there, and it was unavoidable insurance costs.
The best man for the job is a woman, the Clinton
Bush argument is funny, but the last name doesn't
matter to me unless it is Bush at this point.
the problem with George Bush's invasion of
Iraq is that it did not work. If it had worked you
would be marginalized to the point of being
totally ignored or laughed at by criticizing it.
It did not work, for one reason, because it was
a very tough job, but mainly now, my interpretation
was that the experts seem to agree that it could
have worked out well had not the Bush administration
decided to re-invent everything, ignore the experts,
and let a bunch of philosophically motivated fools
take hold of history to gain some kind of sickening
self-justificiation for the while conservative republicans
agenda here.
Looking at this this it was an exercise in Ann Coulter
arrogance, George Bush's whole presidency, the last
8 years of the country have been about rich people
trying to tell us all you need is money money and more
money and tax cuts to do anything if you just leave
it up to the rich.
This is basically all about the arrogance of rich
ideologic people who do not undertstand the
country, the concpet of humiilty, and have
no respect for accomplishment, merit or
expertise.
The Sovs invaded Afghanistan while Carter was president. While some of the things he did in reaction were ineffectual (Olympic boycott/stopping the sale of American wheat w/o getting our allies to do the same), others were not. He ratcheted up the tension while starting the rearming process that Reagan would later build on during his administration.
Back to Obama, I find it hard to defend Clinton on much but so far she has been the grown up in the Dem primaries as regards to foreign affairs. She is thinking of the future; by not spouting off without thinking as Obama is doing, she is not limiting herself to any one road. Obama on the other hand is highlighting the fact he'll shoot from the hip and is locking himself into paths he may not want to take later.
Good article in the main, we just disagree on whether locking yourself onto paths a year out in foreign affairs makes sense for any presidental hopeful.