tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post5683502434325096354..comments2023-10-22T05:51:58.898-04:00Comments on Soob: A Dangerous PrecedentJay@Soobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12208597218366281778noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post-29068962534952672582007-05-07T22:33:00.000-04:002007-05-07T22:33:00.000-04:00At the risk of putting the boots to a dead horse I...At the risk of putting the boots to a dead horse I have more to say about this subject. When time allows.Jay@Soobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12208597218366281778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post-66448657040530435102007-05-06T02:18:00.000-04:002007-05-06T02:18:00.000-04:00Clinton's state department policy towards China re...Clinton's state department policy towards China rested on a forceful defense of Taiwan being an unstated threat, a tripwire whose presence was implicit. However, at the same time, the State Department carried out diplomacy in China with the goal of improving relations with Beijing (which carried the implicit consequence of marginalizing Taipei). Implicit in his adherence to the "one-China policy" was the idea that Beijing represented the legitimate Chinese government, not Taipei. This was the pattern throughout the years of the Clinton administration. Of course, Clinton did at times indicate that the tripwire was still in effect after specific Chinese provocations---the 1996 incident (which followed a Chinese missile test) being an egregious example. However, such displays of force were exceptions to the rule. Obsessively highlighting a defense commitment that should have been more or less self-evident would raise Chinese suspicions and cross-strait tensions, not to mention give the Taiwanese (who were calculating the costs and benefits of openly declaring their defiance of the one-China policy) the impression that the US would help them gain formal independence and recognition, something that Clinton's state department was not prepared to do. <BR/><BR/>Clinton was vilified for favoring authoritarian Beijing over democratic Taipei. In this context, Gingrich went to Beijing to deliver a bellicose message that went far beyond the agreed framework of diplomatic conversation established through visible (summits, trade agreements, public diplomacy) and invisible (military force posture, economic interaction, and state-to-state interaction) diplomacy between the two countries. Gingrich's intention was to loudly affirm his support for Taiwan as an independent, democratic state and intimidate the Chinese. While the substance of his remarks, on surface, does not seem to contradict Clinton, it sends an entirely different message than that of Clinton's state department, one that promised confrontation rather than cooperation. In short, it undermined the Clinton State Department's attempt to communicate a specific message to Beijing and contradicted the spirit of State Department's China policy. <BR/><BR/>Likewise, Nancy Pelosi's visit substantially did not differ so much from established Bush administration policy. She talked about ending Syrian support for terrorists, something that I'm sure Bush has little problem with. The problem, as you state, is the manner of her conduct (meeting with a foreign head of state and communicating a concialiatory stance in contradiction to established policy and posture) undermined the message of firmness the President was seeking to communicate. I don't see a substantial difference between the two cases. <BR/><BR/>Returning to my earlier comment about this having a long history, it is in the end, little different than Congress rejecting Woodrow Wilson's treaties, Congress preventing Ford from aiding South Vietnam during the final NVA offensive, or the Democrat-Republicans attacking the Federalists' support of Britain during John Adams' presidency. Part of living in a democracy is that many times our government cannot speak with a unified voice to the world. Sometimes the signal can get jammed.aelkushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02250169760199903577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post-87419457754668430422007-05-06T00:00:00.000-04:002007-05-06T00:00:00.000-04:00Adam,I can imagine ole Newt sauntering in to meet ...Adam,<BR/><BR/>I can imagine ole Newt sauntering in to meet the Chinese delegation on their own "turf" replete with western arrogance, perhaps wearing a slightly cocked Stetson, maybe a pair of pearl handled Colt .45's weighing down his gunbelt on each hip. Fingering the well worn grips of his pistols he drawls, "Yew Chicoms is gonna leave off from the TyeWonEeese, er there's gonna be sum vilence. An you ain't gonna like the outcome."<BR/><BR/>While I credit Clinton as the best president since Nixon in terms of US-Chinese diplomacy (most favored nation and all) the idea that Newts cowboy declarations are a contradiction to Clintons own actions holds water only in terms of the measure of overt civility. To wit:<BR/><BR/>In 1996 in response to both an increase in Taiwan Chinese tensions and a Chinese missile "test" President Clinton engaged a massive show of naval force in the Taiwan Straights. While Clinton enacted a very public discourse of "peaceful reconciliation" regarding Taiwan and a "one China" policy he also made it very clear (beyond that of Newts own posturing) that a one China fully realized would have the US to contend with.<BR/><BR/><BR/>My point: While Newt lacked couth during his moment of public bravado he certainly wasn't acting in direct contradiction of his president. Clinton, being the master orator he is, managed to negate Chinese aggression through military show of force and yet assuage his actions through both political maneuver and friendly rhetoric.Jay@Soobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12208597218366281778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post-19902359375915240402007-05-05T23:38:00.000-04:002007-05-05T23:38:00.000-04:00adrian,I don't take your comments as harsh at all....adrian,<BR/><BR/>I don't take your comments as harsh at all. Quite the contrary, they are well thought out and intelligent. <BR/><BR/>In terms of the second point, I agree, it's not Bush prerogative to decide Israels diplomatic efforts. It's also not Pelosi's prerogative to usurp the Presidents foreign policy, no matter how malformed she (and I and others) opine it to be.<BR/><BR/>In terms of the third point, I'll meet you half way in agreeing that what you posit is certainly a possibility.Jay@Soobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12208597218366281778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post-25625391061111524742007-05-05T17:15:00.000-04:002007-05-05T17:15:00.000-04:00Regardless of the political merit of Pelosi's visi...Regardless of the political merit of Pelosi's visit to Syria (which I honestly am not myself sure of) I'd at least like to point out that it's not exactly unprecedented. <BR/><BR/>I'm copying this verbatim from the New York Times on April 4, 1997: <BR/><BR/><I>"Speaking with startling bluntness on an issue so delicate that diplomats have tiptoed around it for years, Newt Gingrich said today that he had warned China's top leaders that the United States would intervene militarily if Taiwan was attacked.<BR/><BR/>As he left for Tokyo after a three-day trip to China, Mr. Gingrich said he had made it absolutely clear how the United States would respond if such a military conflict arose.<BR/><BR/>Referring to his meetings with China's leaders, Mr. Gingrich said: ''I said firmly, 'We want you to understand, we will defend Taiwan. Period.'"<BR/><BR/>He also said, ''I think that they are more aware now that we would defend Taiwan if it were militarily attacked.''<BR/><BR/>Mr. Gingrich, the Speaker of the House, delivered his message, among the most forceful ever given about Taiwan by a visiting United States official, to Wang Daohan, China's chief representative in talks with Taiwan. Mr. Gingrich said he had given the same message to President Jiang Zemin and Prime Minister Li Peng in Beijing last week.<BR/><BR/>Chinese leaders offered no public response to Mr. Gingrich today. But on Friday, Mr. Jiang urged him to treat the Taiwan issue with care. . . .<BR/><BR/>Asked about Mr. Gingrich's statements, a Clinton Administration official in Washington said Mr. Gingrich had received briefings about American policy toward China, but that Mr. Gingrich ''was speaking for himself'' in his conversations with Chinese leaders.<BR/><BR/>The White House issued a statement saying that the policy of the United States was to ''meet its obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act, including the maintenance of an adequate self-defense for Taiwan,'' and that the Administration would maintain its ''one-China policy, the fundamental bedrock of which is that both parties peacefully address the Taiwan issue. . . ."<BR/><BR/>In an interview on Friday, Mr. Gingrich said he had spoken with Mr. Clinton, and with Mr. Gore on several occasions, to make sure that their messages to Beijing dovetailed. At the time, he did not mention his message on Taiwan."</I> <BR/><BR/>Needless to say, Gingrich's remarks ran contrary to US policy at the time and inflamed a diplomatic incident. It communicated an overly hawkish message that could have provoked, at least, a stepped-up Chinese defense posture, and at worst, given hard-liners within Beijing the impetus for an attack. <BR/><BR/>I'm sure there's plenty of other examples that can be dredged up by politicians of both parties across the years. <BR/><BR/>But the bottom line is that what you're describing is not new--and there's never really been a point in American history where our government has communicated foreign policy with one voice.aelkushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02250169760199903577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post-12896607230652287752007-05-04T03:21:00.000-04:002007-05-04T03:21:00.000-04:00For the first point, Congress and the Reagan admin...For the first point, Congress and the Reagan administration were very much at odds over policy towards Nicaragua.<BR/><BR/>For the second point, I don't really see a problem... it's not Bush's prerogative to dictate what Israel can or can't say to Syria. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?<BR/><BR/>For the third point, here's how I interpret Reid's comment. He meant it but he probably didn't mean to blurt it out in the manner that he did. However, once he said that, he wasn't going to back away from it because that would be like him getting shouted down.<BR/><BR/>And in terms of exploiting a war for political gain, see Richard Nixon.<BR/><BR/>Sorry if I seem harsh. I usually only comment when I disagree. You can interpret that as me agreeing with everything else on your blog!Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953649845499754508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post-27560002439804804252007-05-03T18:57:00.000-04:002007-05-03T18:57:00.000-04:00Adrian,Thanks for your challenging comment. Let me...Adrian,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your challenging comment. Let me see if I can aanswer your questions:<BR/><BR/>1) To my knowledge no congress member (speaker or otherwise) has embarked upon a diplomatic mission with foreign head state and directly contradicted the sitting presidents diplomatic policy. Bush has entertained (again right wrong or indifferent) an approach of essentially ignoring Syria. Pelosi (despite the admin. protests) directly contradicted this.<BR/><BR/>2) Pelosi brought with her a message "of peace" from the Israeli prime minister. It had absolutely no relevance beyond that of the symbolic. Did Pelosi contradict the presidents foreign diplomacy to deliver a symbolic message to al Assad? <BR/><BR/>3)This is not at all meant to offend you as I value your opinions and enjoy your blog, but:<BR/>I've stated before that I shy away from domestic politics on this blog. One of the biggest reasons I do so is illustrated here in your third counterpoint which begins:<BR/><BR/><I>Are you seriously arguing that <B>Democrats</B>...</I><BR/><BR/>While many of my philosophical and political beliefs are conservative in nature, I tread no party line and this is not a "drive by blogging" of the democratic party.<BR/><BR/>I'm not accusing an entire political party of anything. I am accusing both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid of setting a dangerous precedent in exploiting both foreign policy and an on going war for political gain.<BR/><BR/>That you disagree and challenge my criticism in an intelligent manner is very much appreciated but this post isn't an "us vs them" attempt at partisanship.<BR/><BR/>The second half of your 3rd comment:<BR/><BR/>Yes I truly believe he meant that. Given a chance to rescind or even revise that comment (as I quoted from CNN above) he reaffirmed it. This wasn't a "Macaca moment." Such conviction a scant three months after confirming Petraeus (who very obviously was bringing a long term strategy to the table) seems very much a political maneuver.Jay@Soobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12208597218366281778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37179942.post-55248595651970844012007-05-03T02:00:00.000-04:002007-05-03T02:00:00.000-04:00I think you're pretty far off base on Pelosi's vis...I think you're pretty far off base on Pelosi's visit to Syria, for several reasons.<BR/><BR/>1) You say:<BR/>"In other words a person who is in no position to officially affect US/Syrian relations has successfully eclipsed and marginalized the President and the staff he specifically appointed to engage in such relations."<BR/><BR/>Actually, Congress is given the powers by the Constitution to involve itself with foreign trade and the security of the US (declaring war, etc.). So it's not like Pelosi was creating a new role for herself.<BR/><BR/>2) You say:<BR/>"To what end? It certainly accomplished little in terms of cooling tensions between Syria and Israel."<BR/><BR/>Cooling tensions between Syria and Israel is evidently not the goal of the United States:<BR/>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/829441.html<BR/><BR/>3) You say:<BR/>"In the great game of political warfare, Pelosi and Reid are setting a dangerous, shameless almost psychotic precedent in the rules of engagement. Win at any cost."<BR/>Are you seriously arguing that <I>Democrats</I> are the party that has set the precedent for a "win at any cost" mentality? Furthermore, given the tremendous amount of bad press Reid has gotten in light of his "the war is lost" comment, do you seriously believe he deliberately said that for some domestic political advantage?Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05953649845499754508noreply@blogger.com