President Barack Obama's trip these past four days to Trinidad & Tobago for a summit with the other leaders in Latin America proved a stunning success.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the mainstream media gave cautious coverage of the summit. News and analysis of the event also received relatively little attention here and on other blogs -- Though there were several good DKOS diaries here, here, here, and here.
What seemed clear from Obama's performance and the reaction of other leaders in the region is that Obama's approach to engaging foreign nations exposes the abject failure that was the Bush administration's approach to foreign policy -- not just in Iraq and the Middle East but throughout the world.
In the prelude to the summit Obama put forward an olive branch to Cuba -- easing financial and travel restrictions to the island nation for Cuban-American family members.
The New York Times called Obama's action:
the most significant shift in United States policy toward Cuba in decades, and it is a reversal of the hard line taken by President George W. Bush.
What happened next was truly unprecedented -- though it was hardly depicted this way in the press. Raul Castro signaled he was open to meeting with the US - and open to placing everything on the table for discussion, including human rights and political prisoners. At the summit in Trinidad and Tobago attendees debated reconfiguring their relationship with Cuba, taking a more open posture. Leaders of states that have been some of the harshest critics of American foreign policy -- Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia -- have softened their tone toward the U.S. Chavez has indicated that he will assign an ambassador to the U.S. and move toward restoring normal diplomatic ties.
Advances in diplomatic ties like these normally take years of delicate negotiations, complete with high level meetings over a series of years -- meetings that produce carefully worded accords and tightly parsed statements. Real changes in policies and attitudes come at a snail's pace and may take several administrations before change is fully realized. Obama's first steps here have been dramatic and successful.
Instead Obama's diplomatic approach is bringing rapid-fire change. I would describe the Obama approach in tone and style as follows: 1) a willingness to admit past mistakes on the part of the U.S. 2) an ability to listen politely and carefully, 3) an eye toward finding common ground, 4) a distaste for demonizing political opponents, and 5) an understanding that you will have to sit down with unsavory political actors from time to time to seek change. All this leads to 6) using your popularity and approach to purchase the change you seek.
That Obama's approach is producing such solid early results seems wholly lost on the mainstream press, the pundit core, and conservatives. While these "thaws" or "breakthroughs" or "diplomatic openings" have happened at breakneck speed the press have largely focused on criticism of Obama's action coming from the right and/or Obama's defensiveness in reacting to the right's reaction.
The press seems intent on reporting these developments in Latin America through a rapidly out-dated prism. Depicting these actions as a substantial gamble or risk while wondering if this approach -- even as it is yeilding success right in front of their faces -- will make America weaker. Such reporting is really absurd and misses the truly breathtaking speed at which change is happening.
But perhaps the most striking aspect of Obama's successful diplomatic foray into Latin America is that it clearly and plainly reveals the total abject failure of Bush's approach to foreign policy -- and to dealing with nations and leaders who dislike America.
This was captured clearly in Newt Gingrich's Response to Obama's trip:
I'm not against him talking to Chavez. But I think he ought to talk to Chavez in a cold and distant way. Everywhere in Latin America enemies of America are are going to use the pictures of Chavez smiling and being with the president as proof that Chavez is now legitimate, that he is acceptable...
How do you mend relationships with someone who hates your country? Who actively calls for the destruction of your country and who wants to undermine you...We didn't rush over, smile and greet Russian Dictators.
Ignoring for a moments that Gingrich is just plain wrong about the smiling at Russian dictators thing, the really striking take-away here is how deluded Gingrich and the other neo-con chicken hawks on the rights are about the projection of American power. Obama's successes have people like Gingrich spinning their heads in disbelief. Bush's tough talk produced zero results throughout the world and flat out disastrous results in Iraq when tough talk was followed up with action.
Chavez and Morales -- and Castro for that matter -- did not just display a willingness to talk with America and possibly reconfigure their relationship to the United States, they displayed an open eagerness for a new and more meaningful relationship. Contrary to Gingrich's assessment of Chavez, he does not hate the United States and nor did he seek to undermine U.S. position in the world. What he detested, what he opposed was George W. Bush and the policies he pursued. And in that, Chavez has a lot of company as evidenced in the last U.S. presidential election alone.
About Obama's opening with Cuba, Gingrich opined:
"Cuba releases zero prisoners, yet we make nice with Cuba. I'm for doing things methodically and calmly ... things that will work, but I'm not for deluding myself about smiles and words."
No, indeed he is not. Instead, he is deluding himself about the efficacy of an entire approach to foreign policy -- one that privileges a hostile posture coupled with unilateral American military action -- an approach that has been exposed over the course of the last eight years as a total failure. I'm curious, how many political prisoners did Cuba release when the foriegn policy establishment was following your approach, Mr. Ginrgrich? Jeez, I wish some enterprising young reporter would ask him that question.
I caught the same claptrap from a number of conservative commentators over the past few days. One talking head on MSNBC just this morning (sorry no link) said that, gasp, Chavez has posted a picture of him and Obama on his web page and that, double gasp, the book that Chavez recommended has skyrocketed on the Amazon sales charts. Hard to see how this harms U.S. interests anywhere in the big wide world. These totally ridiculous talking points expose just how deep the failure of ideas is on the right. The necons and conservatives offer nothing except the tired old boogey man that engagement with our "enemies" somehow makes us weaker (Carter-like in Gingrich's mind).
More should be made (and less should be expected) of Obama's quite striking success at thawing out previously frozen relationship with Latin American countries who opposed the failed polices of the Bush administration (not the U.S. or its people). The trip to Trinidad and Tobago was just an opening salvo in reconfiguring these relationships. No one -- least of all conservative wing nuts who succeeded in changing nothing over the last 8 to 40 years -- should expect any tangible results soon. The groundwork for change has only just been laid over the wreckage of failed conservative ideas.
OK...because I delayed in finishing this I see now that Vice President Cheney has commented on this topic -- though he said the predictable things and confirms my initial assessment: namely that Obama's successes expose the utter failure of the Bush/Cheney approach to foreign policy.
Perhaps it's worth noting that Cheney called Obama's trip "disturbing" and argued that the Obama-Chavez handshake was "not helpful." Cheney also explicitly contrasted Obama's plan of respectful engagement with Bush-Cheney approach of ignoring Chavez. The question that never comes though is: What exactly did ignoring Chavez and the others get us or deprive Chavez of? Where are the concrete achievements throughout Latin America that such a tough-minded, strong-arm approach got us? What countries exactly in Latin America were brought to heel by the cold gaze and aloof resolve of George W. Bush and Co.? The real question is -- considering how consistently wrong Dick "they will greet us as liberators" Cheney has been, why does anyone still really care what he thinks?
Jeez, is there any wonder at why Chavez worked to undermine the aims of the Bush-Cheney administration? Hell, I spent all last year working to undermine the aims of the Bush administration by electing Barack Obama President of the United States and I am glad as hell I did.