(1) Cuba
Fidel Castro overthrew a corrupt dictatorship and put some positive programs in place for the Cuban people. But he stayed in power far too long, and his centralized command economy and authoritarian leadership has helped keep the country poor (the U.S. embargo hasn't helped either).
Though Fidel placed power in the hands of his First Vice President, his brother Raúl, last year, it's doubtful that any meaningful change, if any, will occur before Fidel dies.
I think the U.S. government should unilaterally end the boycott of Cuba but I see nothing to be gained by meetings at this time between the next President and either Fidel or Raúl Castro. Maybe the situation will change after Fidel dies.
(2) Venezuela
I don't think the U.S. should be trying to overthrow Hugo Chávez, but I see nothing to be gained by meeting with him either, at least in the first year of the presidency. That could be considered later on. I think a Democratic president would have greater priorities in the first year.
(3) North Korea
Kim Jong Il is an international pariah, due to his brutal leadership, economic failure, and aggressive attempts to develop nuclear power. The U.S. should be stepping up its diplomatic efforts with North Korea with a goal of ending its nuclear program, but a meeting between the U.S. president and Kim Jong Il should only take place after considerable progress toward that end has taken place. No first year meeting, unless it follows upon gains in diplomatic activity at a lower level.
(4) Syria
The U.S. should be working to lure Syria out of the Iran camp, perhaps through helping to broker a Syria-Israel peace deal or with some other means. As with the example of North Korea above, a meeting between U.S. and Syrian leaders shouldn't be a starting point, but should only take place if there has been enough progress in lower level meetings to ensure a positive outcome from a head of state meeting. No first year meeting unless it follows upon gains in diplomatic activity at a lower level.
(5) Iran
The U.S. has substantial issues to work out with Iran, but the distance between the two is vast, and there are no diplomatic relations between the two countries. The U.S. should engage Iran vigorously diplomatically, but if a head of state meeting is going to take place and have any benefit, it will probably have to occur later in this process rather than earlier. No first year meeting with Iran, unless some unexpected diplomatic breakthrough warrants it.
The bottom line? In my opinion, while the U.S. should be pursuing diplomatic activity with all these countries (some more vigorously than others), I don't see the benefit of first year meetings without preconditions with any of them. (And, for the most part, by preconditions, I don't mean "they have to do this before the leaders meet," but rather that there has to be progress in negotiations between us and them before the leaders meet.) I am strongly in favor of vigorous diplomacy, I just think that, in most cases, leaders between heads of state come within the diplomatic progress at key junctures, rather than at the beginning of the diplomatic process.
What do you think?
Comments are closed on this story.