Analysis: Hillary's "Preconditions" Rule Actually is Bush-Light

The feud between Clinton and Obama rages on.  Clinton believes the US should have preconditions before talking to US foes.  On the other hand, Obama contends that a policy of preconditions before diplomacy is "Bush-light."

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton shot back:

“You know, I have been called a lot of things in my life, but I havenever been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly,” Clinton toldCNN’s John King.

Actually, when you do the research, Clinton's idea of preconditions before diplomacy is analogous to what we have seen over the last six years, and it has produced negative results:

• In 2003, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun slammed President Bush, and pleaded with him to meet with North Korea without preconditions: "We can solve a difficult problem.  It is important to meet in person without any preconditions and have dialogues."  Ironically, it was not until this month when the Bush Administration agreed to meet with North Korea without preconditions that the Pyongyang-based government agreed to suspend its plutonium enrichment.
• In 2006, the New York Times reported that President Bush required Syria and Iran to follow certain preconditions before the US would meet with them: "The president then laid out preconditions for talks with the Syriangovernment. Nor did Mr. Bush give any ground on Iran, insteadreiterating his long-held stance that the Iranian government mustsuspend the enrichment of uranium before Washington will join talks." Obviously, that has not worked.  Iran is still building up its nuclear program, and Syria is still a breeding ground for Islamic extremism.
• Last month, Bill Richardson, former Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton, encouraged the Bush Administration to abandon its demand of preconditions and meet with Iran bilaterally: "That is why a full-court press on engaging Iran – with nopreconditions, and no illusions - is in the American national securityinterest."  That puts Hillary at odds with Richardson, not just Obama.

Lastly, Hillary Clinton's policy of preconditions contradicts that of her husband's administration.  In 1994, US negotiators met bilaterally with North Korea and signed the 1994 Agreed Framework, which dismantled Kim Jong IL's plutonium-based nuclear weapons program.  Had it not been for that bilateral agreement, experts conclude that North Korea would have up to 50 nuclear bombs today.  So sometimes meeting with our foes even without preconditions can produce positive results.

Both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush seem to disagree.

Comments

[Robert]

It is so important to be able to talk to other nations. The ability to communicate reason and have an open dialog can change people ideas on a varied number of subjects. We should as not only the "beacon of freedom" allow for discussion but encourage compromise and understand. Just an example, Ron Paul during the republican debate said the real reason why we have such problems is a lack of understanding their issues with us. I wish the democrats would really say you know what we have these problems and they do exisit and it is our job to bridge the gap with these nations. It is not us that should be the ones with demands but to listen and organize and to construct peace.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Yes, and that is why Ron Paul is one of the few candidates in either party that actually understands the big picture. If we don't bridge the gap between us and other nations, then we can't complain that the world is a more dangerous place than it was prior to the Iraq war.

[Project Vote Smart]

For more information on Hillary Clinton, please visit Sen. Clinton’s Project Vote Smart Page or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.

[granny]

Well, I don't know that it follows, Todd, that: "If we don't bridge the gap between us and other nations, then we can't complain that the world is a more dangerous place than it was prior to the Iraq war"

I think we can complain, and I think we should continue to make that point.The war in Iraq is its own disaster, and the world is a more dangerous place because of it.

Fair to speculate that if there had been no gap, things could have gone differently. No war at all perhaps.

The gap, is another, independent issue. It will continue to be a major obstacle in our ability to function in the global community as long as we refuse to respect and try to understand different cultures and ideologies.

Bridging it will be harder now because of the war in Iraq.