James Baker won’t be sticking up for McCain’s take on diplomacy

In Republican foreign policy circles, you can’t really get more “serious” than former Secretary of State James Baker. His record for partisanship is unquestioned — Baker did, after all, oversee the 2000 Florida recount on behalf of George W. Bush — but after serving as Secretary of State and chairman of the Iraq Study Group, Baker’s perspective carries quite a bit of weight and credibility within the DC establishment.

With that in mind, this October 2006 clip of Baker on Fox News talking about diplomacy has been making the rounds the past few days.

“Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies,” Baker said. “You don’t reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don’t appease them. Talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement.”

Obviously, given the context, this had nothing to do with the debate between Obama and McCain. Baker’s interview was a year and a half ago. The point, though, is that the conservative approach to international affairs has been equating diplomacy with “appeasement” for quite some time. The right said it about Reagan talking to Russia; the right said it about Nixon talking to China.

Asked about the clip, John McCain — who, last week, endorsed Bush’s “appeasement” talk with some enthusiasm — said Baker only talked with adversaries who seemed open to changing their tactics. “When Secretary Baker was secretary of state, they didn’t talk to Castro. They had a very strict position on whether to negotiate with him or not,” McCain said.

That’s partially true, but incomplete.

As Marc Ambinder noted:

On Castro, that’s true. But Baker, as a member of the Iraq Study Group, advocated robust regional diplomacy to solve the problems created by the war in Iraq. While Secretary of State, he routinely talked to his counterparts in Syria and Iraq. Without preconditions.

As the Post reported,

“Baker noted that when he was secretary of state for President Bush’s father, he made 15 trips to Syria in 1990 and 1991, “at the time when Syria was on the list of countries who were state sponsors of terrorism. On the 16th trip, guess what, lo and behold, Syria changed 25 years of policy and agreed for the first time in the history to sit at the table with Israel, which is what Israel wanted at the time.”

A brief Google search provides other examples. Right before the first Gulf War began, Baker indicated his willingness for a face-to-face chat with Saddam Hussein. At a press conference to discuss the Iraq Study Group’s report, Baker said, twice, “You talk to your enemies, not just your friends.”

And in this case, as partisan as Baker might be, there’s no room for him to endorse McCain’s approach.

On a related note, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) doesn’t seem to have much use for McCain’s policy on diplomacy, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates seems reluctant to defend the “appeasement” talk.

And as long as we’re on the subject, in George H. W. Bush’s new book, the former president argues, “I was a big believer then, and still am, that personal diplomacy can be very useful and productive.”

****Conyers Subpoenas Karl Rove

(Washington, DC)- Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) issued a subpoena to former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove for testimony about the politicization of the Department of Justice (DOJ), including former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman’s case. Yesterday, Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, sent a letter to the Committee expressing that Rove would not agree to testify voluntarily, per the Committee’s previous requests.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests,” Conyers said. “Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters.”

Separately, Chairman Conyers recently received a letter from DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) indicating that the office has opened an investigation into allegations of selective prosecution of Siegelman and others.

  • I’d love to get Baker doped up on truth serum and then ask him how he feels about his role in the “election” of the Worst President Ever. I’m pretty sure he would have some interesting things to say.

  • Hey Cobsjo, why are you posting unrelated news stories in every thread? If you want to direct the conversational topics, it’s very easy to start a blog of your own. What you’re doing is kinda disrepectful.

    Also, Baker pwns McCain. But then, it’s apparently unnecessary to have a coherent worldview to be elected president.

  • Baker, in a recent PBS American Experience episode about the presidency of Bush I, was asked about the criticism that they received after Gulf War I for not completing the mission by taking Baghdad, removing Saddam and occupying Iraq. Several years after the 2003 invasion, Baker’s updated and historically confirmed analysis of that criticism was (paraphrasing), “Well GUESS WHAT? No one is asking that question now!”.

  • Isn’t that an interesting quote? I’ll bet that W believed the same thing. The problem is that he sees it as sticking by guys like Musharaff and Putin. You know, that “lookin’ into their souls” routine… He just doesn’t have time for the folks that are immune to his charm. Unfortunately the ones that did fall for W’s natural charm are of the same caliber as Alberto Gonzales and Atta Boy Brownie.

    Unlike a lot of other people, H. W. isn’t likely to come out with the “true” story after W is out of office, but I’d sure like to know what he *really* thinks of the last 8 years, the last 6 in particular.

  • “I’d love to get Baker doped up on truth serum and then ask him how he feels about his role in the “election” of the Worst President Ever. I’m pretty sure he would have some interesting things to say.”

    Hmm, yeah, that would be interesting given the last 8 years. I’d be willing to get that they were OK with it at the time. My feeling is that they either had no idea how incompetent W would be or they knew he’d delegate the real decisions to the people they had surrounded him with (like Cheney and Rummy).

    If it’s the former, seriously, who could have possibly guessed that he’d be this bad at being president. I never would have guessed. I always assumed that government technocrats and the checks and balances of the other two branches would have prevented a sitting president from doing the kind of damage to our country that Bush has done. Little did I know that congress would abdicate its oversight duties and lower level career positions would be restocked with political loyalists. I think the sheer audaciousness of it caught everyone off guard and we didn’t recover until it was too late.

  • chris (6): With all due respect, I wonder how much attention you were paying in the ’90’s. With the advent of the Gingrich revolution, the Rep party became a solid block, not a group of individuals with a general worldview. It’s fair to argue that one couldn’t have predicted 9/11, or even the Iraq invasion. However, despite talking about a strong dollar, plenty of economists were reading between the lines and explaining that his policies would lead to a weak one. He was surrounded by very specific special interests including Grover Norquist tax cutters, religious zealots, oil companies, anti-ACLU types, anti-regulation types, and anti-investor/pro-investment banker advocates. Whether you conclude the fault lies with Bush or his “experts” is somewhat irrelevant. For the most part he has been very successful, if you measure him against his goals, and not those that get the most attention these days.

  • Diplomacy is an art. And the way everyone in the media has jumped in on this undermines the diplomat’s – the artist’s – style and freedom to negotiate (or paint) the way he/she thinks is appropriate for the task. I think everyone is micro-managing here. It’s like telling an artist what brushes and colors to use. If you gotta tell the coach how to coach, you have the wrong coach.

    Bush is a hardliner (although actually he’s a jerk). Obama is a conciliator. Isn’t it possible that both are right, that it’s a matter of style, of method? The problem is that Bush is a miserable failure. That doesn’t mean that his methods are necessarily wrong. It means he’s incompetent, which he is, in spades, and everybody knows it. No matter how he approached anything he’d be a bungler because he just isn’t up to the job.

    Personally, I think Obama has the better approach, but who am I to tell someone else how to get the job done when there is so much more art than science to diplomacy?

    It’s certainly worthy of debate, but I don’t think there is any right or wrong answer. It depends on the circumstances, and on the personalities involved.

  • I love the underlying guts that Baker is conveying when he talks about this stuff. He’s not only suggesting that you talk to your enemies, he’s saying he’ll talk to them and get what he wants. I’m not confident that Bush, Cheney or Rice are capable of winning such negotiations. Their whole view of not negotiating belies their ineptitude at winning such arguments.

    Damn Rumsfeld spent his time warring the CIA and the state department instead of Al Qaeda.

  • Comments are closed.