Israel Matzav

Obama's foreign policy flops

In the Washington Post, Jackson Diehl notes the lack of success President Obama has had at 'engaging' with Iran, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela. But he hopefully claims that the administration has learned its lesson.

The administration does seem to be learning from all the rebuffs. One of the first to draw some hardheaded conclusions has been -- no surprise -- Hillary Clinton. In April the new secretary of state suggested at a congressional hearing that bad U.S. relations with Chávez were the result of the Bush administration's refusal to engage with the caudillo. "Let's see if we can begin to turn that relationship," she proposed.

It took less than three months for Clinton to be disabused of the idea -- a stretch during which Chávez took advantage of the administration's extended hand to launch another crackdown on his own domestic opposition while attempting to foment a left-wing coup in Honduras. Now Clinton is devoting herself to boxing Chávez out of the continuing Honduras crisis; far from consulting the Venezuelan strongman, she went out of her way to meet with journalists from a television station he is trying to close.

Clinton dismissed Kim as "an unruly child" several months ago. When his regime suddenly began seeking bilateral meetings last month, she invited him to return to the multilateral "six-party" negotiations organized by the Bush administration. She has repeatedly expressed doubts about whether fruitful negotiations with Iran are now possible. The rest of the administration is not far behind. Both at the State Department and the White House officials are focused not on arranging bilateral contacts between Tehran and Washington but on persuading European governments, China and Russia to support sanctions going well beyond those put in place by Bush. George J. Mitchell, the Middle East envoy, appears to have given up on including Syria in the Middle East negotiations he is preparing to launch.

None of this means that dialogue with enemies is inherently wrong or not worth trying. Obama may yet find an opportunity for talks with Chávez or Assad, if not Kim or Khamenei. But what seems pretty clear is that the most notable foreign policy idea Obama offered during his campaign has fallen flat during his first months in office. When he was asked that question two years ago, Obama was probably thinking about George W. Bush. It might not have occurred to him that American enemies also don't see much benefit in "direct diplomacy."

Really? It's been less than two weeks since the Obama administration suspended all aid to Honduras, whose deposed President is a Chavez client. The administration may not be willing to negotiate bilaterally with North Korea but it would resume the six-power talks in a New York minute. In the meantime, it has shown no willingness to pursue any kind of effective sanctions against the North Koreans. Obama's second letter to Ayatollah Khameni was sent as recently as two weeks ago. And George Mitchell might 'appear' to have given up on including Syria in 'peace talks,' but maybe he hasn't.

If the administration has done any learning from its four rebuffs, it seems to have happened quite recently.

If they've done any learning.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:28 PM