|
Obama is the target of much Republican criticism for his stated willingness to talk not only with America’s friends but also with America’s enemies.
We’ve heard the competing arguments: Bush’s foreign policy requiring our enemies to concede everything we want of them before we will even come to the table has been an utter failure. The war in Iraq, coupled with our refusal to engage in diplomacy has strengthened and emboldened Iran. Obama’s approach supposedly signals a “naivete” so “dangerous” that it quickly proved itself in the rude awakening of slumbering Republican fear mongers. This is a foreign policy issue bound to dominate the presidential campaign until the polls close in November. Neither candidate is likely to alter his stance much on this issue, so what do we, the people, think about it?
One question we ought to face impartially is this: Republicans say Obama’s willingness to sit down with Iran’s leaders will run counter to America’s interests because to entertain such a meeting will enhance Iran’s prestige on the world stage. Is that a sound argument?
Coincidentally, I was one of many thousands of people to receive in the mail this week a letter from the Dalai Lama. He continues to campaign on behalf of Tibet against China. Among other things, the Dalai Lama had this to say in his correspondence:
“I have always tried to find a solution through direct and honest discussions with the Chinese. It is my sincere belief that if the concerned parties were to meet and discuss their future with an open mind and a sincere desire to find a satisfactory and just solution, a breakthrough could be achieved. We must exert ourselves to be reasonable and wise, and to meet in a spirit of frankness and understanding.”
Bearing in mind the maxim that “consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds," those contending against Obama for his willingness to sit and talk with the Iranians would be hard pressed to support the Dalai Lama’s sincere (if not “naive”) wish to engage in talks with China.
Is Tibet’s enemy, China, elevated in stature or enhanced on the world stage by virtue of the Dalai Lama’s stated willingness to engage in talks?
(On the question of naivete, whether in the case of Barak Obama or in the case of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, nobody expects the Republicans to take seriously any of the precepts of Tibetan Buddhism, nor of any New Testament passage saying, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” Rev. 3:20. )
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(43 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
