An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Clinton Fatigue: Bill Clinton Lashes Out At Wife Being Treated “Disrespectfully Just For Running” (UPDATED)

Fox News Contributor Jokes About Obama Assassination »

Accusations of Appeasement Against Obama ‘Unfounded’

Posted by WILLIAM KERN in Politics, War.
May 26th, 2008 | Comments

What are German-speaking people saying about whether Barack Obama is a Neville Chamberlain-like ‘appeaser’ for suggesting talks with Iran – or as President Bush put it ‘radicals and terrorists?’

From Austria – one of the nations gobbled up by the Nazis before America entered World War II – Christian Ultsch concludes for Die Press:

“If Democratic candidate Barack Obama is denigrated simply because he wants to talk to the Iranian leadership, it is primarily election campaign rhetoric … Those who negotiate with Iran must not be accused of seeking to create a new version of the Munich Agreement . The accusation of appeasement is unfounded. Churchill once said that: ‘An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last.’ But if need be, the U.S. and Israel have a club in hand with which to hit the Iranian crocodile over the head.”

By Christian Ultsch

Translated By Ulf Behncke

May 24, 2008

Austria – Die Presse – Original Article (German)

Just because people like Barack Obama would like to negotiate with Iran doesn’t necessarily mean they are naive.

In 1972, Richard Nixon flew to Beijing and met with Chinese mass-murderer Mao Zedong; in 1985, Ronald Reagan sat down with the General Secretary the Soviet’s “evil empire,” Mikhail Gorbachev at the table. Republican presidents have met with their enemies time and again in recent history. Even George W. Bush, who is often portrayed as narrow-minded and oversimplifying things as black-and-white, has done so well negotiating with Libya that he has made agreements with North Korea.

If Democratic candidate Barack Obama is denigrated simply because he wants to talk to the Iranian leadership, it is primarily election campaign rhetoric. A normalization of U.S.-Iran relations could help prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and stabilize the region. Of course it would be naive to expect miracles from such a dialogue. Talks can be abused to play for time. Conversely, the hard-line approach has failed to deter the Mullah’s from giving up their nuclear ambitions.


READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. election.

  • redfish
    The whole flack against Chamberlain is exaggerated anyway.

    The Munich Agreement didn't change anything, except make Chamberlain look like a complete fool when he said he secured "Peace in our time"

    Hitler would have gone on and marched into Czechoslovakia anyway, and many historians believe that, because the English military was less prepared, the delay in the start of the war allowed the English to build up.

    Some people thought the policy appeasement would work, because it had in the past. They naively figured Hitler to be an extension of German nationalist movements in the 19th century who just wanted to have German-speaking territory in their nation that had been carved up in a different way after WWI. They recognized that Europe had wronged Germany with the WWI reparations.

    Others, like Churchill knew Hitlers ambitions, and it made Chamberlain look like a fool when Churchill was right.

    But did Chamberlain's diplomatic policy actually strengthen Germany? I doubt it.
  • redfish
    On the Iran matter, btw, people need to realize that the Bush administration is talking with Iran, they have open diplomatic channels and have meetings all the time. They just believe it would be wrong to have a face-to-face talk between Presidents.

    Bush was obviously being dense when he made the analogy between talking and appeasement; but the policy that talks should be at a different level is justifiable.

    Iranians currently dislike Ahmedinejad , and many US officials don't want to reverse that by Presidential talks. It may be smart policy to wait until the next President of Iran is elected, as to embarass Ahmedinejad like Iran embarassed Jimmy Carter.

    The former president, Mohammad Khatami has sharply criticized Ahmedinejad over his comments on Israel. If Ahmedinejad is embarassed, Iran might return to a rule by moderates like Khatami who tried to reform Iranian laws and bring closer ties to the West.
  • daveinboca
    Barack-o is a shallow superficial person when it comes to foreign policy. He shoots from the hip/lip when asked questions about "unconditional negotiations" You don't talk to a rogue "republic" like Iran without an elaborate set of preconditions, that's rule #1 in serious int'l politics.

    Which Austria doesn't partake in.

    Iran is on the list of US terrorist countries, along with N. Korea [which still hasn't done its end of the bargain in talks started by Waddlin' Maddy Al-dull.] Talking for the sake of talking is simply bad policy, and gives a rogue government like Iran cachet it will use to impress its terrorist confreres, like Syria, for example.
  • runasim
    Redfish made the kind of reasoned comments to be appreciated.

    It's not only the reality of current events that gets stifled by partisan tweaking and twisting.
    To regain a more reasonable perspectiveof history takes a long time, much longer than what has elapsed since the wars of the 20th century,much less the 21st.

    One thing is for certain. It is useless to talk in generalities. What works in one set of circumstnaces can fail miserably in another..For me, it's important that a leader be flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstnces, to keep all options open, to bob and weave. To be inflexible is to tip your hand to the opponent, giving him a fixed target to plot against. Perhaps professsional boxers and other athletees should be among those advising presidents, because they understand the importance of psydhological warfare. That requires understanding the opponent's mentality, as well.
    That's what was missing in the current administration for too long. When they finally realized they needed to adapt, however little, re Iran, too much of the damage had already been done. GWB succedded in tieing the hands and limiting the oportunities for the next president , no matter who that may turn out ot be.
  • Unfounded? No. Overblown? Oh my yes. But it's an election year.

    From the practical angle, what Redfish said. Also from the practical angle, Bush set a trap with non-specificity, and Obama leapt into the jaws of it by claiming it was aimed at him. Rookie error.
  • The Munich Agreement didn't change anything, except make Chamberlain look like a complete fool when he said he secured "Peace in our time"

    Hitler would have gone on and marched into Czechoslovakia anyway...

    I made this argument the other day. Nice to see I'm not alone.
  • Barack-o is a shallow superficial person when it comes to foreign policy. He shoots from the hip/lip when asked questions about "unconditional negotiations" You don't talk to a rogue "republic" like Iran without an elaborate set of preconditions, that's rule #1 in serious int'l politics.

    You mean we can't have negotiations with Iran unless they are setup to fail from the beginning. War should be the only viable option. And can you let me borrow that rule book? I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

    Iran is on the list of US terrorist countries, along with N. Korea

    And we're on Canada's torture watchlist. It's amazing anyone has diplomatic ties to us. Those types of lists mean nothing in terms of official contact between governments. That's rule #2 in seriously international politics

    Talking for the sake of talking is simply bad policy, and gives a rogue government like Iran cachet it will use to impress its terrorist confreres, like Syria, for example.

    Just reread that a few times and see if your head explodes.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC