In some of the boldest moves of his time in office, President Obama recently moved forward on the internationally backed Iran nuclear deal and has endeavored to mend relations with the Republic of Cuba. These actions, despite their overall praise from much of the world, have not received a stellar welcome back home.
Conservative politicians and pundits have repeatedly attacked both the deals and attempts to improve relations, as they believe that they weaken both America and its allies’ national security and standing as bastions of freedom on the world stage. In fact, some conservative politicians have gone as far as to suggest that negotiations with our enemies or rivals are fruitless endeavors that have no place in our international strategy; however, this limited and presumptuous view neglects America’s long history of negotiating with those who view us as the enemy.
To understand America’s long history of negotiations, one must understand the precedent set by Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt pushed for a diplomatic strategy encapsulated in pushed for a diplomatic strategy encapsulated in the saying, “speak softly and carry a big stick.” In its implementation, this strategy worked by careful and crafty negotiations backed up by military strength and the will to utilize it.
This strategy was further modified by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s understanding of "realpolitik," or negotiating on the premise of pragmatism over ideology. This strategy, in one form or another, has been the foundation of many deals and agreements the United States has backed. The Korean War Armistice, the Paris Peace Talks, Nixon’s détente with China, SALT I, START I and, somewhat ironically, the Iran-Contra affair, are all agreements reached by the United States to relax tensions or achieve geopolitical goals.
The Iran-Contra affair is particularly important in the political context of today, as Ronald Reagan, the sweetheart of conservatives, knowingly traded arms for hostages in Iran despite the international embargo against arm sales to Iran. With an understanding of America’s historical foreign policy, however, this approach seems less sinister and more like a pragmatic approach to a difficult issue. In many ways, this is emblematic of the true nature of U.S. diplomacy, working to benefit America at all costs despite the veneer of ideology.
Conservatives, particularly those running for president, fail to understand that some of the most influential international achievements of the United States have been reached by diplomacy rather than by a show of arms. That’s not to say that military strength has no role in bringing a country to the negotiation table, just that conservatives have fundamentally mischaracterized military strength as a means to make demands rather than to bring about compromise.
Every Republican candidate has stated their opposition to the Iran deal, and some have even suggested escalating tensions by applying more pressure. With Cuba, the majority of candidates are against a warming of relations, with the notable exception of Rand Paul and Donald Trump. Carly Fiorina has even insisted that we should not talk to Russia as they are a “bad actor.” This blatant disregard of the United States’ post-war approach to diplomacy does not mean the Republican candidates are hard on foreign policy; rather, it means they lack a fundamental understanding of how effective diplomacy is utilized in the modern world. As William F. Buckley Jr., the famed conservative intellectual, put it, “conservatism implies a certain submission to reality.” The Republican candidates prefer to reject reality on the premise of ideology.
-Dan Nelson, first year public health student