Obama and McCain free of ‘axis of evil’ taboo

WASHINGTON – Whether under Barack Obama or John McCain, the next US administration will pursue negotiations with Iran, North Korea and other anti-American regimes, analysts predict.

To be sure, they say, Obama may be more willing to talk than McCain. But the way has been clear for such negotiations since President George W Bush himself changed course after crashing into the limits of US power in Iraq and breaking the taboo he created, they say.In his state-of-the union speech in 2002, Bush lumped Iraq, Iran and North Korea into an “axis of evil”, part of a neo-conservative policy to promote pro-American democracy by pressuring such regimes until they crumble.”The truth is the Bush administration view of not negotiating with these hostile regimes is already dead,” analyst Peter Beinart told AFP.”They’re negotiating.McCain will negotiate, Obama will negotiate.”The question will be at what level an Obama or McCain administration will negotiate.Obama has indicated he will reach out to the leaders of countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, but he faces practical and political limitations.And McCain will also likely pursue talks with some of these regimes, even if he himself harbours neo-conservative leanings or appoints people who have such views to his administration, they add.The 47-year-old Democratic candidate, who hopes to become the first African-American president, says he wants to break free from what he calls the “trap” of Bush’s refusal to talk to “leaders we don’t like.”But he has come under heavy fire from the right, including McCain, his 72-year-old Republican rival who warns voters that “Obama proposes to conduct presidential summit meetings with the world’s worst dictators.”For McCain – a veteran of the US Congress and a Vietnam war hero – Obama’s openness shows a dangerous naiveté and inexperience in foreign affairs.The criticism, the analysts say, has caused Obama to temper his call for negotiations at the presidential level with countries like Iran, by insisting first on proper preparations.However, even McCain has stopped short of refusing to deal with US enemies.McCain’s website says: “While he supports robust diplomacy with our allies and adversaries, he would not rush to bestow the prestige of unconditional presidential meetings on the world’s worst dictators.”On Iran, McCain is more inclined to start at a lower level and work up, and prefers sticks to carrots, Beinart said.Analyst Thomas Carothers perceived McCain as a “hesitant” negotiator, a pragmatist who nonetheless has a “proclivity” for neo-conservative ideas.”He’s certainly not a traditional realist,” Carothers, a top analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told AFP.”But he’s not a fire-breathing ideologue.”Beinart, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, suspected that a McCain administration would experience some of the “infighting” the Bush team had in its second term toward engaging with Iran and North Korea.With Obama, “there would be a stronger administration-wide consensus to do it”, Beinart suggested.The analysts suspected that Obama would be more supportive than McCain toward Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations, with Beinart suggesting a McCain administration might be divided on whether to back such talks.Carothers believed that Obama was more open than McCain to negotiating with the leaders of Cuba and Venezuela.But in the case of Cuba, Obama risked domestic opposition from Cuban Americans and, if forced to make a choice, would likely spend his “political capital” on Iran, which has greater strategic importance, he said.In September, a poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs showed a majority of Americans backed future US talks with the leaders of Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Myanmar as well as the Islamist groups Hezbollah and Hamas.The analysts thought it unlikely either McCain or Obama would talk to the Islamist groups, which are labelled as terrorist.Nampa-AFPBut the way has been clear for such negotiations since President George W Bush himself changed course after crashing into the limits of US power in Iraq and breaking the taboo he created, they say.In his state-of-the union speech in 2002, Bush lumped Iraq, Iran and North Korea into an “axis of evil”, part of a neo-conservative policy to promote pro-American democracy by pressuring such regimes until they crumble.”The truth is the Bush administration view of not negotiating with these hostile regimes is already dead,” analyst Peter Beinart told AFP.”They’re negotiating.McCain will negotiate, Obama will negotiate.”The question will be at what level an Obama or McCain administration will negotiate.Obama has indicated he will reach out to the leaders of countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, but he faces practical and political limitations.And McCain will also likely pursue talks with some of these regimes, even if he himself harbours neo-conservative leanings or appoints people who have such views to his administration, they add.The 47-year-old Democratic candidate, who hopes to become the first African-American president, says he wants to break free from what he calls the “trap” of Bush’s refusal to talk to “leaders we don’t like.”But he has come under heavy fire from the right, including McCain, his 72-year-old Republican rival who warns voters that “Obama proposes to conduct presidential summit meetings with the world’s worst dictators.”For McCain – a veteran of the US Congress and a Vietnam war hero – Obama’s openness shows a dangerous naiveté and inexperience in foreign affairs.The criticism, the analysts say, has caused Obama to temper his call for negotiations at the presidential level with countries like Iran, by insisting first on proper preparations.However, even McCain has stopped short of refusing to deal with US enemies.McCain’s website says: “While he supports robust diplomacy with our allies and adversaries, he would not rush to bestow the prestige of unconditional presidential meetings on the world’s worst dictators.”On Iran, McCain is more inclined to start at a lower level and work up, and prefers sticks to carrots, Beinart said.Analyst Thomas Carothers perceived McCain as a “hesitant” negotiator, a pragmatist who nonetheless has a “proclivity” for neo-conservative ideas.”He’s certainly not a traditional realist,” Carothers, a top analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told AFP.”But he’s not a fire-breathing ideologue.”Beinart, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, suspected that a McCain administration would experience some of the “infighting” the Bush team had in its second term toward engaging with Iran and North Korea.With Obama, “there would be a stronger administration-wide consensus to do it”, Beinart suggested.The analysts suspected that Obama would be more supportive than McCain toward Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations, with Beinart suggesting a McCain administration might be divided on whether to back such talks.Carothers believed that Obama was more open than McCain to negotiating with the leaders of Cuba and Venezuela.But in the case of Cuba, Obama risked domestic opposition from Cuban Americans and, if forced to make a choice, would likely spend his “political capital” on Iran, which has greater strategic importance, he said.In September, a poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs showed a majority of Americans backed future US talks with the leaders of Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Myanmar as well as the Islamist groups Hezbollah and Hamas.The analysts thought it unlikely either McCain or Obama would talk to the Islamist groups, which are labelled as terrorist.Nampa-AFP