The Legacy of History

Powerful men, or so the story goes, become obsessed with their legacy as their days draw to a close. ‘What was my impact? How will I be remembered? In which manner will I be judged by history?’ These are the sort of questions they have been known to consider. Rumour has it that George W. Bush, not the most philosophical leader by any account, has even been stricken with this ailment. It is purported that he has read biographies of immense presidents who have preceded him like Abraham Lincoln. Unfortunately for Bush, Lincoln’s legacy failed to yield an answer. However, it was not a hopeless case, for Bush found the clue he’d been searching for in a more recent episode of human history.

‘Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and the radicals,’ the president remarked at celebrations commemorating Israel’s sixtieth birthday. ‘We’ve heard this foolish delusion before’, he added, before continuing with a neat little anecdote. ‘As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.”’ Fully aware of all the buttons he was pushing as he spoke to Israelis about the Second World War, Bush had a final point to add. He told his audience they had to call a spade a spade and that this was ‘the false comfort of appeasement’, and as we are all too aware it ‘has been repeatedly discredited by history.’ Bush then, is no Neville Chamberlain, naturally, he is Winston Churchill.

Bush is not wrong about appeasement, it never works. If a state, or group, is fatalistically determined to pursue its ends, then it will do so, with or without outside assistance. And appeasement is assistance, whether to Hitler in Czechoslovakia or granting a dictator a propaganda coup, it will be used in the pursuit of their goals. However, engaging in historical parallels is dangerous. They are often inaccurate, and it is usually done for shock value. Whether comparing Israel to apartheid-era South Africa or likening those who wish to negotiate with terrorists to Nazi appeasers, these parallels are unhelpful. Historical examples should be used for illumination and understanding rather than mobilisation of a support base.

Had Bush kept his comments aimed specifically at terrorism they would have been weightier- though not perhaps to the birthday audience he was addressing. It is difficult to compare Al Qaeda or Hamas to the Nazis. They do have a dangerously deterministic ideology, and they are an extreme threat. However, they do not have a massively industrialised state, a doting population who are fully mobilised, or unprecedented military power. Bush was right about one common point they share, there is no ‘ingenious argument [that] will persuade them they have been wrong all along.’ Indeed, the Hamas answer to Israel’s birthday celebrations was typically intransigent. Bin Laden put aside his dialysis machine for the moment and weighed in on the argument too. ‘We will continue, God permitting,’ he said in one of his routine press briefings, ‘the fight against the Israelis and their allies.’ Lest anyone was worried, he reassured us that not ‘a single inch of Palestine’ would be given up ‘so long as there is one true Muslim on Earth.’ In reality, Palestine is not an Al Qaeda issue and they exploit it only for its value in the Muslim world. Nevertheless, bin Laden has decided on his course. There is no external argument that could change that.

It is unclear whether Bush’s remarks were directed at Barack Obama, though the senator certainly seemed to think so. The White House denied the allegations, and Press Secretary Dana Perino quipped that people running for office often believe the world spins around them. Naturally, the president’s comments could have been aimed at a whole host of people who believe that negotiation is viable, however, it has sparked off a little spat in this year’s election, which interestingly has led Obama and John McCain to prognosticate on what their legacy will be.

Obama has been under fire ever since he indicated he would meet with the leaders of Venezuela and Iran, among others, in his first year in office. The quotes were undoubtedly taken out of context, nevertheless it still prompted his foreign policy advisors to rush to the press and clarify that he meant ‘diplomacy not summitry.’ As it is now Israel’s birthday he has had to consistently reaffirm his commitment to the embattled state and use an assortment of macho language when describing Hamas. In an effort to define his foreign policy ideas he even placed himself on the spectrum of idealist and realist presidents. Unfortunately, his notions are skewed.
‘Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy’, Obama said. One cringes at the mere thought of Nixon being included alongside Kennedy and Reagan, as the arch-realist has no place being sandwiched in between two idealists. Moreover, one is unsure about the diplomacy Obama is referring to. Kennedy endured a failed conference on Berlin with Khrushchev before finding himself in the far more comfortable position of advancing American values and goals in robust and rousing oratory. Indeed, Obama must have missed that famous line of Kennedy’s, which was delivered to thunderous applause, ‘there are some who say... we can work with the Communists- let them come to Berlin.’ Outside that Kennedy’s presidency was draped in hard power, especially in Cuba and Vietnam, while his ‘poster boy’ style also increased US prestige and influence.

Richard Nixon quite famously used statecraft to advance his triangular diplomacy, yet he did not meet with Zhou Enlai or Mao Zedong in his first year in office. Rather, he used backwater channels until there was sufficient progress before then sending the Prince of Darkness, Henry Kissinger, to Beijing. Only then, with some degree of rapprochement assured, did Nixon travel to China. There are two important points Obama should bear in mind before he models his prospective foreign policy on the past. Firstly, the thaw in Sino-American relations only took place because Mao felt the strategic imperatives suited it. Considering the Soviet Union menaced on China’s doorstep, Mao thought it prudent to align his state with the US. Secondly, Obama is not, nor should he be, a Richard Nixon. Nixon and Kissinger’s conception of international relations was an anachronistic view of the world directly transmitted from the nineteenth century balance-of-power which Kissinger had taught at Harvard. As National Security Advisor, then Secretary of State, Kissinger played Bismarck and tried to juggle to USSR and the PRC. This was realpolitik with no room for ideals. American values were an inconvenience for Kissinger, especially when American legislators tacked them onto bills that dealt with foreign affairs. Nixon notoriously stated that the US should accept the state of foreign governments if their system worked for them. Naturally, there was no litmus test for what effectively worked, and this policy led the US to prop up tyrants like Pinochet in Chile. All the while the White House waxed lyrical about peace in Southeast Asia while increasing the tonnage they dropped on Vietnam and Cambodia.

Obama’s statement appears more confused again when one treats the reference to Ronald Reagan. Sure the president used diplomacy, and did so quite effectively; however, this was only after he felt he had secured American strength to a degree where they could dominate negotiations. The extraordinary events of the late 1980s which led to America’s eventual triumph in the Cold War were a product of Reagan’s unprecedented military build-up. The Soviet Union did not have the economic base with which to compete and Reagan was able to pounce on Gorbachev when the timing was right. He reversed his stance slightly and toned down his rhetoric slightly allowing for a rapprochement. The president said in a renowned address, that an ordinary American couple and a Russian couple would, should they have the opportunity to meet, speak about their lives, what they did for a living, and their children, rather than the differences between their governments. However, this came well after he had called the USSR an ‘Evil Empire’ and ordered more B-1 bombers. Even with peace on the horizon Regan was impatient and implored Gorbachev to ‘tear down that wall.’ Again, at the root of Reagan’s foreign policy was American values. If Obama is to look at an historical paradigm, this may well be the best of them. He certainly has the talent and the communicative skills to deliver a message as powerfully and as effectively as Reagan. However, if he’s wondering what Reagan would do now with Hamas and Hezbollah gaining ground in the Fertile Crescent, he should remember that President Reagan already sent the marines into Beirut once.

Disappointingly, after this speech, realism cropped up in Obama’s discourse again. He praised the coalition building of Bush senior, and on this he certainly has academic consensus behind him. The support of intellectuals notwithstanding, the senator should not assume realism to be a good thing. He has already highlighted the horrors occurring in Darfur, it would be a travesty to thus adopt a foreign policy that would ignore them. George H.W. Bush was undoubtedly successful in crafting a coalition of myriad countries to evict Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. He also flirted with Deng Xiaoping directly after Tiananmen Square and turned a blind eye to the dissolution of Yugoslavia which had calamitous consequences. It would be a pity, with all the hopes and potential of Barack Obama’s candidacy, that he might adopt an international perspective guided by a cold calculation of national interest. Any notion of renewing American soft power would fade should that be the case. Obama has indicated his foreign policy will be different and he has underscored Sudan. One hopes he will continue down this path and forge an original outlook, sourced on values and power, and guided by coalitions if possible. But Obama has to remember that ‘carrots and sticks’ cannot be ignored and difficult tasks will often mean working alone. Moreover, if he is determined to conjure up presidents past, he should begin with successful ones at least. Unfortunately for him, there is competition on this front. John McCain already has Ronald Reagan in mind, and he subtly resurrected him when speaking of ‘peace through strength.’ Irrespective of who takes away of the spoils in November it would appear that Ronald Reagan’s legacy will be invoked in the White House next year. His ghost will sit in the White House Situation Room just like Banquo’s at Macbeth’s dinner table in Dunsinane. This time, let’s hope Macbeth isn’t in there with him.