Should a US elected official travel to a foreign country for a self-described “warm” & “friendly” meeting w/ the leader of a state (a military dictator, mind you) who had only a few years earlier orchestrated a September morning terrorist attack on US soil (Washington, DC) that killed American citizens? In the age of the “war on terror,” that’s an interesting question. Especially if the elected official was there to express his support for that leader, not to condemn him.
In September 1976, a car bomb in downtown DC was used to kill Orlando Letelier, a former ambassador to the US. Both Letelier & a 25-year-old American aide (Ronni Moffit) died, Moffit’s new husband (Michael) was injured. They were driving on Sheridan Circle. The investigation of the case found that Chile’s state security service (DINA) was responsible for the attack; the US specifically sought the extradition of those involved from Chile. Some even sought the extradition of Chile’s head of state, General Pinochet (who had seized power in a US-backed coup on September 11, 1973).
In 1985, John McCain spent several days in Chile, visiting w/ General Pinochet. By then, even Ronald Reagan had distanced himself from the aging dictator. An embargo on military assistance to the regime was in place since 1976 (following the Letelier/Moffit assassination). During the lengthy Pinochet dictatorship, several other elected officials visited Chile, most of them denouncing the dictatorship’s human rights abuses & making public expressions of support for democracy. McCain spent much of the time fishing & riding horses at a ranch owned by a close friend of Pinochet; he made no public statements about the regime, its abuses, or in favor of democracy.
In other words, he met the leader of a state that sponsored, planned, and executed a terrorist attack on US soil “without preconditions.” Heh.
More from Boz, Two Weeks Notice, Marc Cooper, and The Huffington Post (where the story first broke).
That's a very interesting story indeed. Let's see if it makes it to the mainstream media. Will there be any robo-calls demanding that McCain be more "forthcoming" on his past relationships with terrorists?
But isn't that the whole point? Reagan didn't go. A lower level people are sent to keep up communications, but you don't send a president. Obama has also backed away from his "without preconditions" comment. The US has held talks with Iran on nuclear issues through Europe and through "low level contacts."
There has been tons of posts and comments in the blogosphere today, but I think Jorge's question is really the most interesting--how slow will the MSM be in picking it up? I can't imagine they will avoid it entirely.
@dv: Yes, McCain was a lower-level person back then. Only a congressional representative. But he's criticized Obama for meeting w/ a "washed up" 1960s terrorist when Obama was running for city alderman in Chicago. It also says something about McCain's very outdated Cold War mentality, particularly w/ his trying to paint Obama as a "socialist" and recently bragging about his being ready to bomb Cuba during the missile crisis (not to mention his palling around w/ Cuban exile paramilitaries since he's been a senator. So I do think it's fair game. It's also interesting that McCain did not make any pro-democratic statements critical of the regime when he visited, though nearly every other US representative (Dem & GOP) did on their visits.
From what I heard from McCain, he was saying that he was stationed on an aircraft carrier and was moments way from being ordered to bomb Cuba. His point seemed clearly that inexperience could get us into that situation again. It hardly seems "bragging."
As far as meeting with the exile Cuban paramilitaries, Kennedy backed them and no US government has denounced them. Obama, in is more recent statements says that he would maintain the embargo as a tool to persuade Cuba.
I agree that McCain should have denounced the anti-democratic activities of Pinochet, it was a leadership moment that he failed. It still seems to me that his behavior in going to Chile is consistent with his line against a president meeting with adversary governments without preconditions. He says that the correct thing to do is to use lower level meetings to maintain communications with the other country. In those days that was someone like him.
@dv: Fair enough. Though I would've liked to have seen McCain denounce Pinochet, not just pall around w/ him & his friends. Yes, McCain is a product of the Cold War. But I'm one of those people who think the Cold War is over & that a new approach to foreign policy is appropriate. It seems McCain is still fighting the Cold War. Maybe he didn't get the memo that such attitudes are sooooo 1989.
When you say McCain is still fighting the cold war and a new approach needs to be taken, I what sense do you mean that?
I think a systematic approach to diplomacy makes sense. Use low level contacts to feel out where an an agreement can be reached. Have your diplomats work and sec of state define the boundaries, the the heads of state meet on a narrowly defined issue. Just because there are no nuke stockpiles involved doesn't mean the leaders of the US and Iran can get to and solve their problems over a cup of coffee. No boundaries mean they could make matters worse.
See, here I actually agree that meeting w/ leaders "without preconditions" is *not* a bad thing. After all, a meeting doesn't imply anything is given away. Why waste time w/ low level meetings when global politics now moves at a faster rate? Let's have the president of the US agree to sit down w/ whoever (then let's see if they show up). I'm pretty sure a guy like Obama (since that's everyone's fear) isn't going to back down just because the guy's in the same room w/ him. I even get the sense that Obama's just as likely to meet w/ an adversary to say this: "Listen Ahmedinejad, here's what we're gonna do: You're going to stop building your nuclear reactors. Or I'm going to blow them up. Understood? Ok. Let's get some cake now."
I have a hard time picturing either of these two candidates being able to do that. They can't have a debate with each other without negotiating every detail before hand to remove any risk. They almost know the exact question before hand, that's why their debates sound like dueling speeches. Obviously they didn't feel comfortable enough to risk a debate without making a gaffe -- and thats meeting with someone from their own culture. Of course Obama understands the possible pitfalls in his own national politics so he is less willing to take risks there. I would hope that a president would be smart enough to think to delegate to people with years of experience dealing with that specific culture and those specific issues. If he doesn't feel comfortable with his people, he needs to be a good executive and find the right people.
Yeah,I always found the idea that Obama would meet w/ ANY leader at ANY time w/o ANY preconditions was ridiculous. Of course he won't! Nobody would!! Isn't even setting a date & place technically a "precondition" for meeting? Obviously he meant he wouldn't require that the final treaty be already negotiated BEFORE meeting, but that he would prefer summit level negotiations over mid-level talks (which, actually, was the Nixon/Reagan strategy!).
Obviously he meant he wouldn't require that the final treaty be already negotiated BEFORE meeting, but that he would prefer summit level negotiations over mid-level talks (which, actually, was the Nixon/Reagan strategy!).
Mmmm…no it wasn’t. I don’t know what Obama meant but your comparison with Regan summitry is historically inaccurate. During the classic arms control summit meetings most closely associated with Reagan, agreements were negotiated by lower-level functionaries WAY before the summits took place. It is the only practical way to do theses things given the bureaucratic imperatives involved and coupled with the complexities of the treaties. Indeed, if memory serves, the Reagan administration even cancelled one planned summit precisely because agreement couldn’t be reached on a key technical issue ahead of time. It is inaccurate, at best, to suggest that summit treaties were not negotiated—and largely agreed upon—by lower-level functionaries BEFORE the summit. At least for Reagan.
@GS: Actually, I think you're right. Perhaps my head was still spinning from The New Republic endorsing Obama because he was the more "Reaganesque" of the two candidates.