In 1986 President Reagan knew that the United States was protected against a possible Soviet nuclear attack. When he went to Reykjavik in Iceland to have a summit meeting with the Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, he had one thing on his mind—to agree on the mutual limitation of those terrible weapons if possible—and had a few hours to finalize a deal that was negotiated previously by their staffs … or go home empty handed if there could not be a last minute ironing of the remaining issues.
As it turned out,
the two leaders could not see eye to eye on the fine points that were left for
them to resolve, by negotiators that worked on the deal for several months
prior to that day. The leaders walked away from each other, and immediately returned
to their respective capitals.
In the realm of
theatrics, placing limits on nuclear weapons would be called “content” of the
scene, whereas the walking away of the leaders, would be called the “form.” It
is no secret that punditry in North America has deteriorated to such an extent
that those who call themselves opinion makers, find that discussing the content
of issues, taxes their brains too much thus avoid them. Instead, they point to
the form, and discuss it as if it were the content. This is why you often read
paragraphs like the following:
“After nearly a
year of negotiations, Tehran hasn’t budged an inch. Mr. Biden should
walk away from the talks just like President Ronald Reagan did in a 1986 summit
with former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. That won’t happen because
Mr. Biden desires a renewed agreement more than he cares about
Iran’s obtaining nuclear weapons”.
This was a quote
from an article that came under the title: “Biden’s second year of foreign
policy,” and the subtitle: “Neither American public nor our allies know what
president is doing.” It was written by Jed Babbin, and published on January 6,
2022 in the Washington Times.
Aside from the
reality that to give “form” the status and importance of “content,” attests to
the pundit’s low understanding of the purpose for having debates, the analogy
that’s attempted here, is so inaccurate, it is like confusing apples with
oranges. That is, there is a big difference between a summit of leaders that
have only hours to ratify or reject an agreement negotiated earlier by their
staffs, and a conference of specialists who are not under the constraints of
time, negotiating an agreement that cannot yet be accepted or rejected. From
what or from whom does Jed Babbin visualize Joe Biden walk away?
Equipped with that
kind of mentality, Jed Babbin expresses profound dismay at President Joe Biden’s
foreign policy performance during his first year in office. Babin goes from
there to express fear that Biden’s performance will not improve in the coming
year. In short, Babbin foresees that the President will do badly handling the
issues that pertain to China, Iran and Russia.
With regard to
China, Jed Babbin says that Joe Biden has already muddled the issue when he
reassured the world that America will defend Taiwan if attacked by mainland
China, only to be contradicted by his advisers moments later. So, my friend,
here is a pundit who sees advanced statesmanship when Israel practices
ambiguity, but will not give his own president the benefit of the doubt when
the latter seems to practice ambiguity to avoid revealing to China’s leaders
what military preparations are done in America to be ready when the time will
come.
As to the matter of
Iran, Jed Babbin accuses Joe Biden of being obsessed with the idea of renewing
the Iran nuclear deal that was negotiated by America and its allies with Iran
during the Obama-Biden administration. What Babbin finds objectionable is that
the US is now prepared to lift some sanctions if Iran would agree to return to
compliance with the deal that was negotiated and finalized in 2015.
Babbin contends
that this cannot and must not be done for two reasons. First, he says that Iran
has gone too far already violating the deal in response to the reneging of it
by the previous administration. Second, the Iranians have made demands early
on, and are not budging one inch from them. It is for these reasons, says
Babbin, that Biden should walk away from the Vienna negotiations, as discussed
earlier.
As to Russia, Jed Babbin
accuses Joe Biden of having no thought with regard to Russian President
Vladimir Putin’s threat to invade Ukraine. Having said this, Babbin engaged in
a bizarre kind of polemics that give him away as being, not an impartial pundit
interested in participating in a serious debate, but an individual that’s
driven by ideological fanaticism, interested only in debasing his president.
Look what he did. Referring to a video conference the two leaders had, Babin
said the following:
“Mr. Biden conceded
that the US would not deploy troops to Ukraine or place missiles there. He gave
away something and got nothing in return. Hours later Russian Foreign Minister
Lavrov accused the US and its allies of stoking war in eastern Ukraine, saying:
We see the US and NATO nations provisioning Ukraine with weapons and sending
military specialists. Russia apparently sees the Ukraine crisis like the United
States regarded Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Use of the
analogy to the Cuban Missile Crisis was no accident. It may be an invitation to
serious negotiations. Is Mr. Putin seeking a back-channel negotiation with
Mr. Biden? If that is what it was, it will fall on uncomprehending ears in
the Biden White House. That is probably for the best because
Mr. Biden would, in any such negotiation, give too much and get nothing
in return”.
So, here is the
story as told by Jed Babbin who did not understand what he was telling. It is
clear that whereas Biden promised not to send American troops to fight Russia
in Ukraine, he gave the Ukrainians the
kind of weapons that made Russia think twice about invading their country. This
led the Russians to seek serious negotiations aimed at resolving the current
crisis the way that the Cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully in 1962.
Having said this
much and failed to understand what he was talking about, Jed Babbin accused Joe
Biden of not realizing he achieved peace and avoided a serious crisis. And so, Babbin
predicted with absolute certainty that the White House will do badly
negotiating an end to the crisis that has already been avoided.