American politics: On or Off, good or bad, and nothing else in between

(Source: CNN Politics)

                                                                      

There seems to be a big brouhaha raging over Donald Trump’s desire to engage Vladimir Putin in formal talks and perhaps improve US-Russian relations for the first time in a couple of decades, a situation that has, unsurprisingly, earned Trump considerable ridicule and condemnation across the board and, consequently, reflects the limits—and maybe even dangers—of American “on-off” or binary thinking. The result of such thinking leaves open the very real possibility of international conflict and, in the worst case, even war.

                                                                 

All this excitement over Trump’s unconventional foreign policy enunciations arises out of entrenched hold-over Cold War attitudes of the diplomatic and chatter communities, of which Mrs. Clinton is a part, towards the US—the good guys—and Russia—the bad guys—and this most recent incarnation of “Russian autocracy,” Vladimir Putin. Here.

And therein lies the problem: casting the world in the restrictive, overly simplistic, terms of either good or bad and no in-betweens. But, isn’t the world and those who occupy it far more complex than that?

The American way of seeing things as an “either/or” proposition with no alternatives, known as the Western binary, here, potentially hurts our ability to promote international security and peace and may impede our ability to engage with heads of state whose views and ideologies may seem objectionable to or in conflict with our own.  

But, isn’t such engagement a reflection of a core American value: to engage the objectionable in the interests of democracy and free speech?

The American view of Putin, however, is a far cry from the days when former President Bill Clinton and a very drunk Boris Yeltsin got into a laughing fit at a formal Presidential meeting in 1995, leaving the two heads of state practically incapable of speech, here. Things were good then between the two nations—largely because President Clinton understood that cooperating with historical adversaries dramatically increases the chances of achieving a positive, mutually beneficial relationship with adversaries.

                                                                      

(Sources: Mikhail Svetlov / Getty Images)

The problem is Putin is seen by the US and its allies as an international bad guy—albeit for good reasons—who plowed his way onto Ukraine’s boarder in 2014, annexing the Crimea, a la Nineteenth Century style diplomacy as John Kerry put in his 2014 “Face the Nation” interview,here. This action severely shocked the international community and awakened their worst historical suspicions of the apparent un-democratic nature of Russia. But, despite the almost universal condemnation, Trump sees profit in engaging with this man.

But, Barack Obama experienced a slew of derisions and insults early on in his administration from both sides of the aisle when he announced the similar idea of engaging with one’s enemies—in particular, when he announced his intention to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, a client state of the former Soviet Union and therefore an un-democratic nation, here. 

However, the bigger idea here is to have some degree of control over so-called volatile states and their decision-making, a possibility that exists only when nations are engaged with each another and an impossibility when the lines are firmly drawn and each is in their respective corners.

But, this “respective corners” mindset, or polarization, is exactly where we are with Putin. Even Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, said on CNN that Trump’s “praising of an autocrat" is alarming and puts the country at risk, here, an attitude, though not entirely unfounded, is in part informed by the last 65 plus years of US foreign policy centered on defeating Communism in the former Soviet Union and its various client states, here. The problem, though, is this kind of approach to those we deem unsavory effectively eliminates alternative strategies for peace and stability in the world.  

Add to Mrs. Clinton's remarks another fact: that Vladimir Putin is a former Lieutenant Colonel in the KGB, a fact that can only further intensify the polarization in which no one is talking and tensions are mounting. Dangerous.

But, these are exactly the leaders the United States should be engaging in diplomatic talks, not just those leaders of nations with whom we find agreement and common cause. That’s the low-hanging fruit and does little to promote peace and stability since harmony and cooperation already exist. The real pay-off in international diplomacy, however, is when we successfully engage so-called volatile or potentially dangerous states.

It is precisely at the point of impasse that nations can begin to engage, in which the parties set aside areas of contention and look for those in which they are able to come together. This is certainly not impossible and can be accomplished with all manner of leaders and in all manner of political/economic systems.

But, these “either/or” attitudes militate against cooperation and guarantee that the United States and Russia will remain in a constant state of tension, which only increases the likelihood of battlefield engagement and loss of life. Under these conditions, war becomes more likely than when there is at least some agreement between the two mutually hostile nations.