Richardson on the Diplomatic Charge in Venezuela

Governor Bill Richardson traveled to Caracas to hold talks with Venezuelan President, and Bush Administration boogeyman, Hugo Chavez this weekend. Big Bill was in the Andean country to discuss Chavez's role in freeing several hostages still held by the FARC, a Colombian revolutionary group that controls significant swaths of land in Southern Colombia. While Chavez successfully intervened to secure the freeing of six Colombian hostages earlier this year, FARC continues to hold dozens of individuals in captivity, including three U.S. citizens and former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, who also holds duel French citizenship.

Richardson focused his visit on encouraging Chavez to more forcefully engage in freeing the U.S. contractors, who have been held by the FARC in the Colombian jungle for more than five years. Interestingly, the New Mexico governor said his trip had been endorsed by the Bush Administration, with whom Chavez has had frosty relations. Richardson has a successful track record of working with adversarial leaders to secure the freedom of U.S. citizens or advance otherwise stagnated diplomatic ties in places like Iraq, North Korea, and Sudan.

Progressive Diplomacy Rewarded:

Richardson's active and innovative approach to diplomacy offers further vindication of the notion that honest and open dialogue more often than not engenders positive results. This blog discussed in a recent post the effectiveness of Jimmy Carter's talks with leaders from Hamas, in which the former president achieved more in one sitting than the current Administration has in over seven years of being in office. It should be, and has been, noted that this brand of diplomatic leaders such as these earn for themselves harsh and often biting criticism. With Carter's call for a more even-handed approach to U.S. policy vis-a-vis Israel and the Palestinians came charges of anti-semitism. When Senator Barack Obama claimed that, as president, he would hold unconditional talks with adversarial leaders in Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and other places to which Bush and other leaders have turned the cold shoulder, he was lampooned with charges of severe inexperience and naivete in regards to foreign affairs.

But what do we see in terms of results when we analyze the track record of those who have opened their eyes to the possibility of increased communications with hostile leaders abroad? Carter was a trailblazer in securing recognition of Israel's right to exist when, in 1978, he successfully brokered the Camp David Accords and a formal peace deal between Israel and Egypt. While each country still struggles with serious and confounding problems, the pact undoubtedly made them more secure and prosperous than they otherwise would have been (Israel and Egypt have been numbers one and two, respectively, on the list of the top recipients of U.S. foreign aid since 1979).

Democrats are not alone in this thoughtful approach to foreign policy. President Richard Nixon decided to go on a charm offensive (to the extent that that was possible for 'Tricky Dick', not exactly a maestro in the area of charisma) in, and open the door to relations with, China, which has made possible our still developing, yet improving political and economic relationship with that country (without which we'd have virtually no leverage in pressing for improved human rights for the Chinese people, or increased autonomy for Tibet).

More recently, Richardson's actions and Obama's pledges show us that the light of open dialogue and honest statesmanship has not been dimmed into non-existence. If more lawmakers follow suit and see that good things happen when our leaders lay their intentions on the table and ask for honest partners in creating a better world, the U.S. stands a real chance of regaining its respected position in the eyes of the international community. If not, we will reside ourselves to increased isolation, which bodes well for neither our political or economic might. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that most foreign nationals are in no way inherently averse to the American people, but rather take issue with the way in which far too many its administrations have cockily waved the baton of U.S. power and coercively called upon other countries to acquiesce to its will. Sadly, no one truly wins in this scenario. But it needn't be so. Hopefully, openness and innovation characterize U.S. diplomacy in the political generation to come.