The Republican response to President Barack Obamas historic opening toward Cuba this week has generally been awful and dispiriting to behold. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for example, was the politician most single-handedly responsible for the United States re-establishing diplomatic relations with still-communist Vietnam two decades ago, saying at the time: But thats totally different, because of something something WALNUTS! ||| Instead of vainly trying to isolate Vietnam, the United States should test the proposition that greater exposure to Americans will render Vietnam more susceptible to the influence of our values. Vietnams human rights record needs substantial improvement. We should make good use of better relations with the Vietnamese to help advance in that country a decent respect for the rights of man. What does McMaverick say now, with his co-conspirator Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)? It is about the appeasement of autocratic dictators, thugs, and adversaries, diminishing Americas influence in the world. The gap in both the writing and sentiment in those two passages speaks volumes about how far GOP foreign-policy thinking has degenerated over time. (It also speaks to McCains own 100% malleability on key issues—back in 2000 he said Im not in favor of sticking my finger in the eye of Fidel Castro. In fact, I would favor a road map towards normalization of relations such as we presented to the Vietnamese and led to a normalization of relations between our two countries.) The faces of appeasement? Really? ||| Two senatorial exceptions to that rule have been Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who has long advocated lifting the U.S. embargo, telling Reason TV in 2011 that If someones going to limit my travel, it should be a communist, not my own government”; and also Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who came out in qualified support of Obamas actions yesterday. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who unlike most of his GOP colleagues actually has deep knowledge about the subject, shot back at Paul, saying he has no idea what hes talking about. Paul has now fired back on Twitter and with a Time op-ed. Heres more from Rubios argument: [W]hat the president is saying, by recognizing Cubas government is that in the 21st century being a Communist, brutal dictatorship is an acceptable form of government. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee really should know by now, diplomatic recognition confers no such acceptance. The United States has long recognized communist Laos (recognition since 1950, commie since 75*), China (1979), and Vietnam (1995). Among the brutal dictatorships that contain U.S. embassies are Burma (relations established in 1948), Uganda (1962), Equatorial Guinea (1968), Zimbabwe (1980), Turmenistan (1991), Uzbekistan (1991), and Eritrea (1993). When Marco Rubio was a teenager, most of the world by population was not free. Would he have had his sainted Ronald Reagan rip up diplomatic relations with scores of countries, beginning with the Evil Empire itself? That is not how U.S. diplomacy has ever worked. - by Matt Welch -Dec. 19, 2014 reason/blog/2014/12/19/rand-paul-is-more-right-about-cuba-than
Posted on: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:46:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015