Party Favorites The candidates disagree over the policy of meeting with foreign leaders of ill repute. How is your candidate's position better? Don't negotiate just to negotiate

Author: Stefan Claypool

In the 1980s, a succession of Soviet hardliners demanded concessions from Western powers, but were unwilling to give up anything in return. Top-level talks stalled until Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko were all dead, leaving Soviet power in the hands of Mikhail Gorbachev. Sensing the new General Secretary's genuine desire for reform, Margaret Thatcher famously declared, "We can do business together."

In order for diplomacy to be effective, both sides must genuinely desire resolution and be willing to work together toward a common goal. American goodwill won't go far toward solving the world's problems if those with whom we negotiate do not desire peace on mutual terms.

Yet Barack Obama seems to believe that if he sits down with rogue leaders, then our conflicts will vanish into thin air. Why else would he pledge to meet without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, and other enemies of the United States? Does Obama genuinely believe that a friendly chat with Ahmadinejad will force the Iranian leader to renounce his statement that any nation who recognizes Israel "will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury"? Or is the Senator just relying on hope once again? Barack Obama simply doesn't understand that there are some people who can't be talked out of their hatred of this country and that for which it stands.

The President needs to understand that despite our best intentions, there are leaders around the world who wish us nothing but harm. John McCain understands that top-level negotiations, president-to-president, could do more harm than good. That's why he won't sit down with rogue leaders until they have proven their willingness to fairly negotiate for peace. John McCain won't negotiate for the sake of negotiating. His priority won't be talking. It'll be getting things done.