Let us hope that the next president of the United States knows some history.
And let us hope that the next president will know that the United
States cannot call all the shots, or pick and choose which
leader-dictator we will talk to or decide which countries can have
unconventional weapons.
In other words, the U.S. should not rely totally on the arrogance of its formidable power in its foreign relations.
That is why the performance of the New York Philharmonic in the
Stalinist-style closed society of North Korea is a remarkable
breakthrough. Music is the universal language. In the case of North
Korea, the New York Philharmonic's concert this past week might be
viewed years from now as the small step that eventually opened the way
for more cultural contacts and understanding between two countries that
have been at sword-point since the 1950-'53 Korean War.
Overwhelmed by the warm reception in Pyongyang, North Korea, Lorin
Maazel, the Philharmonic's music director, told reporters: "I think
it's going to do a great deal for Korean-U.S. relations. We may have
been instrumental in opening a little door."
The White House did all it could to play down its significance.
"At the end of the day," press secretary Dana Perino said, "we consider
this concert to be a concert. And it's not a diplomatic coup."
How naive can you get?
Yes, it is a coup after years of hostility; the concert is already being hailed as "symphonic diplomacy."
Personally, I wish the Philharmonic had played George Gershwin's
"Rhapsody in Blue" instead of his "An American in Paris." But it was a
transforming event.
In another foreign-policy put-down, President Bush used a news
conference last week to splash cold water on any suggestion that, after
50 years, the U.S. might soften its policy toward Cuba.
"Sitting down at the table, having your picture with a tyrant such as
Raul Castro (Fidel Castro's brother and successor), for example, lends
the status of the office and the status of our country to him," Bush
said, explaining: "He (Raul Castro) gains a lot from it by saying,
'Look at me, I'm now recognized by the president of the United
States.'"
Bush failed to add that any White House hospitality would raise a howl from the Cuban exiles in America.
The U.S. political and economic embargo against Cuba is vividly strange
when you recall that we have talked to communist leaders from other
countries for many years - especially in Moscow - and this talking has
been all to the good.
In fact, we are talking to many leaders around the world - especially
in the Middle East - who are not exactly models of democracy. But we
talk because they are our friends and allies.
Some past U.S. presidents understood the yearning for peace and acted accordingly.
When the Cold War was well under way in the 1950s with the former
Soviet Union, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said that he would go
anywhere, any place, any time in pursuit of peace.
But then President Bush is no Eisenhower.
Pax Americana might be what Bush hoped for with his bellicose foreign
policy. But he would have been better advised if he had extended an
olive branch.
He came into office looking for war with Iraq and shunning negotiations
with North Korea and Cuba, among others. Egged on by neoconservative
advisers and supporters, Bush mostly took a hard-line approach to most
leftist leaders, leaving little room for reconciliation.
His first Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was undercut by the neocons
and slapped down when he tried to pave the way for talks with Pyongyang.
A hawkish Bush somehow assumed everyone would roll over when he issued
his non-negotiable threats. So let's keep talking to our adversaries
and keep the Philharmonic on the road. The world is ready to listen.
Helen Thomas can be reached at 202-263-6400 or at the e-mail address hthomas@hearstdc.com.