Criticism of Richardson's comments on Bhutto misguided

Michael Lipkin's thoughts on Bill Richardson's statements after the death of Benazir Bhutto, and the subsequent criticism that followed them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’m sure most of you heard the terrible news this morning, but for those that haven’t, former Pakistani Prime Minister and Parliamentary candidate Benazir Bhutto was assassinated at a political rally. Bhutto was an active voice for more democracy and openness the Pakistani politics and someone who fought against the Taliban and valiantly stood in the face of repeated attempts on her life.

Since nothing happens in a vacuum, by the end of the day, all the major candidates for president released statements expressing their dismay at the attack and their sympathies for Bhutto’s plight. In addition, Governor Richardson made some statements that some right-wing bloggers have used to attack him. He said:

“The United States government cannot stand by and allow Pakistan's return to democracy to be derailed or delayed by violence. We must use our diplomatic leverage and force the enemies of democracy to yield: President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately. Until this happens, we should suspend military aid to the Pakistani government. Free and fair elections must also be held as soon as possible.”

Parallels have been made between this quote and other “unsound” comments made by Barack Obama about how he would deal with Pakistan. Others have criticized Richardson for implying similar tactics to what has happened with Bush and Iraq (the overthrow of a dictator) or America’s involvement in the removal of the Shah of Iran.

Just to take a step back for a second. While these words seem harsh, a lot of people have been reading in to them and misconstruing their intention. Richardson at no point mentions military action. Yes, he says “force”, but precedes it with “diplomatic leverage”. What he is suggesting is what he has always suggesting: to use peaceful means to bring sides of the argument together and reach a diplomatic solution. He also mentions having international support, again consistent with his views, and what is viewed as one of the main flaws with the second invasion of Iraq. These were not slips or gaffes on Richardson’s part.

Let’s be serious here. This is not a fully fleshed out, specific plan for what to do with Pakistan once brought into office. This is a general idea of what direction Richardson would take. So it’s not fair to critique his comments as if they were in fact a detailed foreign policy. But the main idea here is a solid one. Supporting dictators just because they sometimes help us with the Taliban is not the right path, especially if there were politicians like Bhutto who was in support of America, against terrorism and a popular, freely-elected leader. A firm, but fair hand in these situations can become necessary. While we should avoid making the mistakes of the past, that does not mean we should shy away from any strategy that may evoke failed policies. Bill Richardson knows this and made a valid, if blunt, statement to that effect.

Suited for the Job?

This just in from Peter Drivas, a student at Williams College. As you will see, Peter's views differ slightly from ours--although we all hold Governor Richardson in high regard, Peter feels his talents could be better used in offices besides the presidency. While the goal of the site is to promote Bill Richardson's presidential campaign, we cannot have only pro-Richardson-for-president views. All we'd be doing is preaching to the choir. We want to generate meaningful discussion on this site, and the best way to do this is to bring in outside views. So read on, and take in Peter's insightful opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First off, big thanks for tapping me to contribute to the blog. It’s a great idea, and although I’m not a Bill Richardson supporter myself (mostly because of the Iraq issue), I hope my insight will add something.

I’ll admit that, as far as 2008 presidential candidates go, there isn’t much to dislike about Bill Richardson. In fact, while few Democrats would name him as their first choice for the party’s nomination, most likely fewer would put him at the bottom of the list. This mostly has to do with his record: from his time in Congress, to his service as US ambassador to the United Nations, to his tenure as governor of New Mexico, his credentials are just about as good as they come, and certainly better than any of the Democratic front runners. However, this is my main issue with Richardson as a candidate: he’s proven so often, and with such great success, that he is a valuable asset to the country that he may be best used in an office other than the presidency.

Take a look at some of his career highlights: negotiating a cease-fire in Sudan, overseeing the largest return of federal lands to a Native American tribe in US history and taking part in peace proceedings between Israel and Palestine. Clearly, Richardson has a prodigious talent for negotiation and communication. This talent would most likely be far better used in a cabinet or ambassadorial position, where he wouldn’t have to be bogged down by the partisan politics, domestic issues, and intense public scrutiny that come with the presidency.

The United States has a huge asset in Richardson. As disheartening as it may be for those who support his candidacy, I wouldn’t like to see that asset wasted in the Oval Office.

On Darfur...

The genocide in Darfur has killed close to 500,000 people. 2.5 million more are now refugees. This massive violation of human rights must be stopped, and the only candidate with a cohesive plan to do so is Bill Richardson. There are a lot of factors at work here--The U.S. must not only deal with Sudan, but the U.N., A.U. and China, amongst other, as well. Only someone with immense diplomatic experience will be able to navigate such tough international politics. Bill Richardson is, again, the one candidate with the qualifications and strategy needed to instrument change in the area.

Wyndam and Alex explore his proposed tactics and past successes in regards to human rights issues in this video.

On Iran...

American foreign policy for the foreseeable future will be dictated by Iran. As the 2008 election approached, America needs a president who will work with the Iranians to ensure a safer world. We must cut through the current bluster and posturing on the issue and begin to work toward reasonable solutions. Bill Richardson, with his vast foreign policy and negotiating experience, is the only candidate suited to take on this monumental task.

Wyndam and Alex examine the issue further in this video: