I think I heard the eerie guitar chords of the Twilight Zone theme song playing in the background on Monday when the Prez was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize -- former Obamaniacs were scratching their heads in confusion and dismay, Europeans were defending an American presidency, and despots around the world were clapping their hands with glee. If Obama's Peace Prize was in honor of a changed (er, ameliorated?) attitude towards global politics -- namely, a more inclusive dialogue with not only our friends, but our enemies -- then you can bet your bottom Kronor that more than a few nasty nasties were waiting by the phone that night, praying for a call from POTUS.

Get the new
PD toolbar!
OK, har har maybe not quite. Obama's new strategy of engagement with formerly too-toxic-to-touch regimes has won admirers from all corners (not just Socialist Europeans, either) and I'll agree that we weren't getting anywhere with our former strategy of Don't Text, Don't Call. But Ria brings up a good – and scary – point, which is, with ascendant China and belligerent Russia playing baddie to our good guy, do we even stand a chance? And if we don't stand a chance, why the hell are we talking to these guys? More urgently: Does making friends in low places change the social order for the worse?

Pariah states like Sudan and Burma -- which, incidentally, recently held meetings to announce "increasing economic partnership" [insert shudder here] -- want badly to see sanctions lifted and to gain an entrée back into civilized society. They see an opening for both with the administration's new engagement strategy, and have warmly welcomed White House emissaries bearing smiles and talk of increased cooperation. But when it comes to concrete reform inside their respective countries, these regimes, so far, are a no-show.

This would seem to land us back at square one, without a deal -- which the Obama Administration has preemptively folded into its strategy, mostly in the form of, "If we talk and get nowhere, we're no worse off than we were before." Right? Maybe. In an op-ed on Monday, the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt posits, "Obama's choice last week not to meet with the Dalai Lama, an advocate of freedom, broke with bipartisan tradition and...reverberated across the globe. In an odd way, it showed the flip side of the willingness that he expressed... to meet with the enemies of freedom... [A]s with Chávez's small public relations coup, such calculations on the Dalai Lama may underestimate the impact in the world. China unabashedly browbeats other governments that dare meet with the Dalai Lama or other dissidents. Once they see Washington deferring, fewer governments elsewhere may dare poke up their heads. On such matters, many nations still look to America to lead."

Hiatt's suggestion makes me weary enough, but he leaves us with this foreboding sentiment from Malaysian leader Anwar Ibrahim, a champion of Islamic democracy: "Once you give a perception that you are softening on human rights, then you are strengthening the hands of autocrats to punish dissidents throughout the world." If this is the unforeseen result of our new strategy, let's hope the White House is developing a doomsday policy to reverse whatever other unintended consequences may arise from it. That is to say, Obama may be a blushing bride, aglow from all the praise lavished on him for this new engagement, but let's hope he's got one hell of a pre-nup.




Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!