HOW ARE LEADERS LEGITIMIZED?

When one says that a meeting with and anti-American leader "legitimizes" that leader, a few errors are made. First, this line of thought gives undo weight to American power. Even at the heights of America's hegemony during the Cold War and subsequent unipolar moment, America has never been able to unilaterally and non-militarily legitimize a leader. Further, Iran and the US's attempted installation of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Vietnam and the US's tapping Ngo Dinh Diem, and recently Iraq and the US's miscalculated trust in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi stand as failed military examples. It is no great secret that other countries already recognize Mahmoud Amadinejad as a major leader of Iran. (Though, all too often it is forgotten that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wields the actual influence.)

True, a leader of a country is established externally, but just as much if not more, leaders are established internally. Amadinejad was after all elected democratically (even though now he is widely unpopular - though with 82% disapproval ratings, so is President Bush). These leaders are already legitimate.

IT'S ONLY A MEETING

In addition, the claim that anti-American leaders will use these opportunities as photo-ops and spin them in their favor, is too vague and hardly reason not to meet. When leaders meet, the pictures are all the same: both men shake hands or maybe if there are too many volatile issues they at least stand side by side. What could possibly happen, the two leaders become professional wrestlers and go at each other with foldable chairs?

It is not unheard of for a President to go to a country that does not view him favorably. For example, people from countries like France and even South Korea vocally protest against President Bush when he sets foot on their soil. Yet the leaders of these countries meet anyway. And little harm is done.

At the end of the day, all we are talking about is a meeting. In meetings, the interested parties discuss what they want, what they expect from the other, and then either in the meeting or after, decisions are made. Meetings are where rewards and concessions are made. All of these criticisms about an anti-American country needing to make concessions before meeting seem misplaced. What then is the point of a meeting if the significant business has already been done?

We are currently suffering from the error of not exhausting all diplomatic means before going to war. Is a simple meeting too much to ask? At the very least, the President will have an accurate, first-hand account of where a country stands. And if a President truly is doing what is right for America and the world, then he or she should feel confident in reasoning away any anti-American sentiments.