Remembering the October crisis with an eye to the Middle East

This week, key officials from John F. Kennedy's White House are gathering in Cuba to celebrate with Fidel Castro the 40th anniversary of the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Lest we forget, that crisis occurred in a region of strategic importance to the United States, where there had been placed weapons of mass destruction, and where there was grave concern about the intentions of our adversary. Sound familiar?

The lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis are more relevant today than ever before — and the Bush administration would do well to remember them in designing its course against Iraq. Ted Sorensen, President Kennedy's closest advisor and one of those in Cuba this week, has highlighted three lessons in that earlier crisis:

First, communication with an adversary is better than vituperation. President Kennedy's decision to negotiate directly with Soviet Chairman Nikita Khrushchev at the height of the crisis provided the critical breakthrough that paved the way for its peaceful resolution. Their telegram correspondence reveals that, though both possessed the means to wage catastrophic war, neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev desired such a war. We cannot know whether President Bush has secretly tried to negotiate directly with President Hussein as Kennedy once did with Khrushchev. But President Bush's name-calling and saber rattling are evidence of a government that is not interested in a serious bilateral dialogue aimed at peaceful settlement.

Second, negotiation is better than escalation. One of the most valuable qualities of President Kennedy's leadership was his ability to create options — after the Bay of Pigs, he never permitted himself to become boxed into any situation. He listened to the belligerent counsel of his military advisors, who advocated preemptive war — from a "surgical air strike" to an invasion of Cuba. But Kennedy wisely rejected this advice — wisely, because evidence uncovered in the Soviet archives reveals that had he followed that more militant course and invaded, the Soviets were prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons against the invasion force. Kennedy decided to implement a maritime quarantine of Cuba — and quietly remove the defunct U.S. Jupiter missiles in Turkey, easing Khrushchev's decision to remove Soviet missile from Cuba. Where Kennedy created options to avert war, President Bush has purposefully boxed the United States into a position that places the Untied States as the aggressor nation on a seemingly inevitable path toward war.

Third, cooperation between parties is better than attempted domination by one party. In seeking approval for a maritime quarantine, President Kennedy grounded his actions in international law and won the support of the Organization of American States and the United Nations Security Council. And Kennedy did not seek international support to topple Fidel Castro, as George W. Bush has done for Saddam Hussein — though Kennedy might have. Rather, Kennedy sought international support for measures intended to force the withdrawal of the Soviet missiles, and he gave the Soviet Union his assurances that the United States would not invade Cuba. Limiting his goals to the removal of the weapons and pledging his government not to invade Cuba were key decisions that resulted in a peaceful outcome. Pursuing the opposite course, President Bush has asked the global community for support not only in removing alleged weapons, but also in toppling President Hussein himself.

There is another lesson, as well. When President Kennedy addressed the nation on Oct. 22, 1962, he laid out the evidence of a buildup of weapons in Cuba, and he explained what it meant. Surveillance of Cuba, Kennedy said, has shown "several . . . medium range ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for a distance of more than 1,000 nautical miles. Each of these missiles, in short, is capable of striking Washington, D.C,, . . . Cape Canaveral . . . or any other city in the southeastern part of the United States." President Kennedy explained how the situation in Cuba had changed in recent weeks and why it was imperative that the United States act to ensure the missiles were removed. More evidence came at a United Nations Security Council meeting on Oct. 25 when United States Ambassador Adlai Stevenson confronted Valerian Zorin, the Soviet Ambassador to the United Nations, with photographs of Soviet missiles in Cuba. President Kennedy provided clear evidence to America and the world of the risks of inaction. It is now time for President Bush to do the same.

As we observe the 40th anniversary of an event where the world stepped back from the brink of nuclear war, there is no more meaningful way to honor its memory, than to honor the legacy of President Kennedy: Leadership — leadership that was not afraid to risk a directly negotiated resolution, leadership that was not afraid to seek and utilize a multilateral approach making the most of our allies and of international organizations, and leadership that was not afraid to show to the world evidence of a clear and present danger in violation of international law. Adam P. Frankel is a Wilson School major from New York, N.Y. He may be reached at afrankel@princeton.edu.