This House Believes Obama was right to agree to meet rogue leaders without preconditions.

From its early days, the Obama administration has strived to change the tide of US foreign policy, by moving away from America’s unilateralism and dismissiveness of other nations.[1] Its treatment of its foes is a product of that same attitude. The general policy not to meet or negotiate without preconditions is akin to dangling a spot at the table like some sort of prize that foreign leaders need to work for. In international law, all states are sovereign and equal with no one having a right to interfere with other’s internal affairs. This means that all leaders should treat each other with respect and deference.

[1] Harnden, Toby. “Barack Obama: ‘arrogant US has been dismissive’ to allies.” The Telegraph. 3 April 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5100338/Barack-Obama-arrogant-US-has-been-dismissive-to-allies.html

While legally all the world’s leaders are equal, morally they are not. For decades, the US has been the standard of what it means to be a liberal democracy and have respect your citizens’ rights and liberties. That is not arrogance; it’s moral leadership. This is a vision that the US should aggressively promote in its foreign policy. The President of the United states should not meet as equals with tyrants and dictators who oppress their own people, and endanger world peace and security. Not unless these people give any indication they are even vaguely committed to moving toward some common goals.

No government is monolithic. In every regime there will be moderate forces willing to use diplomacy and negotiations and extremist elements that do not. By demanding that preconditions be fulfilled before a meeting, all power is given to the extremists. Israel-Palestine is an example of this. By often demanding that violence cease before negotiations can take place, the US and Israel give a veto over negotiations to Hamas, who are the perpetrators of violence. They get to decide if and when negotiations take place. Instead, the president of the United States should always try to engage and strengthen moderates within these regimes.

Not allowing any meetings with the President does not mean no negotiations can take place. Groundwork can be done by diplomats, negotiators, third parties, and even high-ranking administration officials from the state department, like the Secretary of State. Such tactics can also strengthen moderates. However, a meeting with the President is a powerful symbol, and it should only take place if either significant headway has been made, or if the leaders of these regimes are fully committed to negotiating, which they can prove by agreeing to preconditions.

No country is likely to agree to conditions that will significantly reduce its bargaining power once it gets to the table. It would be diplomatically foolish to agree to preconditions that would essentially be the subject of the negotiations and the reason why the negotiations were needed in the fist place[1]. If North Korea agreed to freeze development of its nuclear arsenal, or if Iran agreed to stop its nuclear enrichment programme, once the meeting between the two leaders took place, the position from which they started negotiating would be significantly weaker than the US’s.

[1] Klein, Rick. “Obama’s Evolving Take on Meeting with Iran.” ABC News. 20 May 2008. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4896002&page=2#.Tv7nzCNWoVc

That is true. But that is mostly the case with preconditions that are strategically flawed or an attempt at political gamesmanship, when a leader makes outrageous demands the other party cannot possibly meet in order to paint them as unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate. However, chosen carefully, preconditions can set talks and negotiations on the right course, and give a strong indication of the sincerity and commitment of both parties.

If, in order to meet with his counterpart, a ‘rogue leader’ needs to compromise on his and his country’s position even before he gets to the table, this would be a signal of weakness to his opponents at home and those vying for his job. For example, in North Korea, which is going through a dynastic transition[1], the new leader Kim Jong Un is yet to become established and consolidate his status as dictator. Any concession to the sate’s designated mortal enemy, the US, might jeopardise the succession. Similarly, in Iran where Ahmadinejad has fallen from the graces of the supreme religious leader, the Ayatollah[2], agreeing to preconditions in order to get a meeting with Obama would signal to the Iranian President’s rivals that it may be a good moment to attempt to force a change of guard.  

[1] “Profile: Kim Jong un”. BBC. 31 December 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11388628

[2] “Ahmadinejad v Ayatollah: Who will win Iran dustup?” BBC. 8 July 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14061556

Meeting with the leader of the United States can equally bolster a leader’s support and strengthen his or her position. After all, the US will always prefer and support a leader that is seen as reasonable and willing to compromise rather than a hard liner. Hosni Mubarak is a prime example of a dictator whose position was strengthened by his good relationship and close ties to the US[1]. Therefore, many of these dictators may see it in their interest to agree to preconditions, if that will buy them American favours.

[1] Murphy, Dan. “Joe Biden says Mubarak no dictators, he shouldn’t step down.” Christian Science Monitor. 27 January 2011. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down

Preconditions delay engagement and negotiations. Sometimes it can take years before the parties even start talking to each other. In that time, Iran will continue to enrich uranium[1] and North Korea will continue to expand its nuclear arsenal[2]. If the US waits for preconditions to be agreed on and met, by the time president Obama gets to talk and negotiate directly with the leaders of these states, he will have a much bigger crisis to deal with. It may have even gotten to the point where diplomacy can no longer be used effectively.

[1] Borger, James. “Iran’s acceleration of its nuclear programme angers the west.” Guardian. 19 July 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/19/iran-acceleration-nuclear-angers-west

[2] Neuman, Doug. “North Korea expands nuclear relationships with outcast states.” Examiner. 11 May 2010. http://www.examiner.com/korean-headlines-in-national/north-korea-expands-nuclear-relationships-with-outcast-states

If talks don’t take place, that doesn’t mean no actions can be taken against rogue regimes. Diplomatic pressure, third party talks or even sanctions can be effective ways to deal with states like Iran, Syria, or North Korea. Neither of these requires the President himself to sit down with these leaders.

From its early days, the Obama administration has strived to change the tide of US foreign policy, by moving away from America’s unilateralism and dismissiveness of other nations.[1] Its treatment of its foes is a product of that same attitude. The general policy not to meet or negotiate without preconditions is akin to dangling a spot at the table like some sort of prize that foreign leaders need to work for. In international law, all states are sovereign and equal with no one having a right to interfere with other’s internal affairs. This means that all leaders should treat each other with respect and deference.

[1] Harnden, Toby. “Barack Obama: ‘arrogant US has been dismissive’ to allies.” The Telegraph. 3 April 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5100338/Barack-Obama-arrogant-US-has-been-dismissive-to-allies.html

While legally all the world’s leaders are equal, morally they are not. For decades, the US has been the standard of what it means to be a liberal democracy and have respect your citizens’ rights and liberties. That is not arrogance; it’s moral leadership. This is a vision that the US should aggressively promote in its foreign policy. The President of the United states should not meet as equals with tyrants and dictators who oppress their own people, and endanger world peace and security. Not unless these people give any indication they are even vaguely committed to moving toward some common goals.

No government is monolithic. In every regime there will be moderate forces willing to use diplomacy and negotiations and extremist elements that do not. By demanding that preconditions be fulfilled before a meeting, all power is given to the extremists. Israel-Palestine is an example of this. By often demanding that violence cease before negotiations can take place, the US and Israel give a veto over negotiations to Hamas, who are the perpetrators of violence. They get to decide if and when negotiations take place. Instead, the president of the United States should always try to engage and strengthen moderates within these regimes.

Not allowing any meetings with the President does not mean no negotiations can take place. Groundwork can be done by diplomats, negotiators, third parties, and even high-ranking administration officials from the state department, like the Secretary of State. Such tactics can also strengthen moderates. However, a meeting with the President is a powerful symbol, and it should only take place if either significant headway has been made, or if the leaders of these regimes are fully committed to negotiating, which they can prove by agreeing to preconditions.

No country is likely to agree to conditions that will significantly reduce its bargaining power once it gets to the table. It would be diplomatically foolish to agree to preconditions that would essentially be the subject of the negotiations and the reason why the negotiations were needed in the fist place[1]. If North Korea agreed to freeze development of its nuclear arsenal, or if Iran agreed to stop its nuclear enrichment programme, once the meeting between the two leaders took place, the position from which they started negotiating would be significantly weaker than the US’s.

[1] Klein, Rick. “Obama’s Evolving Take on Meeting with Iran.” ABC News. 20 May 2008. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4896002&page=2#.Tv7nzCNWoVc

That is true. But that is mostly the case with preconditions that are strategically flawed or an attempt at political gamesmanship, when a leader makes outrageous demands the other party cannot possibly meet in order to paint them as unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate. However, chosen carefully, preconditions can set talks and negotiations on the right course, and give a strong indication of the sincerity and commitment of both parties.

If, in order to meet with his counterpart, a ‘rogue leader’ needs to compromise on his and his country’s position even before he gets to the table, this would be a signal of weakness to his opponents at home and those vying for his job. For example, in North Korea, which is going through a dynastic transition[1], the new leader Kim Jong Un is yet to become established and consolidate his status as dictator. Any concession to the sate’s designated mortal enemy, the US, might jeopardise the succession. Similarly, in Iran where Ahmadinejad has fallen from the graces of the supreme religious leader, the Ayatollah[2], agreeing to preconditions in order to get a meeting with Obama would signal to the Iranian President’s rivals that it may be a good moment to attempt to force a change of guard.  

[1] “Profile: Kim Jong un”. BBC. 31 December 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11388628

[2] “Ahmadinejad v Ayatollah: Who will win Iran dustup?” BBC. 8 July 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14061556

Meeting with the leader of the United States can equally bolster a leader’s support and strengthen his or her position. After all, the US will always prefer and support a leader that is seen as reasonable and willing to compromise rather than a hard liner. Hosni Mubarak is a prime example of a dictator whose position was strengthened by his good relationship and close ties to the US[1]. Therefore, many of these dictators may see it in their interest to agree to preconditions, if that will buy them American favours.

[1] Murphy, Dan. “Joe Biden says Mubarak no dictators, he shouldn’t step down.” Christian Science Monitor. 27 January 2011. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/0127/Joe-Biden-says-Egypt-s-Mubarak-no-dictator-he-shouldn-t-step-down

Preconditions delay engagement and negotiations. Sometimes it can take years before the parties even start talking to each other. In that time, Iran will continue to enrich uranium[1] and North Korea will continue to expand its nuclear arsenal[2]. If the US waits for preconditions to be agreed on and met, by the time president Obama gets to talk and negotiate directly with the leaders of these states, he will have a much bigger crisis to deal with. It may have even gotten to the point where diplomacy can no longer be used effectively.

[1] Borger, James. “Iran’s acceleration of its nuclear programme angers the west.” Guardian. 19 July 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/19/iran-acceleration-nuclear-angers-west

[2] Neuman, Doug. “North Korea expands nuclear relationships with outcast states.” Examiner. 11 May 2010. http://www.examiner.com/korean-headlines-in-national/north-korea-expands-nuclear-relationships-with-outcast-states

If talks don’t take place, that doesn’t mean no actions can be taken against rogue regimes. Diplomatic pressure, third party talks or even sanctions can be effective ways to deal with states like Iran, Syria, or North Korea. Neither of these requires the President himself to sit down with these leaders.

Preconditions are not about posturing or scoring some easy, early points. They play an essential diplomatic role. By agreeing to make some concessions before negotiations start in earnest, a ‘rogue state’ would signal its good faith in the negotiating process and its willingness to compromise and work diligently toward a common goal and reaching an agreement. Without such proof of commitment, the US should have every reason to doubt the true intentions of leaders like Ahmadinejad.

Agreeing to sit down and talk can equally be seen as a gesture of good faith. The further requirement to prove themselves and their intentions can put off leaders who are on the fence about engaging the US on their differences. It should be remembered that the mistrust is not only one way; ‘rogue’ regimes leaders also mistrust US intentions. As a result demanding preconditions frames the negotiations, from the onset, from a position of mistrust

If no proper groundwork is done before such a meeting, and no preconditions are laid out, such events can easily be used by these foreign regimes as propaganda at home to try to bolster their own legitimacy[1]. A meeting with the leader of the free world would give an opportunity to Ahmadinejad or Chavez to portray themselves as great statesmen and leaders, equals to the president of the United States. The same is true of North Korea, which is a regime that rules almost entirely through the strength of state propaganda[2]. If they don’t have to agree to any preconditions, there is no cost to these leaders exploiting a meeting with Obama to their own advantage, while having no intention to actually engage in genuine negotiations and diplomacy.

[1] “Clinton: Obama is ‘naïve’ on foreign policy.” Associated Press. 24 July 2007. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19933710/ns/politics-the_debates/t/clinton-obama-naive-foreign-policy/#.Tv66jSNWoVc

[2] Myers, B. R. “The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters”. Melville House. 2010.

The President does not just sit down with a foreign leader without previous groundwork. No preconditions does not mean no preparation. Diplomats can be dispatched in advance to gage the level of interest and the intentions of the other party. Intelligence can be gathered to take the pulse of the regime and understand what is going on in the country, whether the moment is auspicious for change and diplomacy or whether the rogue leader is just looking for a popularity boost. The President should always have a very good idea of what to expect when he or she meets with a foreign leader. They don’t just find out once they get there.

Nuclear countries like North Korea and Iran have been keen to use such a meeting as a stalling tactic against the onslaught of sanctions prompted by its nuclear programme[1]. Negotiations can be continually spun out with very little result in order to keep the United States from taking action simply by encouraging the United States to believe that there will be action after a meeting. Again, if there is no cost to them sitting down to negotiate, then negotiations are an easy way to deflect pressure, while they continue to pursue their nuclear and WMD programmes. As a result the preconditions need to be met before the negotiations to prevent such tactics from being possible.

[1] Yeranian, Edward. “Iranian President Offers to Meet President Obama.” Voice of America. 2 August 2010. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Iranian-President-Ready-for-Direct-Talks-With-Obama-99754864.html

Sanctions will always be hanging in the background. It will also be obvious pretty soon whether the other party is really interested in negotiating or just stalling. However, diplomacy should always be tired before sanctions.

The Arab Spring demonstrated just how unpredictable and unstable some of these regimes could truly be. And the new governments coming to power are unlikely to forget America’s role in supporting their former dictator. For example, Egypt’s transition from dictatorship has led to a rise in anti-American sentiment, as the US is perceived to have been a supporter of the Mubarak regime[1]. It may not be wise for President Obama to associate himself, and the US, so closely to leaders like Assad or Ahmadinejad who are susceptible to being deposed through the same type of massive demonstrations that swept through the Arab world in 2011. Doing so without preconditions would signal a trust and deference to these leaders that may be unforgivable to their successors, and to the people of Syria and Iran.

[1] Lee, Mathew. “US troubled by rising anti-Americanism in Egypt”. Associated Press. 10 August 2011. http://news.yahoo.com/us-troubled-rising-anti-americanism-egypt-180843184.html

No president can sit and wait until the dice fall before making a move on foreign policy. Presidents have to deal with the here and now. If the situation changes, the US will have to reassess. However, at any given time the President has to do what is in the US’s best national interest. And at times that may be meeting with unpopular dictators.