Final-Fan said:
Sqrl said:
Final-Fan said:
Question for Sqrl: Does "Presidential diplomacy" really mean specifically diplomacy conducted personally by the President himself, and nothing else? If so I misunderstood. I am not very knowledgeable in this.
On to preconditions: When a nation like the US conducts talks like the proposed ones with a nation like Iran, with the level of tension/enmity between them, do you really think any President would just hop on a plane to Tehran without any sort of preliminaries? It's downright silly IMO to suggest that the fact that such opening steps would have to take place count as "preconditions". It's like saying that turning the key for a car ignition is a precondition of driving it. Well, yes it is, but so what? It's not the same kind of "precondition" that having to rent the car first would be. It's a whole other level.
Kissinger said "I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations." Oh, well, I guess he forgot about the precondition of they have to meet before they can open negotiations. |
In the kissinger article you linked he referred to "very high level" meetings as the Secretary of State (ie Rice) (I think it was your link, I've read a lot on this recently so not 100% sure). Given that, among other things I've read, I would say that the term quite clearly indicates diplomacy involving the president directly. Honestly I would take that as the obvious definition given the meaning of the word "presidential". Perhaps I've missed something but I honestly don't see how it could mean something else.
Preconditions: I agree with your point that the ideas is fairly ridiculous in curret context, but the comments were originally made around the time that Obama referred to Iran as a tiny country and iirc he also explicitly stated they were not a major threat (which is at least as equally ridiculous). That would indicate that perhaps he felt as a result it would be OK to meet at the presidential level without preconditions.
Saying "well its so stupid he couldn't have meant it that way" is really not a valid argument. Begging the question comes to mind, although I don't know that it falls into that definition very neatly. My point is that its not a substantive answer but a suppositional one. If Obama had prior experience with these sorts of negotiations to point to I would be far more willing to give the benefit of the doubt. But I find it highly plausible that given who he was talking to (ie a very anti-war primary crowd) it makes sense that he would say such a thing and mean it that way.
As for the Kissinger quote at the end, it is perfectly consistent with what I've said. Your statement seems to assume that the two types of preconditions are mutually exclusive uses of the word and that only one of them can be a valid definition. But as I said both preliminary talks and pre-talk "demands" should be considered preconditions because both are things you would or could use as a condition for high level talks and especially the highest level talks. I re-stress this point because I'm not entirely certaint we are on the same page as far as it is concerned.
|
I think you must not be aware of the context on that Iran remark. Here it is: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."
Compared to the Soviet Union.
USSR nuclear weapons: ~45,000 at peak (sez Wikipedia)
Iran nuclear weapons: 0
Or, if you want to get silly,
Iran does not and will not likely ever possess the power to literally destroy the United States as a nation, as the USSR did (and we them, of course).
Moving on, I think a U.S. Senator would have some idea of the fact that these things don't happen in an eyeblink. You are the one making the assertion that he operated under a stupid assumption and I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that it was the case and not "well I think he was pandering to the crowd so much he probably forgot his brain". Anyway, I don't see any PR advantage to Obama with ANY group that would come from proposing what you say he proposed instead of what I believe.
I don't think that preliminary talks should be considered preconditions for the sake of reasonable discussion because it's such a basic assumption. They ALWAYS happen (or so I have been given to understand and please correct me if I am mistaken). So you might as well say "practically all top-level diplomatic negotiations ever have had preconditions" and then what's the point of even mentioning it? In that context, McCain might as well have accused Obama of planning to speak to the Iranians without opening his mouth and talking. What?
|
I believe his exact words were something like "On day one i would be willing to meet with anybody face to face without preconditions" when he originally said it.
Which would indicate... day one. If it's day one he really can't have any talks beforehand.
Though I may be misremembering the case.
However I don't think I am... and that's why i always assumed he meant just outright go and meet with someone.
Which I don't actually even see as a big problem.
Regardless the agreements made through the initial meetings at lower levels ARE preconditions. After all the whole point of the lower level meetings are to see if you can make a deal!
Things are negotiated there... and deals are made. These are conditions. It's not like they don't do anything in the lower level meetings.
If someone missuses a word you have to go with what they say, you can't just give them a benefit of the doubt because of their own ignorance. We meet with plenty of people without preconditions though. Our allies for example.
If he was wrong Obama shouldn't of tried to redefine the word but said instead "I was wrong."
"I meant I wouldn't tell someone we couldn't have any negotiations with them unless they agreed to do something we wanted them to."
