NationStates

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/b ... conditions

When Biden was asked during the most recent debate whether he would conduct diplomacy with Kim Jong Un without preconditions, he said that he would not. For those of you old enough to remember the 2008 Democratic primary, this question was posed back then too in the debates between HRC and Obama. Then candidate Obama stated that he did not believe in requiring preconditions to even start conducting diplomacy with countries like Iran and North Korea. Clinton used this against him in dramatic ads about a President answering a phone call in the middle of the night. The conservative media brought this up every single day from then on until Election Day, "Obama would meet with Iran without preconditions!"

Is this notion of preconditions for simply talking reasonable?

I say it is not. One, America would never tolerate this the other way around, if for example Putin said "I won't negotiate with you until you close a few military bases in the Baltic." Or if Iran gave America a list of sanctions that must be lifted to even come to the table.

Negotiating is about each side trying to get something they want. "We won't negotiate until you give us what we want" is absurd. Nothing is lost by having a meeting. I think it is incredibly harmful to hold diplomacy itself hostage to submission, and that "preconditions" becoming normalized will only increase the chance of war breaking out.

Depends. Preconditions like "stop committing genocide" and "release one of the hostages first" are sending a message that "X is unacceptable to us, if you don't agree then negotiations are a waste of time" or asking for a show of good faith. Preconditions like "give us lots of money first" are just a shakedown.

The Two Jerseys wrote:Depends. Preconditions like "stop committing genocide" and "release one of the hostages first" are sending a message that "X is unacceptable to us, if you don't agree then negotiations are a waste of time" or asking for a show of good faith. Preconditions like "give us lots of money first" are just a shakedown.

Fair point, although I've yet to see a real world example. In 2008, McCain never once elaborated on a single precondition he would want from Iran and North Korea despite using this topic against Obama every day. Somehow, I don't see Biden actually specifying any preconditions either nor do I think he will even be asked during the debates.

I'm pretty sure if a candidate was asked with no warning and had no time to prepare an answer, they would be tongue tied.

I fully support Biden on this. In fact it’s one of the things I really really do not like what Trump did. I still believe that Trump never should have visited the leadership of NK

Thermodolia wrote:I fully support Biden on this. In fact it’s one of the things I really really do not like what Trump did. I still believe that Trump never should have visited the leadership of NK

What is lost by that visit if no concessions are made?

Page wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I fully support Biden on this. In fact it’s one of the things I really really do not like what Trump did. I still believe that Trump never should have visited the leadership of NK

What is lost by that visit if no concessions are made?

There shouldn’t have been a visit. There shouldn’t have been anything that legitimatized the NK regime

I'm sure biden forgot that the former president said that, just like he forgot the former president's name.

Thermodolia wrote:

Page wrote:
What is lost by that visit if no concessions are made?

There shouldn’t have been a visit. There shouldn’t have been anything that legitimatized the NK regime

Trump is cool with all dictators so long as they aren't friends with Obama and don't insult him. He's fine with rodrigo dutuerte, a former school shooter who held two jobs as mayor of Davao City and part time Serial killer. This is a guy who murders children. If Trump is friends with someone as deranged as him, I'm not surprised he would have a strange bromance with kim

Requesting preconditions is itself a type of diplomacy. That said, one shouldn't put preconditions on simply talking.

Thermodolia wrote:

Page wrote:
What is lost by that visit if no concessions are made?

There shouldn’t have been a visit. There shouldn’t have been anything that legitimatized the NK regime

The North Korean regime is legitimate regardless of whether Trump has a photo op moment with its head. States, by definition, are legitimate.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:There shouldn’t have been a visit. There shouldn’t have been anything that legitimatized the NK regime

The North Korean regime is legitimate regardless of whether Trump has a photo op moment with its head. States, by definition, are legitimate.

I agree with this, the "let's ignore" NK hasn't worked. All it's done is make them increasingly aggressive.

Thermodolia wrote:

Page wrote:
What is lost by that visit if no concessions are made?

There shouldn’t have been a visit. There shouldn’t have been anything that legitimatized the NK regime

They are as legitimate as any other regime. The Kims have ruled over the country for 70 years. The regime is absolutely terrible but you have to acknowledge their existence and work with them. They have a huge army and nukes and they aren't going away any time soon.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:There shouldn’t have been a visit. There shouldn’t have been anything that legitimatized the NK regime

Trump is cool with all dictators so long as they aren't friends with Obama and don't insult him. He's fine with rodrigo dutuerte, a former school shooter who held two jobs as mayor of Davao City and part time Serial killer. This is a guy who murders children. If Trump is friends with someone as deranged as him, I'm not surprised he would have a strange bromance with kim

Every American President makes friends with a few dozen brutal dictators, although usually for opportunistic reasons. But Trump sometimes seems to genuinely like these people.

Playing nice with North Korea has showed not to work. We need to play hardball with them.

Page wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:There shouldn’t have been a visit. There shouldn’t have been anything that legitimatized the NK regime

They are as legitimate as any other regime. The Kims have ruled over the country for 70 years. The regime is absolutely terrible but you have to acknowledge their existence and work with them. They have a huge army and nukes and they aren't going away any time soon.

I don’t care. We shouldn’t have attempted to legitimize their regime. Just in the same way we never should have opened relations with the PRC.

I agree with obama and trump on this one.

You talk to everyone, even if the only thing you have to say is " stop what you are doing or I am going to hit you with a big stick", you always speak

Thermodolia wrote:

Page wrote:
They are as legitimate as any other regime. The Kims have ruled over the country for 70 years. The regime is absolutely terrible but you have to acknowledge their existence and work with them. They have a huge army and nukes and they aren't going away any time soon.

I don’t care. We shouldn’t have attempted to legitimize their regime. Just in the same way we never should have opened relations with the PRC.

It is not economically nor politically viable to cut off all contact with the PRC. Even the USA and USSR had diplomatic relations and trade in the Cold War.

So-called "preconditions" before a negotiation are actually negotiations in and of themselves. "We won't talk to North Korea about what we might do if it stopped making nukes unless and until it..." stops testing missiles or whatever. The art is to make eventual negotiations so attractive to the other party that it agrees to stop the awful thing it is doing.

Negotiations, diplomatic or otherwise, are indeed about each side getting something it wants. The failure of this administration's North Korea policy is that we gave Kim most of what he wanted in return for absolutely nothing; the failure of this administration's Iran policy is that we walked out of a good deal without offering a better one. Both failures can be traced back to the man who thinks he knows more about diplomacy than his diplomats and more about war than the people who actually fought instead of feigning a few bone spurs to avoid the draft. See link in the sig.

US-SSR wrote:So-called "preconditions" before a negotiation are actually negotiations in and of themselves. "We won't talk to North Korea about what we might do if it stopped making nukes unless and until it..." stops testing missiles or whatever. The art is to make eventual negotiations so attractive to the other party that it agrees to stop the awful thing it is doing.

Negotiations, diplomatic or otherwise, are indeed about each side getting something it wants. The failure of this administration's North Korea policy is that we gave Kim most of what he wanted in return for absolutely nothing; the failure of this administration's Iran policy is that we walked out of a good deal without offering a better one. Both failures can be traced back to the man who thinks he knows more about diplomacy than his diplomats and more about war than the people who actually fought instead of feigning a few bone spurs to avoid the draft. See link in the sig.

North Korea didn't get a whole lot from Trump. Almost all the sanctions are still in place.

Page wrote:

US-SSR wrote:So-called "preconditions" before a negotiation are actually negotiations in and of themselves. "We won't talk to North Korea about what we might do if it stopped making nukes unless and until it..." stops testing missiles or whatever. The art is to make eventual negotiations so attractive to the other party that it agrees to stop the awful thing it is doing.

Negotiations, diplomatic or otherwise, are indeed about each side getting something it wants. The failure of this administration's North Korea policy is that we gave Kim most of what he wanted in return for absolutely nothing; the failure of this administration's Iran policy is that we walked out of a good deal without offering a better one. Both failures can be traced back to the man who thinks he knows more about diplomacy than his diplomats and more about war than the people who actually fought instead of feigning a few bone spurs to avoid the draft. See link in the sig.

North Korea didn't get a whole lot from Trump. Almost all the sanctions are still in place.

They did get a sense of legitimacy from all those photo ops. Kim and Trump have the same mindset that they need approval and to have their ass kissed.

New Paine wrote:

Page wrote:
North Korea didn't get a whole lot from Trump. Almost all the sanctions are still in place.

They did get a sense of legitimacy from all those photo ops. Kim and Trump have the same mindset that they need approval and to have their ass kissed.

didnt Kim cancel the negotiations because Trump was just doing them purely for show?

The of Korea wrote:

New Paine wrote:
They did get a sense of legitimacy from all those photo ops. Kim and Trump have the same mindset that they need approval and to have their ass kissed.

didnt Kim cancel the negotiations because Trump was just doing them purely for show?

Yes. The idea that the North Koreans need external legitimacy is ignorant of North Korea. What they want is the means to maintain their internal flamboyance, and that means money and arms. The outside world is only a threat to North Korea in the sense that it can interfere with that internal flamboyance, but the North Koreans live in a past age mindset where they don't really care what the rest of the world thinks of them, they don't care that the Americans don't consider them legitimate.

Page wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:I don’t care. We shouldn’t have attempted to legitimize their regime. Just in the same way we never should have opened relations with the PRC.

It is not economically nor politically viable to cut off all contact with the PRC. Even the USA and USSR had diplomatic relations and trade in the Cold War.

No im saying that we never should have legitimatized the PRC in the first place. Same thing here

The of Korea wrote:

New Paine wrote:
They did get a sense of legitimacy from all those photo ops. Kim and Trump have the same mindset that they need approval and to have their ass kissed.

didnt Kim cancel the negotiations because Trump was just doing them purely for show?

Kim canceled the negotiations, which included working-level talks, because he knows he can play Trump for a sucker. He got everything he wanted the last time in return for less than nothing. Why should he negotiate in good faith with any other US official?

US-SSR wrote:

The of Korea wrote:didnt Kim cancel the negotiations because Trump was just doing them purely for show?

Kim canceled the negotiations, which included working-level talks, because he knows he can play Trump for a sucker. He got everything he wanted the last time in return for less than nothing. Why should he negotiate in good faith with any other US official?

Indeed, Trump can be played like a fiddle by foreign leaders if they give them good deals on real estate and/or kiss his ass and make him look good.