Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Obama, meeting with hostile foreign leaders without preconditions
From Debatepedia
Revision as of 16:03, 28 October 2010 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→Yes) ← Previous diff |
Current revision (16:21, 28 October 2010) (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→No) |
||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
*'''[[Argument: "Preconditions" for talking are often what need to be talked about| "Preconditions" for talking are often what need to be talked about]]''' Barack Obama said in May, 2008, "Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are, essentially, what Iran views and many other observers would view as the subject of the negotiations. For example, their nuclear program. The point is, is that I would not refuse to meet until they agreed to every position that we want."[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4896002&page=2] | *'''[[Argument: "Preconditions" for talking are often what need to be talked about| "Preconditions" for talking are often what need to be talked about]]''' Barack Obama said in May, 2008, "Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are, essentially, what Iran views and many other observers would view as the subject of the negotiations. For example, their nuclear program. The point is, is that I would not refuse to meet until they agreed to every position that we want."[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4896002&page=2] | ||
- | *'''Speaking with rogue leaders demonstrates US is not impeding progress.''' Barack Obama said in May, 2008, "[when you meet with rogue leaders without preconditions] you have sent a message to the world that we are not the impediment of making progress, that they're the ones who are holding up progress" which allows us then to strengthen our alliances to impose the kinds of tough sanctions that may be necessary to change their behavior."[http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/05/29/obamas_consistent_position_on.php] | + | *'''[[Argument: Speaking with rogue leaders shows US is not impeding progress| Speaking with rogue leaders shows US is not impeding progress]]''' Barack Obama said in May, 2008, "[when you meet with rogue leaders without preconditions] you have sent a message to the world that we are not the impediment of making progress, that they're the ones who are holding up progress" which allows us then to strengthen our alliances to impose the kinds of tough sanctions that may be necessary to change their behavior."[http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/05/29/obamas_consistent_position_on.php] |
- | *'''Speaking with rogue leaders helps build alliances, enables action.''' Barack Obama said in May, 2008, "[when you meet with rogue leaders without preconditions] you have sent a message to the world that we are not the impediment of making progress, that they're the ones who are holding up progress, which allows us then to strengthen our alliances to impose the kinds of tough sanctions that may be necessary to change their behavior."[http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/05/29/obamas_consistent_position_on.php] | + | *'''[[Argument: Speaking with rogue leaders builds alliances for action| Speaking with rogue leaders builds alliances for action]]''' Barack Obama said in May, 2008, "[when you meet with rogue leaders without preconditions] you have sent a message to the world that we are not the impediment of making progress, that they're the ones who are holding up progress, which allows us then to strengthen our alliances to impose the kinds of tough sanctions that may be necessary to change their behavior."[http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/05/29/obamas_consistent_position_on.php] |
*'''[[Argument: Talking with all Muslim leaders shows Muslims US is listening| Talking with all Muslim leaders shows Muslims US is listening]]''' A significant portion of the Muslim world believes that the United States and the West does not care to listen to Muslims or even that they are engaging in religious war against the Islamic world. Not speaking to Syria and Iranian leaders perpetuates this myth. Speaking with them will help change this attitude in the Muslim world toward the West, and soften relations. | *'''[[Argument: Talking with all Muslim leaders shows Muslims US is listening| Talking with all Muslim leaders shows Muslims US is listening]]''' A significant portion of the Muslim world believes that the United States and the West does not care to listen to Muslims or even that they are engaging in religious war against the Islamic world. Not speaking to Syria and Iranian leaders perpetuates this myth. Speaking with them will help change this attitude in the Muslim world toward the West, and soften relations. | ||
- | *'''Meeting foreign leaders is a means of engaging in aggressive diplomacy.''' An interview on Fox News in May, 2008 - "MS. KELLY: Senator, do you assume too much about men like Ahmadinejad? In other words, that you could reason with someone as irrational as he is? SEN. OBAMA: First of all, he's not the most powerful leader in Iran, so he might not be the person that we would need to meet with. But more importantly, the reason that you have discussions and diplomacy is not because you assume reason or good motives on the other side. That would be naive. What you assume is that if you are very clear about the need to stand down on nuclear weapons, that you are very clear about the need to stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas and to stop threatening Israel"[http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/05/29/obamas_consistent_position_on.php] | + | *'''[[Argument: Meeting hostile leaders is means to aggressive diplomacy| Meeting hostile leaders is means to aggressive diplomacy]]''' An interview on Fox News in May, 2008 - "MS. KELLY: Senator, do you assume too much about men like Ahmadinejad? In other words, that you could reason with someone as irrational as he is? SEN. OBAMA: First of all, he's not the most powerful leader in Iran, so he might not be the person that we would need to meet with. But more importantly, the reason that you have discussions and diplomacy is not because you assume reason or good motives on the other side. That would be naive. What you assume is that if you are very clear about the need to stand down on nuclear weapons, that you are very clear about the need to stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas and to stop threatening Israel"[http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/05/29/obamas_consistent_position_on.php] |
- | *'''Meeting rogue leaders better reveals their true interests.''' Barack Obama said in May, 2008, "[when] you have engaged in those direct talks, and you're listening about what their interests are, number one, we get a better sense of what their true interests are"[http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/05/29/obamas_consistent_position_on.php] | + | *'''[[Argument: Meeting rogue leaders reveals their true intentions| Meeting rogue leaders reveals their true intentions]]''' Barack Obama said in May, 2008, "[when] you have engaged in those direct talks, and you're listening about what their interests are, number one, we get a better sense of what their true interests are"[http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/05/29/obamas_consistent_position_on.php] |
Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
====No==== | ====No==== | ||
- | *'''Obama's offer would cause rogue leaders to request showy meetings.''' Michigan Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra, responding to the notion of these requests, predicted, "That would be an untenable position for the President of the United States to be put in."[http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/07/23/politics/horserace/entry4286443.shtml] | + | *'''[[Argument: Obama open talks offer rogue leaders propaganda opportunities| Obama open talks offer rogue leaders propaganda opportunities]]''' Michigan Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra, responding to the notion of these requests, predicted, "That would be an untenable position for the President of the United States to be put in."[http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/07/23/politics/horserace/entry4286443.shtml] |
Line 174: | Line 174: | ||
====Yes==== | ====Yes==== | ||
- | *'''Talking to regimes does not give them international legitimacy.''' Kenneth Schultz, an associate professor of political science at Stanford. - "If you talk to anybody who works in regime stability and ask them the top 100 things that grant legitimacy to a regime, I don't think 'meets with the US president' would be on anyone's list."[http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/06/22/lets_talk/] | + | *'''[[Argument: Talking to regimes does not legitimize them| Talking to regimes does not legitimize them]]''' Kenneth Schultz, an associate professor of political science at Stanford. - "If you talk to anybody who works in regime stability and ask them the top 100 things that grant legitimacy to a regime, I don't think 'meets with the US president' would be on anyone's list."[http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/06/22/lets_talk/] |
Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
====No==== | ====No==== | ||
- | *'''Unconditional meetings would give undue status to hostile leaders.''' President Bush said, regarding Obama's stance on meeting with foreign leaders without preconditions, "It will send the wrong message. ... It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity."[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2637767820080228?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews] | + | *'''[[Argument: Unconditional meetings wrongly legitimize hostile leaders| Unconditional meetings wrongly legitimize hostile leaders]]''' President Bush said, regarding Obama's stance on meeting with foreign leaders without preconditions, "It will send the wrong message. ... It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity."[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2637767820080228?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews] |
:Sen. Joseph Lieberman said, "Senator Obama has said he would sit down without condition with Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. That not only gives prestige to a terrible America- and Israel-hater, but it also threatens our allies in the region."[http://www.gop.com/images/research/051108Research.pdf] | :Sen. Joseph Lieberman said, "Senator Obama has said he would sit down without condition with Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran. That not only gives prestige to a terrible America- and Israel-hater, but it also threatens our allies in the region."[http://www.gop.com/images/research/051108Research.pdf] | ||
Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
- | |||
===Scholars: Where do scholars stand on the issue? === | ===Scholars: Where do scholars stand on the issue? === | ||
Line 194: | Line 193: | ||
====Yes==== | ====Yes==== | ||
- | *'''The majority of scholars support unconditionally meeting hostile leaders.''' [http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/06/22/lets_talk/ Mark Oppenheimer. "Let's talk". Boston Globe. 22 June 2008] - "among international relations scholars, there is far less controversy. Virtually all specialists agree that meetings between leaders of regimes at odds can be a good thing, and that while the circumstances of such meetings have to be right for both sides, it's better to express an openness to them, Obama-style, than to rule them out ahead of time. Most thinkers, in the mostly liberal academy and even in conservative think tanks, are deeply skeptical that we can "isolate" our enemies by refusing to talk with them; the very idea of isolation is, to use the words of Harvard's Graham Allison, "a radical exception and departure from the mainstream of policy under Republicans and Democrats forever, and for most of the practice of the last 2,000 years of recorded history." | + | *'''[[Argument: Majority of scholars support unconditionally meeting hostile leaders| Majority of scholars support unconditionally meeting hostile leaders]]''' [http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/06/22/lets_talk/ Mark Oppenheimer. "Let's talk". Boston Globe. 22 June 2008] - "among international relations scholars, there is far less controversy. Virtually all specialists agree that meetings between leaders of regimes at odds can be a good thing, and that while the circumstances of such meetings have to be right for both sides, it's better to express an openness to them, Obama-style, than to rule them out ahead of time. Most thinkers, in the mostly liberal academy and even in conservative think tanks, are deeply skeptical that we can "isolate" our enemies by refusing to talk with them; the very idea of isolation is, to use the words of Harvard's Graham Allison, "a radical exception and departure from the mainstream of policy under Republicans and Democrats forever, and for most of the practice of the last 2,000 years of recorded history." |
Current revision
[Edit] Is Barack Obama justified in his willingness to talk to foreign leaders without preconditions? |
[Edit] Background and contextThe debate over Barack Obama's position on meeting with foreign leaders without preconditions became a central component of the 2008 elections during a CNN/YouTube debate, on July 24th, 2007. He was asked, "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" Obama responded, "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous." |
[Edit] [ ![]() Position: What is obama's position? Has it been constant or shifted? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() History: Does US diplomatic history support Obama's position? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No |
[Edit] [ ![]() Principles: Is speaking with hostile nations morally, philosophically sound? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Strategy: Is meeting with hostile leaders a sound strategy? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Diplomacy: Does meeting hostile nations help diplomacy? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Status: Does meeting with hostile leaders give them too much status? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Scholars: Where do scholars stand on the issue? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No |
[Edit] [ ![]() Public opinion: What is the public stand on this issue? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] NoClick on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
[Edit] See also[Edit] External links |