If a meeting is needed to further the interests of the United States and if Obama will not be in physical danger by meeting, then by all means he should meet with whomever. When we ignore hostile leaders or do things to amp up their fear levels, then they get upset and act out. Yet if they are seen and heard, then they often are less likely to act out... In this way they are somewhat like young wild elephants who need a mature bull elephant to help them learn how to behave appropriately and to reign them in. It is unwise to attempt to punish leaders by ignoring them or even by imposing embargoes, etc. It is much better to engage in dialogue and to try to find common ground. It is also much better to step away from fear and anger into the exploration of the territory of wants and needs as these are the things that, if met, can prevent needless war and suffering.
Obama needs to meet with all world leaders, especially the ones that represent governments that we most need to communicate with. We cannot always set the rules for the world. That is why there is so much resentment now. We need to dialogue with leaders. No matter what the relations between our countries are. Have we not learned yet that war is not the answer, maybe genuine dialogue is.
The simple act of meeting a hostile leader, without preconditions, can improve relations immediately. Before any meeting, a relationship between two leaders is completely perpetuated through the international press. Neither individual personifies the other in their mind, instead they only see them as a distant character. This is not unlike Twitter feuds and Internet trolling. Once a leader has a face-to-face meeting with another, an actual physical first impression can be made. And, for any future dealings, at least there was a hopefully pleasant visit memory formed.
It is a commonly held belief that diplomatic meetings should only occur after the other side has given you some of what you want.
I would dispute this. If you are unwilling to talk to your enemies, then you greatly increase the chance of the language of violence being resorted to. Conditions should, instead, be placed on meaningful gain, such as concessions in trade, but not on basic communication between leaders or their representatives.
Politics as usual are over. We have entered a new era in politics in this country. Even though we are still a superpower we have to set standards for the world to follow. Entering discussions on an even keel without preconditions should be a must. Everyone has to make concessions, even the USA. Although we are a superpower we cannot continue to act as a bully toward smaller countries. Even our own country has to make exceptions in dealing with other less powerful countries. The only way to make deals and get matters resolved is to enter talks with an open mind.
I think Obama is opening up the gates to meet with leaders without setting preconditions. By not preconditions, he is making it easier for leaders to meet with him which makes America more welcoming to them. The preconditions can be intimidating for some leaders and make them shy away from meeting with a leader. I think that Obama is taking the right approach in meeting with hostile foreign leaders.
Willingness to meet without preconditions is a show of strength and tolerance, not of weakness or concession. Preconditions only limit the free exchange of ideas and information, and hinder the building of bridges between current or former enemies. How can we begin to improve international relations without willingness to sit down and talk without limits?
Obama is following a sound strategy by opening the lines of communication with hostile foreign leaders, even if he doesn't set any preconditions. Communication is key to resolution, and there may not be a need for any other conditions once the meetings take place. Sometimes something as basic as a conversation between two humans can be enough to resolve a hostile situation. In the event a meeting doesn't solve an issue, Obama can still take action at a later date.
If no preconditions are necessary, there should be none set. Some hostile foreign leaders are hostile because of prior U.S policies, and making it more and more difficult to settle issues is not the right road to set down on.
Meeting with hostile leaders of foreign countries could prove to be a good strategy because sitting down talking to someone face to face is much different than blustering in public. A one on one meeting can give the parties a chance to speak their minds civilly, and not have to worry about seeming weak just because they are taking a more diplomatic, less hostile approach. They are more likely to let down their guard, their defenses, and give it a chance.
Meeting with hostile foreign leaders may bridge a gap between Americans and foreign countries that hold Americans and their beliefs in scorn. By opening up communication between all the countries we can all work together for the greater good of the world and our people. We only have one earth!
What better method to start negotiations than to talk? Although it is always nice to meet with people with established conditions, if they are not willing to do that, any type of meeting is a good start. It is not sensible to require preconditions to be met, if that prevents talking about the peace process.
Hostile leaders are not people we should be meeting with because they do not understand our ideas and personalities. If we start befriending them it could cause a lot of issues for America in general. We should be staying out of other countries business and try and improve America before we try to improve other areas of the world.
No, I don't think Obama is following a sound strategy if he decides to meet with hostile foreign leaders without setting any preconditions, because it would set a precedent for future meetings with other leaders that I don't think should be set. Each situation is different, but there should be conditions set before going into the talks.
This is such a bad idea because, without taking the proper precautions, anything can happen. These people have already been established as being hostile, so it's entirely possible that something bad could happen if negotiations don't go their way. It sounds like a powder keg waiting to explode. What if things don't go as planned, and they lose their cool? Then what? Would it have really killed anyone to have a safety net?
While it is reasonable to talk and negotiate with leaders abroad, it should never be used as a strategy. There is no reason at all to meet with hostile leaders, unless you want to form friendship with them. A non-interventionist attitude toward nations, good or bad, should be the approach of Foreign policy.
Well, I probably wouldn't even meet with the leader, face to face, if I knew he was hostile. I would probably just video chat with him, because there would be a less likely chance that anyone would get hurt. Also, I would try not to meet with the leader in the first place, because if the wrong thing was said, then there could or would most likely be strong tensions between the two countries. So, I would definitely take some kind of precaution before meeting with this hostile leader.
Leaders of hostile foreign governments seem to hold the United States in contempt and consider us weak. The United States needs to be respected and feared. When the people of Iran are rising up in demonstrations against the dictator of the country, they deserve to have the American President give them moral support instead of hoping to be able to talk with them about giving up their plan to acquire nuclear weapons.