Development Site - Changes here will not affect the live (production) site.

The Dangers of Diplomacy with Dictators

March 15 2018

While conventional foreign policy on the left tends to favor “engagement” with tyrannical regimes, so-called realists urge accommodation of or even alliance with them. Dalibor Rohac, rejecting both approaches, explains that negotiations with despots must follow different rules from negotiations with democracies:

When authoritarians engage in “multilateralism” or “dialogue,” they are not doing the same things that liberal democracies do. A government that is accountable to voters faces public scrutiny and criticism of its foreign-policy decisions. Large and consequential commitments made by liberal democracies—such as EU and NATO membership, for example—do not reflect just the whim of the leaders of the moment but a broader societal consensus, running across political divides. . . .

Because of [the] much smaller number of veto holders, one should accord a much lower degree of trust to promises made by authoritarians. Not even the staunchest supporters of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, [as the nuclear deal with Tehran is formally known], would dare to argue that the deal means a material shift in the long-term ambitions of Iran’s mullahs, who are likely to scrap it the moment doing so becomes convenient for them. After all, the regime did not acquiesce in the temporary restrictions on its nuclear program in good faith, but only because the deal also empowered it to play a much more aggressive game in the Middle East. . . .

Alas, the prevailing orthodoxy of the past decades has assumed that any form of cooperation and multilateralism is good and that essentially any dispute between any regimes can be tackled by using diplomatic tools. The failure of that approach to deliver the goods—in Syria, for example, or in eastern Ukraine—has provoked a backlash, manifested today in the “realist” view of international relations as a Hobbesian zero-sum competition, which sees no value in international structures beyond those reflecting the immediate self-interest of countries. . . .

[A] safe and open international order hinges on whether the character of the political and economic institutions of countries that are shaping it is sound. If taken seriously, that insight would shift the focus of foreign policy on both sides of the Atlantic and provide it with a basic compass: to help increase the returns, economic and otherwise, of democratic governance and rule of law—and to push back systematically against authoritarianism, despotism, and kleptocracy. For one thing, the West can make it much harder for dictators and their cronies to hide their money in London, Switzerland, or Florida. There are also ways of cracking down on North Korean and Iranian business interests and illicit revenue. . . .

You have 1 free article left this month

Sign up now for unlimited access

Subscribe Now

Already a subscriber? Sign in now

Read more at American Interest

More about: Diplomacy, Iran, Politics & Current Affairs, U.S. Foreign policy

Germany’s Bid to Keep Israel off the UN Security Council

March 21 2018

The Jewish state has never held a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council. For the first 50 years of its existence, it was denied membership in any of the UN’s regional groups, which control candidacies for these rotating seats. Then it was finally admitted to the Western European and Others Group, which promptly agreed to wait another twenty years before approving Jerusalem for a Security Council candidacy. Now, Benny Avni notes, Germany is poised to block action:

As a good-faith gesture, the Western European and Others Group promised Israel that it and Belgium would run uncontested for the two open 2019-20 [Security Council] seats. Then, in 2016, Germany announced it would also run—even though it already served as a council member [multiple times, including] as recently as 2011-12. . . . [U]nless Belgium yields, Israel’s hopes for UN respect seem doomed for now—and maybe for the foreseeable future.

Why? Diplomats have been telling me Israel violates too many Security Council resolutions to be a member—as in the one passed during the last weeks of Barack Obama’s presidency, which marked Jewish holy sites as occupied Palestinian territory. But is building a porch in [the West Bank town of] Ma’ale Adumim really such a huge threat to world peace?

How about, then, a report released last week by UN experts on the Security Council’s North Korea sanctions? It found Germany violated a council ban on sparkling wines, exporting $151,840 worth of bubbly and other luxury goods to Kim Jong Un’s cronies. Or how about, as the Jerusalem Post’s Benjamin Weinthal reports, German companies exporting to Iran banned materials that were later used in chemical attacks in Syria?

Never mind. Germany (and Belgium) will surely benefit from the UN’s habit of magnifying Israel’s violations beyond all proportion. Thus, Israel’s petition to join the most prestigious UN club will likely be rejected, thanks to a late entry by a shameless [and] cynical German power play against the Jewish state.

You've just used your last free article this month

Sign up now for unlimited access

Subscribe Now

Already a subscriber? Sign in now

Read more at New York Post

More about: Germany, Israel & Zionism, Israeli-German relations, United Nations