U.S. Stumbling Over Its Precondition Demands

The Bush administration strongly supports the use preconditions as a precursor to talks with states unfriendly to United States policy. Recent examples include discussions for potential talks with Iran and Syria.

The administration was adamant that certain preconditions be met before it would consider diplomatic overtures to these states, which are crucial to stability in the Middle East. However, the administration and lawmakers must consider the value of this policy very carefully and understand the practical implications on diplomacy and the negative impact using preconditions may have on the perception of United States in the international community.

This is especially true if we cannot hold countries to the preconditions we set before entering talks.

The idea behind the use of preconditions is that the United States, as a superpower, can demand concessions from other states before diplomatically engaging them because negotiations with the United States enhance the prestige of the other country. The theory states that using this superior status increases our stability and protects our interests. Preconditions to talks may also be practical because they ensure that there is some level of good faith involved from the other country. The Bush administration's use of preconditions has shown its belief that military superiority rather than diplomacy is the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.

A distinct problem with using preconditions is when negotiations commence despite the set preconditions not being satisfied. Specifically with Iran and Syria, the United States laid out many preconditions it wanted met before any talks. The administration told Iran to stop uranium enrichment and it told Syria that it had to seal its border with Iraq, stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, and stop interfering in Lebanon. Despite the fact that nearly none of these preconditions was met, the administration has carried out talks with these states at some level.

With Iran, while we have not discussed their nuclear program, we have engaged them in talks on security in Iraq. In regards to Syria, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has met with her Syrian counterpart twice this year and Syria was invited to participate in the recent Annapolis conference.

This makes the use of preconditions problematic for two reasons. If we cannot hold countries to the standards we set in preconditions, what impression does that give of the United States when we engage in talks with while the preconditions remain unmet? This is not to suggest that the administration is wrong to engage Iran and Syria, but these states are being engaged on their terms. Surely in the future, if we set preconditions for other states, they will look back to recent examples as evidence that we are not serious about preconditions being satisfied.

While the Bush administration should be commended for engaging Iran and Syria, it has set a bad precedent. When the United States engages with the international community it is important that it be taken seriously.