Brodie's Public Policy and Global Governance Blog

 I caught parts of the Presidential debate that took place last Friday and a large part of the debate focused around the issue of constructive engagement vs. isolationism. I have written about this topic a number of times but still, I am confused as to why some are so opposed to the idea of sitting down at the table with an enemy. McCain lashed out at Obama over and over again arguing that sitting down with North Korea or Iran without preconditions legitimizes the actions of these states.

I understand that doing business with a state such as Iran or North Korea could legitimize their actions but I don't understand McCain's logic. Arguably, not engaging with these states has contributed to a large degree to the current state of affairs within these countries. Repressive regimes need to legitimize their actions within their state and the way that the U.S. and other western countries have ignored these countries has been used to fuel propaganda in these countries.

Furthermore, I don't see how sitting down with either North Korea or Iran can do any harm. Before ruling out negotiations with rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea you might actually want to sit down with them to see if these negotiations aren't going to work. The isolation of these types of regimes also plays a large role in shaping their identity. Once identified as pariah states countries tend to act like pariahs. Rather than encourging positive behaviour this type of tactic can lead rogue regimes even further backwards.

It may turn out that negotiations with these countries won't accomplish anything, but you might have to sit down with them first to find out.