Annals of smart diplomacy – NPT edition

President Obama has done much to distance himself and his administration from the Bush administration. However In some ways he has persisted. And when he has chosen a different path, it hasn’t always been successful. President Obama summarizes his approach to international relations like this:

Obama acknowledged that the U.S. is “clear-eyed” about the shortcoming of the international system, but he said America had not ever been successful by “stepping out of the currents of cooperation.”

“We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice, so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face the consequences when they don’t,” the president said.

Surely President Obama considers the recent conclusion of discussions of the NPT as an example of his approach. The New York Times reports:

While rejecting a deadline, for the first time the main five nuclear weapons states accepted vague language referring to a new, stronger international convention on eliminating nuclear weapons, and the idea of a “timeline” was introduced.

Despite differences over the pace of disarmament and proliferation concerns, the document breathes new life into a treaty seen as under threat, analysts said. “That is the positive, there is much more attention on future action and new benchmarks,” said Prof. William C. Potter, the director of the center for nonproliferation at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

The Washington Post offers a few more details in its conclusion:

The U.S. delegation at the NPT review in New York had fought to excise all mentions of Israel in the final document. But on Thursday evening, as delegations prepared for a last round of talks, the conference president informed them that the latest draft of the text was a take-it-or-leave-it document, officials said. Final NPT documents require a consensus.

Many diplomats had expected U.S. officials to withhold approval of the final document because of the mention of Israel. But the U.S. government was apparently reluctant to be viewed as the spoiler at a conference that focused on one of Obama’s priorities.

National security adviser James L. Jones said Friday that the U.S. government “deplores” the decision to single out Israel and would “not permit a conference or actions that could jeopardize Israel’s national security.”

And this mention of Israel, of course, is why the NPT was controversial.

A good merchant – unlike Gen. Jones – knows the value of what he’s trying to sell and what he’s trying to get in exchange. As the Post observes, a final version of the NPT document was the highest priority of the administration. It’s ridiculous for Jones to “deplore” the singling out of Israel. That was the cost of getting what the administration wanted. If it had placed a greater value on protecting Israel, the administration wouldn’t have minded seeing the conference end without an agreement. The merchants who offered the administration the “take it or leave it deal” correctly read the values both of what the administration wanted and what it was willing to agree to, to achieve its goal.

How did Iran, currently seeking to join the nuclear club, view this?

The final statement of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference has called for the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.

The 28-page document, which was agreed upon on Friday by all 189 NPT signatories after a month-long round of talks at UN Headquarters in New York, called for a conference to be held in 2012 “to be attended by all states of the Middle East, leading to the establishment” of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.

Western diplomats said the United States finally agreed to a deal at the UN that would pressure Israel to join the NPT, Al Jazeera.net reported.

In this case the administration didn’t steer anything, it was steered. Here’s how Meryl put it:

The Obama administration threw Israel under the bus again. The NPT conference ended with all 189 countries—the U.S. included—issuing a statement that names Israel, and only Israel, when calling for a nuclear-free Middle East. It does not name Iran or Syria, two nations that were on the nuclear weapons track. It calls on Israel, and only Israel, to join the NPT, which Israel has never signed. Iran is a signatory. The document does not call on Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons.

Meryl emphasizes that if the United States reallly opposed the language singling out Israel, it had an option: not to sign.

Henry Sokolski concludes:

Bottom line: With the possible exception of Iran, it is difficult to see how Obama or anyone got anything out of this exercise but regret.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.