Jason Blum Quotes

Discussing the possibility of renewing relations with Jordan after it had supported Iraq in the Gulf War, the ambassador wanted an admission of wrongdoing from Jordan.

In the history of diplomacy and peace treaty negotiations, the various national representative would meet in secret, negotiate treaties and add secret clauses. Then the treaty was finally made public for approbal or ratification in the different countries no one would be told of the secret clauses. Each side would have a written secret copy of these clauses, but the publics of the country would never know. For example, the agreements about various WWII issues that were secret have not yet been made public in the United States or England. Wilson wanted to put an end to that diplomatic ploy and wanted all the peace treaty clauses to be public with nothing secret. He also wanted the deliberations to made in public woth press access. He had little support for the idea in most European nations.

The Secretary of State had obtained an agreement of Israel and the Palestinians to open Peace Talks. The press immediately wanted to know who was saying what to whom and what positions the parties had. However, this was a classic example where transparency would make successful negotiations impossible—it would end the negotiations before the parties could even discuss possible alternatives.

The TPP was the first Trade Agreement that had ever been classified as “Secret” when it was being negotiated. This was one of the most hotly debated policies of the era. Even Congress could not get a look at what was being negotiated although the Senate would have to ratify it when finished for it to become effective. .On the surface, it is outrageous that a non-military or defense activity should be secret in a democracy. What could be wrong with the Congress and the public being aware of a trade negotiation while it was being formulated and negotiated? Kirk and other apologists for the secrecy policy argue that because of the trade-off relationships among different clauses and facets of a trade treaty, there are many proposals that are made just to initiate a bargaining position, and the negotiators themselves neither expect nor intend those proposals to be a part of the final treaty. To then have groups of Americans get upset and start a lobbying position against a treaty when what they object to is not ever going to be in the treaty poisons in the public mind the entire treaty which then could be killed for something that was never real to begin with. A similar thing happened with the Obamacare legislation. Congress drafted the various clauses and many were included as part of the bargaining process or misunderstood because of poor first drafting. Opposition to those clauses set a tone of animosity against the bill as a whole. After the bill was passed, the clauses that were most unpopular or misinterpreted were the main reason that citizens gave for opposing Obamacare even though they were not in the legislation. Advocates of secrecy point out that the original Constitutional Convention was entirely secret with all the delegates agreeing that if each and every proposal that was debated were public, there would develop so much opposition that the result could never be ratified later. Yet it is hard to argue against transparency of government processes in a democracy.

Her experience in the United Nations made her realize that most of the foreign policies of the more powerful and sophisticated countries were stated in such complex, nuanced, and politically coded language, that most of the literate and educated people in many countries could not understand them. This was, and is today, often true of many government officials around the world.

He was referring to the role of an Israeli political leader who was negotiating with the PLO. The civility of shaking hands with leaders of what had been a terrorist organization that had been responsible for the deaths of many Israelis. The great statesmen have to negotiate with their enemies.

The public desire to know about and influence the details about diplomatic affairs is not just a problem of the 21st century. Here the Secretary of State describes it in 1922.