NEWS,22.11.2012

Summit fatigue leads to bad decisions

The European Union may have won the Nobel Peace Prize this year, but to many EU leaders, officials, diplomats and even journalists, it can feel more like a torture chamber.Increasingly, Europe is governed at night by leaders in an advanced state of exhaustion, disregarding scientific evidence that this can lead to bad decisions, or non-decisions.Over the past three years, the EU has held 25 summits to try to tackle its debt crisis and related economic turmoil, with few of those meetings ending before 3 or 4 am, usually after 12 hours or more of near-fruitless negotiation. Add to that more than 40 finance ministers' meetings, the most recent of which ended at 5 am on Wednesday, again without agreement, and it is easy to see how a set of institutions designed to foster peace and stability in Europe can end up delivering frustration, angst and head-numbing pain."I'll put it this way: I woke up at 5 am or 5:30 am yesterday and we ended in the morning around 4 am," Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico complained after the last, largely unsuccessful summit in October. "This is how all of us operate, we adopt very serious decisions under pressure," he said, referring to the EU's increasingly weary heads of state and government. The EU's 27 leaders gathered for another summit on Thursday and Friday, this time to try to hammer out an agreement on around €1 trillion ($1.3 trillion) of spending over the next seven years. It promises to be a bruising clash of national interests rather than the model of reconciliation and harmony commended by the Nobel committee, although it will still be "jaw, jaw" rather than "war, war". Gatherings to negotiate the long-term budget only happen every 6 or 7 years and are notorious for running over deadline and for being extremely hard-nosed and ill-tempered affairs. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair described his experience of it in 2005 as the most difficult negotiation he handled while in office, tougher even than the 1998 Northern Ireland peace talks that led to the Good Friday agreement. Already EU officials are warning that these budget talks could run into Saturday and Sunday, making it what is known in diplomatic circles as a "four-shirt" summit.Staff at the European Council in Brussels, where EU leaders meet, have been told to be ready to work into Saturday at least. British Prime Minister David Cameron has cleared his schedule for the entire weekend, a spokesperson said. French President Francois Hollande has done the same. Journalists, around 1 500 of whom are accredited to cover the meeting, took up residence in the vast glass and steel entrance hall on Thursday morning and will stay encamped there until a deal is done, or negotiations break down. The effect on the EU's public image among its 500 million citizens is unedifying."It's not exactly glamorous and some would say it's downright torture," said one EU diplomat, a veteran of at least 30 EU summits. "Everyone gets extremely fed up."Sweden has organised extra bedding for its diplomats to take a rest in their delegation room if necessary.Bad decision making? The larger issue, though, is whether the pressure-cooker atmosphere and endlessly drawn-out negotiating schedule is conducive to good decision-making.Everyone knows that drivers should take a rest after four or five hours at the wheel to avoid accidents. Shouldn't the leaders of nation states take the same precaution lest they take a bad decision that might run their country off the road?A study published by three academics in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States last year showed that a judge's willingness to grant parole can depend to a large extent on how tired he or she is and when they last ate.The study examined more than 1 000 parole decisions made by experienced judges over a 10-month period. It found that the more decisions judges have to make, the more difficult it becomes to stay consistent, they get decision fatigue."The theory determines that decision-making capacity is a limited resource, and when many decisions are made in sequence, the mental capacity diminishes," Professor Shai Danziger of Ben-Gurion University, one of the authors, said at the time.That could be a lesson for EU leaders and the political advisers, diplomats and hangers-on who have to help them make the right decisions time and again for days in a row.One experienced EU ambassador, a veteran of multiple foreign postings in high-pressure places, said a lesson could be drawn from how Israel handles Middle East talks.When the Oslo peace accords were being negotiated with the Palestinians in the mid-1990s, Israel would change its negotiating team every six hours or so to avoid fatigue and the risk of mistakes."No one can negotiate at full capacity for more than six hours at a time, you just can't concentrate that long," the ambassador said. "They wanted to make sure they had a fresh team that was at its sharpest."China has employed similar tactics in business and trade negotiations, officials say.By contrast, EU leaders will have at least 12 straight hours of negotiation on each of the next two days and more if the meeting drags on into the weekend.And if that isn't enough, there's another meeting of finance ministers starting on Monday evening.

Lessons of the Gaza War

Now that the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas has begun to take effect (at least for now), it's time to begin to assess the outcome of the war, and where we go from here.

1. The big star and game changer is the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system. Without it, there would have been many more Israeli casualties, and the Netanyahu government would undoubtedly have sent ground troops into Gaza. Look for the immediate hot topic in security circles to be anti-missile defense systems, and look for American aid to Israel to increase on this front. President Obama has already indicated his support.
2. Israel often has a hawkish reputation, but it is amazing that it has watched as Hamas and Hezbollah on its southern and northern borders gradually escalated missile capabilities. We Americans wouldn't have done that if some group developed much less of a capability on our Canadian or Mexican borders, let alone both. Look for Israeli hawks and doves to both argue that their analysis was correct, and recommend policies accordingly.
3. Hamas is a big winner. Even in the last hours of the conflict, it was still capable of attacking Israel. Look for an enhanced Hamas prestige among Palestinians and in the Arab world. More troubles for the U.S., Israel, and the Palestinian Authority.
4. But, at least in the short term, look for a longer term truce and the dramatic reduction of missiles from Gaza raining on Israel, and therefore a limit on Israeli retaliations. Look for both sides to declare victories; greater standing for Hamas, and enhanced deterrence for the Israelis.
5. The new Islamist Egyptian government performed well in becoming the main sponsor of the cease-fire agreement, but the Sinai -- the conduit for arms to Gaza -- has become more lethal than ever. Look for pressure to increase on Egypt to do something about Sinai, and for quiet discussions calling for the addition of western advisers to help to regain Cairo's control. Egypt's role in the cease-fire and its weakness in Sinai could and should actually enhance the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty if it is handled properly.
6. Iran is a big winner. It managed to provide the missiles to Hamas via Sudan and through the Sinai that had the greatest psychological impact on both Israelis and Arabs alike by seeming to threaten Tel Aviv and even Jerusalem.
7. At the same time, the confrontation with Iran becomes more complex, as there will be mixed interpretations of the meaning of the Gaza War. On the one hand, there will be less enthusiasm for an attack on its developing nuclear weapons program among the already wary Israeli public and a significant number of security specialists, reinforced by American and European caution. On the other hand, others will argue that the Hamas arsenal suggests that a nuclear Iran would be even more dangerous. Look for intensified disputes in the months to come about a possible attack on Iran, even tougher sanctions, and more pressure on President Obama to both try to reach a negotiated settlement on that front and to consider American action.
8. Similarly, as suggested in the cease-fire agreement, there will be alleviation of the already-diminished Israeli blockade of Gaza. Look for much greater flexibility on civilian goods entering Gaza and much more attention to the passage of Libyan and Iranian arms (through Sudan to Egypt) to Hamas.
9. The Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas is a big loser. It will be more difficult than ever to bolster the Fatah leadership on the West Bank as Hamas grows in stature. The United States will be challenged to provide more economic aid and more diplomatic activity on the peace process. Look for much more attention to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process than at any time since mid-2011, when President Obama's initiative at the time quickly fizzled.
10. American efforts will be more complicated than ever because of the imminent Palestinian bid to become a non-member observer state at the UN. At least in the short term, membership will strengthen Abbas, but the missile war with Israel strengthens the possibility of Hamas leadership. The U.S. cannot afford Hamas, an ally of Iran, potentially representing Palestine at the UN, should Abbas weaken further. Look for the U.S. to try to square the circle by increasing its opposition to the Abbas UN initiative, and simultaneously attempting to strengthen Abbas through economic aid and the resumption of diplomacy on the peace process front. That might have the chance of some success if the conflict over the UN bid, now presumed to trigger diminished aid to Abbas, can somehow be resolved.

During the Gaza War, President Obama was traveling in Southeast Asia, as part of the administration's vaunted "pivot" to Asia. It's a good policy, but the Middle East followed him there. As the president contemplates new appointments in the foreign policy arena, he will have to consider that just as the U.S. necessarily begins to pay more attention to the Asian front, the conflicts and problems of the Middle East will stubbornly remain. We will be stuck with a very complex region we cannot ignore for a very long time to come.