The flashes of dozens of cameras go off as the German foreign minister stands beside a controversial foreign leader. The leader in question is widely regarded as a dictator who represses people in his homeland.

This raises a series of questions: Who will initiate the handshake? How friendly may the German foreign minister appear? Should he attend a joint press conference? Will he comment on the outcome of their talks? Will he extend an invitation to visit Germany?

These are the kind of questions that get discussed in detail at the Foreign Ministry prior to all such meetings. The answers the diplomats come up with can have enormous consequences.

Staff at the German foreign office must prioritize in favor of contact

The foreign minister has no official position on how to deal with dictators, as it is diplomatic convention not to discuss such issues in public. That's because doing so could damage diplomatic strategy or cause someone to lose face.

The German parliament's committee on foreign policy monitors the way Germany deals with controversial regimes or their representatives. The committee of 37 parliamentarians represents the interests of the Bundestag in foreign policy, but it does not have the power to tell the foreign minister what to do. But they are privy to a good deal of internal information. Some committee members are surprisingly open in the way they talk about the issue.

Some discussions were 'a mistake'

Nobody really enjoys dealing with the despots of the world, but after the terror attacks of 2001 in particular, other issues took priority.

For Müller and the Greens, some leaders should probably be off-limits

Traditionally, most of the dealings with Arab or North African officials were based on common security and economic issues.

"In hindsight, some of those discussions were a mistake," says Kerstin Müller, who represents the Greens on the foreign relations committee. From 2002 until 2005 she was also the deputy foreign minister.

"Unfortunately, we now have some explaining to do to the democracy movements in countries like Egypt or Tunisia, who now ask themselves why we maintained such close ties with certain autocratic leaders," she says.

Müller believes it would be more prudent to avoid any future dialogue with dictators.

Dialogue is a must - even with despots

Another member of the committee, Joachim Hörster of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, sees things differently.

"We need dialogue," he argues. "We needed to be in contact with leaders like Mubarak or Gadhafi. What other opportunity do we have to try to sell them on the advantages of our democracy?" asks Hörster, who is also the chairman of a group of parliamentarians focused on Arab-speaking states and the Middle East.

Where might Germany be without Chancellor Brandt's decision to engage the Soviet Union?

Hörster is clearly an advocate of the theory that constant dripping wears away the stone. He and others who support this view, believe that by engaging in close dialogue in an atmosphere of trust undemocratic leaders learn about Western systems and can be convinced of their virtues. "Confrontation isn't very helpful," Hörster says.



He points to past successes, leaving specifics aside. "For example, we wanted to win concessions in how a minority in a state was being treated. We wanted to see democratic elements in the country." Its leader was prepared to enter discussions and then implemented many of the German suggestions. "Because we promised not to go public about his concessions, so as not to embarrass him politically," Hörster said.

History shows that achieving change through rapprochement can work. West German Chancellor Willy Brandt's dialogue with the dictatorships of the former Soviet bloc in the 1970s helped lay the groundwork for the eventual fall of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany, and the demise of the Soviet Union.

Humanitarian work often requires compromise

Many members of the foreign affairs committee, across party lines, defend how Germany has dealt with dictators. They argue, for example, that it was right for Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle to visit Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad earlier this year.

This image didn't sit well with all German people, but the visit got a result

"This visit resulted in the release of two Germans who were being held by Iran," Left party member Jan van Aken says. But he also criticized Westerwelle for sitting down with Ahmedinejad. "This was a small step too far." At the same time, van Aken admitted that Tehran's authoritarian regime has a track record of changing the agenda of such meetings at the last minute to include such PR gags.

"As a simple member of parliament I can get out of things like this, but a foreign minister has little chance," van Aken conceded.

There is general agreement among members of the committee that such compromises are unavoidable when it comes to the release of prisoners or to avoid war in certain regions.

They also agree that diplomacy offers a wealth of ways in which contact can be maintained, while at the same time expressing distance to a despot - although it is almost impossible to avoid the photos of the ritual handshake.

As a prolific exporter, Germany can send a message with trade restrictions

However, a diplomat can refuse to attend a joint press conference, or send a signal by limiting the time of a meeting. Artificial impediments can be used to make it impossible to turn down a dinner invitation. Or negotiations can be kept far below the minister level, as is the case when it comes to dialogue with Iran on human rights. What's important is to be consistent in refusing to export certain German products. The export of weapons is the height of brazenness, according to Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul of the Social Democrats and former development minister. She advocates export bans as the clearest signal of distance to undemocratic systems.

Human rights demands often come behind closed doors

Bijan Djir-Sarai of the liberal Free Democrats and Omid Nouripour of the Greens agree that if you do meet with a despot, you have to use the occasion to raise the issue of human rights. Both members of the foreign affairs committee are originally from Iran and came to Germany in the 1970s at the ages of 11 and 13 respectively. Their background makes them more sensitive about the issue of freedom, they say.

However, Djir-Sarai knows first-hand how difficult it can be when you are actually face-to-face in a meeting to demand that human rights be respected.

"The person I was meeting felt insulted right away and wanted to break off the carefully broached discussion, saying I had no idea about the situation in that country and that I should pay more attention to ensuring that human rights were respected in Germany," Djir-Sarai said.

The 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' diplomatic approach since 9/11 has come under scrutiny

In such cases, you still have to remain seated, Omid Nouripour adds.

The foreign minister and the Foreign Ministry are often publicly chastised for not pushing for human rights to be respected in a given country.

Nouripour and Djir-Sarai, though, say raising such issues goes without question, even if it isn't made public.

Here too, it's important to allow the other side to "save face." Otherwise, concessions may not be made simply out of spite.

Walking a tightrope without a net

Members of the foreign affairs committee confirm that there are no written guidelines for how to deal with dictators and corrupt regimes. Each case must be examined on an individual basis.

The debate in the spring of 2011 about whether deposed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak should be allowed to come to Germany was damaging. The idea did have its advocates. Allowing him to come to Germany for medical care wasn't ruled out. In the end, things turned out differently.

In the summer of 2011, an entry ban that had been imposed on former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was lifted. The reason: He hadn't done anything wrong in Germany. An entry ban was in place for Gadhafi's son Saif al-Arab, who had spent time living near Munich, where he worked for a construction firm. Saif al-Arab hurriedly left Germany and was then killed during an attack on the Libyan capital, Tripoli, in April.

Asking the foreign relations committee who was Germany's best foreign minister elicits a long and typically diplomatic pause. First, nobody wants to name names, then a compromise is reached. They eventually conclude that Free Democrat Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the Green party's Joschka Fischer, and Social Democrat Frank-Walter Steinmeier always exhibited the traits that have characterized German foreign policy for 60 years: balance, but above all else, reliability and stability.

Author: Wolfgang Dick / pfd

Editor: Nancy Isenson