Humboldt Republican Women: Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S.—and the West as a whole—has lost the diplomatic touch. These countries began to negotiate for symbolism, not substance. From the Kyoto Protocol to the U.N.’s human rights agreements, negotiation became about looking good, not doing good.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S.—and the West as a whole—has lost the diplomatic touch. These countries began to negotiate for symbolism, not substance. From the Kyoto Protocol to the U.N.’s human rights agreements, negotiation became about looking good, not doing good.

The consistent #weaknesses in #Obama’s deals http://t.co/XTs91o8CrU pic.twitter.com/ahKe8lI8WY
— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) September 6, 2015

Like unhappy families, bad agreements are each bad in their own way. And of course there are degrees of badness: no trade deal, no matter how implausibly dreadful, could be worse than a nuclear deal gone wrong. But bad agreements do have a few features in common.

The major postwar agreements—from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to the North Atlantic Treaty that created NATO—stood the test of time because they were good deals that met real needs. They were serious, clear, and substantial, and they benefited everyone....

It might be that all of this is just a case of bad diplomacy producing bad agreements, of which there have been many since 1989. But note the final thing that these agreements have in common: they will tie the hands of the U.S. (and the U.K.) long after Obama has left office.

Pages

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S.—and the West as a whole—has lost the diplomatic touch. These countries began to negotiate for symbolism, not substance. From the Kyoto Protocol to the U.N.’s human rights agreements, negotiation became about looking good, not doing good.