I love it. In the 3rd example, Blix no longer has any standing. His obnoxious criticism of the US shouldn’t entitle him to anything. His offer deserved to be ignored, and it was.
That approach simplifies foreign policy. This board had a complex debate about the Blix offer. But, if the question never arises, then the US can simply go ahead and do its job of finding the WMDs, if any.
Regarding France, it sounds as if US policy now is: the smooth wheel gets the grease, not the squeaky one. Such a policy will encourage other wheels to run more smoothly.
I expect to see improvements in a number of foreign problems as a result of this new policy.
When you find yourself in an argument, doesn’t it down-right frustrate you when your opponent sticks his fingers in his ears and starts going “la la la, I can’t hear you!”
Don’t you just want to slap them? And if a giant anvil were to drop down on them, would you be upset?
– Less BS from our European allies. Note that tomorrow’s “mini defense summit” between Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg is now widely regarded as a joke.
– Maybe the UN will actually become slightly useful in promoting world peace and human rights? Nah, that would be too much to hope for…
Why would you want that? If Syria cooperated, it’d just make it harder for Bush to sell the next war to some people. Are you plotting against the president, December?
Even from you, december, this is funny. Didn’t NK invent this approach to foreign policy? How is the “we don’t care/lalala we’re not listening” doctrine going against a sociopathic megalomaniac like Kim Jong-Il, whose entire “political” career consists of aggressively ignoring the opinion of other nations?
I don’t know which is more frightening: that the administration doesn’t care what the rest of the world thinks, or that there appear to be Americans who actually think this is a good thing.:eek:
I’m not quite sure how anyone can believe our economy can survive without the cooperation of the rest of the world. To name, but two, televisions and computers, there are few, if any, actually manufactured here (assembled, maybe, but not manufactured). Most, if not all, electronic components are manufactured overseas, not here.
The days when we are self sufficient are long over.
lissener -> Perfect point! Norh Korea is using that exact shameless approach that December seems so thrilled about. NK is saying, “We’ve got nukes. Be nice to us. Show us the money”
The US said officialy said that it wouldn’t reward this attitude, but everybody knows it WILL. Thats realpolitik for you. Isn’t it grand?
And another thing. This “preemtive strike” fad that Bush started, is catching on. I’ve heard a few world leaders saying things that translate to “we have a right to attack first if we feel menaced, also”, in obvious reference to the US recent Iraq adventure.
So, the “We don’t care” approach will be followed by , “We don’t care either”, and “Neither do we” and then “So why should we care?”
The world will then be a beautiful place to live in.
If the US does indeed start adopting a policy of “we don’t care” towards the rest of the world, we’ll soon enough find the same policy adopted towards us as well. When the rest of the world turns it’s back on us… I think “we don’t care” will go right out the window. Hopefully, it won’t be too late by then.
To be honest, I think “we don’t care” summarizes the Bush Administration’s policy on many things, both domestic and international. Sadly.
Add me to the list that would love to see how better relations with Europe, the UN, Syria and North Korea follow from a “we don’t care” policy. To me, the opposite it is true, but if you’re going to say so, december, you’d better prove it. If you’re not too busy dancing on the grave of US foreign policy to care, that is…
It’s one thing when the arguers are opponents; it’s another thing when some unconnected third party tries to horn in. E.g., there are activists in this country who make it their business to demonstrate or sometimes to cause trouble. The easy path is to let them be involved in the decision, because they will make it unpleasant to keep them out. I think the better course is often to ignore them, if they don’t merit a place at the table. In the long run, rewarding this sort of conduct encourages more of it.
Good question. I think it fosters less anti-American attitudes, because it no longer rewards them. (I guess I tend to have an economic viewpoint.)
urban1z, I don’t see “we don’t care” as a method of going it alone. I see it as a way to have more focused, more productive relations with other countries and with the UN.
I didn’t say I was thrilled about NK’s threats and blackmail; I said we shouldn’t acquiesce.
No question, this is the thorniest foreign policy problem currently facing the world. As this column points out, we’ve rewarded that behavior over and over, going back to the Reagan admnisitration. Bush is trying to permanently fix the problem. If he actually succeeds, he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. If he merely succumbs to the protection racket and pushes the problem into the future, he gets the same grade as Reagan, Clinton, Carter, etc. If he causes nuclear war, he flunks.
Good joke. There is a serious side. If Syria minimally cooperates, they’ll still be a rotten, dangerous tyranny. OTOH, if we don’t have to mess with Syria right now, Bush can devote more attention and resources to North Korea.
lissener, if you and Elvis want to debate, I’ll respond to your points.
I’m going to jump into the fray here on the side of December.
Somewhat.
I’ve noted this “we don’t care” policy in several threads over the last week or so. And I think it can be an effective policy when used judiciously. There are a lot times when certain countries (that start with “F” and end with “e”) try to use political posturing to exert influence over the US (like saying they don’t want to end snactions on Iraq after Saddam has been overthrown). The “we don’t care” policy is like calling “BS” on that country.
It’s also important that the “we don’t care” policy be tempered with a “we do care” policy towards those countries that are willing to cooperate. I’d call this the “we don’t care (unless you also show that you’ve cared)” policy.
Ever heard of the game theory analysis of cooperation as described in The Evolution of Cooperation by R. Axelrod? The most stable strategy is one of the simplest, and is called “Tit for Tat”: Start by Cooperating. Then Cooperate if you have been cooperated with, don’t cooperate if you haven’t if you haven’t been cooperated with. I think this is pretty similar to the “we don’t care (unless you also show you’ve cared)” policy.
I really worry that Bush will take his “go it alone” policy to North Korea.
Now that the China talks have failed, that’s a real possiblility.
Somehow “shock and awe” will not impress a country with a million soldiers under arms, a naval fleet, and atomic warheads.