A few NK analysts are predicting a bold anti-South action is going to take place in the next couple of days - probably tomorrow. NK want to create an inter-Korean crisis in order to secure concessions.
…and here it is: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53060620
They blew up a building on their own territory? That’s kind of pathetic.
That pretty much sums up the whole last few years, to be fair.
What’s clear is that US leverage in the region is in a full-on decline, which probably isn’t really a surprise at this point. But more and more, the myth of American power is being exposed.
The U.S. still has a great deal of power, in the hands of someone who has a clue how to wield it.
But given that Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize basically for not being Dubya, and given that Obama’s successor makes Dubya look like a fucking genius by comparison, it’s going to be a while before other nations - even our allies - know what to expect from us again. And that’s what’s going to limit our power in the upcoming years.
Almost as pathetic as the MAGA Suicide Squad tearing up their absentee ballots this week.
It can’t be just one person though; you need a commitment to stand behind a coherent policy. Even if a president Biden were to come in and have some sort of game plan that involved getting NK to agree to suspending its weapons program in exchange for concessions, it won’t mean much if the Congress can’t agree to support the administration. Consider the example of Bill Clinton’s 1994 agreement with NK, which was undone by the Republican congress in 1995. They didn’t come up with anything better and arguably made the situation even worse. Obama’s foreign policy was largely left to clean up Republican messes.
American credibility is shot. It’ll be a long time before anyone can truly trust the US again because no matter what we pledge, our partners will always wonder what will happen in the next election. Meanwhile, the world turns, and power never stays in one place. It’s fluid. In relative terms, China’s global power is increasing, and our power is on the wane.
Cite for that? I mean, Congress can refuse to ratify a treaty. But they can’t undo an executive agreement. They can undermine it to the extent that funding is needed to uphold our end of such an agreement, but that’s pretty much it.
Wikipedia%20and%20the%20United%20States.):
So once again, it comes back to what I said: the world can’t trust us to elect responsible Presidents, and now that they know Dubya wasn’t a one-off, it’s going to be a while before we once again have the power we used to be able to wield as the presumed ‘leader of the Free World’, if indeed we ever again regain that status.
Good video on orange man and North Korea
This is key. It used to be that the norms of American politics were such that an agreement negotiated by one president would be paid at least lip service by the next. Trump and the GOP have decided that norms are for suckers and will do what ever they want.
That is the long-term damage to American prestige and power.
But that’s pretty significant, don’t you think? If the agreement is to fund development of a nuclear power plant in North Korea, and the Republican congress says “Nope. We’re not approving funds for that,” then there’s effectively no agreement. That’s the problem that we’re in: partisanship in this country is so bad that Republicans effectively won’t support a presidential agreement - just because.
That’s definitely a problem, but consider the deeper problem: political dysfunction that extends beyond just the election of a president. Countries outside the US, particularly our industrialized democratic allies, look at our rampant inequality that’s exploding out of control and the impact on our political system and they see all kinds of warning sirens going off. President Obama left a supreme court seat and scores of judicial seats open. Why? Not because he wanted to but because the republican party, despite having unpopular ideas, have perfected the art of ruling as a minority. They represent a minority of voters in elections but they have a majority of the nation’s most powerful offices. This is something that a President Biden alone won’t be able to fix and they know that. If they hammer out a TPP, a new NAFTA, a new climate accord, they will do so without waiting for US “leadership” because they can longer expect it, and that’s because our system is increasingly malfunctioning in ways that are impossible to ignore.
There is a scene in “Independence Day” where the US sends a message to the world about the plan to defeat the aliens, and a British(?) soldier says “it’s about dame time”. It was jingoistic BS, but it still played because people did look to the US for leadership then.
No one will be looking to the US for that sort of leadership again (at least not in my lifetime (I’m only sort of old)) - trust takes a long time to rebuild.
People are delusional if we think we can remain a global power with the kinds of runaway economics that we have right now. Our central bank’s balance sheet is at once unthinkable levels, as are annual budget deficits and the national debt. It takes money to run a global influence machine and we’re damn delusional if we believe otherwise.
But more than money, it takes an appreciation of leadership’s value and what leadership means. In a democracy, that commitment has to be led by democratically-elected leaders, and there has to be awareness of the value of ‘leadership.’. Civic virtue must prevail at some point. Facts, and appreciation of facts and of science, must prevail. Not just among elected leaders, but also among people, who are themselves now increasingly open-minded to authoritarian thoughts and experiments, even if we don’t immediately recognize our behavior as such.
Not so. No one looked to the USA for leadership in 1916 but by late 1917 and the postwar period the USA was the leader of the free world. Rinse and repeat 1940 and 1941. As bad as Trump is he is nowhere as horrible as Adolf Hitler and it took Germany less than 10 years to be a European leader. Events will determine how quickly the USA recovers.
Right, a “leader” of the free world that twice waited two or three years and let Europeans do most of the dying before deciding it was in its interest to join the party. I guess some call it ‘leading from behind’ or ‘leading’ by default.
Wow, that’s something to aspire to: leadership through fascist dictatorship and militarist Keynesianism. :rolleyes:
Guess it’s time to dust off that Saving Private Ryan DVD.
What it means is that the USA is uniquely positioned in the world to lead. We have safe borders, vast economic potential and a stable government.
Protip: Germany hasnt been fascist since 1945 nor is it a militarist Keynesian state…whatever that is.
You’ve seen my cite to the contrary. Where’s your cite supporting your claim and contradicting mine?
You can yammer all you want, but it doesn’t mean anything.
Two out of three still ain’t bad.
Here:
Here’s an overview of the terms of that agreement:
Here’s where the breakdown started:
President Clinton wanted the agreement to work, wanted to be recognized as a foreign policy president like Reagan and Bush. Republicans didn’t want that to happen because of…partisanship. How is that different than today? It’s not.
So, point proven, contrary to what you claim, foreign policy requires more than having a reliable president; it requires a stable government, which is what you fail to understand. This is why, according to some, I am hyperbolic and chicken little-ish - because I see what’s happening not as just a momentary blip, but for whta it really and truly is: a profound, fundamental change in the balance of global power.
American power is on the wane. Barring the collapse of the CCP (possible but not likely at the moment) and barring a dramatic “come to Jesus” moment in this country in which we collectively have an awakening about the profound, devastating impact that wealth inequality is having on our economics and our political system, this is an irreversible trend - at least in the near term.