4 ms·

> We can't go to war ... There are many, many methods of leverage short of war. International relations happens all the time between every country on earth; on

> We can't go to war ... There are many, many methods of leverage short of war. International relations happens all the time between every country on earth; only a tiny number of those interactions involves violence. In fact, a primary job of the people who practice international relations is to get things done without risking wars - sort of like doctors whose job is to get things done without killing the patient. > some guy who wasn't even our citizen, killed in Turkey, by a foreign government Human rights are widely considered to be universal, both in philosophy and in law. The U.S.'s own Declaration of Independence says 'all men are created equal ...'; it doesn't say 'all Americans'. Also, it's widely believed that if you let human rights deteriorate elsewhere, you are creating more risk for yourself. If your next door neighbor doesn't have freedom, there are many reasons to think you might be next. Finally, free, democratic countries tend to be much better partners on the world stage - they tend to be peaceful, stable, and prosperous. Finally, Khashoggi was a journalist, which implicates a specific human right, freedom of the press.

chrisco255 8y ago
I'm with you in theory on human rights. I believe every human deserves them. But I also understand there's practical real world constraints to enforcing our values around the world. That's a cost we can't afford. Like it or not the cost of not doing business with any non-democratic countries...would eventually be war. And a war on more fronts than we could deal with. The U.S. should serve as an inspirational example as it did in the past but we can't be nation builders and all-out imperialists.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  I didn't say the things you disagree with, but I'll address your points: > not doing business with any non-democratic countries That would be a pretty extreme measure; I don't think anyone, or anyone respected, is calling for it. Another drawback to disengaging completely is that you lose future leverage; it's a punishment, in a way, but once it's done then you have no more relationship with the other party. 'I'm taking my ball and going home' is very amateur diplomacy. > The U.S. should serve as an inspirational example as it did in the past but we can't be nation builders and all-out imperialists. The choice of the U.S. isn't all or nothing - be purely "inspirational" or be "all-out imperialists". The U.S.'s soft power - the inspiration - was very potent until Trump, and to a smaller degree GW Bush, said democracy and human rights weren't a priority. It still could be revived to a significant degree. But there are other solutions, including the following: * Intervene in ways that are efficient and effective. The U.S. can't help every country, and many interventions are ineffective. But lots of research and experience show what works in which scenarios. * Support international law and norms that pressure regimes in the right direction. The UN in general plays a major role. The Responsibility to Protect, for example, was developed after Rwanda's massacres in the 1990s and, generally speaking, requires each government to protect the welfare of its citizens (rather than massacre them) and says the government is illegitimate otherwise. The International Criminal Court holds political leaders legally responsible for crimes (though I don't know that the U.S. officially supports it). * Support mechanisms that provide stability, such as the World Bank (which supports infrastructure and other needs) and the International Monetary Fund (which loans governments money to prevent bankruptcies).

chrisco255 8y ago

I'm with you in theory on human rights. I believe every human deserves them. But I also understand there's practical real world constraints to enforcing our values around the world. That's a cost we can't afford. Like it or not the cost of not doing business with any non-democratic countries...would eventually be war. And a war on more fronts than we could deal with. The U.S. should serve as an inspirational example as it did in the past but we can't be nation builders and all-out imperialists.

forapurpose 8y ago
I didn't say the things you disagree with, but I'll address your points: > not doing business with any non-democratic countries That would be a pretty extreme measure; I don't think anyone, or anyone respected, is calling for it. Another drawback to disengaging completely is that you lose future leverage; it's a punishment, in a way, but once it's done then you have no more relationship with the other party. 'I'm taking my ball and going home' is very amateur diplomacy. > The U.S. should serve as an inspirational example as it did in the past but we can't be nation builders and all-out imperialists. The choice of the U.S. isn't all or nothing - be purely "inspirational" or be "all-out imperialists". The U.S.'s soft power - the inspiration - was very potent until Trump, and to a smaller degree GW Bush, said democracy and human rights weren't a priority. It still could be revived to a significant degree. But there are other solutions, including the following: * Intervene in ways that are efficient and effective. The U.S. can't help every country, and many interventions are ineffective. But lots of research and experience show what works in which scenarios. * Support international law and norms that pressure regimes in the right direction. The UN in general plays a major role. The Responsibility to Protect, for example, was developed after Rwanda's massacres in the 1990s and, generally speaking, requires each government to protect the welfare of its citizens (rather than massacre them) and says the government is illegitimate otherwise. The International Criminal Court holds political leaders legally responsible for crimes (though I don't know that the U.S. officially supports it). * Support mechanisms that provide stability, such as the World Bank (which supports infrastructure and other needs) and the International Monetary Fund (which loans governments money to prevent bankruptcies).