6 ms·

> It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty The Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Accords were not treaties. We have a process to ratify treaties in

> It is wrong for the US to walk away from this treaty The Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Accords were not treaties. We have a process to ratify treaties in the US. The president approves a treaty and sends it to the senate to approve or reject. It's easy for president to make executive order agreements because it doesn't require approval from the senate (something Obama knew he couldn't get for either deal). But all parties should know that these non-treaties can be undone without a second thought by a new president. The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.

dis-sys 8y ago
> The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed in 1987, it is now dead. so by your definition, 30 years is now called permanent? To me, a far better definition of the term permanent can be concluded from the matter of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - US permanently refused to join that convention.
- apocalyptic0n3 8y ago
  How is the INF dead? Trump announced he is withdrawing the US from it but he has no authority to do so unilaterally and requires the approval of the Senate to actually withdraw. That approval has not happened and, as far as I am aware, the Senate has not even discussed the matter yet. It's just being used to strongarm Russia into complying with the treaty after they violated it at least once (that I am aware of, anyway)
gonvaled 8y ago
What I read from this is: "the US has a convoluted process, which nobody understands, in order to commit to international agreements". It seems everybody, including head of states, thought the US had agreed to the treaties, but they had not (?), because of a technicality. I assume these technicalities can be applied to anything, any time, in order to justify pulling out of international agreements. Worse, instead of owning to this change of mind, the rationale of technicality is used in order to justify pulling out. This is done in bad faith. > The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent. You say this now. This experience shows that, once you want to pull out, you will find a nice loophole to pull out. That is the "more or less" part. And there is another aspect: once excuses for pulling out have run out, we know that the US will simply break, whenever and for whatever reason it wants, existing, ratified, seal-proof treaties. The US is simply untrustworthy. And sneaky.
- cdash 8y ago
  Oh come on. That is just plain insulting to all the other parties of the agreement. They knew full well that they did not have a ratified treaty with the US and they were explicitly warned of that fact ahead of time. Just because people on the internet did not understand that doesn't mean the parties involved did not know that.
  - ddalex 8y ago
    This argument reeks of "not my fault you were conned, you should have known I'm a conman"
    - creaghpatr 8y ago
      Iran got their pallet of cash, they knew Obama was making the deal without the support of congress thereby giving the middle finger to US citizens. It would be diplomatic malpractice to not forecast the deal getting revoked, especially if they violated it (and they did)
      - gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
        How did they violate it?
  - notyourday 8y ago
    It is not insulting what so ever. Every single agreement that two parties enter is a temporary agreement that will be broken. The only question is when. The history is littered with the agreements/treaties between countries that were tossed. Every single diplomat knows it, which is why diplomacy is about horse trading. Parties want to "sort of" maintain the status quo, even if it means giving up some of what is "rightfully their" by the agreement.
- product50 8y ago
  Seriously? And China is more trustworthy? Look at what they are doing with 1MDB scandal in Malaysia and Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. US is no saint - but it is the best of the worst out there. Pulling out of a loophole in a treaty is something any country can do. Why is US especial in this?
eftychis 8y ago
No, by international law [1] (and U.S. law [2]) they are treaties [1]. U.S. is not the only country with the notion of ratification [3][5] (not a surprise). Generally, the U.S. distinguishes between "treaties", executive acts or acts of Congress agreements internally, but externally they are treaties. U.S. treaties are not permanent, and while the statement as ratified, it is law, the U.S. has broken a lot of treaties treaties. See Native American section [4]. I can agree that statements like "It is wrong for the US to walk away..." are strictly moral, with no legal ground, as it was not ratified. Yet this is a treaty that was signed. In the eyes of the world and U.S. law, this is a "broken" treaty. And it doesn't help if we go around breaking treaties. It is not illegal, but you are not building credibility right? It might be only fair if other States start breaking their treaties when convenient. (And some of them do.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_S... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Ratification_of_an_international_treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Ratification_of_a... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_o... Edit: This is a nice interesting read, in case you are interested: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international-agreements-and-us-law https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international...
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Not to go Godwin but a lot of massacres were also wrong on moral not legal grounds. When it comes down to that non-defense things get even uglier very quickly as it turns to "there is no law here against heading there and breaking your face". Even if they thought it was firmly in their domain. "Their word is law." is a primitive framework but it expresses that enforcement backs laws.
- azernik 8y ago
  From that link, it is not a treaty in US law. The article uses the blanket term "treaty-related law", but the Iran agreement falls under the "Executive agreement" category. This is in part a long-standing presidential workaround for the similarly-long-standing Congressional unwillingness to bind the US to treaties. But it does come with a bit of deception of foreign partners, because it does not bind the US in the same way that treaties bind other countries under their own domestic law. One of many ways in which the US system is a bit dysfunctional.
jacquesm 8y ago
Then the US should change their procedures: first get the treaty ratified then get their head-of-state to go and sign the treaty. Otherwise, in the eyes of the rest of the world the treaty has been signed and the US is bound by it, whatever their internal politics. Optics matter. The way it looks now because of this - and many other recent examples - that the US is not trustworthy.
- Kalium 8y ago
  A non-trivial number of countries have separate signing and ratification procedures. This is common enough that no reasonable observer in international politics automatically equates the two. Most of them have procedures that mirror those of the US! It's worth considering that changing this process from one widely understood to one widely not understood is likely to lead to more confusion about weird internal political processes rather than less.
kaveh_h 8y ago
In any case a US president could always make up a story why the other party has violated a treaty if there’s enough interests which are aligned. Remember Iraq WMDs?
miracle2k 8y ago
1. Iran had an election shortly after JCPOA. If that election would have led to a change in government, and under the new president, Iran had decided to abrogate from the agreement, would the argument then be "hey, fair enough, it was not a a treaty"? 2. The senate passing it makes no difference. The Republicans, controlling the House and the Senate, may well have been successfully in passing legislation withdrawing from the treaty. Except - that isn't even necessary. Trump can withdraw from any treaty he likes whenever it pleases him: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/09/if-the-iran-deal-had-been-a-senate-confirmed-treaty-would-trump-have-been-forced-to-stay-in-nope/?utm_term=.5e70b355d72b https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/0... All of these are simply internal American processes, and it is up to the Americans to consider wether they want their politicians to run a foreign policy that projects stability, where the decisions of previous presidents are maintained because, being legitimately elected it was their decision to make, and American's word should stand for something - or whether they want their country to be perceived as erratic - which is in fact the case now, whether or not it causes allies such as the EU to ultimately make real changes in the relationship.
- Trill-I-Am 8y ago
  Strong political polarization in the US guarantees that going forward there won’t be continuity between presidents because there’s likely to be rapid shifts back and forth across the political spectrum
  - _Tev 8y ago
    So,you agree with USA being unreliable partner now? (it might have been always that way, but it really looks different now)
  - gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
    This means that rest of the world can't trust the US on any issue... This decreases US power. Everyone knows that they just have to wait for the next president and everything will be reset.

dis-sys 8y ago

> The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed in 1987, it is now dead. so by your definition, 30 years is now called permanent? To me, a far better definition of the term permanent can be concluded from the matter of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - US permanently refused to join that convention.

apocalyptic0n3 8y ago
How is the INF dead? Trump announced he is withdrawing the US from it but he has no authority to do so unilaterally and requires the approval of the Senate to actually withdraw. That approval has not happened and, as far as I am aware, the Senate has not even discussed the matter yet. It's just being used to strongarm Russia into complying with the treaty after they violated it at least once (that I am aware of, anyway)

gonvaled 8y ago

What I read from this is: "the US has a convoluted process, which nobody understands, in order to commit to international agreements". It seems everybody, including head of states, thought the US had agreed to the treaties, but they had not (?), because of a technicality. I assume these technicalities can be applied to anything, any time, in order to justify pulling out of international agreements. Worse, instead of owning to this change of mind, the rationale of technicality is used in order to justify pulling out. This is done in bad faith. > The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent. You say this now. This experience shows that, once you want to pull out, you will find a nice loophole to pull out. That is the "more or less" part. And there is another aspect: once excuses for pulling out have run out, we know that the US will simply break, whenever and for whatever reason it wants, existing, ratified, seal-proof treaties. The US is simply untrustworthy. And sneaky.

cdash 8y ago
Oh come on. That is just plain insulting to all the other parties of the agreement. They knew full well that they did not have a ratified treaty with the US and they were explicitly warned of that fact ahead of time. Just because people on the internet did not understand that doesn't mean the parties involved did not know that.
- ddalex 8y ago
  This argument reeks of "not my fault you were conned, you should have known I'm a conman"
  - creaghpatr 8y ago
    Iran got their pallet of cash, they knew Obama was making the deal without the support of congress thereby giving the middle finger to US citizens. It would be diplomatic malpractice to not forecast the deal getting revoked, especially if they violated it (and they did)
    - gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
      How did they violate it?
- notyourday 8y ago
  It is not insulting what so ever. Every single agreement that two parties enter is a temporary agreement that will be broken. The only question is when. The history is littered with the agreements/treaties between countries that were tossed. Every single diplomat knows it, which is why diplomacy is about horse trading. Parties want to "sort of" maintain the status quo, even if it means giving up some of what is "rightfully their" by the agreement.
product50 8y ago
Seriously? And China is more trustworthy? Look at what they are doing with 1MDB scandal in Malaysia and Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. US is no saint - but it is the best of the worst out there. Pulling out of a loophole in a treaty is something any country can do. Why is US especial in this?

eftychis 8y ago

No, by international law [1] (and U.S. law [2]) they are treaties [1]. U.S. is not the only country with the notion of ratification [3][5] (not a surprise). Generally, the U.S. distinguishes between "treaties", executive acts or acts of Congress agreements internally, but externally they are treaties. U.S. treaties are not permanent, and while the statement as ratified, it is law, the U.S. has broken a lot of treaties treaties. See Native American section [4]. I can agree that statements like "It is wrong for the US to walk away..." are strictly moral, with no legal ground, as it was not ratified. Yet this is a treaty that was signed. In the eyes of the world and U.S. law, this is a "broken" treaty. And it doesn't help if we go around breaking treaties. It is not illegal, but you are not building credibility right? It might be only fair if other States start breaking their treaties when convenient. (And some of them do.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_S... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Ratification_of_an_international_treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Ratification_of_a... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_o... Edit: This is a nice interesting read, in case you are interested: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international-agreements-and-us-law https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international...

Nasrudith 8y ago
Not to go Godwin but a lot of massacres were also wrong on moral not legal grounds. When it comes down to that non-defense things get even uglier very quickly as it turns to "there is no law here against heading there and breaking your face". Even if they thought it was firmly in their domain. "Their word is law." is a primitive framework but it expresses that enforcement backs laws.
azernik 8y ago
From that link, it is not a treaty in US law. The article uses the blanket term "treaty-related law", but the Iran agreement falls under the "Executive agreement" category. This is in part a long-standing presidential workaround for the similarly-long-standing Congressional unwillingness to bind the US to treaties. But it does come with a bit of deception of foreign partners, because it does not bind the US in the same way that treaties bind other countries under their own domestic law. One of many ways in which the US system is a bit dysfunctional.

jacquesm 8y ago

Then the US should change their procedures: first get the treaty ratified then get their head-of-state to go and sign the treaty. Otherwise, in the eyes of the rest of the world the treaty has been signed and the US is bound by it, whatever their internal politics. Optics matter. The way it looks now because of this - and many other recent examples - that the US is not trustworthy.

Kalium 8y ago
A non-trivial number of countries have separate signing and ratification procedures. This is common enough that no reasonable observer in international politics automatically equates the two. Most of them have procedures that mirror those of the US! It's worth considering that changing this process from one widely understood to one widely not understood is likely to lead to more confusion about weird internal political processes rather than less.

kaveh_h 8y ago

In any case a US president could always make up a story why the other party has violated a treaty if there’s enough interests which are aligned. Remember Iraq WMDs?

miracle2k 8y ago

1. Iran had an election shortly after JCPOA. If that election would have led to a change in government, and under the new president, Iran had decided to abrogate from the agreement, would the argument then be "hey, fair enough, it was not a a treaty"? 2. The senate passing it makes no difference. The Republicans, controlling the House and the Senate, may well have been successfully in passing legislation withdrawing from the treaty. Except - that isn't even necessary. Trump can withdraw from any treaty he likes whenever it pleases him: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/09/if-the-iran-deal-had-been-a-senate-confirmed-treaty-would-trump-have-been-forced-to-stay-in-nope/?utm_term=.5e70b355d72b https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/0... All of these are simply internal American processes, and it is up to the Americans to consider wether they want their politicians to run a foreign policy that projects stability, where the decisions of previous presidents are maintained because, being legitimately elected it was their decision to make, and American's word should stand for something - or whether they want their country to be perceived as erratic - which is in fact the case now, whether or not it causes allies such as the EU to ultimately make real changes in the relationship.

Trill-I-Am 8y ago
Strong political polarization in the US guarantees that going forward there won’t be continuity between presidents because there’s likely to be rapid shifts back and forth across the political spectrum
- _Tev 8y ago
  So,you agree with USA being unreliable partner now? (it might have been always that way, but it really looks different now)
- gdfasfklshg4 8y ago
  This means that rest of the world can't trust the US on any issue... This decreases US power. Everyone knows that they just have to wait for the next president and everything will be reset.