5 ms·

No, I’m living in a world dominated by American hegemony. International institutions like the UN are valuable but when the other Western countries tried to set

No, I’m living in a world dominated by American hegemony. International institutions like the UN are valuable but when the other Western countries tried to set up a rules-based international order after WWI it only lasted 20 years.

kazen44 7y ago
the reason the league of nations failed (in many, but not all regards) has more to do with the economic and geopolitical situation at the time then it being a non american institution. the strife of the great depression and it's results on politics was probably it's biggest factor.
- DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
  literally any institution today is either dominated by, or boycotted by ... yanks! examples of domination are NATO, WTO, WHO, UN, ... while those that get boycotted are things like ICC, or climate summits (Paris etc). There is no middle-ground for them. It's either "their way or the highway" as they like to say. The reason these organizations aren't successful is because of the power imbalance in them. They aren't a neutral territory or in any way an inclusive and neutral platform. It is a lie. To get an idea of how yanks really feel about the rest of the world just look at Trump. He very openly treats foreign leaders literally shoving them out of the way. If you think Trump is alone in his arrogance - he is not. Just look at the wikileaks cables or look at the files that got leaked into archive.org by a misconfigured .htaccess from State Department. These US politicians don't think we are peers. That much is clear of how they speak in their internal comms at embassies and consulates. Most of them don't even know how to read a feckin map.
incompatible 7y ago
It's world full of multilateral agreements: World Trade Organization, United Nations, Bern copyrights, Paris Agreement on climate, Geneva Conventions, nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Antarctic treaty, etc.
- philwelch 7y ago
  So how are those multilateral agreements doing, anyway? The Geneva Conventions are an admirable code of conduct, but they don't in any meaningful way define international relations, since at least one belligerent in virtually every armed conflict since and including the Second World War has flagrantly flouted them. Countries that are decent enough to follow the Geneva Conventions don't get into wars with each other anyway. The Berne Convention similarly doesn't deter developing countries that pirate IP and shrug it off. How did the UN work out in Rwanda? Why is it that the UN Human Rights Council typically contains most of the worst human rights abusers in the world? The UN can be a useful tool for addressing certain situations, but that typically only happens when someone--usually the US--makes a concerted effort of forcing the issue, as one of our most underrated presidents did in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Left on its own devices, it doesn't work. The rest of the stuff likewise relies upon the US to make it work. The Paris Agreement is fundamentally untenable now that the US has withdrawn; not only does the US produce a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, but they also provide the needed economic counterweight to push other non-compliant countries like China into compliance. And I don't think the Paris Agreement is the only instance of this.
  - incompatible 7y ago
    Not to mention the WTO taking serious damage with the US imposing trade sanctions whenever if feels like it. It's not impossible that the entire system would fall apart if the current US hostility turns out to be more than a four year aberration. I wouldn't be sad to see the Berne Convention go, at least, but I'm not sure what state the world will be in by that point.
- hurricanetc 7y ago
  The Paris Agreement proves OP’s point. The US left the agreement and now the agreement is worthless. Who is going to bully China into compliance? If the rest of the countries meet their climate targets does it doesn’t even matter. Pebble in a lake.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago

kazen44 7y ago

the reason the league of nations failed (in many, but not all regards) has more to do with the economic and geopolitical situation at the time then it being a non american institution. the strife of the great depression and it's results on politics was probably it's biggest factor.

DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
literally any institution today is either dominated by, or boycotted by ... yanks! examples of domination are NATO, WTO, WHO, UN, ... while those that get boycotted are things like ICC, or climate summits (Paris etc). There is no middle-ground for them. It's either "their way or the highway" as they like to say. The reason these organizations aren't successful is because of the power imbalance in them. They aren't a neutral territory or in any way an inclusive and neutral platform. It is a lie. To get an idea of how yanks really feel about the rest of the world just look at Trump. He very openly treats foreign leaders literally shoving them out of the way. If you think Trump is alone in his arrogance - he is not. Just look at the wikileaks cables or look at the files that got leaked into archive.org by a misconfigured .htaccess from State Department. These US politicians don't think we are peers. That much is clear of how they speak in their internal comms at embassies and consulates. Most of them don't even know how to read a feckin map.

incompatible 7y ago

It's world full of multilateral agreements: World Trade Organization, United Nations, Bern copyrights, Paris Agreement on climate, Geneva Conventions, nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Antarctic treaty, etc.

philwelch 7y ago
So how are those multilateral agreements doing, anyway? The Geneva Conventions are an admirable code of conduct, but they don't in any meaningful way define international relations, since at least one belligerent in virtually every armed conflict since and including the Second World War has flagrantly flouted them. Countries that are decent enough to follow the Geneva Conventions don't get into wars with each other anyway. The Berne Convention similarly doesn't deter developing countries that pirate IP and shrug it off. How did the UN work out in Rwanda? Why is it that the UN Human Rights Council typically contains most of the worst human rights abusers in the world? The UN can be a useful tool for addressing certain situations, but that typically only happens when someone--usually the US--makes a concerted effort of forcing the issue, as one of our most underrated presidents did in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Left on its own devices, it doesn't work. The rest of the stuff likewise relies upon the US to make it work. The Paris Agreement is fundamentally untenable now that the US has withdrawn; not only does the US produce a lot of greenhouse gas emissions, but they also provide the needed economic counterweight to push other non-compliant countries like China into compliance. And I don't think the Paris Agreement is the only instance of this.
- incompatible 7y ago
  Not to mention the WTO taking serious damage with the US imposing trade sanctions whenever if feels like it. It's not impossible that the entire system would fall apart if the current US hostility turns out to be more than a four year aberration. I wouldn't be sad to see the Berne Convention go, at least, but I'm not sure what state the world will be in by that point.
hurricanetc 7y ago
The Paris Agreement proves OP’s point. The US left the agreement and now the agreement is worthless. Who is going to bully China into compliance? If the rest of the countries meet their climate targets does it doesn’t even matter. Pebble in a lake.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago