3 ms·

> There is a term "whataboutism" which is applicable here and which is used for negative description. I think it's less whataboutism and more like self-defense

> There is a term "whataboutism" which is applicable here and which is used for negative description. I think it's less whataboutism and more like self-defense. If someone punches you, it's not whataboutism to mention it when discussing why you punched them back. Only in this case, it's your industries that you're defending. It's a very blinkered perspective to view this only through the lens of adhering to WTO agreements, and elevate adherence to them to some kind of virtue, regardless of what other countries are doing.

thedudeabides5 6y ago
Just part of the broader trend. America failed to build cohesive and stable global institutions after the post-Soviet era. We spoiled this magical post 1992 golden hour, and now those institutions (WHO, WTO, among others) fail to hold rising powers like China accountable. Rather than rebuild and reinvigorate those institutions, we turn to nationalism, sectarian politics and isolationism. That American retrenchment then further weakens those international institutions, hastening their devolution into proxy organizations. Which the isolationists then use as evidence, to argue for a further reduction in our foreign commitments. Until the cycle finds a bottom.
avmich 6y ago
> It's a very blinkered perspective to view this only through the lens of adhering to WTO agreements, and elevate adherence to them to some kind of virtue, regardless of what other countries are doing. Keeping promises is not some kind of virtue?
- rbecker 6y ago
  It is, but it is myopic not to consider other factors. Especially when those promises were given on the condition the other party keep theirs. "At least we virtuously upheld our promises" is very cold comfort as your industries wither.
  - avmich 6y ago
    I agree, but would prefer to have a mechanism which would protect against misbehavior without going to tit-for-tat. WHO agreements should have been better - and if it's not feasible, it should be known.

thedudeabides5 6y ago

Just part of the broader trend. America failed to build cohesive and stable global institutions after the post-Soviet era. We spoiled this magical post 1992 golden hour, and now those institutions (WHO, WTO, among others) fail to hold rising powers like China accountable. Rather than rebuild and reinvigorate those institutions, we turn to nationalism, sectarian politics and isolationism. That American retrenchment then further weakens those international institutions, hastening their devolution into proxy organizations. Which the isolationists then use as evidence, to argue for a further reduction in our foreign commitments. Until the cycle finds a bottom.

avmich 6y ago

> It's a very blinkered perspective to view this only through the lens of adhering to WTO agreements, and elevate adherence to them to some kind of virtue, regardless of what other countries are doing. Keeping promises is not some kind of virtue?

rbecker 6y ago
It is, but it is myopic not to consider other factors. Especially when those promises were given on the condition the other party keep theirs. "At least we virtuously upheld our promises" is very cold comfort as your industries wither.
- avmich 6y ago
  I agree, but would prefer to have a mechanism which would protect against misbehavior without going to tit-for-tat. WHO agreements should have been better - and if it's not feasible, it should be known.