2020 US Election (Part Two)

[amadeus]

I’m not really even sure the U.S. has had a foreign policy for almost the last thirty years. The sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, not as a communist state but as a recognized political entity, left a large void.

What’s been the biggest development since 1991? The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but Afghanistan is still unstable and Iraq was never a threat to U.S. hegemony in the first place.

Maybe the only other noteworthy development was slowly aligning India towards the U.S., but even that’s not thorough enough to call a policy. A better description would be a discovery of mutually-beneficial interests in light of India’s massive post-License Raj economic reforms.

 

[Hrothbern]

I’m not really even sure the U.S. has had a foreign policy for almost the last thirty years. The sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, not as a communist state but as a recognized political entity, left a large void.

What’s been the biggest development since 1991? The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but Afghanistan is still unstable and Iraq was never a threat to U.S. hegemony in the first place.

Maybe the only other noteworthy development was slowly aligning India towards the U.S., but even that’s not thorough enough to call a policy. A better description would be a discovery of mutually-beneficial interests in light of India’s massive post-License Raj economic reforms.

I think the western international establishment saw terrorism as the main next threat. This was paralelled by the surge of anti-migrant movements.

After the Soviet collapse Climate should have gotten high on the agenda, but not long after the Ozon Montreal summit, the Global Noordwijk Environment & Climate summit in 1989, having the same agenda as later Paris, was sabotaged by Bush.
The US Minister of Environment William Reilly was in line with the other countries to put an international agreement in place, but during the final phase, the watchdog of Bush, also attending, his Chief of Staff John H. Sununu, nuked with a veto.
Obviously Bush had hoped that all those countries would not succeed in finding a common ground. And when it happened, Bush was forced to come into the open and take position because of the oil companies funding his election.

 

[Ajidica]

Dumpster fire how?

Well, we have the usual list of Paris Climate Accord, JCPOA, pulling out from the WHO, and so on.
In Europe, Trump has gotten European nations seriously wondering about the future of NATO and the transatlantic alliance. France openly wondering if America can be relied on in NATO and calling for Europeans to take the lead in their own foreign policy? Fine, France is always trying to get Europe to foot the bill for their imperial adventures. Germany openly wondering if America can be relied upon? That's a whole different ballgame. America and the EU are increasingly on different tracks on key questions of international security, which when coupled with uncertainty about America from both the governmental and popular level, raises serious questions about how much effort Europe will put into maintaining the transatlantic alliance and whether its continued existence is dependent on who controls the Presidency.
In the Middle East, our policy has likewise been a mess. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem means nobody can even pretend America is a neutral party in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which increasingly cuts us out of any mutli-party talks. Constantly providing cover to Saudi Arabia, even as they chop up journalists, along with Trump's abysmal civil rights/civil society record, does no help to Arab democrats or non-Islamist parties. Our attempt to patch together an anti-Iranian alliance through some deeply unpopular ultra-conservative Gulf princes is not viable long term as it relies on propping up corrupt autocrats and literal slave-states. And then of course there was the time that uniformed US forces openly assassinated a serving, uniformed non-belligerent foreign general in a neutral third country.
In Asia, our foreign policy has been likewise rubbish. Trump's domestic policies have given the Chinese government plenty of "and you are lynching negroes" to throw at us. We condemn them on the Uighur concentration camps, they condemn our baby cages whose detainees the US argued in court we were not obliged to provide soap or toothpaste to. Chinese influence needs to be countered, but Trump's America First nonsense means it is increasingly hard to offer reasons for the other SEA countries to side with us when push comes to shove. Trump's hostility toward NATO means our security guarantees aren't worth much, while economic agreements are dodgy because of Trump's ridiculous "trade war" with China. Further, Trump's hostility toward anything to do with climate change left open a massive gap that China has stepped into. In a recent speech before the UN General Assembly, Xi made it very clear China is planning on going hard on green energy.

The Paris Agreement on climate change charts the course for the world to transition to green and low-carbon development. It outlines the minimum steps to be taken to protect the Earth, our shared homeland, and all countries must take decisive steps to honor this Agreement. China will scale up its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions by adopting more vigorous policies and measures. We aim to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. We call on all countries to pursue innovative, coordinated, green and open development for all, seize the historic opportunities presented by the new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, achieve a green recovery of the world economy in the post-COVID era and thus create a powerful force driving sustainable development.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-09-...-General-Debate-of-UNGA-U07X2dn8Ag/index.html
Thanks to the GOP back in Obama's first terms, where they forced a cut in subsidies to develop green energy tech, the US is increasingly a laggard in that field compared to Germany, and is now increasingly overtaken by China. When the Chinese government is able to provide tools to address an existential threat to human existence, how many countries do you think will curb their criticism of China and enter into preferential trade agreements with them?

We also have Africa, where the complete failure by the US to counter Chinese economic influence continues apace, but that isn't anything new.

Biden would have foreign policy goals largely similar to Obama: rebuilding the transatlantic alliance, multilateral agreements to make agreements more resilient, and a more sustainable policy in SEA.

 

[Lexicus]

“Criminal” according to...?

....criminal law?

 

[stinkubus]

I’m not really even sure the U.S. has had a foreign policy for almost the last thirty years. The sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, not as a communist state but as a recognized political entity, left a large void.

What’s been the biggest development since 1991? The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but Afghanistan is still unstable and Iraq was never a threat to U.S. hegemony in the first place.

Maybe the only other noteworthy development was slowly aligning India towards the U.S., but even that’s not thorough enough to call a policy. A better description would be a discovery of mutually-beneficial interests in light of India’s massive post-License Raj economic reforms.

The US has always had a very consistent and, frankly, incredibly well executed foreign policy. The objective is, was, and always will be to bring all the world's natural resources under US control and to compel all the nations of the world to open themselves up to the multinationals. The Soviets and now "Radical Islam" are nothing more than boogeymen used to justify US intervention against nations which are primary resource exporters or who do not offer up their populations as slave labor to the west.

A "rogue" state like Libya, Iraq, Venezuela, etc. (i.e. a state that uses its own resources for its own purposes) is absolutely a threat to US hegemony. They provide a model to the rest of the world.

 

[Lexicus]

Iraq wasn't a threat to US hegemony. It wasn't even a "good example" country where we had to destroy it before it could develop some good outcomes outside the US-led world system (the sanctions had essentially destroyed it already). It was a profit opportunity for people connected to the Bush administration, and a way to distract from the fact that even in the early 2000s Republican domestic policy had nothing to offer the large majority of the population.

Otherwise, your post is accurate. The US with 5% of the world's population consumes 25% of the world's resources. US foreign policy is designed to keep that going.

 

[amadeus]

If Libya, Iraq, and Venezuela are models for development—hooray for U.S. hegemony!

 

[Ajidica]

A "rogue" state like Libya, Iraq, Venezuela, etc. (i.e. a state that uses its own resources for its own purposes) is absolutely a threat to US hegemony. They provide a model to the rest of the world.

Did they provide a model to the rest of the world? Iraq pre-1990 Iraq was seen as, should push come to shove, a western ally against Iran. Indeed, I've read some compelling arguments that a major contributor to why Saddam acting as he did in 1990 and 2003 was that he believed the US would not want to see him out of power as he provided a bulwark against Iran. Libya spent most of the Cold War as a pariah state, getting caught up in humiliating wars (Libyan-Chad War, Libyan-Egyptian War, or their intervention in the Ugandan-Tanzanian War). Chavez in Venezuela was little more than the standard El Presidente with some social funding and good propaganda.

 

[Zkribbler]

DC's status is defined, so the solution is to carve off the state of DC from the constitutionally defined District, which would still include the main government buildings.

PR has had referenda and statehood "won," with the caveat that so few people voted due to a refusal to recognize the referendum that it wasn't really counted, IIRC.

From Wikipedia:

"On May 16, 2020, Puerto Rican Governor Wanda Vázquez announced that Puerto Rico will hold a nonbinding referendum on November 3, 2020 to decide whether Puerto Rico should become a state. For the first time in the island's history, the referendum will ask a single, simple question: Should Puerto Rico be immediately admitted as a U.S. state?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_state

Looking into my crystal ball, I predict the referendum will pass, that in the upcoming Nov. election, the Dems will hold their majority in the US House and will gain the majority in the US Senate , and that together, this new congress will grant pro-Democratic Puerto statehood, giving the Dems two additional Senators.

 

[Arwon]

You guys should just legislate to add congressional representatives for your territories tbh. Having citizens who can't vote isn't a great idea.

 

[Zkribbler]

You guys should just legislate to add congressional representatives for your territories tbh. Having citizens who can't vote isn't a great idea.

It's an abysmal idea, but this change would require a constitutional amendment.

 

[stinkubus]

Iraq wasn't a threat to US hegemony. It wasn't even a "good example" country where we had to destroy it before it could develop some good outcomes outside the US-led world system (the sanctions had essentially destroyed it already). It was a profit opportunity for people connected to the Bush administration, and a way to distract from the fact that even in the early 2000s Republican domestic policy had nothing to offer the large majority of the population.

Otherwise, your post is accurate. The US with 5% of the world's population consumes 25% of the world's resources. US foreign policy is designed to keep that going.

I suspect that the real catalyst driving the invasion of Iraq was their willingness to sell oil for Euros during that time period. Using a currency other than US dollars to trade for oil is absolutely a threat to US hegemony because the Petro-dollar is the primary mechanism by which our debt and import fueled economy "works".

In this sense they are a model in the same way that Cuba was. The threat isn't military or economic defeat at the hands of the Cubans or whoever. The threat is showing the world that you CAN exist and develop without the interference of the United States.

 

[stinkubus]

If Libya, Iraq, and Venezuela are models for development—hooray for U.S. hegemony!

It's a testament to how much of the global economy is dominated by US interests. If you actually live in Japan when your entire country ends up under water due to climate change will you still be saying "hooray" for US hegemony?

 

[Lexicus]

the Petro-dollar is the primary mechanism by which our debt and import fueled economy "works".

Ehh. Can you flesh out the "petro-dollar" model a bit more because I've never seen a satisfactory explanation of the idea.

In this sense they are a model in the same way that Cuba was. The threat isn't military or economic defeat at the hands of the Cubans or whoever. The threat is showing the world that you CAN exist and develop without the interference of the United States.

I understand the concept of the "good example", I just don't think Iraq fits that model at all. The US sanctions under the Clinton administration really destroyed Iraq, brought it back to largely premodern standards of living and greatly intensified Saddam Hussein's despotism by making nearly everyone dependent on goods distributed by the state.

 

[Socrates99]

What I do not get is how these are decided. I thought that the status of DC is in the constitution, and Puerto Rico have declined statehood in multiple referenda.

In 2017 97% of those that voted voted in favor of statehood for Puerto Rico. There probably was a time when the benefits of statehood might have been debatable but the Jones Act alone should be enough for any Puerto Rican with their head on straight to want statehood since that would get tossed in the dumpster of history as soon as they became a state.

I think the DC thing has been misrepresented. DC shouldn't become a state since it is supposed to be a federal district. What it does need is actual legislative representation in the House and Senate. Right now DC is subject to that problematic taxation without representation that sparked the whole American revolution. That needs to be rectified asap. Maybe when DC was created the government didn't forsee what a significant metropolis itd become but I can't imagine Thomas Paine being cool with millions of US citizens having no representation in the congress.

 

[Lexicus]

FYI, population of DC is under 700,000.

 

[Yeekim]

It's a testament to how much of the global economy is dominated by US interests. If you actually live in Japan when your entire country ends up under water due to climate change will you still be saying "hooray" for US hegemony?

It is known that fossil fuels "used by Venezuela for Venezuelan purposes" do not contribute to climate change.

 

[Lexicus]

It is known that fossil fuels "used by Venezuela for Venezuelan purposes" do not contribute to climate change.

For the record, Venezuela's emissions are about half a percent of the world total while US emissions are three times higher per capita and constitute nearly 15% of the world total.

So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

You might also consider that Venezuela exported more of its oil to the US than anywhere else until 2019.

 

[El_Machinae]

It is known that fossil fuels "used by Venezuela for Venezuelan purposes" do not contribute to climate change.

Venezuela definitely sold its oil too cheaply, and could have added a climate change tax onto its oil sales and then used the tax to mitigate climate change. But if the supplier isn't capturing the externalities, it's up to the customer to do so. In this case, the customer was much more wealthy. You can blame either party, since that's just a perspective thing

I'm speaking as somebody from Alberta, where we're making the same mistake

 

[Gori the Grey]

FYI, population of DC is under 700,000.

Still more than Vermont and Wyoming.