Antony Blinken and the diplomacy deficit His remarks to students this week shows how much American exceptionalism and Great Power competition have taken over the craft.
If Secretary of State Antony Blinkenâs Wednesday address in Washington is any indication, any hopes that the thousands of freshly dug graves across Ukraine and Russia might be giving rise to introspection or regret that diplomatic overtures could have staved off the war, are bound to be dashed.
In a speech titled, âThe Power and Purpose of American Diplomacy in a New Era,â Blinken set forth a vision of U.S. foreign policy that is both exhaustingly familiar and deeply concerning because it indicates, at the very least, that our chief diplomat has very little understanding of what traditional diplomacy actually means. The sense one takes away from the speech is that Blinken believes it to be analogous to edict, fiat, and ukase.
Blinkenâs conception of diplomacy does accurately reflect one thing: the Biden administrationâs policy of waging a two-front cold war against the two principal authoritarian powers, China and Russia, as laid out in the 2022 National Security Strategy. Whether, by ratcheting up tensions with the two continental Eurasian powers, the policy has succeeded in making America and its allies in Europe and Asia safer, remains an open question. (...)
Time to spool up the spin machine about how China is being provoked and they need to invade to prevent the threat represented by mighty Taiwan. Gotta get the narrative ready!
There must be Nazis there, right? Maybe biological weapons labs? Or a missile or something?
taiwan really needs china to show them how to do things the right way...ccp colonialism to the rescue!
"Taiwan is slightly bigger than the US state of Maryland, or about half the size of Scotland, and has a population of 23 million, which is just over a quarter of Germany's population. And similar to Germany, Taiwan is known around the world for its industrial manufactured goods.
Its highly developed semiconductor industry is as important for Taiwan as the automotive industry is for the German economy. And a comparison with Germany shows how dependent Taiwan is on exports. Around 70% of Taiwan's economic output is attributable to its exports, in Germany it was 47% in 2021.
Time to spool up the spin machine about how China is being provoked and they need to invade to prevent the threat represented by mighty Taiwan. Gotta get the narrative ready!
There must be Nazis there, right? Maybe biological weapons labs? Or a missile or something?
Time to spool up the spin machine about how China is being provoked and they need to invade to prevent the threat represented by mighty Taiwan. Gotta get the narrative ready!
There must be Nazis there, right? Maybe biological weapons labs? Or a missile or something?
The indeterminate and undefined nature of the ârulesâ of the RBO and the failure to consider their relationship with international law has led to the questioning of the reason for the resort to the RBO on the part of the United States. The manner in which the United States has justified apparent violations of international law by its own forces or those of it close friends has inevitably resulted in a cynical, albeit plausible, explanation for the US preference for the RBO.
According to this view, the rules-based international order may be seen as the United Statesâ alternative to international law, an order that encapsulates international law as interpreted by the United States to accord with its national interests, âa chimera, meaning whatever the US and its followers want it to mean at any given timeâ.19 Premised on âthe United Statesâ own willingness to ignore, evade or rewrite the rules whenever they seem inconvenientâ,20 the RBO is seen to be broad, open to political manipulation and double standards. According to Professor Stefan Talmon, the RBO âseems to allow for special rules in special â sui generis â casesâ.21 (...)
There are several reasons that may explain why the United States prefers to invoke a ârules-based international orderâ and not international law.
First, the United States is not a party to a number of important multilateral treaties that constitute an essential feature of international law. It is not a party to the Law of the Sea Convention which means that it is compelled to reprimand China for threatening the ârules-based international orderâ in the South China Sea rather than international law.22 It is not party to a number of fundamental treaties governing international humanitarian law, including the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. Nor is it a party to the Rights of the Child Convention or the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Inevitably this makes it difficult for the United States to hold states accountable for violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law to the extent that these rules are not considered by the United States to be part of customary international law. (...)
