EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1146
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Trump is ignorant. You, on the other hand, are not. So when you reframe this moment of stupid into some sort of beneficial negotiating tactic, people rightfully suspect that you don’t really believe what you are typing. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18253 Posts
On February 26 2019 01:18 xDaunt wrote: There's nothing difficult to understand about this. Trump wants a binding treaty. He's not interested in continuing to play China's game of indefinite negotiations. What does binding treaty mean? Insofar as I understand the Iran deal was a binding treaty, yet Trump just up and canceled it as one of his first acts as a president. The UN or WTO are tools to try to pressure smaller nations (but even those can often just ignore stuff), but they can't do shit to "enforce" any kind of binding treaty at the level of international superpowers like China and the US. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22198 Posts
On February 26 2019 01:38 xDaunt wrote: Yes, that is how treaties work. Basically non-enforceable but working because countries trust each other not to break them.Are you guys really going to argue against the fundamental basis for any international treaty simply because you don't like Trump? Whether trade treaties are enforceable by an independent body is irrelevant. What matters is the deterrent effect of the threat of imposition of sanctions and other pre-treaty conditions. Likewise, bad actors who routinely break treaties will find themselves unable to deal on favorable terms with other countries. This is how it has worked for centuries. Which is the whole point people are saying Trump doesn't understand. 'Legally binding' is not a thing between countries. | ||
|
Slydie
1935 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9289 Posts
On February 26 2019 02:01 Acrofales wrote: What does binding treaty mean? Insofar as I understand the Iran deal was a binding treaty, yet Trump just up and canceled it as one of his first acts as a president. The UN or WTO are tools to try to pressure smaller nations (but even those can often just ignore stuff), but they can't do shit to "enforce" any kind of binding treaty at the level of international superpowers like China and the US. It means that it's binding in a way that both parties declare that they definitely intend to fulfill its specific stipulations (unless they decide to withdraw from the treaty). There are no obligations like that in MOUs. Starcraft tournament examples: + Show Spoiler + Non-binding agreement: Protoss1 says cheesing is bad. Protoss2 agrees. Protoss2 cannon rushes Protoss1. Everything is fine. Binding treaty: Protoss1 asks Protoss2 to play the game without cannon rushing. Protoss2 agrees. Protoss2 cannon rushes. That means he broke their "treaty". Nothing happens because the parties didn't create any mechanisms to enforce their agreement. Enforceable binding treaty: Protoss1 asks Protoss2 to play the game without cannon rushing. Protoss2 agrees. Ref says breaking the agreement will result in disqualification. Protoss2 cannon rushes and gets disqualified. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18253 Posts
On February 26 2019 02:35 Sent. wrote: It means that it's binding in a way that both parties declare that they definitely intend to fulfill its specific stipulations (unless they decide to withdraw from the treaty). There are no stipulations like that in MOUs. Starcraft tournament examples: + Show Spoiler + Non-binding agreement: Protoss1 says cheesing is bad. Protoss2 agrees. Protoss2 cannon rushes Protoss1. Everything is fine. Binding treaty: Protoss1 asks Protoss2 to play the game without cannon rushing. Protoss2 agrees. Protoss2 cannon rushes. That means he broke their "treaty". Nothing happens because the parties didn't create any mechanisms to enforce their agreement. Enforceable binding treaty: Protoss1 asks Protoss2 to play the game without cannon rushing. Protoss2 agrees. Ref says breaking the agreement will result in disqualification. Protoss2 cannon rushes and gets disqualified. Well... Obama fully declared they definitely intended to fulfill the specific stipulations in the Iran treaty. Yet the second Trump got into power, he dunked that in the garbage can and nothing happened. Now I haven't actually even looked at summaries of the MoU under discussion, I'm just wondering what Trump understands as a binding treaty, because he doesn't feel bound by any of the treaties signed by the US in the past... | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9289 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22198 Posts
On February 26 2019 02:55 Sent. wrote: Semantics. The agreement was binding, which is why Trump had to withdraw from it instead of just not doing anything. An option to end the contract doesn't make the contract non-binding. A binding contract you can leave at any time without penalty or a non-binding agreement you can just ignore have the same effect. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9289 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18253 Posts
On February 26 2019 03:29 xDaunt wrote: Sent is correct on all of these points. There's a huge difference between an MoU and an actual treaty. Likewise, withdrawals from, and renegotiations of, treaties aren't the same as breaking treaties. I'm not entirely sure why so many of you are criticizing Trump for not knowing what he is doing (which he clearly does) when you don't understand these basic tenets of foreign policy. It just all seems like a bunch of nonsense about semantics. If China and the US intend to fulfill what they wrote in the Memorandum of Understanding, and each expects the other party to do so too, then there will be a drop of trust if either party flakes out. They can then whine that "but it was just an MoU, not a real treaty", but seeing as it affects exactly 2 nations and one of them is pissed about the other one's behaviour, it doesn't matter whether it was an MoU or a treaty signed in the blood of sacrificial virgins: the aggrieved country expected the other to uphold the agreement, and upon not doing so is angry. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 26 2019 03:03 Sent. wrote: No. There's no breach of trust in unilaterally ending a non-binding agreement. That is generally true in business dealings, but this is politics. Not really convinced that is how this works on the international stage. Especially when the President is set on being center that stage. How this plays with each respective nation’s public is anyone’s guess. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 26 2019 03:34 Acrofales wrote: It just all seems like a bunch of nonsense about semantics. If China and the US intend to fulfill what they wrote in the Memorandum of Understanding, and each expects the other party to do so too, then there will be a drop of trust if either party flakes out. They can then whine that "but it was just an MoU, not a real treaty", but seeing as it affects exactly 2 nations and one of them is pissed about the other one's behaviour, it doesn't matter whether it was an MoU or a treaty signed in the blood of sacrificial virgins: the aggrieved country expected the other to uphold the agreement, and upon not doing so is angry. No, it's not just nonsense about semantics. MoUs have no effect. They are merely expressions of general intent. MoU's aren't designed to serve as actual agreements because they lack the detail that actual agreements have. Trump knows this, which is why he wants get past the MoU and get an actual agreement in place. | ||
| ||
