> The problem with non-binding agreements is the same as unenforced laws -- those who are "good" people follow the rules, and those who are "bad" don't. In a competitive environment, those who have no qualms about breaking the law (agreement) are at an advantage.
I agree with this. See: How rogue countries such as US just walked out of non-binding Paris accord.
However, there is no big daddy to enforce any agreement. Anyone trying to be a big daddy and force other countries to submission will only lead to another world war
This has played out before, right after WW1 where America and UK tried to subjugate Prussia to shame. It only led to simmering tensions and WW2. That is exactly the reason why after WW2, Roosevelt decided to lead the world with multipolar institutions, where many powers have a stake in the well being of the world. With big daddy diplomacy, there will be winners and losers and the next WW will not forgiving on mankind.
Before accusing someone of simplicity and emotions, acknowledge that you may have gaps in your understanding of WHY we do non-binding agreements. Do your homework, learn some history.
> See: How rogue countries such as US just walked out of non-binding Paris accord.
Your anti-US hysteria is showing.
> However, there is no big daddy to enforce any agreement. Anyone trying to be a big daddy and force other countries to submission will only lead to another world war
Economic sanctions work just fine when you have an actual "rogue country" not playing nicely. A non-binding agreement and harsh words do nothing to a country that doesn't care what you say.
> This has played out before, right after WW1 where America and UK tried to subjugate Prussia to shame. It only led to simmering tensions and WW2. That is exactly the reason why after WW2, Roosevelt decided to lead the world with multipolar institutions, where many powers have a stake in the well being of the world. With big daddy diplomacy, there will be winners and losers and the next WW will not forgiving on mankind.
FDR was terrible for this country, so doing the opposite is fine in my book.
> Before accusing someone of simplicity and emotions, acknowledge that you may have gaps in your understanding of WHY we do non-binding agreements. Do your homework, learn some history.
You are extremely emotional about the US. It's obvious from your posts you are most likely a self-loathing American who's been fed propaganda about how supposedly evil your own country is. Sad!
I agree with this. See: How rogue countries such as US just walked out of non-binding Paris accord.
However, there is no big daddy to enforce any agreement. Anyone trying to be a big daddy and force other countries to submission will only lead to another world war
This has played out before, right after WW1 where America and UK tried to subjugate Prussia to shame. It only led to simmering tensions and WW2. That is exactly the reason why after WW2, Roosevelt decided to lead the world with multipolar institutions, where many powers have a stake in the well being of the world. With big daddy diplomacy, there will be winners and losers and the next WW will not forgiving on mankind.
Before accusing someone of simplicity and emotions, acknowledge that you may have gaps in your understanding of WHY we do non-binding agreements. Do your homework, learn some history.