>China and Russia didn't engage economically to change the regime. They did it to make money.
The West engaged Russia and China to make the regimes liberalize. It was really common to hear that a Chinese middle class will bring in democracy. The West got nothing, and the regimes only became stronger and more oppressive.
>YES! When Obama engaged Cuba, the entire political calculus of the country changed almost overnight.
Your long quotes are actions before agreement or negotiation, and it was done as a result of economic hardship (as they themselves acknowledge). Alleviating these hardships did not lead to liberalization, but seemed to have removed the impetus to make more changes.
>Iran was very open to cooperation with the United States following 9/11, right up until they were included in the 'Axis of Evil.'
Right, people who scream worse on a weekly basis and are proudly calling themselves enemies of the US were really offended.
They were willing to tactically let the US off their enemy. But friendly relations require a firmer basis then temporary cynical cooperation - they require the regime to change a few of the policies that the US finds abhorrent, and for that there was zero willingness (They even kept their nuclear program running until the Iraq war spooked them to temporarily shut it off)
> Why does the wealthiest country on the planet need to be in a pissing contest with a small Caribbean island nation over something that happened under the Kennedy administration? Or a theocracy on the other side of the planet over something that happened under Jimmy Carter?
The US got over all that long ago. As early as the 80s the US sold weapons to Iran! It's that the US has a problem being friendly to totalitarian murderous regimes which also have an aggressive foreign policy and officially declare themselves anti-US.
The first makes engagement difficult to square with US values, and leads domestic voter blocks to really oppose engagement. The second makes engagement difficult to square with US interests. The third is just an extra insult.
Friendly relations require the regimes to change policy on at least one measly point. China remained oppressive, but its 'peaceable rise' was really peaceable for a short time, so the US kept friendly relations. Now that China isn't 'peaceable', Biden can't afford to go back to the way things were.
Had Cuba moderated their domestic policy, Hispanics wouldn't have been so susceptible to GOP ads this November. Now, Biden can't risk losing them, so you can forget about a new agreement with Cuba.
The West engaged Russia and China to make the regimes liberalize. It was really common to hear that a Chinese middle class will bring in democracy. The West got nothing, and the regimes only became stronger and more oppressive.
>YES! When Obama engaged Cuba, the entire political calculus of the country changed almost overnight.
Your long quotes are actions before agreement or negotiation, and it was done as a result of economic hardship (as they themselves acknowledge). Alleviating these hardships did not lead to liberalization, but seemed to have removed the impetus to make more changes.
>Iran was very open to cooperation with the United States following 9/11, right up until they were included in the 'Axis of Evil.'
Right, people who scream worse on a weekly basis and are proudly calling themselves enemies of the US were really offended.
They were willing to tactically let the US off their enemy. But friendly relations require a firmer basis then temporary cynical cooperation - they require the regime to change a few of the policies that the US finds abhorrent, and for that there was zero willingness (They even kept their nuclear program running until the Iraq war spooked them to temporarily shut it off)
> Why does the wealthiest country on the planet need to be in a pissing contest with a small Caribbean island nation over something that happened under the Kennedy administration? Or a theocracy on the other side of the planet over something that happened under Jimmy Carter?
The US got over all that long ago. As early as the 80s the US sold weapons to Iran! It's that the US has a problem being friendly to totalitarian murderous regimes which also have an aggressive foreign policy and officially declare themselves anti-US.
The first makes engagement difficult to square with US values, and leads domestic voter blocks to really oppose engagement. The second makes engagement difficult to square with US interests. The third is just an extra insult.
Friendly relations require the regimes to change policy on at least one measly point. China remained oppressive, but its 'peaceable rise' was really peaceable for a short time, so the US kept friendly relations. Now that China isn't 'peaceable', Biden can't afford to go back to the way things were.
Had Cuba moderated their domestic policy, Hispanics wouldn't have been so susceptible to GOP ads this November. Now, Biden can't risk losing them, so you can forget about a new agreement with Cuba.