Is the Bush Administration incompetent in international affairs?

[darcy]

This thread has begun its spiral of death.

That wouldn't happen if all posts were kept on-topic.

[Lord Merciless]

Declining and aging population, lazy people hanging on welfare like drug addicts, and ever increasing tax to support those lazy people would eventually break Europe's competitiveness.

[Q Classic]

On the contrary, Bush is pushing a multilateral approach, which is correct. Japan especially has interests there, which should be represented. This SK policy of triangulating between NK and their ally, the US, is a real dog.

you're right, he is pushing a multilateral approach.
and by pushing, you mean he's busy cajoling and threatening both russia and china into dealing with nkorea as "their" problem, all but ignoring the voice of the south koreans in their opposition to sanctions, and just paying lip service to their alliance with japan and skorea.
bush wants the korean situation solved multilaterally. and by multilaterally, he means with an american solution, spread out over many countries.

don't get me wrong-- most everyone in asia doesn't like kim jong il, and would rather have him dead and gone. everybody there is united in their opposition to nkorea's nuke program. they only differ on the solution, and while skorea's might not be the best, it's quite understandable.

when i said bush didn't follow multilateralism, i was referring more directly to his actions early on in his administration, when he broke off communications with nkorea without before even meeting the president of skorea and the prime minister of japan to let them know he was doing this.

[Spiffor]

I think the Bush admin is indeed incompetent in Foreign Affairs. Oerdin explains the Republicans tend to use force as they want without actively looking for support, to secure US' interests best (while Democrats think making friends will secure US' interests at lower cost)

Bush achieved neither :

- he had outstanding support after Sept. 11th, and the shock it created around the world, especially in the West. 16 months later, the international public opinion is outstandingly against him

- despite his suckiness at making friends, he went to the UN security council instead of attacking Iraq unilaterally. Worse, when facing disagreement, the Bush team overreacted instead of minimizing (and thus maybe ending) the crisis. French and German today's radicalism can be partly explained by the public pissing contest. Sure, Germans and French actively took part to the pissing contest, but America had more to lose with it, and thus should have first tried to stop it.

- Bush team officially wants Saddam to be removed, but the UN security council officially wants Saddam to disarm (2 very different things). He may lose the few international support to his cause if Saddam's token concessions are deemed satisfying. Worse, by going and failing to the UNSC, war could lose support among the American population.
Should the UN not back the war, Bush would have wasted much time at best, or would have to cancel the war at worst.

- Sure, the outcome of the Afghani war is more solid than many antibushies expected. But it is doubtful the whole Afghani war served US' interests, as the country is on the verge to more instability, with the weakness of Kharzai's central power.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who says Afghanistan didn't satisfy US interests? It got the Taliban out of there, spread Al Queda.

[Spiffor]

To what extent were the Talibans a problem to US interests ? They braught stability in Afganistan, and made Afghanistan a possible enemy of Iran. The only positive outcome for the US is the destruction of Al-Qaeda's training camps, but whether it will be better for the US in the long run is doubtful.

[DanS]

Worse, by going and failing to the UNSC, war could lose support among the American population.

Spiffor: No, that's not the mood here. The American people want Bush to make a sincere effort at the UN, but have low expectations. The failure wouldn't be seen as Bush's but rather the UNSC's. The UNSC is not very important for the American people. The potential swing is only 9% of the population and the likely swing is much lower. Worth spending some time on, but no great loss if unsuccessful. This compares to something like a 35% swing in France...

and by pushing, you mean he's busy cajoling and threatening both russia and china into dealing with nkorea as "their" problem, all but ignoring the voice of the south koreans in their opposition to sanctions, and just paying lip service to their alliance with japan and skorea

Q^3: It's everybody's problem in the region, not just the US's and NK's. SK's approach is not in the best interests of Japan, and Japan has to be at the table to make that clear to SK.

If NK goes nuclear, then so does Japan, and perhaps even SK and Taiwan. This is hugely not in the best interests of China, so China has an obligation to be at the table, lean on NK, and be a witness to NK's compliance if a deal is struck. Further, NK is China's unfunded liability--the US shouldn't pay so that China has a buffer against one of our allies. If they want it, they pay for it.

Bush is doing the right thing on NK, even though it might scare some in Washington and the region.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Worse, by going and failing to the UNSC, war could lose support among the American population.

Spiffor: No, that's not the mood here. The American people want Bush to make a sincere effort at the UN, but have low expectations. The failure wouldn't be seen as Bush's but rather the UNSC's. The UNSC is not very important for the American people. The potential swing is only 9% of the population and the likely swing is much lower. Worth spending some time on, but no great loss if unsuccessful. This compares to something like a 35% swing in France...

Thx for the correction DanS

[Q Classic]

SK's approach is not in the best interests of Japan, and Japan has to be at the table to make that clear to SK.

honestly, when have skorea's interests ever really been aligned with japan's? when has nkorea's interests ever really been close to japan's? for instance, it's in japan's best interest to not have skorea as an economic competitor at all. it's in japan's interest to never have a unified korea. this is probably the first time in history that japan and skorea have faced a similar threat, that of a nuclear nkorea.
conversely, what's actually in japan's best interest, that of a remilitarization, is not in skorea's interest at all. hell, most of asia never wants to see that.
as for having japan at the table, it's all well and good, but america's never been spectacular with bringing all parties involved to the table: the armistice signed to stop the hot korean war in 1953 was arranged without any input from south korea. yes, japan should be there, trying to sort things out. yes, so should china, the us, russia, and skorea. but thus far, bush hasn't been able to convince japan or skorea that he's right, and hasn't been able to bring russia or china to the table; with bush's current strategy, i don't see how he'll convince japan and skorea, anyhow. his "consultations" often seem like a "daddy knows best" type deal, which isn't exactly endearing to two nations who now want to be on equal footing with the world's only superpower in their own backyard.
sk's approach isn't going to benefit anyone, really. in the long run, it'll probably hamper korean unification even more. however, bush's insistence on playing hardball isn't going to help things that much, either. all it's doing is pushing that damned crackpot even deeper into his psychopathic shell, making him more belligerent and even more blustery.
i have to confess, i don't have an answer to this blighted mess. i don't think sanctions will help, merely acceeding to nkorean demands won't help, and bush's strategy of just ratcheting up hostile pressure on nkorea isn't working either.

i don't disagree that a nuclear nkorea is a very unappetizing occurence. those would be my relatives baked by a bomb, so i'd much rather not see anything happen there. at the same time, remember, most of the anti-americanism that has sprouted recently between skorea and the us is more because of a vast difference in opinion regarding nkorea, and the state of the alliance between skorea and the us. by and large, the us alliance treats skorea as a second-class nation on the peninsula--americans charged with crimes are tried in american courts, the 30k americans have direct control over a 600k skorean army, america exerts pressure on skorea to buy only their materiel... and at the same time, skoreans feel that their nation is now mature enough to stand as equals with the us in their home turf. they feel ignored by bush in regards to their own brethren in nkorea, and that's where much of the resentment lies.

if bush is to convince skorea, he has to show the people of skorea that he's not trying to pressure them into his side, but working with them. and if skorea agrees with bush, so too will japan.

bush isn't doing this all too well. that's all i'm saying.

[darcy]

The failure wouldn't be seen as Bush's but rather the UNSC's. The UNSC is not very important for the American people.

Which is of course nonsense, as the UNSC didn't fail. It's doing what it's supposed to do, maintaining world peace and stability, although its authority is being undermined by the lack of respect the USA has for its decisions. The usual arrogance is applied: Whoever doesn't agree with us is obviously irrelevant. The incredible stupidity was to display this attitude before the UNSC had even assembled, making sure to belittle and piss off every member before they even heard the case.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by darcy
That wouldn't happen if all posts were kept on-topic.

Actually it was doing a great job of crashing and burning without my help.

It might pop back though with a few of the right kind of posts.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Spiffor
To what extent were the Talibans a problem to US interests ? They braught stability in Afganistan, and made Afghanistan a possible enemy of Iran. The only positive outcome for the US is the destruction of Al-Qaeda's training camps, but whether it will be better for the US in the long run is doubtful.

The Americans considered the Taliban their problem because the Taliban was allowing OBL and his friends free room and board plus was refusing to turn him over. In retrospect, it might have been better to look the other way when the Taliban brutalized women and religious minorities and simply cut some sort of deal with them so they'd hand over OBL and his top followers to us. As I recall Bush did try to cut a deal with the Taliban but the Taliban didn't want ot negotiate with an "infidel" to turn over a "fellow believer".

That impass may have been over come if sufficient amounts of money were offered but I think Bush wanted to make an example of what happens to people who help terrorists.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That impass may have been over come if sufficient amounts of money were offered but I think Bush wanted to make an example of what happens to people who help terrorists.

Well, what happens to them? The Taliban are already on the counter-offensive, I hear. Soon you will be in the same situation as the Russians in the 80s.

[Dinner]

We'll see.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Oerdin
We'll see.

Yes, we will.