But here is the brutal TRUTH: This is NOT the end of the world. And even if it was, there is nothing you can do about it. Only worry about what you can control, and the end of the world, whenever it comes, is out of your hands.
So kick back and enjoy the news, minus the Irwin Allen aspects...
Los Angeles Times:
President Trump used variations of the word “sovereign” 21 times during Tuesday’s 42-minute speech to the United Nations General Assembly, driving home his belief that countries, not international institutions like the U.N., will and should determine the fate of the world by pursuing their own best interests.
The speech offered the most fleshed-out definition yet of the Trump doctrine, a style of big-power nationalism that the president and his advisors have also labeled “principled realism” and “America first.” It brushed aside decades of American policy in favor of an approach that was dominant in the 1940s and 1950s.
“The nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition,” Trump declared. “Our success,” he said, “depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty, to promote security, prosperity and peace for themselves and for the world.”
The speech’s emphasis on nationalism was consistent with Trump’s campaign themes, but its assertive view of the U.S. role in the world broke sharply with some campaign rhetoric that suggested a more isolationist path.
...“We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions or even systems of government,” Trump said. “But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation.”
As the speech showed, Trump accepts that rival powers like China and Russia will pursue their own goals, which will often run afoul of American values or even global norms. He treats relationships with those countries as transactional, aimed at serving security or economic goals. He thanked both Moscow and Beijing for help with sanctions against North Korea and avoided any criticism of either by name, making only oblique references to instability in Ukraine and the South China Sea.
Yet even as Trump preached a live-and-let-live philosophy with America’s most powerful rivals, he made exceptions for weaker ones. He made clear that his respect for sovereignty does not cover the behavior of smaller countries that he considers to be “rogue regimes,” employing his most bellicose rhetoric to threaten them with destruction and belittle their leaders. He directly and at length denounced North Korea, Iran and Venezuela and offered shorter criticism of Cuba.
You can read the text of the entire speech here, or watch it above.
Overall, this speech is one of the most important foreign policy speeches from an American president in recent times. From a libertarian perspective, this speech makes perfect sense: With other superpowers of the world, America should take a live and let live perspective, working together with them when we can, and agreeing to disagree when we cannot agree. With smaller rogue regimes, all the powerful nations of the world should come together to keep them in check. Allowing rogue regimes like North Korea or Iran to threaten powerful nations with nuclear weapons is a threat to world security. This is good stuff.
But does this speech translate to action? That is questionable in the face of America elevating troop levels in Afghanistan, which doesn't threaten anyone with nuclear weapons. One can argue about terrorism, which is a much more ideological and personal threat. Trump's domestic policy to restrict immigration does more to prevent terrorism than any kind of military action elsewhere.
If Trump wants to work with China to march troops into North Korea, and even hand it over to the Chinese, that would be a positive action stemming from the doctrine present in this speech.
If Trump truly believes what he said, then he needs to redirect our country's actions to match his words. This could be a good prescription for world peace, and one which Russia and China can support.
But talk is cheap.
No comments:
Post a Comment