Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Whenever the cry goes out over a crisis in another country to 'do something' because the state over there is being terrible, I'm always reminded of the Yes, Minister bit with the 'Six Diplomatic Options:' https://youtu.be/t3zNCg55kiw?t=183 … 1/6
The six options given are 1) ignore the situation 2) a statement, 3) a protest, 4) cut off aid, 5) expel ambassadors and 6) declare war. And Sir Humphrey explains why each step is ineffectual until he gets to the final one, but of course few things are worth a war. 2/6
The current situation the United States finds itself in every time foreign repression occurs is very similar. Sanctions were supposed to create a step 4.5, using US dominance of trade and finance as a tool, but the success rate is terrible. 3/6
Sanctions end up coming in two flavors: the kind that target the elite of a country and consequently do very little except disrupt their travel plans and the kind that impoverish the people of the country while applying functionally no pressure to its leaders. 4/6
The United States does have one more tool, a global version of the bully pulpit created by American dominance in a lot of global mass media, but this is indirect, slow to work and the very laws and customs in the US which created that tool make it hard to wield with intent. 5/6
Which leads back to the original problem: we are asked to restrain a violent drunk in a crowded bar and for tools we have five wet noodles and one hand grenade. The existence of a problem does not always imply the existence of a solution. Sorry to be a downer. end/6
Cutting to the chase, the cartoon heroics that the US projects on its own core populace conflict with the cynically mercenary reality that much of the rest of the world rightly perceives. We have gotten away far too long with being assholes outside our own borders. And inside.
I think that is actually a bit excessively reductive. The mistake is not in assuming US intervention is fundamentally moral or amoral, but in assuming it is fundamentally effective. When, in fact, the United States typically has very little leverage, good or bad, overseas.
“Yes, Minister” also has my fav, ‘the four stage strategy’
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
