Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3
Let's assume that's true (I don't know if it is or not), but if it was the neoliberal consensus it would be odd since most of the enemies of the United States were made allies through commerce.
The only way I can logically agree with it being a neoliberal consensus is if sanctions are a grand plot to keep perpetual war going. But if that's true, then Trump is no better, because the JCPOA was a multi-lateral agreement that would have opened up a middle class in Iran with a vested interest in international peace. Trump squashed that.
|
When I said neoliberal consensus I'm just referring to status quo Democrats and how they have dealt with the situation. And how Biden says he wants to deal with it.
The point of our stance with regard to NK basically derives from cold war logic. We think that by isolating and sanctioning the regime, we can undermine their nuclear ambitions. This hasn't worked and cannot work so long as China props them up.
The only way NK would be weakened enough to even consider abandoning their nuclear program is if China got on board and was willing to weaken them to the point of being on the brink of collapse. China will never do this because as much as they don't like the DPRK regime, they don't like the idea of American presence or an American ally on their border even more.
So the question is what is wrong with opening up an actual line of diplomacy. The status quo Dems say it weakens our hand because Trump "legitimatized" Kim without getting any significant concessions. Guess what? The sanctions haven't gotten those concessions either. They just ramp up the antagonism.
I don't like Trump's foreign policy in general and I'm frustrated that he squashed the Iran deal. I'm similarly frustrated that whatever meager progress he's attained in NK in terms of normalizing our relationship there will similarly be tossed out the window once he's out of power.
The Dems seem to like diplomacy with Iran but not NK. The Trump fans seem to like it with NK but not Iran. I'm saying diplomacy is necessary with both. I think that's a consistent stance.