And why do you assume that only US has big guns? Last I checked Russia, UK, or a European coalition had more than enough firepower for blockades and quick strikes.
Yes, even France has guns enough to shoot civilians in the Cote d'Ivoire, a piece of militaristic unilateralism that I notice has evoked no comment whatsoever. However, if you mean by "big teeth" the ability to run an actual war, then only the US has world-wide capacity.
As for putting your faith in blockades and sanctions, I think you must be ignoring the history of all the times they've been tried. Ever heard the term "the tragedy of the commons"? It applies.
And finally, why do you assume that US participation will be opposed if terms of the agreement are equitable and agreeable to all?
Because the EU doesn't want to be fair to the US, they just want to bell the cat, and they think they can do it by passing a bunch of agreements designed mainly to hobble the US and declaring that they have the moral force of international law. Then they heap abuse on the US when we decline to go along. Like the ICC, a vague ruling that is adjudicated by unaccountable prosecutors and judges, an open invitation to abuse and corruption, which the US would have to amend its Constitution to even sign, were it foolish enough to do so. |
