Treaties

It's worth saying that the sort of internationalist approach advocated in, say, Heads in the Sand (buy the damn book already, you read so much blog and never pay a dime) isn't just about things like taking the U.N. Security Council mechanism more seriously. As Spencer Boyer points out for the Center for American Progress there's a whole raft of treaties that the vast majority of countries have signed on to but that Republicans are keeping us out of: "In particular, the Senate should ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty."

As he says, none of these things are perfect (what can you expect from a highly multinational negotiating process) but they're all in our interests on balance, and they're being opposed primarily because of ideological hostility to the whole idea of international treaties and efforts to create a world organized in a cooperative, positive-sum manner.

Photo by Flickr user Hober used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Agreed. But trade deals don't count? I'm sure Colombia has signed the whole raft of those treaties.

Posted by right | April 15, 2008 9:08 AM

(buy the damn book already, you read so much blog and never pay a dime)

Says the man who gets paid to write the aforementioned free blog. Bitch on, little guy.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | April 15, 2008 9:11 AM

I would think the pro-apocalypse wing of the Republican party would be behind these initiatives, what with one-world-government being necessary for the sescond coming.

Posted by Njorl | April 15, 2008 9:13 AM

(buy the damn book already, you read so much blog and never pay a dime)

Being a co-worker of Sully and McMegan(and getting paid for it) isn't enough for you?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 15, 2008 9:16 AM

(buy the damn book already, you read so much blog and never pay a dime)

What's that saying about milk and cows?

You should be distinguishing between the book and blog more: guarantee your readers that there are no discussions of the NBA, very few typos, etc.

As for me, I will buy the book and give it to my dad for his birthday, as he would like it but cannot read much on-line, as "it gives him a headache."

Posted by Philly | April 15, 2008 9:24 AM

"Photo by Flickr user Hober used under a Creative Commons license"

What photo? Anyone else having trouble lately seeing the photos?

On-topic: yeah, we should have treaties like these, but some people just like the idea that we shouldn't be tied to anything. Not even the Geneva conventions.

Posted by Jeremy | April 15, 2008 9:33 AM

Philly, I'm halfway through the book and have yet to encounter one homophone error. Those brave Wiley copy editors!

Matt, will there be a book tour? At least a foray through Acelaland?

Posted by Chris Conway | April 15, 2008 9:37 AM

Jeremy, I thought it might be AdBlock but actually there's no image there.

Posted by Chris Conway | April 15, 2008 9:50 AM

It's fascinating to see their reasons for opposing these treaties:

Law of the Sea - though we follow the general rules it establishes anyway, they think that the UN agencies it has created will somehow lead to more UN domination(what?) and somehow limit US naval activity.

CRC - I think Somalia's the only other country that hasn't signed this. It's as old as I am at this point. The objection is the Republican ideal of trying 12 year olds as adults.

CTBT - they claim computers can handle complex financial transactions, but they're not smart enough to simulate nuclear triggers.

CEDAW - again, the mistaken fear that sovereignty will somehow evaporate. somehow, equal rights for women are a bad thing.

And those are just the uncontroversial ones that don't get their day in the press; that's not even mentioning treaties like Kyoto or the ICC.

Posted by zhermit | April 15, 2008 9:52 AM

"(buy the damn book already, you read so much blog and never pay a dime)"

You sound bitter, Matt. Book sales low?

Posted by Kalkin | April 15, 2008 10:13 AM

No, they are opposed for a simpler reason: they don't work. Western nations tend to follow the rules laid down in such treaties; nations like China, Iran, and, in the past, the USSR - simply don't.

Between WWI and WWII there were a number of such starry eyed treaties - the naval limitations treaty comes to mind. The US obeyed that treaty; Japan ignored it. We payed for that stupidity later.

The mistake Matt makes - and much of the left makes - is that he mistakes the world community for a New England town meeting. In point of fact, there are many, many regimes with which "reasonable conversation" simply aren't possible, and wishing otherwise won't make it so.

Posted by James Robertson | April 15, 2008 10:21 AM

c'mon matt, there are complex args for and against treaties like the CTBT, ICC, etc. you can't simplify ALL opposition to those treaties to unilateralism even if some of it is.

Posted by jamie | April 15, 2008 10:23 AM

but they're all in our interests on balance

Well, that's not right. The CTBT certainly is NOT in our interest. (I couldn't rightly say about the others.)

OTOH, if we should be approving all the treaties that are in our interest, then surely Matthew will be strongly in favor of passing the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Oh, right, Matthew opposes that agreement, even though it's in our interest, primarily because of Matthew's ideological hostility to the whole idea of international trade treaties and efforts to create a world organized in a cooperative, positive-sum manner.

Posted by Al | April 15, 2008 10:41 AM

"CTBT - they claim computers can handle complex financial transactions, but they're not smart enough to simulate nuclear triggers."

Sheesh, while I suspect computers can successfully simulate nuclear triggers, even crude simulation of events inside a nuclear bomb requires computation at a level thousands to millions of times more intensive than any financial model. That's like saying, "They claim pocket calculators can ballance your checkbook, but can't forcast the weather."

Posted by Brett Bellmore | April 15, 2008 12:04 PM

Oh, right, Matthew opposes that agreement, even though it's in our interest, primarily because of Matthew's ideological hostility to the whole idea of international trade treaties and efforts to create a world organized in a cooperative, positive-sum manner.

Do I oppose that agreement? I don't think I do.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | April 15, 2008 12:24 PM

And those are just the uncontroversial ones that don't get their day in the press; that's not even mentioning treaties like Kyoto or the ICC.

Actually, I wonder why Matthew didn't mention Kyoto. After all, it is a high profile treaty - much higher profile than any of the ones Matthew did mention. And it's not like it is too late to sign - Australia just signed a few months ago.

Posted by Al | April 15, 2008 12:25 PM

Actually, I wonder why Matthew didn't mention Kyoto

Because I was quoting someone else and thought it would be weird to alter his sentence.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | April 15, 2008 12:31 PM

Do I oppose that agreement? I don't think I do.

Really? Huh, your posts on the topic give me the opposite impression.

Because I was quoting someone else and thought it would be weird to alter his sentence.

Ah, well then I wonder why Spencer Boyer didn't mention Kyoto. If international treaties represent "efforts to create a world organized in a cooperative, positive-sum manner", then Kyoto would be the most important such effort that is currently on the table, no? Much more important than the "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women", since we already have signficant equal protection for women but only very limited regulation of carbon emissions.

Posted by Al | April 15, 2008 1:04 PM

(buy the damn book already, you read so much blog and never pay a dime)

I pay everytime I read certain people's comments. It's emotionally painful and inexorabley erodes my belief in the value of humankind. That's a steep price to pay. Plus there is opportunity costs. Instead of reading your blog I could be doing productive work for me and my family. Who knows, if I didn't read your blog then maybe we could afford to get my daughter braces and she would be more attractive as an adult and get a better job and make more money with which to support me in my old age. So I definitely pay. Reading your blog is kind of like a personal global warming type scenario: I'm fucking up my future for low value immediate gratification.

Plus, how is my reading your book on international relations going improve international relations, a subject I supposedly care about since I'm reading your book? Wouldn't I be better off donating $25 to the appropriate non-profit international organization?

Posted by cw | April 15, 2008 1:30 PM

buy the damn book

Matt Yglesias: objectively anti-Library.

Posted by The Modesto Kid | April 15, 2008 2:23 PM

"buy the damn book already, you read so much blog and never pay a dime"

Hey, Matt, my DSL costs money - yours at The Atlantic, not so much.

Besides, how can I buy the book when all copies have been sent to Hwang Hung Lo's Bookstore on Kim Street in Pyongyang, North Korea?

They don't take Visa up there - or PayPal.

And CW is right - plus he ripped you a new one.

Here's the deal, Matt. Answer my two questions on Iran, or fuck your book! But if you DO answer them, your book is fucked anyway, right?

Mwhahahahahahahah!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 15, 2008 9:11 PM