It sounds like a good goal to strive for, and it certainly helps keep things understandable and defensible in general. But I don't believe it makes a good absolute rule, and I suspect the recent agreement with North Korea is an example.
No agreement with Kim is worth the effort to read unless the Chinese are willing to enforce it. Nobody else is in a position to do that, but the Chinese aren't going to publicly announce that they'll chastise their client. So the only way you can come within shouting distance of a useful agreement with Kim is for some of the provisions to be under the table.
Which means, of course, that neither all the provisions of the covenants are open, nor were they all openly arrived at. Hardly ideal, but the best we can realistically get.
I'm assuming that's what's going on here. If we don't have any sort of deal with China for enforcement, then I have to question whether the US negotiators were trying to defend the country or were pressured into posturing for local political benefit. (One reason I thought Kerry was a fool...)
No comments:
Post a Comment