EA CO AS wrote:
Got it; so there is "anger" (your words, not mine) about the U.S. withdrawing from a voluntary agreement with arbitrary, changed-on-a-whim metrics.
Too much semantics and legalese. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
- 190 + countries think the situation is so serious, they overcome all kinds of disagreements to reach an agreement to TRY to do something about it on a voluntary basis. Each and everyone of these countries could have walked away, since doing nothing is always easier than doing something.
- Then the U.S. decides that its not a good enough agreement. This is generally acceptable, if done properly. Instead we get a public speech about how everyone else are co-conspirators who had set out to harm the U.S. Doesn't matter if they're friends or foe - they're all apparently hell-bent at laughing at the U.S. It's kind of an insulting thing to do, don't you think? It tends to get people angry.
Beyond the legalese and nationalistic jingoism, the optics are terrible. It's akin to telling a drowning person that he mislead you into thinking he was drowning to make your very nice clothes get wet, and that you wouldn't help him unless it involved zero effort on your part.
While the fate of Pacific Islanders, for example, is inconsequential to anyone with a nationalist bent (they're not American/British/Russian/Indian/Chinese/whatever, so who cares?), most people, including many leaders, tend to have a moral compass. As a result, they tend to respond to rhw flippant disregard on display here with anger.
It's entirely possible that everyone is doomed anyway, but point blank refusing to even try at the outset tends ro elicit anger. Accusing them of malice on top of that during the announcement is the cherry on the cake.
At the end of the day, this is an issue for humanity writ large, not lawyers.