What I read from this is: "the US has a convoluted process, which nobody understands, in order to commit to international agreements".
It seems everybody, including head of states, thought the US had agreed to the treaties, but they had not (?), because of a technicality. I assume these technicalities can be applied to anything, any time, in order to justify pulling out of international agreements.
Worse, instead of owning to this change of mind, the rationale of technicality is used in order to justify pulling out. This is done in bad faith.
> The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.
You say this now. This experience shows that, once you want to pull out, you will find a nice loophole to pull out. That is the "more or less" part.
And there is another aspect: once excuses for pulling out have run out, we know that the US will simply break, whenever and for whatever reason it wants, existing, ratified, seal-proof treaties.
The US is simply untrustworthy. And sneaky.
Worse, instead of owning to this change of mind, the rationale of technicality is used in order to justify pulling out. This is done in bad faith.
> The nice thing about the American system is that while treaties are difficult to pass, they are more or less permanent.
You say this now. This experience shows that, once you want to pull out, you will find a nice loophole to pull out. That is the "more or less" part.
And there is another aspect: once excuses for pulling out have run out, we know that the US will simply break, whenever and for whatever reason it wants, existing, ratified, seal-proof treaties.
The US is simply untrustworthy. And sneaky.