John wrote:
> Unfortunately, making the case for caring about foreign affairs is
> increasingly difficult as the world continues to make it plain that they
> could care less about us. I mean, what are we supposed to do, after
> spending many years finding a compromise for the US to pay up its arrears
> to the UN, and then our near-immediate reward is being voted of
> the UNHCHR?
Um... "a compromise". Can I just see if I get this straight...
US doesn't pay what it agrees to pay towards the UN, to the tune of several
hundred million dollars...
Eventually, US says "If we pay half that will you be happy?"
This is good?
Seperate issue. Say the US is involved in 90% of the funding of the UN
(assuming for the moment that the US has paid her bills...). Why should the
US be on more than 90% of the commitees?
Anyway, while the US refuses to even discuss abolition of the death penalty,
she has no place on a human rights commission.
> Now, we have Europe lecturing us for dumping a Treaty that *none* of them
> have ratified, and would force us to cut our carbon emissions by
> a whopping
> 30%, with hardly any alternative measures of relief, while sparing India
> and China any cuts whatsoever.
It's not the dumping the of the treaty that pissed everyone off. It was the
unilateral dumping of the treaty, without offering any form of other
suggestion, compromise, or even forewarning.
> Then of course, there is the amazing inability of other Western nations to
> understand the American desire to defend itself from attack. Maybe its
> different in Australia, considering the liklihood of a rogue state
> expending a nuclear missile on Australia rather than the US. That still
> doesn't explain why Europeans seem so baffled by our desire for a missile
> defense.
We're not baffled by that. We're baffled by the fact that the USA, knowing
that a defence shield solely over north america would seriously imbalance
the world balance, would set off down that road alone.
> Accomodation is a two-way street, and if the rest of the World can't
> understand American reluctance to cut carbon emissions by 30% or American
> desires to build a missile defense as soon as we can develop the
> technology - then that two-way converstaion will remain
> incredibly difficult.
Of course we understand why you want those things. But as you said,
accomodation is a two-way street, and the US acting unilaterally doesn't
seem terribly accomodating to me. Two-way conversation is incredibly
difficult when the President of the USA come to visit Europe and says "I
refuse to discuss X Y Z".
Charlie
