At 11:07 AM 7/27/01 -0700 Jim Sharkey wrote:
>I was approaching the subject from an actions vs. words standpoint. When
>our President makes a speech like that, then makes it also clear that he has
>no real interest in the opinions of his allies, I'm wondering what message
>he's really trying to send.
I find it amazing that George Bush's political opponents can create this
little bit of "spin", that somehow President Bush is much more radically
"unilateral" than any of his predecessors, and so many people can just lap
it right up as gospel truth.
Really, though, let's consider the evidence:
Issue #1 - Kyoto
As has been demonstrated already in substantial detail on this List, Kyoto
has been dead for a very long time now. It is virtually inconceivable to
think that a Treaty that did not have a single vote in our Senate could
ever be agreed to by that Body without wholesale revisions. Nevertheless,
the Europeans insisted on proceeding with the technical negotiations
anyways, even though the very outlines of the proposal had already been
completely neglected. As it is, we decided to actively participate in
the technical negotiations during the Clinton Administration, anyways, and
the Europeans again insisted on not considering our proposals for trading
of emissions credits or for using carbon sinks to meet our targets.
So, after years of not being listened to, the United States decides to walk
away, and *we* get accused of unilateralism. (BTW - Australia walked away
from Kyoto today too - does this mean that Bush is engaging in
"bilateralism" now?)
Issue #2 - Biological Weapons
The United States walked away from a Treaty that would impose burdensome
requirements on the civilized nations that intend to abide by the Treaty,
and yet not place any meaningful restrictions on those nations that would
try to subvert the Treaty. Of course, nobody was complaining about
*unilaterlaism* when the United States unilaterally disarmed its biological
weapons. Still, just as it was on Kyoto, Europeans seem to think that
"multilateralism" means "agreeing with us." Sorry, but that just doesn't
cut it. Kyoto and the CBW were both deeply flawed, and Bush is actually
doing us all a favor by keeping them on the drawing board.
Issue #3 - ABM Treaty
If Bush were truly *unilateral* in his foreign policy, he could have given
Russia the legally-required 6 months notice on his first day in office.
Yet, to this date, we still have not given notice. Why? Because we
decided to take the time to consult with each and every one of our NATO
allies before proceeding, and continue to try to come up with a consensus
on the best way to proceed. Likewise, Bush has worked particularly hard
at getting Russia to acquiesce to our building of a missile defence. So,
instead of *unilaterally* withdrawing from the Treaty, Bush is actually
going to let Russia wring concessions from us, so that we can get Russia's
acquiescence.
Meanwhile, the most prominent politician in Washington who intends to have
the United States unilaterally break one of its Treaty obligations is not
Mr. Bush at all, but instead, is none other than Mr. Daschle. In fact,
Mr. Daschle is keeping the Senate in extended session at this very moment
to *ensure* that Mr. Bush does not have time to broker a compromise that
does not involve violating our North American Free Trade Agreement. (per
this morning's Washington Post.)
Its amazing, really - Mr. Bush gets all the press about unilaterlaism,
simply because he simply won't agree to Treaties that he has principled
objections to. Mr. Daschles, on the other hand, is taking extraordinary
steps to actually *break* a Treaty, and somehow we all listen to him
complain about *Bush's* unilateralism with a straight face.
Go figure.
Finally, let's talk about the things that Mr. Bush has done "in
consultation with the allies."
First, Mr. Bush has come out in favor of the expansion of the European
Union, and has offered American support for the cause. (Many Europeans,
by the way, were aghast that the United States would have anything to say
about this.)
Secondly, Mr. Bush has been a strong advocate for the exapansion of NATO to
take in the fledgling democracies of Eastern Europe.
Additionally, after consultation with his allies, Mr. Bush announced this
week that Americans will not be leaving Kosovo until the Europeans leave
Kosovo - despite his earlier professed desire to let the Europeans try and
solve an essentially European problem.
Moreover, Mr. Bush has consulted extensive with our allies on a number of
economic issues, including free trade, globalization, and the recent crises
in Turkey and Argentina. Mr. Bush has become a leading advocate for a
Free Trade Area of the Americas and the next round of WTO liberalizations.
Of course, these are all "conservative" issues in the eyes of his political
opponents - which only goes to prove that "unilateralism" simply means
disagreeing with liberals.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
