"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
> Issue #1 - Kyoto
> As has been demonstrated already in substantial detail on this List, Kyoto
> has been dead for a very long time now.
Better read the Mercury News article I posted the URL to a couple of days
ago. It's alive and kicking again and may start to get ratification votes.
The leadership role in the new compromise that _we_ should have assumed has
been taken by the Japanese. And the reduction goals are much more reasonable
now - something like 8% rather than 30%. Oh, and the U.S. representative was
booed off the stage.
>
> 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.
>
We rejected the Bio treaty because commercial interests don't want inspectors
snooping around their labs. If there were serious problems with the treaty
then the proper action by the leader of the free world would have been to
maneuver behind the scenes to try and come up with something we can all agree
on rather than to flat out reject something that many people have put their
heart into for over 10 years. Sorry, all I see is exceedingly poor
leadership.
> 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.
Doubt it. More like he would get his political head chopped off if he had
done such a thing. I believe that the only reason that the Arms treaty is at
issue now is that the administration feels that the political climate - with
the Russian economy being on the ropes and with his own political future in
doubt - is unlikely to get any better than it is now. It isn't because we are
truly ready to deploy a system now - we are probably a decade away from doing
anything other than testing. Bush just wants to break the treaty while the
time is ripe.
> 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.
1. Is it true that Mexican trucks "have a much higher inspection failure rate
than U.S. or Canadian
trucks." as the article suggests? If it's not true then I might agree with
you. If it is true then should we take the risk of letting these trucks on
the highways?
2. The Senate vote was 70-30. Doesn't that mean that 19 of 49, nearly 40% of
the Republicans voted for it? Sounds pretty bipartisan to me.
3. According to the article, some of the biggest opponents of relaxing
restrictions are the Mexican truckers that the Democrats are supposedly so
bigoted against. They fear the increased competition from the U.S. in a
reciprocal agreement. Which leads one to believe that the tears Trent Lott is
shedding for the poor down trodden Mexicans are of the crocodile variety.
>
> 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.
These may be great accomplishment for a man of Bush's marginal talent, but
they are by and large continuances of previous U.S. policy.
Doug
