At 10:27 PM 7/27/01 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
> Oh, and the U.S. representative was
>booed off the stage.
I love it. I should probably end my post here, because you've already made
my point for me.... but in case some people don't immediately grasp why
the US has so little interest in negotiations with other countries that
delight in rubbing our nose in the dirt, I'll lay out some of the specifics.
My personal favorite example of this behaviour occurred during the Landmine
Ban Conference - a Conference *we* initiated, I might add. The US wanted
an exemption for the Landmines currently in place on the Korean border, a
border we are currently defending under UN-authorization. As the US
proposed amendments were voted down, the Europeans were hootin' and
hollerin' at the good time they were having embarassing the US - because
now they'd get the pristine joy of signing the Treaty *AND* being able to
rub the US's nose in it while doing it. Pretty much the same thing was
true of the final session to finalize the ICC Treaty.
Fortunately, I've followed international relations to know that when
European diplomats talk of compromise, they mean "agree with us, or else."
Besides, for Europeans its a win-win. After all, nothing beats the
political hay one can make in Europe of:
1) Agreeing to a very good cause
2) Chastizing the US for being evil in not supporting said good cause *and*
3) Not having to take any responsibility for the commitments agreed to in #1.
>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.
Except we couldn't do that. We told the Europeans we couldn't accept the
proposal, but they forced a vote on it anyways (Surprise! Surprise!). It
was passed over our objections - effectively ending discussions. BTW -
the report in this week's Economist, also cited Russia, China, Japan, and
Germany for acting to significantly water-down the proposed inspection
regime. Fortuantely, the US had the guts to say that an ineffective
inspection regime that gives the world the a false sense of security that
meaningful inspections are occurring does far more harm than good.
>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.
Oh, I agree, the time is ripe. Building a missile-defense will be
infinitely more difficult once a country like DPRK or Iraq actually has the
capability to hit us.
I would point out, however, that the ABM Treaty also forbids testing and
research of a system. It must be either dropped or renegotiated if we are
even to seriously research how to build one.
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
