> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Verzonden: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 3:04 AM
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: US Foreign Policy Re: *DO* we share a civilization?
> 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.
Am I the only one to whom this sounds somewhat patronizing?
> 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.
Did the US sign the treaty, even though they didn't get what they wanted?
> Fortunately, I've followed international relations to know that when
> European diplomats talk of compromise, they mean "agree with us, or
> else."
Funny you should say that. This is exactly what the rest of the world thinks
of US diplomats when those diplomats talk of compromise: "agree with us, or
else".
> >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.
Yeah, don't you just HATE the democratic process when it means you don't get
what you want?
> >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.
Yeah, why start a second Cold War in ten years, when you can start one now?
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
