At 12:43 PM 8/5/01 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote:
>>Finally, I would like to address one last point:
>> >Yet another example of the US refusing to sign a treaty because they
didn't
>> >get everything they demanded. :-(
>>
>>Yes Jeroen, exactly right. You see, this is the entire principle of
>>foreign policy. Unlike democratic governance, there is no "outvoting" in
>>most foreign policy. Instead, Treaties are made by the mutual agreement of
>>all parties involved. The United States agrees to Treaties that benefit
>>it, and France, and Germany, agree to Treaties benefit it. There is
>>absolutlely no basis for saying that because the US, France, and Germany
>>all agree to a Treaty that they get to outvote the Netherlands and impose
>>that Treaty on the Netherlands too.
>
>Read my posts better, John. I didn't say anything about imposing anything
>on anyone. My point is that the US seems to define "coming to a mutual
>agreement" as "all our demands have to met".
>
>You seem to forget how mutual agreement is reached: by *negotiations*.
>Nations come to the negotiation table, each with their own wishes and
>demands. Then, by accepting some wishes from others, and dropping some of
>their own demands (the principle of "take some, give some"), the various
>parties eventually come to an agreement. And that's where the US goes
>wrong: they expect other nations to accept American demands, but they
>refuse to drop some of their demands in return. IOW: they want to take, but
>don't want to give.
Jeroen, you are the one who is neglecting that negotiations are a two-way
street. You also seem to neglect the fact that negotiations involve
principles - principles that are very difficult if not impossible to
compromise.
Additionally, you have not cited a single example of the Americans refusing
to drop some of their demands. I have already cited several cases,
particularly Kyoto and the Landmines, where US offers of compromise were
met with steadfast refusal. In the case of Kyoto negotiations at the
Hague, the Europeans would not agree to any method of meeting emissions
targets besides outright cuts, despite US proposals to compromise on an
emissions-trading scheme and US desires to compromise on carbon sinks.
The Europeans rejected both proposals in their entirety. Likewise, on the
issue of banning landmines, the US proposed a compromise that would exempt
the Korean DMZ and "smart-mines", the Europeans insisted on a *total ban*,
and would not considered any compromises short of a *total ban*. On the
case of the ICC, the US proposed exemptions for UN peacekeepers, and
UN-authorized missionsm, et al. The Europeans, however, rejected the
compromise, and insisted on an ICC without exemptions.
Of course, I am sure from the European perspective, total insistence on
pure emissions cuts and insistence on a total landmines ban is seen as
"compromising."
I'd hate to see what the Europeans' hard-line stance looks like.
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
