| JuryFury.com
A New Issue Every Monday ! Online School of Politics |
||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
US Diplomacy with Europe Powell pushes for French role in post-war Iraq by Sophia Barkat Here's Colin Powell's proposition: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20030325/ ap_on_remi_ea/war_powell_diplomacy_1 by Trevor Re: Sophia's post The above reference states: "Questioned about France's prewar offer to support the U.S.-led coalition if Iraq used chemical weapons, Powell said, "The fact is, if France wanted to help us, our troops are in just as much danger from high explosive rounds than they are from chemical rounds." "So I'm not sure what the particular distinction is," he said on France 3 television. " Surely, at this point all "logic" breaks down and we slip quietly into a bizarre surrealist world of madness. How can Powel justify the use of high explosives to disarm Saddam of weapons which are indistinguishable from the weapons being used to disarm him? How can one conclude from Powel's remarks anything other than it is the intention of America to take over the entire middle east -and that they consider it totally unfair if their opponents are capable of fighting back? Surely, the statement "one is for us or against us" is basically an authoritarian declaration of war against the rest of the world! EU officially declares economic war on US by Sophia Barkat Here's the link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030507/wl_nm/trade_wto_dc_4 It seems the EU thinks the Bush tax-break to US corporations is unfair. My question is why don't European governments follow suit and give their own corporations tax-breaks too? The fact is, most European Governments tax their citizens heavily - health-care and education are nationalized and don't come at a small price. This threat by the EU will fall on deaf ears in the US. But it will have an adverse effect on EU which depends on trade with the US. It would seem that the EU is looking to do more business outside of the US, what with the price/supply of oil going up in Europe. I had never seen the tax-break as a direct threat to the EU, but seeing how they have reacted, they must be feeling quite vulnerable. It reminds me of the time the US (Reagan) challenged the Soviet Union to a competitive defense spending spree that lead to the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union. It seems that this Administration might be doing the same thing only backwards. by Trevor Batten re: Sophia's post Sophia wrote: "It seems the EU thinks the Bush tax-break to US corporations is unfair. My question is why don't European governments follow suit and give their own corporations tax-breaks too?" It seems to me that you have lived too long in the US -and have submitted to its indoctrination process. Your own (Yahoo) news source clearly states: "The Commission will review the situation in the autumn," said European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy after the Geneva-based World Trade Organization (WTO) gave the EU the final green light to impose the sanctions." As far as I know -the WTO is widely seen as an a American dominated tool to spread American (commercial) values -just as other international organizations (including the UN) were presumably intended to do. The fact that the EU is reacting to the judgement of the WTO surely demonstrates the simple fact that the American government is breaking rules which the American government has previously done its best (diplomatically and economically) to impose upon the rest of the world. The (consistent) failure of the US to operate within the set of rules which it has itself imposed upon the rest of the world is surely highly significant. Under normal circumstances, when somebody breaks the rules -one usually calls in the most qualified "umpire" (sheriff, police, etc...) in order to have the rules respected. This is exactly what has happened concerning the illegal US tax breaks (as it also happened with the illegal US import tariffs on steel). If the EU reacted in the way in which you suggest -then the breaking of rules by the US would lead to the breaking of rules by the EU. This is not a very responsible way of behaving -although, unfortunately, it does seem to be the strategy currently pursued by the American government (causing so much conflict in the world). Since September 11, America has consistently rejected all forms of international law -behaving more and more like a spoilt child that cannot bear to be told of its faults. You are opposed to the UN and now you seem to be supporting the breakdown of the legality of the WTO. Your position is fine if one supports gangsterism -but not conducive to an ordered society. Considering the fact that the EU is responding to a legal process within the WTO (under WTO rules) -which one assumes is the international authority on global trade -one can only assume that your heading is a complete reversal of the truth -and that the EU is only responding to an American declaration of economic war! Sophia wrote: "The fact is, most European Governments tax their citizens heavily - health-care and education are nationalized and don't come at a small price." If this is against WTO rules -then I'm sure that America would have done its best to end such things. However, in Europe, we consider such basic social systems as a mark of minimal "civilization" -something which appears to be increasingly absent in the US. If America wishes to remove the basic expressions of European "civilization" (as it has in many other parts of the world -which have perhaps been even less able to resist) then it cannot be surprised when people resist American destruction of their way of life. This seems to me to be the basic tragedy of 9-11. Instead of reading the warning sighs -and changing directions in an intelligent way -America has reacted on the most childish (and dangerous) level possible. Instead of reacting in a way which will increase support for America -it has reacted in ways which are more likely to produce the opposite effect. Sophia wrote: "This threat by the EU will fall on deaf ears in the US. But it will have an adverse effect on EU which depends on trade with the US. It would seem that the EU is looking to do more business outside of the US, what with the price/supply of oil going up in Europe." Sure, as far as I can see the whole world would be wise to end any economic, military or political dependence it may have on the US. The US seems to be a system which is only capable of existing by parasiting on others. In such cases it is wise to be modest -otherwise the death of the victim also means the death of the parasite! However, America now seems determined to strangle its victims -and so to bring about its own demise. Sophia wrote: "I had never seen the tax-break as a direct threat to the EU, but seeing how they have reacted, they must be feeling quite vulnerable." Au contraire -the US must be vulnerable -otherwise it would not need to continually break international rules for its own unilateral benefit. For a moment, on September 11 2001, America joined the rest of the world. For the first time it experienced (admittedly on a grand scale -but it had a lot to catch up on) what the rest of the world has been experiencing for many years (quite often as a result of American foreign policy). The rest of the world expressed its sympathy -and perhaps even extended a welcoming hand to America now that it was joining the club. However, it quickly became clear that America had failed to survive the experience. It had become become too paranoid for its own good. Instead of cooperation -America chose aggressive conflict -and to make matters worse -it became even more aggressive whenever friends tried to warn it, or get it to move in more sensible directions. As other people found the American paranoia increasingly impossible to work with -America became even more paranoid which only forced it even more into even greater isolation (except for a few opportunist governments who were scared to move outside the US umbrella) -which in turn increased its paranoia. One may notice similarities with Israel. Sophia wrote: "It reminds me of the time the US (Reagan) challenged the Soviet Union to a competitive defense spending spree that lead to the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union." The collapse of which seems to be leading to the subsequent collapse of the US -as it fails to adapt to the new situation! Sophia wrote: "It seems that this Administration might be doing the same thing only backwards." You mean rebuilding the Soviet Union? Quite possible -it was indeed the way the US economically raped the ex-Soviet countries that has encouraged support for the old system by so many people in the east. It now seems that the US is preparing to make the same mistake in Iraq. Personally, I see only three possibilities: 1. The US collapses (as did the Soviet Union) as a result of its own foolish policies. 2. The US essentially collapses -but maintains power by imposing a military dictatorship on the rest of the world. However, this is likely to prove impossible to sustain in the long term (as did the Soviet Union). 3. The US accepts that it needs to change radically, in order to fit in to the new multi-lateral world order which has been developing outside its borders. In other words, it gives up its attempts at world domination -and becomes a normal country like the others in the world. This does not exclude political discussion (via the UN) to modify current international relationships -but would involve higher levels of international cooperation (on a fair and honest basis) than America has apparently been prepared to accept until now. Of the three alternatives, I would have thought that number 3 would be in the best interests of both America and the rest of the world. However, it would mean that America would need to wake up (and join the post-Galileo universe) by admitting that America is not the center of the universe (any more)...... by Sophia Barkat re: Trevor's post Trevor wrote: "As far as I know -the WTO is widely seen as an a American dominated tool to spread American (commercial) values -just as other international organizations (including the UN) were presumably intended to do. "The fact that the EU is reacting to the judgement of the WTO surely demonstrates the simple fact that the American government is breaking rules which the American government has previously done its best (diplomatically and economically) to impose upon the rest of the world. The (consistent) failure of the US to operate within the set of rules which it has itself imposed upon the rest of the world is surely highly significant." I am not a big fan of organizations such as the UN or WTO which have existed to further the economic and foreign policies of a small set of nations at the expense of others. I think the WTO is full of contradictions, and so I don't support them when it comes to the WTO interfering in the trade policies of nations. Organizations like the WTO say they are not for free trade at any cost: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/10mis_e/10m02_e.htm but that they are against unfair competition by imports - due to dumping or being given Govt. subsidies/tax-breaks - is to me a contradiction of ideas. I think governments should have the right to give tax-breaks to whomever they want. The WTO goes on to say, they don't set the rules between trading partners, though they look at trade policies of nations. Seems twisted, and it is. If the US is breaking it's own rules it just means it never considered the rules apply to itself -- and this supports my view that organizations like WTO and such exist to propagate the policies of the powerful. If Europe thought it belonged to the powerful camp, well, the US doesn't seem to think so. If it did, this sort of trade policy would not exist. Trevor wrote: "Under normal circumstances, when somebody breaks the rules -one usually calls in the most qualified "umpire" (sheriff, police, etc...) in order to have the rules respected. This is exactly what has happened concerning the illegal US tax breaks (as it also happened with the illegal US import tariffs on steel)." Right. Subsidies and Dumping are not favored by the WTO. And the big supporter of the WTO - the US - is doing it. The US thinks it's outside the law. What's new? Trevor wrote: "You are opposed to the UN and now you seem to be supporting the breakdown of the legality of the WTO. Your position is fine if one supports gangsterism -but not conducive to an ordered society." No. It's because I oppose gangsterism that I cannot support the UN. The UN and WTO are gangsters in that they may have rules that preach equality under the law, but they don't carry it out. Clearly the Bush Administration's tax-breaks to corporations seems to ignore the "dumping" issue and suggests that they either thought EU go along with it, or don't think they need the EU. The US economy consumers most of what it produces and Canada is the next biggest trade partner. I think the US is going to do more business in the developing world than with the EU - and so doesn't seem to be bothered about what the EU is doing or saying. Trevor wrote: "Considering the fact that the EU is responding to a legal process within the WTO (under WTO rules) -which one assumes is the international authority on global trade -one can only assume that your heading is a complete reversal of the truth -and that the EU is only responding to an American declaration of economic war!" Absolutely. The War on Iraq was the siren. And on US lawlessness - it's pretty old fact. Trevor wrote: "As an economics major -how do you justify your accusation that the EU is the guilty party?" No. The EU is not the guilty party. The EU is the naive party, no doubt, for thinking the US - which pays no dues to the UN, spies on European companies, and has military bases in Europe even though the Soviet Union is history - is a friend. Trevor wrote: "However, in Europe, we consider such basic social systems as a mark of minimal "civilization" -something which appears to be increasingly absent in the US." The US Govt. needs to do more for it's tax-payers too. But I still think tax-money is wasted on useless defense products. Sept 11th is proof of that. Trevor wrote: "If America wishes to remove the basic expressions of European "civilization" (as it has in many other parts of the world - which have perhaps been even less able to resist) then it cannot be surprised when people resist American destruction of their way of life." Does the US wish to remove the basic expressions of European "civilization"? What are these? As far as I can see, American heritage is Capitalism imported from Europe. The only new thing is Consumerism - which America has copyright on. It helps keep the rich (capitalists) rich and keeps the poor in debt. Consumerism is just capitalism at it's best - where people feel the need to make rich people richer. Advertising has much to do with this. And hence, I'd say, the only thing US is exporting is Consumerism. Does it overwrite European ideals? Nah. It just brings to light Europe's struggle with its own values. European capitalism has a homegrown enemy that shuns consumerism - and thus stifles capitalism. Europe wantss the government to provide more services. The national population are small enough that ideologies can become movements, unlike in the US. In the US however, reform and change are much more difficult. You can't even get people to start a third political party. In the US, consumerism is the binding force. "The right to drive that oil-guzzling SUV" is more important than the "right to vote" if you consider how few vote and how many drive cars. That's why after 911, Bush Jr. went on TV and said to the American people, "Go back to normal life. Keep shopping." And it's the only place I know where Memorial Day and Independence Day have their own "Sales", and Christmas starts with Thanksgiving. Before 911, I'd vouch that the US was a far better place to be an immigrant than Europe though - since there's so much racism in Europe. In the US, thanks to African American community, discrimination had been illegal since 1960s. Now of course, that argument is gone. Try getting hired if you're from a Muslim nation in either place and you'd not see much difference. Trevor wrote: "This seems to me to be the basic tragedy of 9-11. Instead of reading the warning sighs -and changing directions in an intelligent way -America has reacted on the most childish (and dangerous) level possible. Instead of reacting in a way which will increase support for America -it has reacted in ways which are more likely to produce the opposite effect." Perhaps, when the bully on the block already comes to play with a huge baseball bat on his shoulder you should think "maybe one day he will use it". James Baker, George Bush Sr.'s Secretary of State, came on ALI G. Show - a comedy on HBO where Sasha Barry Cohen or Ali G. interviews famous people and gets them to say the most revealing things unwittingly. Well when asked about what works in foreign policy James Baker replied, "the Carrot and the Stick." It's always been the way any political hegemon works. It would have been nice to see a betterment of relationships with the Middle East and the rest of the World. But, as US is the hegemon it is like asking to be equal and being reminded that we are not. Trevor wrote: "Au contraire -the US must be vulnerable -otherwise it would not need to continually break international rules for its own unilateral benefit." You're right. Both parties are concerned about the same thing. Trevor wrote: "For a moment, on September 11 2001, America joined the rest of the world. For the first time it experienced (admittedly on a grand scale -but it had a lot to catch up on) what the rest of the world has been experiencing for many years (quite often as a result of American foreign policy). The rest of the world expressed its sympathy -and perhaps even extended a welcoming hand to America now that it was joining the club. However, it quickly became clear that America had failed to survive the experience. It had become too paranoid for its own good. Instead of cooperation -America chose aggressive conflict -and to make matters worse -it became even more aggressive whenever friends tried to warn it, or get it to move in more sensible directions. As other people found the American paranoia increasingly impossible to work with -America became even more paranoid which only forced it even more into even greater isolation (except for a few opportunist governments who were scared to move outside the US umbrella) -which in turn increased its paranoia. One may notice similarities with Israel." Well, the American public is a consumer above a citizen and believes what they hear in their "corporate news". That they can be made to jump to any tune now is quite understood. This is a country where the word communist means anyone who speaks against US wrongs. I have heard so many people say Noam Chomsky is a "communist" just because he exposes US foreign policy errors and the US Government as a plutocracy. Clearly he is not a communist. In fact, in Karl Marx's terms "communism" is the highest form of society that can be reached after capitalism and socialism. It is a state in which people have equal rights and the government provides social goods. It cannot be reached by destroying capitalism. Technically, Soviet Union skipped the proper process. As such communism has nothing to do with what Chomsky or any political dissident might be saying. However, the general public is not educated enough in the US - nor any part of the world - to understand this. As for why the US acted the way it did - wars for easy wins and Oil - well, it's been said that the threat of 911 was sitting on Condaliza's desk the morning of the attack and just overlooked. I think the US government - which had ample warnings about this since Clinton Years - had to be taking this subject far too seriously for any such attack to get overlooked. I'm going to go as far as to say, they ignored it to do what they are doing now. Trevor wrote: "The collapse (of Soviet Union) of which seems to be leading to the subsequent collapse of the US -as it fails to adapt to the new situation!" Yes. it drove up government spending to where it is at now. An irresponsible and ridiculous deficit which takes away more of your tax-dollars from useful services. Trevor wrote: "You mean rebuilding the Soviet Union (when you say "backwards")? Quite possible -it was indeed the way the US economically raped the ex-Soviet countries that has encouraged support for the old system by so many people in the east. It now seems that the US is preparing to make the same mistake in Iraq." No. I meant, Reagan raised defense expenditure until the Soviet Union had to "fold". In this case, the US tax-breaks cut expenditure and force EU to keep up. Trevor wrote: "Personally, I see only three possibilities: (states possibilities) Of the three alternatives, I would have thought that number 3 would be in the best interests of both America and the rest of the world. However, it would mean that America would need to wake up (and join the post-Galileo universe) by admitting that America is not the center of the universe (any more)...... Well, what I see is this: The US citizens, years from now - will get tired of paying huge taxes on today's deficit spending and start voting. When consumers start becoming citizens again, politicians will start working for a living. Until then, expect all kinds of lawlessness. |
Encourage Political Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Archives Writers Needed Be a Columnist Be an Editor Become an Owner Writing Training Program Internship Program for Students Advertise with Us Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com Our Affiliations (pending member) MediaChannel.org IndyMedia.org We Support: Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign & The EFF.org |