SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (83476)3/18/2003 5:04:57 PM
From: Ilaine  Respond to of 281500
 
What's funny about the names of the countries?



To: JohnM who wrote (83476)3/18/2003 5:13:01 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
A last, best hope against war still exists

By William Ury*
Commentary > Opinion
The Christian Science Monitor
from the March 18, 2003 edition

csmonitor.com

<<...With war seemingly imminent, the last best chance for peace is a negotiated exit for Saddam Hussein and his inner circle. Indeed, this very moment - with the threat of a devastating US and British military attack - offers the best opportunity yet to persuade him to leave Iraq peacefully...>>

<<...If Hussein, his family, and his government were offered haven in Syria, Libya, or elsewhere ... if Saddam were offered immunity from war-crimes prosecution as Secretary Rumsfeld has publicly suggested ("a fair price to pay to avoid a war") ... if the Arab League and the UN were willing to take temporary control of Iraq, as proposed by Sheikh Zayed of the United Arab Emirates, then just possibly Hussein might say "Yes."...>>

<<...The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu counseled 500 years ago: "The acme of victory is not to win a hundred battles but to win without battle." That is the prize we need to seek...>>

*William Ury lives in Colorado and directs the Global Negotiation Project at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass. He is coauthor of 'Getting to YES' and author of 'Getting Past No: Negotiating With Difficult People.'



To: JohnM who wrote (83476)8/20/2004 8:54:10 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
WHEN SHOULD WE GET OUT OF IRAQ?

_____________________________

By Richard Reeves

08/19/2004

uexpress.com

SAG HARBOR, N.Y. -- Long August afternoons at the beach just give my wife more chance to ask me why I am not writing that we should get out of Iraq. Now! I was always against going to war there, but after we blundered in I tended to say things like:

"We are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."

Those words are not mine. That is the last sentence of an extraordinary letter written last week by a retiring Republican congressman, Doug Bereuter of Nebraska. In four pages, Bereuter, who has served in the House of Representatives for 26 years and is a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told constituents:

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things considered it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition. ... The immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible. Our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened."

He also told the folks back home that many other members of the House Intelligence Committee have reached the same conclusions. Presumably he means both Republicans and Democrats who voted to support President Bush if he decided to go to war. Still, Bereuter, who will become president of the Asia Foundation next month, says he believes that the Middle East and the world are safer places with Saddam Hussein in jail and Americans in Baghdad.

I don't agree that we are all safer because we invaded Iraq. And I can't argue anymore, certainly not at home, that honor or duty requires us to stay and clean up the mess. We may be making the mess worse, day by day, hour by hour. I find it hard to rebut family arguments that it made no good difference to stay in Vietnam when we almost certainly could have made the same exit deal in 1969 that we settled for in 1973. I am reminded that more than half the Americans who died in Vietnam were men and women killed after Richard Nixon took office at the beginning of 1969. As someone said back then: "How do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?"

We made a mistake going into Iraq. Even if we believed everything Bush and company told us before launching shock and awe, devastation and doubt, the administration was negligent and stupid to ignore the warnings everywhere about what it would take to make and keep a peace. "Left unresolved for now," in Bereuter's words, "is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action."

On the same day Bereuter's letter to constituents became public, Edward Luttwak, a scholar whose work includes an essay mocking peace-making called "Give War a Chance," wrote another one in The New York Times under the title, "Time to Quit Iraq (Sort Of)." This one was a complicated argument that public preparations for an American withdrawal might force Iraqis and their neighbors to face up to their problems and return to some sort of regional stability.

I doubt Luttwak is right about that, but I do think he makes a humbling argument that in the end it may not matter what we do; it may not matter whether we stay or go.

"The likely consequences of an American abandonment are so bleak that few Americans are even willing to contemplate it," he wrote. "This is a mistake: It is precisely because unpredictable mayhem is so predictable that the United States might be able to disengage from Iraq at little cost. ... The likely result would be the defection of the government's army, followed by a swift collapse and then civil war."

Finally, writes Luttwak: "The situation in Iraq is not improving, the United States will assuredly leave one day in any case, and it is usually wise to abandon failed ventures sooner rather than later."

And, sooner rather than later, I shall go to the beach and tell my wife she was right all along.

COPYRIGHT 2004 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE



To: JohnM who wrote (83476)8/20/2004 1:31:39 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Worlds apart on the vision thing
______________________________________

Canadians are in the midst of a transatlantic debate: the American Dream of individual fulfillment versus the European Dream of community

By JEREMY RIFKIN
The Globe And Mail
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
theglobeandmail.com

In a partisan America, where virtually every value has become fair game for criticism and controversy, there is one value that remains sacrosanct: the American Dream -- the idea that anyone, regardless of the circumstances to which they're born, can make of their lives as they choose, by dint of diligence, determination and hard work. The American Dream unites Americans across ethnic and class divides and gives shared purpose and direction to the American way of life.

The problem is, one-third of all Americans, according to a recent U.S. national survey, no longer believe in the American Dream. Some have lost faith because they worked hard all their lives only to find hardship and despair at the end of the line. Others question the very dream itself, arguing that its underlying tenets have become less relevant in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world. For the first time, the American Dream no longer serves as the rallying point for everyone in America.

A new European Dream, meanwhile, is beginning to capture the world's imagination. That dream has now been codified in the form of a draft European constitution, and Europeans are currently debating whether to ratify its contents and accept its underlying values as the core values of a new Europe. Europe's vision of the future may have greater resonance -- a kind of grand reversal, if you will, of what occurred 200 years ago when millions of Europeans looked to America in search of a new vision.

Twenty-five nations, representing 455 million people, have joined together to create a "United States" of Europe. Like the United States of America, this vast political entity has its own empowering myth. Although still in its adolescence, the European Dream is the first transnational vision, one far better suited to the next stage in the human journey. Europeans are beginning to adopt a new global consciousness that extends beyond, and below, the borders of their nation-states, deeply embedding them in an increasingly interconnected world.

Americans are used to thinking of their country as the most successful on Earth. That's no longer the case: The European Union has grown to become the third-largest governing institution in the world. Though its land mass is half the size of the continental United States, its $10.5-trillion (U.S.) gross domestic product now eclipses the U.S. GDP, making it the world's largest economy. The EU is already the world's leading exporter and largest internal trading market. Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European; only 50 are U.S. companies.

The comparisons are even more revealing when it comes to the quality of life. In the EU, for example, there are 322 physicians per 100,00 people; in the United States, it's 279 physicians per 100,000 people. The United States ranks 26th among the industrial nations in infant mortality, well below the EU average. The average lifespan in the 15 most developed E.U. countries is now 78.2 years, compared to 76.9 years in the United States.

When it comes to wealth distribution -- a crucial measure of a country's ability to deliver on the promise of prosperity -- the United States ranks 24th among the industrial nations. All 18 of the most developed European countries have less income inequality between rich and poor. There are now more poor people living in America than in the 16 European nations for which data are available.

America is also more dangerous: The U.S. homicide rate is four times higher than the EU's. Even more disturbing, the rates of childhood homicides, suicides and firearms-related deaths in the United States exceed those of the other 25 wealthiest nations. Although the United States has only 4 per cent of the world's population, it contains one-quarter of the world's entire prison population.

Europeans often say Americans "live to work," while they "work to live." The average paid vacation time in Europe is now six weeks a year. By contrast, Americans, on the average, receive only two weeks. When one considers what makes a people great and what constitutes a better way of life, Europe is beginning to surpass America.

Nowhere is the contrast between the European Dream and the American Dream sharper than when it comes to the definition of personal freedom.

For Americans, freedom has long been associated with autonomy; the more wealth one amasses, the more independent one is in the world. One is free by becoming self-reliant and an island onto oneself. With wealth comes exclusivity, and with exclusivity comes security.

For Europeans, freedom is not found in autonomy but in community. It's about belonging, not belongings.

The American Dream puts an emphasis on economic growth, personal wealth and independence. The new European Dream focuses more on sustainable development, quality of life and interdependence. The American Dream pays homage to the work ethic and religious heritage. The European Dream, more attuned to leisure, is secular to the core. The American Dream depends on assimilation. The European Dream, by contrast, is based on preserving one's cultural identity in a multicultural world.

Americans are more willing to use military force to protect what we perceive to be our vital self-interests. Europeans favour diplomacy, economic assistance to avert conflict, and peacekeeping operations to maintain order. The American Dream is deeply personal and little concerned with the rest of humanity. The European Dream is more systemic in nature and, therefore, more bound to the welfare of the planet.

That isn't to say that Europe is a utopia. Europeans have become increasingly hostile toward newly arrived immigrants and asylum-seekers. Anti-Semitism is on the rise again, as is discrimination against Muslims and religious minorities. While Europeans berate America for having a trigger-happy foreign policy, they are more than willing, on occasion, to let the U.S. armed forces safeguard European security interests. And even its supporters say the Brussels-based EU's governing machinery is a maze of bureaucratic red tape, aloof from the European citizens they supposedly serve.

The point, however, is not whether the Europeans are living up to their dream. We Americans have never fully lived up to our own dream. What's important is that a new generation of Europeans is creating a radical new vision for the future -- one better suited to meet the challenges of an increasingly globalizing world in the 21st century.

Canada finds itself caught between these two 21st-century superpowers. Sharing a common border with the most powerful economy in the world makes Canada more vulnerable to U.S. economic and political influence, and some observers even suggest that Canada might be forced eventually to become part of a greater American transnational space. The North American free-trade agreement may be the first step down that road.

On the other hand, Canadians' own deeply felt values are more closely attuned to the emerging European Dream. Could Canada lobby to become part of the European Union? In a world of instant communications, fast transportation and global economic integration, the prospect of Canada's enjoying at least a special associational partnership with the EU is not inconceivable. The EU and Canada laid the foundation for such a possibility in their 1996 joint political declaration on EU-Canada relations, designed to focus on economic, trade, security and other transnational issues. Canada could edge ever closer to its European soulmate in the decades to come.
______________________________________

Jeremy Rifkin, founder and president of the Washington-based Foundation on Economic Trends, is the author of 14 books, including his latest, The European Dream.