Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (207804)	10/20/2004 4:24:26 PM
From: Alighieri	Respond to of 1574884

Series: 21 Reasons to Elect Kerry A decent respect Sept. 11, 2001, was a day of anguish and revelation. As Americans wept for lives lost, the nation's elected officials were jarred by seeing terrorism on U.S. soil. Policies to protect the nation needed to be reassessed. Democrats and Republicans alike understand that. But a vivid divide exists in how President Bush and Sen. John Kerry want to proceed. Kerry's approach of working more closely and respectfully with nations, much derided by the President, actually offers a greater chance of protecting Americans now and in the long term. Foiling terrorism requires broad intelligence gathering and sharing. It works best within an international system of rules and expectations. Lawlessness and confusion shield terrorists. One misimpression about Bush demands to be corrected, though: He is not the isolationist some portray him to be. He did bring some allies with him into Iraq. He has embraced some treaties. Bush does at times pursue international solutions. The problem is that the President's version of multilateralism portends more risk than returns. This stumbling from one ad hoc alliance to another can cause the United States to hold hands with some unsavory regimes. Bullying other nations' leaders into going against popular sentiment in their lands creates resentment and weak, unreliable commitment. It can turn allies into enemies. The impression of unilateralism is based on more than just Iraq. Bush has shunned or undercut numerous treaties since 2000, including the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change; the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention; the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; and the International Criminal Court. Some of those pacts have flaws. Bush isn't the first president to worry about them. But what makes this administration so different is that it seems sincerely to believe that America's sole superpower status entitles it to set rules for the rest of the world while exempting itself from those rules. This breeds resentment among allies, provides talking points to enemies, and erodes the global appeal of our democratic values. Americans would be safer if their president did more to position the United States as the world leader for strong, international measures to curb terrorism and address other problems that foment mass violence. Here's the logic of that course, as described by Bruce W. Jentleson, director of the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University. "Any strategy's reach must measure up to the scope of the problems it seeks to address... . The freedom of action given up by acting multilaterally tends to be outweighed by the capacity gained to achieve shared objectives." This president is not so much a unilateralist as a rejectionist. He says no without committing the United States to helping the world get to yes. Bush noted flaws in the Kyoto protocol on global warming but offered no alternative. He weakened a convention to limit the sale of small arms, which fuel fighting and humanitarian crises worldwide. He is right to talk tough with nations trying to build and acquire nuclear weapons. But as he calls upon Iran and North Korea to stop building nukes - a huge threat to world peace - the United States is itself developing new nuclear bombs. That seems more likely to ramp up an arms race that the United States should want to tamp down. In 1975, the United States agreed to a convention prohibiting the development, production and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons. After more than six years of negotiating, an amendment was drafted in 2001 to strengthen the treaty's prohibitions and inspection regime. Bush blocked it. Considering the huge hazards these weapons pose in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations, the President should have made a proposal that addressed his concerns while bolstering the treaty's deterrent effect. What the White House suggested was nearly identical to what was in place. The United States rightly insists that American soldiers taken prisoner on battlefields receive the humane treatment required under the Geneva Conventions. Yet the administration evaded the conventions in treating prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere - with shameful results that will put future American POWs more at risk. Concern over the long-term backlash to the Bush White House's arrogance in foreign policy led to formation of a bipartisan group called Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, which advocates change in the Oval Office. Said Princeton Lyman, a former undersecretary of state and a member of the group: "It's striking how little credibility [U.S.] motives have." Losing credibility means losing influence. So even when the United States wants to do the right thing - like ending the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan - it has a harder time getting the world to go along. The sad irony is that polls show most Americans actually favor bolstering international institutions and activities. They don't relish paying for their nation to function as world cop. The President eagerly presents a distorted cartoon of Kerry's views on these matters. Kerry wants a strong mix of military and nonmilitary approaches to fighting terrorism; favoring multilateral approaches is not the same as giving other nations a "veto" over what you do. Kerry would like to bolster international infrastructure for catching terrorists and stemming their access to funding and weapons. He'd like to bolster the United States' reputation abroad if for no other reason than it's not good to have nervous allies who are constantly eyeing the exits, worried about the consequences of standing by us. Terrorism is a global franchise business. The United States needs to lead in a full range of cooperative efforts to combat it. The effort will go better if the teams are "the world against the terrorists" - not "the United States against all."