Anotehr posting i noticed too late… sorry for that.
I will keep myself short
@Soon_U_Die:
So your one and only point is that you feel more comfortable with multilateral approaches to things. Good for you.
I feel more comfortable with bilateral approaches on many things.
I guess we agree to disagree :)
I’ll give you an example of a substance initiative. I actually care about what’s happening in Africa in general, and the state of their economy in particular. I know that the best thing the ‘West’ can do is eliminate all agricultural subsidies, worldwide. This is the only path that will allow Africa to use it’s one natural advantage to its economic advantage. The US has proposed doing exactly that and has tabled a submission to the WTO (this has long been the US position). The EU though is the major impediment to this. EU subsidies of its agriculture sector has long depressed food stuff values, led to artificial subsidies elsewhere, including Canada and the US, and shut out Africa. These are well known facts. I could provide you a whole ton of links, but I shouldn’t need to.
One of teh facts is no fact effectively.
Yes, teh EU subsidizes their farmers. They do so openly.
No, the US do subsidize their farmers as well. They don’t do that in teh open but hidden under taxes etc. (i will look that up for references when i find the time).
AFAIR, the EU once said they would cut down their subsidies if the US stopped hiding theirs and cut it down as well.
And i blame both the EU and the US for wanting and proclaiming “free trade” but keeping their tariffs and subsidies for their own side. Hypocrites on both sides.
Why isn’t the world demanding the EU eliminate agricultural subsidies? Arguably, this is one of the most significant substance issues in the world and it COULD be solved. But no one cares.
I guess the world keeps quiet, because they know the US does the same without telling, and everyone else does so. But you are right, it would help a lot, if both sides played with open cards.
Yet, when anyone else proposes something, and the US doesn’t agree, it is big news. It’s those crazy Americans doing their own thing. The evils of unilateralism are raised. Ohhh…ahhhh…its scary.
We have reached a new stage of that. Now it’s not only the US not signing treaties, but now it’s the US using military force to push their interests. That is politics that was common in the Europe before WWI.
Yet, we seem to presume that they should sign these agreements and give up their sovereignty? Why is that? And is it realistic, when we know that all regimes act in their own self interest first.
Well, if you accept that, then the humanitarian reasons for going into Iraq sound like a lame excuse for whatever interests the US really has (just like anybody elses). And signing treaties is not “giving up sovereignity”, well at least not totally. And there are problems in the world which IMHO concern the world and are only solvable by the world and not each single nation.