George Bush is not content with the United States being the top dog. His snarling at one international accord after another besmirches the United States and makes the world a more dangerous place.
When Bush nixed at the ABM treaty, the comprehensive test ban treaty, the biological weapons protocol, and the small-arms convention, he sent an unmistakable signal that the United States doesn't care about arms control. This will only encourage other nations to bolster their own arsenals, and the arms race will accelerate on every track.
And when Bush led the United States out of the Kyoto accord on global warming, he turned Washington into a laughingstock, with 178 nations on one side and the United States on the other. By not requiring U.S. companies, which produce a huge chunk of the world's carbon dioxide, to curb their emissions, Bush showed a reckless disregard for the environmental health of the planet.
Like many know-nothings, Bush believes the United States is better than any other country. They're foreigners; what do they know? So what if 178 nations disagree with us? We've got the Holy Grail. We're so different from all these other nations that our interests can't possibly coincide with theirs. After returning from Europe on his first trip, he bragged to Peggy Noonan, his dad's speechwriter, that he stood down more than twenty leaders (no matter they were our allies) so he could stand up for America. Bush also has Kissinger's phobia: the morbid fear that other countries will drag U.S. soldiers or statesmen to The Hague or elsewhere for prosecution. Belgium is already trying to get its hands on Kissinger, and Bush wants to make sure that Americans elude any court outside our borders.
The one job Bush takes seriously is that of chief executive of the corporate class. Boeing, Lockheed, and Philip Morris want to be able ply their wares without interference from any international body, so Bush undercuts those bodies at every opportunity.
The World Health Organization, for instance, is trying to get countries to sign on to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which would, among other things, limit advertising, raise cigarette taxes, eliminate subsidies, and consider the possibility of expanding the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice so that tobacco companies could be tried for crimes against humanity. Tobacco killed four million p...
... middle of paper ...
...to boycott the Kyoto protocol could cost U.S. companies business in the area of environmental technology."
So even if Bush's ultimate objective is to boost the bottom line of U.S. corporations, he may be going about it the wrong way.
Note that I haven't even mentioned the appointment of extremists like John Ashcroft and Theodore Olson, who will be advising Bush about whom to appoint to the federal bench; or Gale Norton, the James Watt protégée now heading the Interior Department, who believes polluters should be trusted to be self-policing; or Andrew Card, the automobile industry's chief lobbyist, now Chief of Staff; or Michael Powell, the new head of the FCC, who has no interest in moderating media mergers. And I haven't said a word about so-called social issues.
We should not be surprised by the predatory nature of U.S. foreign policy. Until the U.S. government and until the American people get over their superiority complex, until they understand that United States and most other nations have common interests that transcend borders and jingos, that cooperation not domination is the way of the future, the foreign policy of the United States will have a familiar snarl.
The president has a significant amount of power; however, this power is not unlimited, as it is kept in check by both the judicial and legislative branches. The president is held responsible for passing legislation that will improve the lives of everyday Americans, even though he shares his legislative powers with Congress. The sharing of power acts as an impediment to the president’s ability to pass legislation quickly and in the form it was originally conceived. However, Americans do not take this into account when judging a president, as they fully expect him to fulfill all of the promises he makes during his campaign. By making promises to pass monumental legislation once elected without mentioning that Congress stands as an obstacle that must be hurdled first, the president creates unrealistic expectations of what he can fulfill during his time in office (Jenkins-Smith, Silva, and Waterman, 2005). A president is expected to have the characteristics that will allow him to efficiently and effectively lead the nation and to accomplish the goals he set during his campaign (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2005). There have been a handful of presidents that have been immortalized as the ideal person to lead the United States and if a president does not live up to these lofty expectations the American public will inevitably be disappointed. Since every president is expected to accomplish great things during his presidency, he is forced to created and project a favorable image through unrealistic promises. The combination of preconceived ideas of the perfect president and the various promises made by presidential candidates during their campaign create unrealistic expectations of the president by the American public.
According to Wright, this decline in the unipolar concert “marks the return of geopolitical competition and presents a significant challenge for U.S. strategy” (Wright, 8). Many believe that these country were not too concerned with global power until it saw the U.S. weak
...s these corporate leaders have. The corporate community had no part in the conflict of government policies or major policy changes but on their behalf decide to affiliate spendings in the economy in times of disruption.
...here has been a slow transformation process of the American foreign policy. It moved away from seeing the threat of the "Evil Empire" towards the approach to promote American democracy all over the world.
U.S. foreign policy, specifically our relationships with other countries, was significantly changed after September 11th. After the terrorist attacks on this day of 2001, most nations were ready to accept U.S. leadership against terrorism. This was an opportunity for President Bush and his administration to exploit this rare opportunity to stabilize the Middle East and Asia. It was also an opportunity to unite world leaders in a combined effort to curb the production of weapons of mass destruction. Instead, the Bush administration has hurt our relationships with foreign countries, including some of our allies, and sharpened the insecurities of other countries.
...ing America is leading the world economy and influencing countries in every corner of the world. However, he doesn’t look at the situation as realistically as he could. He doesn’t mention the many unemployed or the corruption that takes place among those in power.
The arrogance of power is an insightful read for those who wish to put today 's global events in perspective. Although it was originally written in 1966 and may be considered dated, Fulbright’s eloquently written arguments are timeless and are important sources to help us gain a greater comprehension of what makes what Fulbright would consider a wise and strategic foreign policy. This book would be of great assistance in developing an objective view of American foreign policies as seen from abroad.
The USA has changed its tools over time, but its end goal has always been the same ”Collect natural resources for our corporations and keep the rest of the world from doing the same.” When possible it is done through positive trade agreements but when other nations creep in the USA is quick to militarize. Our good neighbor policy was ended after the USSR moved in, and while actions are peaceful now a new threat looms- China.
It is the responsibility of the developed world to change. They have the resources and technology to significantly curb emissions and dampen the effects of climate change. As the world’s second largest emitter of Co2, and as the world’s largest economy, the US must become a leader in the battle against climate change. However, historical incidents of environmental degradation indicate that will power is simply not enough. Unless environmental problems are seen and felt, the US population has been slow and reluctant to act. Unfortunately this lack of will power is still present. As a citizen of the United States, I see no hope for change without the help and intervention of government. Without economic incentive, individuals and firms will not change. I believe that the US government must intervene and implement emission reduction policies, and work toward limiting emissions to the earth’s natural sink function.
What does the United States have to gain from a war with Iraq? Supporters of a war with Iraq say it will help prevent the risk of an attack by a weapons of mass destruction developed by Iraq. Critics of a military action that say nothing will be gained, and the U.S. just wants to obtain the oil that Iraq controls. They claim that casualties will be too costly for America to afford. Nonetheless, America should act while others will not for fear of disturbing global peace. Iraq poses a “clear and present danger” to the security of the United States and the security of countries around the world.
Richard E. Neustadt, the author of Presidential Power, addresses the politics of leadership and how the citizens of the United States rate the performance of the president's term. We measure his leadership by saying that he is either "weak or "strong" and Neustadt argues that we have the right to do so, because his office has become the focal point of politics and policy in our political system. Neustadt brings to light three main points: how we measure the president, his strategy of presidential influence, and how to study them both. Today we deal with the President himself and his influence on government action. The president now includes about 2000 men and women, the president is only one of them, but his performance can not be measured without focusing on himself.
Eagle Rules? Foreign Policy and American Primacy in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Robert J. Lieber. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002. 152-172.
200 years ago when the United States were weak, and practiced the strategies of indirection, now that the United States are powerful, they behave as powerful nations do and European countries see the world through the eyes of weaker powers.
Since 1997 after the first agreement in Kyoto, nations have taken very limited steps to reducing greenhouse gas emission. There are many reasons why greenhouse gasses have increased such as rainforest deforestation which is vital since trees absorb carbon dioxide. With fewer trees more carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere. Usage and burning of fossil fuel, releases greenhouse gases since it burns and emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or even population growth which contributes to the high supply and demand for food, livestock, land, energy and water. However it is up to leading nations to change their eco-footprints to eliminate the increasing greenhouse gas affect. Author William Nordhaus of Yale University conducted a study which examines alternative outcomes for emissions, clima...
The sale of cigarettes and tobacco is a multi-billion dollar industry, but is it truly worth all the problems that stem from their use? Health care costs are extremely high due to all the health problems associated with cigarettes and tobacco. Even though research has proven time and time again the harmful effects of cigarettes, and the rising cost of health care caused by cigarettes, our government will not take a stand and stop all manufacturing of the horrible toxins. Every year, new medical reports are issued regarding the harmful effects of smoking cigarettes. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world die every year from diseases caused by smoking.