|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bookemdanno
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
|
 Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:38 am Post subject: McCAIN'S SHREWD MOVE: A REAL COALITION OF THE WILLING? |
 |
|
McCain and his learned consul just might have hit on something and, if he can pull it off with Anglo-French backing (especially given the more conservative leadership in Paris) before election day, he could still get my vote for President.
This just off the AP wire:
| Quote: |
McCain proposal for joint action gains support
By BARRY SCHWEID
Gaining ground this political season is a proposed League of Democracies designed to strengthen support for the next president's overseas agenda and ensure a global leadership role for the United States.
John McCain, the virtually certain Republican presidential nominee, has endorsed the concept of a new global compact of more than 100 democratic countries to advance shared views and has discussed the idea with French and British leaders.
"It could act where the U.N. fails to act," he said last month, and pressure tyrants "with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval."
McCain said the League might impose sanctions on Iran, relieve suffering in the Darfur region of Sudan and deal with environmental problems.
Barack Obama, who has a lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, has not taken a stand. But Anthony Lake, one of Obama's policy advisers, has spoken in favor of the idea.
Analysts at think tanks in Washington and elsewhere envision a league focused on maintaining peace and limiting U.S. military intervention, such as the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
But missing so far are specific, proposed steps to turn the idea into reality, such as where to have a headquarters, who would finance the league and how its membership would be decided.
"Cooperation is an absolute essential," Ivo Daalder, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution, said Thursday at a seminar.
An originator of the idea, Daalder said it would give democracies a better opportunity to reform the United Nations.
"If there had been a dialogue on Iraq there would have been more rigorous containment of Saddam Hussein," possibly averting war, said Tod Lindberg, a Hoover Institution research fellow, at the seminar held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
But not all foreign policy experts support the proposal.
Thomas Carothers, vice president for studies at Carnegie, said "the world has no appetite for a U.S.-led league and many countries do not want the U.S. going around the U.N."
In fact, Carothers said, the United States cooperates often with non-democracies in its foreign policy. China's help in trying to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program is just one example, he said.
President Bush's Iraq war policy was bitterly opposed by two leading democracies, France and Germany, among others. But Bush went ahead despite their strong objections.
"It is wishful thinking" that a league of democracies would any more readily approve U.S. military intervention in support of another U.S. president, Carothers said.
And while "some people like Senator McCain imagine it might become a replacement for the U.N., that is not the initial intention," Carothers said in a telephone interview after the seminar. |
The big question is: can he really pull this off or will this become just another quixotic effort that goes the way of the Wilson doctrine?
My hunch is that IF he can rally the Brits under Brown, who'll be more reluctant than Blair to get entangled in this informal alliance, he's got a real shot at it. But it will also depend on whether it's viewed in Europe as an election campaign gimmick or the real deal, and even more on whether he's regarded as a genuine moderate voice of reason on American foreign policy as he tends to be in the U.S.
Sino-Russian relations have been on the mend for some time, first economically motivated but more recently diplomatically cemented. It's quite clear that Putin and Hu have little intention of being willing players in the U.N. Security Council, so it could be a shrewd move on McCain's part.
What think ye? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
If I were an old-fashioned Republican, averse to foreign adventures, I might oppose this idea on the grounds that it sounds like yet another permanent entangling alliance, reducing our sovereignty.
Maybe I need to think more like the new and improved Republicans who don't seem to be able to name a country they don't want to invade.
I have not yet fully adjusted to the new interventionist Republican Party. In addition, doesn't this newly proposed League of Democracies kind of enfringe on NATO which is after all, a league of democracies? Couldn't we just change the name of NATO, repaint the helmets and save ourselves some money? I'd also like to hear an answer to the critic mentioned near the end of the article: What happens if members of the League decide they don't want to follow us into Darfur and wherever else--are we going to stay home because they disagree or ignore them and do what we want, which would make the whole thing irrelevant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the problems cited in the article are very real, and make this no more than wishful thinking.
He's proposing an American led alliance - that excludes dissenting voices -with a mandate for military worldwide action. This will see a lot of opposition from both friends and foes. It almost seems like a regression back to a cold war mentality, when today's world is too interconnected for something like this to work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It could be called the Justice League. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The UN is a corrupt , near useless organization that defends dictatorships. It is time for an alternative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| happeningthang wrote: |
| It is a total regression back to a cold war mentality, when today's world is too interconnected for something like this to work. |
Fixed it for you. McCain's League of Democracies is an embarrassment. But his plan to make an enemy out of China is atrocious. He won't win my vote this Fall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
With all due respect Kuros I disagree. The UN is a terrible organization. The US needs a chance to venue shop. As long as the UN has no competition it will never reform and it will never be accountable. If there is an alternative then the UN will be under pressure to explain why it came to the decisions it did.
For the record Bill Clinton was very unfriendly to China when he ran for president in 1992. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| With all due respect Kuros I disagree. The UN is a terrible organization. The US needs a chance to venue shop. |
Why? NATO works just fine. The Indo-Japanese-Australian-American alliance also works just fine. The UN is terrible, but retrenching into a Cold War stance fixes nothing.
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| For the record Bill Clinton was very unfriendly to China when he ran for president in 1992. |
Odd, considering how under his Presidency China was given favored nation status.
I contemplate McCain's non-plan and then turn to Barack Obama's: serious world-wide de-nuclearization, starting at home. I have to say, Obama has the best foreign policy vision of the three. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
traveler81
Joined: 18 Mar 2008
Location: Byeongjeom, Gyeonggi-do
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I contemplate McCain's non-plan and then turn to Barack Obama's: serious world-wide de-nuclearization, starting at home. I have to say, Obama has the best foreign policy vision of the three. |
Serious would-wide de-nuclearization? With Iran getting closer and closer to having the bomb, other ME countries fearful of a nuclear Iran putting plans in motion to get the bomb, you think Obama's "lead by example, get rid of our nukes" plan is going to work?
Nuclear technology and weapons is a modern-day Pandora's box. Once it's out, it's never going back in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: Re: McCAIN'S SHREWD MOVE: A REAL COALITION OF THE WILLING? |
|
|
| from the article wrote: |
McCain said the League might impose sanctions on Iran, relieve suffering in the Darfur region of Sudan and deal with environmental problems. |
This is interesting... McCain says such a league might bring a relief to Darfur and deal with environmental problems. Do we really need a league of US-led nations to deal with Darfur and environmental problems? Are we going to go to war with countries who pollute now? Are we going to go to war in Darfur? Ridiculous questions I know, but what kind of league is McCain wanting to lead to go after international polluters and lead something into Darfur. Does the U.S. even have the resources to make some kind of lead into Darfur? And if it does, what prevents it from doing it WITHOUT creating a League to do so?
| from the article wrote: |
Analysts at think tanks in Washington and elsewhere envision a league focused on maintaining peace and limiting U.S. military intervention, such as the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
"If there had been a dialogue on Iraq there would have been more rigorous containment of Saddam Hussein," possibly averting war, said Tod Lindberg, a Hoover Institution research fellow, at the seminar held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. |
I also observed the very strange, A LEAGUE that will LIMIT war? MCCAIN is going to create a league to PREVENT stuff like IRAQ happening?? A war that is he strongly supports, and seriously wants to continue with nations like Iran and the like? Are you kidding me?? The article SAYS that this would be the intention of this League that McCain would create. Has he completely gone senile now?
----
I realize basically McCain wants to be a roque state and get rid of any Beijing or Moscow influence internationally whatsoever and find a few nations who would support only Washington policies. But c'mon, do we really need the other flowery stuff about fighting for environmental policies and this Darfur thing (as if Beijing and Moscow are greatly against US intervention in Darfur). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| traveler81 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| I contemplate McCain's non-plan and then turn to Barack Obama's: serious world-wide de-nuclearization, starting at home. I have to say, Obama has the best foreign policy vision of the three. |
Serious would-wide de-nuclearization? With Iran getting closer and closer to having the bomb, other ME countries fearful of a nuclear Iran putting plans in motion to get the bomb, you think Obama's "lead by example, get rid of our nukes" plan is going to work?
Nuclear technology and weapons is a modern-day Pandora's box. Once it's out, it's never going back in. |
First of all, Obama's position is not simply to cut back on American stockpiles. This action will be taken in co-ordination with funding the safe neutralization of all active nuclear weapons worldwide.
Here's a slice of his provision:
| Quote: |
The Comprehensive Nuclear Threat Reduction provision requires the President to develop a strategy that will:
ensure that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 against the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose;
ensure adequate accounting and security for such materials on an ongoing basis thereafter;
include a plan for expanding the financial support and other assistance provided by other countries, particularly Russia, the European Union and its member states, China and Japan, for the purposes of securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material worldwide; and
outline the progress in and impediments to securing an agreement from all countries that possess nuclear weapons or weapons-usable material on a set of global nuclear security standards, consistent with their obligation to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540. |
Anyway, McCain also sees the threat.
| Quote: |
Republican presidential candidate John McCain called Tuesday for talks with China to negotiate a temporary halt to production of nuclear weapons-grade material and with Russia on a new treaty to destroy more nuclear weapons.
"Today we deploy thousands of nuclear warheads," McCain said. "It is my hope to move as rapidly as possible to a significantly smaller force." He did not set a specific goal but said the number would be consistent with U.S. security and global commitments.
Cautioning against relying solely on force or merely on talks, McCain proposed a bipartisan push to strengthen a broad array of international arms treaties and nuclear monitoring. And he criticized past administrations, both Democratic and Republican, for failing to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. |
So no matter who wins in November, expect America to significantly reduce its nuclear stockpile. This is a good thing, because the cost of the bomb, shown below in billions, is enormous.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:06 am Post subject: Re: McCAIN'S SHREWD MOVE: A REAL COALITION OF THE WILLING? |
|
|
Just remember the UN is horrible , corrupt and selective. It even was on the pay roll of Saddam Hussein.
If you think an organziation that puts Zimbabwe , Libya , and the Sudan in charge of human rights is a good thing well then nothing more need be said.
By the way you will NEVER see a resolution even proposed at the UN about China and Tibet. Wonder why that is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
