Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [3]

[Pettytyrant101]

No, she hasnt!!

[Mrs Figg]

not to a man in a skirt I havent, no.

[Eldorion]

you have never yet given in to him , have you?

I misread one word of this post and it came across as quite different, especially given Petty's response.

[Pettytyrant101]

[Eldorion]

[Mrs Figg]

it? no not that either.

[Eldorion]

Maybe if he wasn't a man in a skirt.

[Pettytyrant101]

I do not wear a skirt!!!!!

[Eldorion]

I'm not the one you need to convince.

[Orwell]

{{{Skirt!}}}

[Pettytyrant101]

What you laughing at Orwell?

[Pettytyrant101]

I dont know if anyone else has been following the Arms Embargo Treaty at the UN- which is supposed to regulate the arms industry and where and who it can sell to.
I has been passed with overwhelming majority support at the UN and the big singing up to the treaty is next week.
Thing is it looks like th US will not sign- despite the US beng heavily invollved in the drafting of the treaty and ensuring that it does not infringe on an individual countries arms trade within its own borders.
So does anyoe know exactly what the objections still are that mean it will not pass the Senate?
"We want to sell arms to anyone, good or evil, legaly or illegaly with no scrutiny or regulation" doesnt seem a winning pitch to me. And if all the other major arms exporters sign up to it as expected its not exactly going to do much to reduce the global perception Amerca sees itself as above international law and outwith the law and that its a source of much of the trouble in the world.

[David H]

There don't need to be specific objections. The senate was originally designed to be a tight sphincter on legislation, and especially with the domestic gun control debate currently raging, anything with the word ARMS in it will make it pucker tighter than a #@%$% in a &*%$#.

[Pettytyrant101]

Ah so they dont really have any grounds to object on- just a knee jerk reaction thing then?

[David H]

Odds are the majority haven't read anything but the briefing packet from their staff, and their staff didn't read much beyond the title page.

[Pettytyrant101]

It just looks a bit silly- your President supports it, your country was instrumental in drafting in the protections so as not to affect domestic arms in the US in particular- then you wont pass it.

[David H]

It just looks a bit silly-

Not the first time. Remember Kyoto and climate change?

[David H]

I haven't read up on this yet, but i'm guessing the big question is whether the US will veto in the security council. I'm guessing not. Good sphincters work both ways.

[Pettytyrant101]

No, I doubt they will use a veto on it- that would make them the bad guys and spoilers of a treaty generally seen as 'a good and needed thing'.

But from the point of view of everyone else involved why should future treaties go to such lengths to bend over to appease US concerns when the US is just going to snub it in the end anyway?
It doesnt seem a tactic that strengthens the US position internationaly, more weakens it.

[David H]

All true, but it doesn't win elections. The reason that it's good politics to allow US input is twofold. First, it's almost sure to avoid the veto as it would make us look even more disfunctional than usual, and second there's a really good chance that if it's well crafted and popular Congress will ratify it several years after the fact, possibly after the next presidential election if all goes as it seems to be. That's just the politics of it all....

[Pettytyrant101]

Ok so lets see if I have this straight- the US agrees to a treaty, helps draft the treaty, ensures it protects US interests, then votes against it. Waits a few years then signs it in when no ones looking?
Is that right?

[Eldorion]

Well the US diplomatic service is part of the executive branch, but treaties have to be ratified by the Senate, which doesn't always agree with the President even when the majority party is the same as the Pres.

[Pettytyrant101]

That sort of makes sense- but from an international persepctive it looks a bit, crap. Everyone else has to alter, adjust and endlessly debate to appease the US and get them onside at all- then the US doesnt sign the bloody thing anyway. Why bother asking the US what they think at all? or invite them to take part in the process? It might even be more effectve to just not bother as it would leave the US as a sort of pariah state operating outside international law in everyone elses eyes and undermine any moral authority the US might claim when intervening internationally.
The rest of the world from Climate treaties to Arms treaties would rather like to try to clean up our world a bit, its endlessly frustrating when the reason nothing really happens is the US doesnt like it and wants to keep polluting/selling deadly weapons as it pleases claiming ultimate authority and soverienty- thats fine inside your own borders but when its stuff thats global- it doesnt wash.

[Eldorion]

The US has signed on to plenty of treaties so I'm not sure what your point about pariah states is. Extremely powerful states have always felt at liberty to ignore international customs and regulations though. The US is hardly the only one doing it today, even.

On the point of treaty ratification though, I agree that the system is a bit unwieldy. And it can come back to bite Presidents in the ass. Like Woodrow Wilson, who orchestrated the creation of the League of Nations only for the Senate to refuse to allow the US to join. But the purpose of requiring Senate ratification is to uphold the separation of powers, which I think remains a worthwhile goal.

[Pettytyrant101]

so I'm not sure what your point about pariah states is- Eldo

I was saying that rather than engage the US in treaties they will not sign anyway, and instead of altering the treaties to suit a country that wont sign anyway- better just to put the US out in the cold and let everyone else get on with it. This would make the US a pariah state on these issues by default- and save the rest of us a lot of frustration watching yet another good idea to improve the world go down the tubes.