Why do Americans have an irrational fear of international organizations?

[MalevolentLight]

Oh, and one more thing, the fact that someone like you hates Bush so much is a sign that the terrorists really don't want Bush as president.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Oh, and one more thing, the fact that someone like you hates Bush so much is a sign that the terrorists really don't want Bush as president.

You really are looking for trouble from the mods, aren't you?

[Shi Huangdi]

The anti-Americanism discussed here is, however. Our actions on the ICC has been deplorable. And a lot of anti-Americanism you may consider non-justifiable and irrational may be as a direct result of our bullying (such as Iran, for instance).

So, if we don't submit to the world and give them jurisdiction over us, it gives them the right to hate us? We have to obey them and abridge our soverignty every time they like?

The topic of whether the USA deserves the hatred against it would be another big discussion and one that is off the topic here. But suffice it to say that it exists, it is big, and we'd be foolish to be giving away power over us to non-US bodies at a time when many are spewing hatred against our countries.

And it isn't in the US's interest to have foriegn governments follow us? I'm sure we'll want them on board when China rises.

Sure. But in the UN, China and the USA are equals, and international organizations are a poor way of gathering support. Now, I'm not in favr of withdrawal from the UN, but in terms of countries like China we can rely on traditional diplomacy to work with other countries.

You mean like UN sanctions on South Africa and Iraq? I guess the US gladly ignored soveriegn rights there.

What the heck is your point? Whether or not the USA has done things correctly or not in some cases before has nothing to do with whether unilateral sanctions are ok or not. You are just take shots at the US now. I'd expect that from a European on this board, but not from you.

They haven't been part of the Human Rights Commission since 1970. Perhaps it is because they won't be voted onto it, but if they were, they would get their turn as well.

Maybe this was before 1970 that they were denied the chairmanship? Or like you said, it could be because they are refused to be allowed on it,but that says something when Libya is considered to be more qualified to be on it then Israel.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Imran yet again showing his true colors. Republicans in the north east must be very very different from the rest of the country.

Yes, they're not anencephalic.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And it isn't in the US's interest to have foriegn governments follow us? I'm sure we'll want them on board when China rises.

Why should we assume that China will submit itself to international organizations any more then we will? And don't bring up Kyoto, the treaty doesn't require them to even do anything.

We have dealt in good faith with China for over a century now, if that isn't enough to ensure that they won't **** us over(and it apparently isn't) then there is nothing we can do.

[Ramo]

That isn't a valid comparison to the WTO. He shouldn't have a million times more votes then me on determining what a law should be just because he is more wealthy(the WTO "shouldn't" do that but they now are), but at a microsoft stockholder meeting he should have much more a say in what his company does then 2 people with 1 share each.

The WTO is a public institution, not a corporation. If you want to be picky, the appropriate analogy is Gates having a million times as many votes as you on matters of, say, software copyright law.

During the Steel tariff ruling, every country dumping on the US ruled that they weren't dumping.

Could have something to do with the *****ing about dumping being nonsense.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
Imran yet again showing his true colors. Republicans in the north east must be very very different from the rest of the country. It's shameful that you have a picture of Arafat in the same place that Reagan once stood. Disgusting. Please stop insulting Republicans and call yourself what you are...a liberal apologist that has a soft spot for terrorists.

Wow... you really need to get laid...

[Odin]

ML: The only good republicans are the socially liberal types in the Northern US, Minnesota's former governers Elmer Andersen and Harold Stassen are prominent examples.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Ramo

That isn't a valid comparison to the WTO. He shouldn't have a million times more votes then me on determining what a law should be just because he is more wealthy(the WTO "shouldn't" do that but they now are), but at a microsoft stockholder meeting he should have much more a say in what his company does then 2 people with 1 share each.

The WTO is a public institution, not a corporation. If you want to be picky, the appropriate analogy is Gates having a million times as many votes as you on matters of, say, software copyright law.

During the Steel tariff ruling, every country dumping on the US ruled that they weren't dumping.

Could have something to do with the *****ing about dumping being nonsense.

The WTO does not pass laws.

And about the steel tariffs, you are right, Bush should have not given exemptions to both Canada and Mexico, and should have expanded them to cover industries up and down stream to prevent divide and conquer, but be that as it may, we met the legal requirements for imposing duties on imports to counter dumping via both what the WTO says and what GATT says, and despite this it was ruled "illegal".

To get back to the forest and away from the trees here, I don't support even being a participant of the organization, and recognize that the US having a proportional vote lets us **** the rest of the world. But I also see that having 1 country 1 vote lets the rest of the world **** us. There is no middle ground here, everyone is going to do what is in their interests, and if we have to be part of such an organization I'd prefer that we do the ****ing.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
maybe an analogy wil help

imagine two houses, yours with your small family, and a neighbor who has an extremely large family

imagine that your neighbor does stuff that you disagree with, like the father of the family has sex with his daughters and maintains an autrocratic hold on the household

now your family, much smaller, is relatively well off, and has weapons and nicer things

the other hosuehold mostly dislikes you and is jelous

now some of your hosuehold feels sorry for the other household, and want to combine your two households and make it democratic (which is sort of like your own)

what do you think is going to happen if suddenly your households are combined?

Jon Miller

Are his daughters hot?

[Imran Siddiqui]

if we don't submit to the world and give them jurisdiction over us, it gives them the right to hate us

You miss the point entirely (not suprising, most Americans do). It isn't that we've refused to sign, but we are actively working to destroy it. The US has engaged in a concerted effort to destroy the ICC. It is putting sanctions on countries that refuse the sign treaties that say they won't submit Americans to the ICC. It blocked renewal of Bosnian peacekeeping and said it would continue to block it until the Security Council passed a resolution exempting the US from ICC jurisdiction (when it would probably be exempted under ICC rules anyway). And when the SC members decided not to put legalized discrimination in resolution format, the US vetoed further Bosnian peacekeeping and a compromise had to be reached.

Frankly, it's despicable and I can't believe my country has been using these tactics. Other countries deserve to be angry with us for that.

we'd be foolish to be giving away power over us to non-US bodies at a time when many are spewing hatred against our countries

*looks at ICC standards for cases

*looks at thread title

Yep... making my case for me . Irrational fear, check.

'm not in favr of withdrawal from the UN, but in terms of countries like China we can rely on traditional diplomacy to work with other countries.

Countries have long memories. The problem is that they may not want to go out of their way to help the US after the Bush Administration. When you burn bridges it takes a while to build them back.

Whether or not the USA has done things correctly or not in some cases before has nothing to do with whether unilateral sanctions are ok or not. You are just take shots at the US now.

It's called hypocrisy. It isn't taking shots, it's showing how our policies have been contrary to soveriegnty to the point where *****ing about the UN saying our unilaterial sanctions on Cuba is wrong, is utterly foolish. And before you say policies can change, a lot of what we've done in violating soveriegnty, we've been doing as we've had sanctions on Cuba.

Maybe this was before 1970 that they were denied the chairmanship? Or like you said, it could be because they are refused to be allowed on it,but that says something when Libya is considered to be more qualified to be on it then Israel.

Frankly I think Israel's human rights record is worse than Libya's, but the point is if Israel was on the Committee, they would get the chairmanship as well. However, you need to get voted on. Libya is part of the Arab League and can get votes. Israel doesn't belong to any organization to get the votes to get on. It says nothing about Commission (and in the end, Libya, who has a better human rights record than Israel gets on).

[Jon Miller]

yes

other countries have the right that we do not bend over for them

Jon Miller

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
(when it would probably be exempted under ICC rules anyway).

Lets take that statement, right there and stop.

http://americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=925

"As an economic historian, I wrote a white paper advising against accepting the WTO’s new dispute settlement mechanism as a threat to American sovereignty.

Unlike the previous General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT), which was based on mediation and negotiation to settle trade disputes, the WTO was based on a claim of authority by which panels of foreign judges, appointed by foreign governments, would rule whether U.S. laws enacted by representatives elected by the American people were “legal” or not. If ruled “illegal,” Congress would either have to change the law, or risk trade sanctions authorized by the WTO. I felt this was an illegitimate and dangerous road for my country to go down.

After my white paper was circulated among Republican House members, I was called down to Rep. Newt Gingrich’s office. Though Gingrich would not become Speaker of the House until after that fall’s elections, he was clearly the GOP leader and a supporter of the WTO in the name of “free trade.” His advisors worked me over for about an hour before making their final argument, which was that since the United States was the world’s only Superpower and largest economy, we could always just ignore the WTO if it ruled against us on a major issue. The WTO had no real power and no other government would risk a trade war with Washington they assured me.

To further bolster this argument with worried House members, the following language was put in the implementation legislation: “Sec. 102 (a) RELATIONSHIP OF AGREEMENTS TO UNITED STATES LAW---(1) UNITED STATES LAW TO PREVAIL IN CONFLICT---No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect. (2) CONSTRUCTION.---Nothing in this Act shall be construed---(A) to amend or modify any law of the United States....(B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States.”

This was, of course, all true. But my point then, as now, is that there are plenty of officials in Washington who act as if the WTO is a higher authority and who scurry around to do its bidding.
...

The tariffs were crafted to be in accord with WTO rules, that is with Articles 2.1 and 4.1 of the Safeguards Agreement, as well as Articles X:3(a) and XIX:1 of the 1994 GATT agreement. So from the first step, the shadow of the WTO was cast all the way from, Geneva to Washington, even though President Bush had termed saving the steel industry a matter of national security.

Yet, despite trying to stay within WTO rules, the tariffs were declared illegal by the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body and its Appellate Body. This was not surprising. The WTO operates on the basis of judge-made law on a scale that would make the most liberal proponent of judicial activist look like a strict constructionist by comparison. No foreign judge has any interest in allowing the United States to protect an industry from imports, whatever the reasoning. "

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lets take that statement, right there and stop.

What was the point of your link? It has no bearing on the issue at hand. All it says is that Gingrich claimed the US could just ignore the WTO and the US Implimenting legislation said the US should ignore the WTO. The WTO treaty specifically allowed for the WTO to act against the stuff the US was doing at the time.

This is greatly different than the ICC provisions where any US investigation into charges (which it will always do) destroys ICC jurisdiction. Therefore, the ICC is prevented from acting against anything the US is doing at the present time. For example, in the torture at Abu Ghraib, there is an investigation into it, which means the ICC cannot touch it.

[Whoha]

How does the ICC decide that the host country is taking care of business? We were investigating Abu Ghraib for about a year before it got leaked and yet it was called a coverup attempt,etc by people here in our own country and probably some people think it still is. what is to prevent the court from saying that it has Jurisdiction over an issue, and more importantly, what is to prevent some disciple of the global community in the US from turning over US justice to a "more legitimate" ICC?

The point of the link, is that if the organization can be used against us, it will be. And this is most certainly an example.