March 31, 2000 --- The United States Is Weak for Maintaining World's Peace?
The United States Is Weak for Maintaining World’s Peace?
31, 2000 ---
… Those policies, said Bush, include that the U.S. will continue to reaffirm clearly and adhere consistently to its “one China” policy as defined by the “three communiques” and the Taiwan Relations Act.
The United States is weak for maintaining world’s
--- The complaint of lack of consultation reaches well beyond trade issues. In 1998, U.S. officials declared that funding for North Korea’s civilian nuclear reactors --- more than 80% of which is coming from Japan --- could go ahead despite North Korea’s test-firing of a medium-range missile over Japan.
“The Japanese were not included in any way in these negotiations,” said Michael Green, a Japan scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations. “They were absolutely furious.”
--- In 1997, powerful U.S. lawmakers declared an international agreement to control so-called greenhouse gases “dead on arrival” in the Senate. The Clinton administration declined to join more than 130 other nations in signing a treaty banning the use of land mines, insisting that the United States is a special case.
Likewise, the United States refused to join more than 90 countries establishing an International Criminal Court in 1998 after unsuccessfully insisting on immunity from prosecution for American soldiers and diplomats --- but not those of other countries. Delegates to the founding conference for the court cheered the defeat of a U.S. attempt to exempt American soldiers.
--- Some foreign affairs specialists argue that an American missile defense system would be in the allies’ interest because the United States cannot preserve peace in the world or project its force if it feels under threat. But they admit that the administration must work harder to get its message across.
--- At last fall’s World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, the American hosts found themselves so out of touch with so many nations that they were forced to suspend business without reaching any agreements at all. The result was a major embarrassment for the United States, especially because such events are normally scripted in advance to assure at least some kind of agreement. Critics accused the U.S. of failing to consult with other participants in advance, out of the arrogant assumption that particularly the smaller nations would naturally follow its lead.