Homestead mailing list

["Toni Hawryluk" <tonihawr AT msn.com>]

 my NOTEs are scattered through here - feel free to flame if your opinion is 
different.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6161506/site/newsweek/

 

Americans Eat Cheese, Too

Sixty-six percent of Americans favor working within the United Nations, even 
when it adopts policies that the United States does not like

 

Newsweek By Fareed Zakaria

Oct. 11 issue - The Bush campaign believes it has found one soft spot in John 
Kerry's debate performance. In the days after the contest, the president has 
relentlessly hit one theme: that Kerry is a wimpy multilateralist. "I've been 
to a lot of summits," Bush said derisively at a rally in Pennsylvania last 
Friday. "I've never seen a meeting that would depose a tyrant, or bring a 
terrorist to justice ... The president's job is not to take an international 
poll. The president's job is to defend America ... The use of troops to 
defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France." 
Kerry hasn't proposed anything like that. But Bush is right to imply that 
Kerry's vision of American foreign policy is attentive to world opinion, and 
interested in working with allies and international institutions. What Bush 
might be dead wrong about is that such views are unpopular in today's America.

The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations last week released a large opinion 
survey, asking Americans about their attitudes on world affairs. 66 percent 
of Americans favor working within the United Nations, even when it adopts 
policies that the U.S. does not like. 59 percent want to do away with all 
vetoes in the Security Council, including America's. 74 percent want a 
standing U.N. peacekeeping force, commanded by the U.N., not the U.S. 49 
percent approve of a tax on oil and arms that would fund U.N. activities. 
Friend of the world though he is, John Kerry would not dare propose any one 
of these positions.

(my NOTE : So ?? Bush is *not* doing it either !)

During the debates, Bush chose to mention his opposition to the International 
Criminal Court because he thought that would please the crowd. He mocked the 
idea of "foreign judges" trying American soldiers. 

(my NOTE : why not ? aren't we just part of the people on this globe ? and a 
small part at that - and as My Lai in the past and the not so far 'past' 
Iraqi-torturing/humiliating has proven that neither our grunts nor are 
leaders are "holy and free some sin/criminal actions") 

But 76 percent of Americans in the Chicago survey support the court. 71 
percent support the Kyoto accords. Eighty-seven percent support the treaty 
banning nuclear testing. And 80 percent support the treaty banning land 
mines. Washington is not a signatory to any of these agreements.  

(my NOTE : why not ? since the majority of Americans want these ?????  my 
opinion - because "deals" can't be made to enrich somebody from these)

The survey proposes specific scenarios. Asked whether U.N. approval should be 
required before Washington takes military action against North Korea, 68 
percent of Americans said yes. 74 percent felt that America's allies should 
also have a veto on such an action. Another study also released by the 
Chicago Council asked questions of Americans and South Koreans. Asked whether 
they would support their country's accepting unfavorable rulings from the 
World Trade Organization, 48 percent of South Koreans said yes, compared with 
69 percent of Americans.

Of course, these are hypothetical. When confronted with the details of what 
they would involve, Americans might well become less supportive. When they 
realize that signing Kyoto and driving SUVs are incompatible, my guess is 
that it's Kyoto that would get pushed aside. When an actual crisis came 
along, perhaps the United Nations would seem an irritating obstacle to 
action. But these numbers tell us that Americans' basic attitudes toward the 
world are remarkably cooperative.  

(my NOTE : the quiet majority - when good men remain silent, evil triumphs)

What the Bush campaign understands is that in today's America, silent 
majorities are far less important than energetic minorities. 

(see previous my NOTE J

There are few people in America who vote on foreign-policy issues-and those 
who do tend to believe that international institutions represent something 
dark and sinister. If this sounds like an exaggeration, recall that in his 
best-selling and hugely influential book, "The New World Order," Pat 
Robertson portrayed the European Community and the United Nations as fronts 
for Satanic forces that seek "to take away all our property, our values, our 
faith, and our freedom." For such groups, the Reverend Robertson explains, 
"There must be world government, a world police force, world courts, world 
banking... To some there must be an elimination of Christianity; 

(my NOTE : Osama bin Laden thinks so - why are Americans and Iraqis dying 
while he's still running around loose ?)

to some extreme New Agers there must be the deaths of two or three billion 
people in the Third World ... "!

The coded language used by some extremely conservative Republicans over the 
past two decades has turned the foreign- policy debate into one where no one 
dare propose cooperation, even though such approaches are solidly popular 
among the public at large. The left and center run scared of an angry 
minority while the right feeds its appetite. But things are changing. America 
is becoming more globalized. Almost every American has contact with the 
international economy. (Robertson may not have noticed, but we already have 
international banks-and the world is still standing.) Many more travel, 
especially young Americans. And they understand that America cannot seek to 
create a world of order, liberty and law without playing by the same rules 
itself. The numbers show that there is a considerable basis to create a very 
different American attitude toward the world. 

(my NOTE : but *not* until and unless the people creating that basis*vote* it)

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.