« British versus American journalism | Main | Joseph Loconte: A Deliberate Failure of Imagination »



George Bush talks a lot of good sense. He is right when he says that if we are to have any agreement on CO2 reductions it must be agreed by all the major industrial nations. If they can't all agree then no agreement will work.


This speech hits all the right notes, but unfortunately, we've heard this before in Bush's first term. Either the progress has not been well reported or the initiatives are not functioning correctly, but they don't seem to produce much in the way of results. And with the recent World Bank controversy, I have to ask: where is Europe in all of this?


Such money and initiative hardly ever produce much except our taxes going down the inept, ignorant, corrupt and greedy drain. I'm tired of it. To me its more America the Savior pie-in-the-sky foolishness. I can't even credit good intentions. And frankly who wants to give us credit even when they are? The more Bush talks the more I want him to go.


"We're going to use our aid to help developing countries build democratic and accountable institutions and strengthen their civil societies. To succeed in the global economy, nations need fair and transparent legal systems; need free markets that unleash the creativity of their citizens"

Under the heading 'Incentivising democratic reform' Bush demonstrates why all he says is a load of hot anal flatulence.
The use of aid as a bargaining tool is tantamount to blackmailing nations to tow the US line or suffer economic sanction & consequently deprivation.
I am not suggesting that the US should support countries who are not governed in keeping with US principles.
However when nations decide to distance themselves from the US model, they should not be automatically prescribed as 'un-democratic.

Is the US Justice system fair & transparent?

Do U.S subsidies and protectionist tariffs help or hinder developing nations from advancing and develop free markets?

Pres.Bush has neither the will, intent or ability to challenge & alter the policies which maintain the inequalities inherent in the global economy.
He should ensure he fixes the problems Americans are suffering from in the US and the disaster he engineered in Iraq before taking on any global challenges.
I think the world in general(US & UK included) has more of chance without his & his adminstrations twisted logic.


Dennis, that's a splendid idea. We should withdraw the billions of dollars that we spend on the UN, IMF, World Bank, and other useless multilateral institutions, and instead cut taxes instead. The UK should do the same to reverse the Brown tax increases. US and UK growth (and consequent trade) does more to help the poor than aid to kleptocrats.

Kevin Sampson

Through in NATO and I'm there.


Kevin, I actually think NATO can be salvaged. All we need to do is expel everyone but the Netherlands, Canada, the US, the UK (i.e. those doing the real work in Afghanistan), and invite Japan, Singapore, and Australia to join, and then we'll have an alliance worth more than the paper it's contracted on. But the underlying structure of NATO is a good one and should be preserved.

Kevin Sampson

I have serious doubts about the Netherlands and Canada, but the question is academic. The Charter does not provide for us, or anyone else, to 'expel' anybody. However, I'm not at all certain we need another NATO. It was a product of the bi-polar world of the cold war, and without the unifying threat of the Soviet Union, I doubt it would be possible to assemble, much less maintain, an alliance as geographically far-flung as you describe. The perceived threats, as well as the preferred solutions, are simply too disparate.


Kevin, I'm not a lawyer, but Articles XII and XIII seem to provide an opening for the expulsion of members (directly or indirectly through changes that certain members would find unacceptable, causing their withdrawal).

The hollowness of Article V's 2001 invocation may have already doomed NATO, but ultimately, the war on terror is a new global threat that I believe a formal alliance could successfully combat (intelligence sharing, joint commands, pooling of resources). NATO may be too hard to reform, as you point out, but a new organization could be helpful in that regard, as "coalitions of the willing" don't hold anyone to account, as we have seen in Iraq.

I would rather focus on dismantling the UN, IMF, and World Bank, but I could accept the destruction of NATO in the process.

Kevin Sampson

This sounds like our cue to exit Europe, stage right:


The Left, and a good bit of the Right as well, will use this to demand a halt to the deployment of the ABM system in Eastern Europe on the grounds that it puts their own safety at risk. And they're right, it does. But the corollary to that is that extending our nuclear umbrella to include Europe puts the US at increased risk. Therefore, I think we should accede to the Lefts demands and pack it in, post haste.


sir, iam MILAN THOMAS.an 18 years old boy living in india, my family is a poor family ,and i finished my education upto plus-two and i didn't continue it because of some financial problems in my family ,my dream is to continue my education and take any jobs in u.s.a. or in any other countries.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad


  • Tracker