FOREIGN: Treaty Violations and Trade Disputes

US foreign policy is based on more than military and economic might. The non-military foreign policy of the United States relies on treaty making and trade policy. It has recently lost credibility in the eyes of world opinion due to its serious violations of international treaties and resulting trade disputes. To violate these good faith promises made to the international community is to render international diplomacy on all levels more difficult.

Despite the FTA and NAFTA, the US and Canada are having trade disputes over softwood lumber, wheat and beef, to name a few. The softwood lumber treaty violation is particularly egregious in light of the fact that the NAFTA Dispute Resolution Panel as well as the WTO both ruled on the matter. Yet the dispute continues with the US refusal to comply with the rulings.

The US and EU are having disputes over Genetically Modified Organisms, Steel and other commodities and the EU recently threatened to place over $2 billion worth of retaliatory tariffs on US goods.

Among the non-trade related treaties currently in violation are:

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) that the U.S. signed in 1996 but has not ratified. The CTBT bans nuclear explosions, and its language does not contain any "exceptions allowing laboratory thermonuclear explosions�.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Former U.S. president, Bill Clinton, signed the Rome Treaty supporting the ICC when he held office. However, in an unprecedented action, George W. Bush actually erased Clinton's signature (a United States president has never before 'unsigned' a treaty). Moreover, his Administration has declared it has no intention whatsoever of cooperating with the ICC. Furthermore, in what is being called The Hague Invasion Act, or the Services Members' Protection Act, the G.O.P.-controlled House Appropriations Committee voted to authorize the use of military force to "rescue" any American brought before the ICC. Erica Terpstra, a parliamentary representative in the Netherlands where The Hague and ICC is located, states that this "is not only a gesture against the Netherlands�but against the entire international community."

The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) (the US is the largest producer and stockpiler of these weapons). As recently as November 2002, the Bush administration continued to quash negotiations on verification and enforcement measures needed to detect and prevent violations to the BWC. Then, the U.S. announced its intention to build and operate bio-warfare agent facilities at its two premier classified nuclear weapons laboratories, Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico. The co-location of bio-warfare agent and nuclear weapons design capabilities is proceeding without Environmental Impact Statements, public hearings or proliferation reviews.

The U.S. is also not complying with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), crucial to global security because it bars the spread of nuclear weapons. The current administration's Nuclear Posture Review and the subsequent National Security Strategy of the United States promulgate a policy of "preemptive" or "preventive" first use of nuclear weapons. It is no coincidence that North Korea and Iran, targeted by new U.S. nuclear policy initiatives, have apparently stepped up their nuclear programs. North Korea, following the US lead, has announced its withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) despite its crucial factor in US national security interests. Some conservatives have willingly dismissed the ABM Treaty because it stands as the major obstacle towards development of a "Star Wars" missile defense system. Discarding treaty constraints and putting weapons in space is nothing short of pursuing absolute military superiority.

The Kyoto Protocol on global warming despite the overwhelming evidence that something is going on with climate change.

Others include the Chemical Weapons Commission (CWC)(the US is the largest producer and stockpiler of these weapons), and the UN framework Convention on Climate Change and the Treaty Banning Antipersonnel Mines.

What do the Party Platforms contain on these issues?
If they are not addressed, what can be gleened from their ideologies or past actions?


Sources:
Treaty Busting By the United States
EU-US Trade Disputes
www.for.gov.bc.ca..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Canada-U.S. Lumber Trade Disputes
CBC News Backgrounder - Softwood Lumber
The Canada-US Wheat Trade Disputes

Lets break it down.
NAFTA's concern with the lumber is that Canada is the Saudi Arabia of lumber.
CTBT gives a huge advantage to those who have no intention of following it...ie ISRAEL>IRAN>PAKISTAN>SOUTH AFRICA. Also the advantage goes to those who are helplessly behing on technology...ie RUSSIA>CHINA.
The ICC can put any U.S. soldier in front of it. And with 200,000 of our guys out protecting other countries butts we can't function with that hanging over our head.
Bio warfare and NPT. We need levels of response. If Korea smokes our troops do you really think a nuke is appropriate?
The ABM Treaty. No Brainer. We can't build/test but we can't protect ourself either? even Russia signed off on this so...
KYOTO? Every 3 world nation can pollute to their little hearts content but U.S. business will be forced to compete with TWO arms behind their back.
Anti Personnel mines?? Have you heard about the fact that Nort Korea has about 1 million men in uniform? We need the mines just to slow them down.

We will upset the world sometimes when we put U.S interest first. Oh Well.

Originally posted by crmanager
We will upset the world sometimes when we put U.S interest first. Oh Well.

Do I take that to be the official Republican Policy?

Every one of those treaties raises important issues. No responses except for a flippant answer from the republican camp?

Sounds about right I guess.

Originally posted by Gools

Originally posted by crmanager
We will upset the world sometimes when we put U.S interest first. Oh Well.

Do I take that to be the official Republican Policy?

Every one of those treaties raises important issues. No responses except for a flippant answer from the republican camp?

Sounds about right I guess.

How about making it the official American response? How late in the game was France, when it came to Nuke testing? Why won't China and India sign the Kyoto treaty? Why don't the Koreans in general protest when their government pulls out of the proliferation treaty? To blame this on one party or another is just another attempt at shuffling blame to the other side, in the event things go wrong.

I'm just wondering, when was the last time a bunch of people overseas protested their government, on behalf of America?

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Toelint]