Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > bondjam33 > The pursuit of happiness |
|
US Presidents often negotiate with the enemy and sign deals with them. Various US Presidents have negotiated deals with a mortal enemy. In fact they have negotiated deals with an enemy sworn to destroy them and whose citizens have been known to chant 'Death to the USA'. Those deals were held up to the people as triumphs of the diplomatic art and Presidents from Kennedy to both Bushes, Reagan to Clinton and Carter have been lionised for their skill in negotiating these treaties. These treaties made the world a safer place and all of them still stand. Only one President has been vilified for negotiating a treaty to limit nuclear arms and with the intention of making the world a safer place. The USA should trust Iran to a certain extent - the same extent they trusted the Soviet Union and Russia when they made dozens of agreements and treaties with them regarding nuclear weapons: Signing a treaty with an enemy is not impossible apparently. 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty 1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty 1970s Strategic Arms Limitation Talks 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty 1991 START I 1993 START II 1994 United States – Russia mutual detargeting 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (not in force) 1997 START III 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty 2010 New START Some of these treaties were signed at the height of the Cold War in an atmosphere of mutual distrust and outright paranoia. They were all signed between two countries who regarded each other as mortal enemies and portrayed each other as 'evil', as 'blinded by ideology', and as 'madmen', who 'want to destroy us'. Just because you hate a foreign country, just because you have incompatible geopolitical interests, an unfortunate mutual history and immutable ideological differences, just because you regard them as an enemy and as a threat, doesn't mean you can't come to an agreement with them. It just means you have to make sure the agreement is carefully negotiated, verifiable and doesn't leave loopholes. If the USA could trust the Soviet Union enough to make an agreement with them about nuclear weapons then they can trust the Iranians in the same way. |
|||
|
Treaties are a serious legal undertaking both in international and domestic law. Internationally, once in force, treaties are binding on the parties and become part of international law. Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls "the supreme Law of the Land." However, the word treaty does not have the same meaning in the United States and in international law. Under international law, a "treaty" is any legally binding agreement between nations. In the United States, the word treaty is reserved for an agreement that is made "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution). International agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as "executive agreements" in the United States, but they are considered treaties and therefore binding under international law. Can I help it if the USA is COMPLETELY out of step with the rest of the world? This is a TREATY because it has been negotiated by 6 sovereign states with another sovereign state. The USA is simply one signatory to the TREATY. No matter what you call it, it is a TREATY under international law.
| ||
|
Having established beyond ANY doubt that this is a treaty under international law lets now deal with your incredible arrogance. This is not an 'agreement' which the US or its president can dismiss at a whim; the other signatories to the treaty will simply ignore your posturing if you do. YOU are not giving Iran anything - in fact the Iranian assets - (i.e THEIR OWN MONEY) which are being released are almost exclusively held embargoed by EC countries so the US has little say in that either. As to the position of the UK - yes we are much closer and yes we have a Muslim population much larger than the US but NO we are not nervous or frightened. We are grown up members of the world community AND WE BEHAVE IN A GROWN UP MANNER. We do not throw our dummy out of the pram when we do not get our own way ; we negotiate an agreement and move on.- perhaps the GOP and people like you will learn how to act in a more grown up way if you watch closely - but I will not be holding my breath.
| ||
|
Sorry Maisie is only correct inside your little bubble. Six other national signatories and the whole of the rest of the world disagree. This is a TREATY in international law - MAISIE IS WRONG Q.E.D.
| ||
|
You really are arrogant aren't you? What you call it is immaterial; the world does not revolve around the USA. It is a treaty which will be implemented by the rest of the world whatever you say or do. The USA can 'get out' any time it likes . So what? The rest of the world, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, India , Brazil, Canada et al. will just carry on and let you sulk. What effect do you think the tantrums of your president would have? I can tell you now - exactly NONE. Pretty hypothetical stuff perhaps, given the state of the candidates in the presidential race presently but what the heck. Iran financing terrorist groups has nothing to do with this deal.The treaty stops them from developing a nuclear weapons programme - it does not , and was never intended to, control their foreign policy. After all they would not be the first to finance groups with which they had common cause to bring down or attack foreign governments would they? Do you remember the financing of the military coup against President Allende in Chile, the funding of the Contra against the Sandinista in Nicaragua, the invasion of Grenada, air strikes against Q'addafi in 1986, armed support for President Aristide in Haiti - not to mention Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.? One might say that a certain pot might well refrain from calling any kettle black until it had looked into its own sordid past.
| ||
|
Can we get one thing straight here. The world and the USA are two different entities. I know most of you can hardly see past the ends of your noses but the world is one hell of a lot bigger than the US. When the representatives of 7 billion people and 200 sovereign states call it a treaty it is beyond belief that you can actually think that a small number of fanatics in one country can call it something else; that the small number of deluded fanatics are right and the rest of the world is wrong. What you, your congress, the tea party or uncle Sam on his farm back in Arkansas does will never distress me but I am sure it would distress you if you were it ever to dawn on you that the USA is NOT the whole world and that the rest of the world will get on with this regardless of what you say. Your petty internal politics is a sideshow; it is not important to the rest of the world. If you are not prepared to play a part in shaping of History then stand on the sidelines making yah boo noises until you are blue in the face; it will only make you look ridiculous. In words of one syllable- this deal will be put in place with the USA on board. There is nothing your posturing, primping or preening yourselves can affect. Your congress will not scupper the treaty. It will be signed and it will be implemented. If I am wrong then so are the leaders of all the other states who call this a treaty. My bet is that history will call it a treaty and I know I am onto a good thing there.
| ||
9/12/2015 6:40 am |
Who was it who said that nations don't have friends or enemies, only interests?
| ||
|
Can the Next President Repudiate Obama's Iran Agreement? Marco Rubio says he’d abandon the deal if Congress fails to reject it—and his rhetoric may damage America’s ability to negotiate future accords. Bruce Ackerman and David Golove Sep 10, 2015 "Since it’s clear that Congress won’t be rejecting the Iranian Nuclear Agreement, opponents are now trying to diminish its significance. Senator Marco Rubio, for example, now denies that the pact is “binding on the next administration,” and has pledged to repudiate it on his first day as president." "Rubio is wrong. If taken seriously, his position would destroy the binding character of America’s commitments to the IMF, the World Bank, NAFTA, and the World Trade Organization. The accords that undergird these institutions, like the Iran agreement, have their foundation in statutes authorizing the president to commit the nation. The Constitution makes these statutes the “supreme law of the land,” binding the country in the same manner as treaties approved by the Senate. The President can no more walk away from them than he can from any other law or treaty." "Up to now, foreign governments have been assuming that if Congress says yes, their deal is legally binding. Yet if Rubio’s assault on congressionally authorized agreements gains ground, the entire diplomatic effort will likely come to a halt: America’s bargaining partners will refuse to alienate domestic supporters by making big concessions once they’re told that the next president can abandon the entire arrangement." "The Constitution is bigger than any particular partisan dispute. If other opponents of the Iranian or Transpacific agreements join Rubio in assaulting the current framework governing American diplomacy, all they will accomplish is the destruction of the country’s credibility—undermining the ability of the United States to serve as a leading architect of world order in the 21st century." Just a few excerpts - but googling will get you to the full article.
| ||
|
I did not need an explanation of your quaint and somewhat idiosyncratic system of laws thank you. I was well aware of the rules regarding voting in the senate and I was also well aware that there was not a sufficient number of senators opposed to the treaty to have it annulled. What you cannot seem to comprehend is that what the USA calls this treaty is NOT IMPORTANT. The rest of the world will call it a treaty and that is how it will be recorded in history. You can call it what you like - it matters little. The examples I quoted are not 'old history' - they are all examples of the interference in other state's affairs by he US in our adult lifetimes. In other quarters they would be quoted as examples of the USA financing terrorists. As for the US being the 'leaders of the free world' since WW1 all I would say is self agrandissement and bragaddocio does not convince anyone as this is completely untrue in the light of the evidence of history. The USA of 1918 to 1941 was deeply isolationist and did not take any real part in world affairs until its economic well being was threatened by possible Japanese hegemony in Asia and the push for a greater Germany in Europe. Self appointed 'leaders of the free world' you may think you are but perhaps it would be apposite to consider the qualities displayed by leaders. Real leaders know something about those that they lead, they are not self congratulatory to the extent that they are almost totally ignorant of other people's sensibilities and practices. Real leaders have the humility to recognise the strengths of those they lead and learn from them; they do not assume to themselves the prerogative to be the sole arbiters of right and reason. Real leaders try to set an example which others are proud to follow and wish to emulate so that they can better themselves but they also provide the opportunity for others to express their individuality and contribute to the team effort. Last time I checked the USA 'led the free' world in number of teenage pregnancies, number of gun deaths and mass homicides; obesity; student debt; illegal drug use; divorce; cost of health care; defence spending and GDP (although ranked on GDP per capita the US ranks as low as 10th or even 19th in some lists); number of cats and dogs kept as pets; cheese production and patriotism/patriotic sentiment.
|
×
×