Re: List of International Obligations Violated by George W. Bush


US Rogue State
1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972
Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time
in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.

And that was one of his better ideas. It's an entirely different world
than it was in 1972. We didn't have to worry about states like North
Korea with a handful of nukes and nothing much to lose.

2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144 nations
including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London
conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention
by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US
Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that "the protocol is dead," at
the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria of
violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or supporting
evidence.

The convention *is* dead because we have absolutely no way of enforcing
it, aside from taking action ourselves. So why have it at all?

3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July
2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it.

Since when is is an "international obligation" to agree with anything
and everything the UN puts forth?

4. April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission,

Yeah, and look who they put in our place. Hmmm...

after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244
million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN budget
from 25 to 22 percent.

Of course, leaving out that the US has paid more towards the UN than
the rest of the fking world combined... with that in mind, forgive me
if I think the idea of us having "dues" to pay kind of laughable.

(In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood
virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access to
HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and
calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.)

Yeah - we opposed some resolutions, which obviously outweights the fact
that we, more than anyone else in the world, are the ones who actually
*pay* for these HIV/AIDS drugs, and to provide food for people.

5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to
try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and
crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was
approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In October
2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001 the US
Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would
keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed
ICC.

We choose not to have our citizens tried in courts we have absolutely
no reason to recognize. So what?

6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December 1997
by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia, China,
India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton
rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea
against North Korea's "overwhelming military advantage." He stated that the
US would "eventually" comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush
in August 2001.

Hmm... you need to clarify, are you bashing Bush on this one or
Clinton? Or did you just forget to actually *read* each of these
before you posted them? Is that you, Hal?

7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared "dead"
by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration
shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by
watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval.

A bit misleading. One of the major reasons that the US has not signed
on is that the Kyoto Protocol does not treat nations equally. China,
Germany, and India are almost completely exempt from the protocol,
despite being among the top emitters of pollution in the world.

8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss, even
at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic
surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US "Echelon" program),

Why in the world should we divulge our national security intelligence
methods with other countries, much less "lower levels" of government in
those countries?

9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to crack down
on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens.

And this was an international obligation?

10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of
anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001

Interesting that some of the folks who did sign are still producing,
selling, and even using anti-personnel bombs and mines.

11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism,
bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa

Is that the one that was advocating that reparations be paid to anyone
who had been enslaved or had ancestors who were slaves? Why should
people be obligated to pay for something that was done decades or even
centuries before by other people?

12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial nations
(US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001: the US
was the only one to oppose it.

Again, since when is it an "international obligation" to agree with
everyone else?

13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In the UN
in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the tenth
consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of 167 to
3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).

The UN has no right telling the US that it needs to conduct trade with
another country. If we choose to boycott Cuba from now until eternity,
that is our business.

14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and
ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by
President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one
of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear
power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN Committee
on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban
Treaty.

So are you blaming Bush for this one despite it being rejected by the
senate in 1999? Did you even *read* this before you posted them? And
since when is signing a ban on nuclear testing an international
obligation?

15. In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that the US
was in violation of international law for "unlawful use of force" in
Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US
refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for
compliance with the Court's decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting
no).

The international court of justice had (and has) no jurisdiction, and
it doesn't matter what the UN says to the contrary.

16. In 1984 the US quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO's budget, over the New
World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to lessen
world media dependence on the "big four" wire agencies (AP, UPI, Agence
France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with "curtailment of press
freedom," as well as mismanagement and other faults, despite a 148-1 in vote
in favor of NWICO in the UN. UNESCO terminated NWICO in 1989; the US
nonetheless refused to rejoin. In 1995 the Clinton administration proposed
rejoining; the move was blocked in Congress and Clinton did not press the
issue. In February 2000 the US finally paid some of its arrears to the UN
but excluded UNESCO, which the US has not rejoined.

Again, how is this a violation by Bush?? It happened in 1984. In any
event, how is it an international obligation to support UNESCO?

17. Optional Protocol, 1989, to the UN's International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty and containing a
provision banning the execution of those under 18. The US has neither signed
nor ratified and specifically exempts itself from the latter provision,
making it one of five countries that still execute juveniles (with Saudi
Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria).

In 1989 you say? And you're blaming Bush?

China abolished the
practice in 1997, Pakistan in 2000.

Uh, yeah - sure they did.

18. 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women. The only countries that have signed but not ratified are the
US, Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe.

1979? Yeah, that damn Bush...

19. The US has signed but not ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of children. The
only other country not to ratify is Somalia, which has no functioning
government.

1989? That *** Bush...

20. UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966,
covering a wide range of rights and monitored by the Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights. The US signed in 1977 but has not ratified.

1977? *growl*

21. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
1948. The US finally ratified in 1988, adding several "reservations" to the
effect that the US Constitution and the "advice and consent" of the Senate
are required to judge whether any "acts in the course of armed conflict"
constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by Britain, Italy,
Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia, and others.

1988? Once again, I apologize if this seems to be redundant, but what
does this have to do with BUSH, and why would it be an "obligation" in
the first place?

22. Is the status of "we're number one!" Rogue overcome by generous foreign
aid to given less fortunate countries? The three best aid providers,
measured by the foreign aid percentage of their gross domestic products, are
Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands (0.79), The three
worst: USA (0.10%), UK (0.23%), Australia, Portugal, and Austria (all 0.26).

The thing you are missing is that our .10% is still *massively* more
than 1% from Denmark. We give more in aid than Denmark, Norway, and
the Netherlands combined each year - you wanna bitch over the
percentage?

I have to say, Wannabe... your post is not quite as mind-numbingly
stupid as Drakes "abolish the USA" post from earlier, but then you have
the edge in posting stuff without reading it. It's a tough call.

.