Bush Is Wrong: Americans Overwhelmingly Favor Working With UN, Being Multilateralist

[NATO AIR]

so much for him winning many points in the future by knocking kerry for the "global test" remark
(psst, hit kerry for being inconsistent and contradictory prez)

this is just more reason why a 2nd term pres. bush or a pres. kerry must work very hard to reform the UN so we can actually use it and take it from a sad joke (what it is today) into a working institution.

(and this article is written by the notably conservative, iraq war supporter fareed zakaria, not some neurotic liberal living in la-la land)

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
By Fareed Zakaria

Newsweek 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. Sixty-six percent of Americans favor working within the United Nations, even when it adopts policies that the U.S. does not like. Fifty-nine percent want to do away with all vetoes in the Security Council, including America's. Seventy-four percent want a standing U.N. peacekeeping force, commanded by the U.N., not the U.S. Forty-nine 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.

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. But 76 percent of Americans in the Chicago survey support the court. Seventy-one 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.

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. Seventy-four 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.

What the Bush campaign understands is that in today's America, silent majorities are far less important than energetic minorities. 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; 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. What we now need are leaders who can take this raw material and turn it into a new politics.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

 

[insein]

fuck the UN.

 

[no1tovote4]

so much for him winning many points in the future by knocking kerry for the "global test" remark
(psst, hit kerry for being inconsistent and contradictory prez)

this is just more reason why a 2nd term pres. bush or a pres. kerry must work very hard to reform the UN so we can actually use it and take it from a sad joke (what it is today) into a working institution.

(and this article is written by the notably conservative, iraq war supporter fareed zakaria, not some neurotic liberal living in la-la land)

I simply do not even know one personally and therefore take that statement and this article with a huge grain of salt. I have seriously Democrat friends that don't like the global test thing.

 

[NATO AIR]

I simply do not even know one personally and therefore take that statement and this article with a huge grain of salt. I have seriously Democrat friends that don't like the global test thing.

most dems are not the neurotic liberal type, but enough of them are to embarass the party and too many times hijack or poison its platform. there are the people who claim we don't intervene in darfur because we're racist, or we intervened in kosovo to control the soon to be built oil pipeline there, or that we invaded iraq to get oil, or that we should let the UN make our major foreign policy decisions.

 

[NATO AIR]

hey, i have great anger towards the UN over Iraq and Darfur, but I'm not quite willing to give up just yet. There are enough nations in the world with legitimate power (India, Japan, Britain and America, not to mention numerous others in the Americas, Africa and Asia) who want to try to reform the UN. Perhaps one last chance, with our best effort put forward to enact change. We can do it, I do believe.

 

[NATO AIR]

A reform is the only way I can see making it work, as it stands now there is no legitimacy with all the corruption. I think it's quite obvious why France chose to use the veto power, and why Russia and Germany were unwilling to join the action on Iraq. Outside of what some call the obvious these three countries had other hidden agendas!

then they had the gall to claim higher morality when we went to war, criticizing us for killing innocent people while their greed sent hundreds of thousands to their deaths and wrecked iraq's infrastructure

yes reform must happen or else... the UN moves to Paris

 

[007]

Before the u.n. is good for anything at all, there needs to be a deep, thorough, and unpartail investigation into the oil for food scandal, which by the way is still developing, not to mention all the other corruption, and all those involved need to be jailed, deported and/or fired.

Until then, I wouldn't trust the u.n. to take out my garbage.

Whatever poll you used to make the claim "most people agree" about the United States saying how high and when should we come down everytime the u.n. says jump, I think that poll is probably as crocked as the u.n. is. I don't believe it.

 

[NATO AIR]

Before the u.n. is good for anything at all, there needs to be a deep, thorough, and unpartail investigation into the oil for food scandal, which by the way is still developing, not to mention all the other corruption, and all those involved need to be jailed, deported and/or fired.

Until then, I wouldn't trust the u.n. to take out my garbage.

i wholeheartedly agree... that's why i'm glad congress and fox news are pursuing it so doggedly and fully.

 

[Merlin1047]

so much for him winning many points in the future by knocking kerry for the "global test" remark
(psst, hit kerry for being inconsistent and contradictory prez)

this is just more reason why a 2nd term pres. bush or a pres. kerry must work very hard to reform the UN so we can actually use it and take it from a sad joke (what it is today) into a working institution.

(and this article is written by the notably conservative, iraq war supporter fareed zakaria, not some neurotic liberal living in la-la land)

Don't know what land Fareed is living in, but I doubt that it's the same as most Americans. There are numerous holes in his article which you failed to notice.

First, the source of the study is the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. Chicago? Give me a break here for crying out loud. Here is their own description regarding their group taken from their website:
http://www.globalchicago.org/about/default.asp

"Global Chicago is a collaborative project whose mission is to enhance Chicago's strengths as a global city and raise awareness - both here and abroad - of Chicago's global connections by:

identifying Chicago's global assets and its economic, social, intellectual and cultural links to the rest of the world,
facilitating communication and collaboration among internationally-minded groups, and
helping Chicagoans understand the challenges and opportunities of globalization."

The mission statement of their "Council on Foreign Relations:
http://www.globalchicago.org/about/welcome.asp
"The Global Chicago Center of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations is a collaborative project designed to raise awareness of the various global connections that exist in Chicago, improve communication and cooperation among internationally-minded groups, enhance Chicago's global profile, and help Chicagoans respond effectively to the challenges of globalization. Find out about the history of the Global Chicago Project (MacArthur Report), and read the Global Chicago (Brochure) for more information."

http://www.ccfr.org/about/about.html

"The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR) is one of the largest independent, non-profit international affairs organizations in the United States, serving over 7,000 members and the community through diversified programming. The Council provides members, specialized groups and the general public with a forum for the consideration of significant international issues and their bearing on American foreign policy. In over 150 meetings annually, including lectures, seminars, conferences, publications, a travel program and other activities, the CCFR seeks to represent all sides of complex issues on the global agenda. Council events feature major policy makers and other foreign experts from around the world, offering participants the opportunity to ask questions, voice their opinions and engage in candid discussions.

The Council's goal is to further awareness and broaden understanding of international relations and foreign policy as well as promote Chicago's status as an important international center. In addition to remaining the premier platform in the Midwest for international leaders in foreign policy, the Council strives to take the lead in gaining recognition for Chicago as an international business center for the corporate community and to broaden and deepen the Council's role in the community."

The council is manned by Han Sung Joo, former ambassador to the US from the Republic of Korea, Grant Aldonas, a career State Department bureacrat, and Kenneth Dam, an internationalist egghead, lawyer, State Department hack until he joined the Treasury Department in 2001. No, these guys don't have any agenda, of course not.

I could find no mention of the methodology used to derive the statistics cited by the study. I suspect that they went downton Chicago and interrupted some break dancing, drug sales and muggings to ask their questions. Chicago is as liberal as New York, Seattle or San Francisco. It is no surprise that these people could find the numbers to support their pre-conceived conclusions.

There is no doubt that if you conduct your poll among most liberals you would come up with numbers similar to those cited in the article. However if you look around this board, you come up with decidedly different figures. Even the author of the article is an internationalist. The only thing that this proves is that anyone with an agenda can conduct a poll of a carefully chosen group and come up figures supporting any point of view.

And simply for the sake of honesty, let me add "Screw the UN". They are a total waste of our resources, including the air they breathe.

 

[NATO AIR]

and what a way to break it down, but let me add that can be done to any poll anyone ever posts on here, we'll never know the exact truth until every single american is polled on it, something that i doubt will ever happen for any issue

 

[007]

and what a way to break it down, but let me add that can be done to any poll anyone ever posts on here, we'll never know the exact truth until every single american is polled on it, something that i doubt will ever happen for any issue

http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/004357.html

IT'S NOT JUST REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES WHO DON'T TRUST THE U.N.

Daniel Henninger's column is revealing for the poll that it reports regarding attitudes of the American people towards the U.N.. The poll measures the percentage of Americans stating that the world body is doing a "poor" job, and was conducted jointly by CNN and Gallup.

It's not surprising to see some of the figures. 69% of conservatives think that the U.N. is doing a poor job, and 77% of Republicans think so as well. But--and this shocks me--53% of Democrats, and 59% of liberals also think that the U.N. is doing a poor job.

This suggests that attacks on the Bush Administration for failing to be "multilateral" enough may very well fall on deaf ears among the American electorate, which strongly dislikes the U.N. as a whole. Considering the world body's many recent failures, this should come as no surprise, but it still bears repeating that fidelity to the U.N.--a campaign theme being pursued by many of the Democratic candidates--doesn't appear to be catching on.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

We can form coalitions on an ad hoc basis to do what needs to be done globally. Fuck the U.N.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

so much for him winning many points in the future by knocking kerry for the "global test" remark
(psst, hit kerry for being inconsistent and contradictory prez)

this is just more reason why a 2nd term pres. bush or a pres. kerry must work very hard to reform the UN so we can actually use it and take it from a sad joke (what it is today) into a working institution.

(and this article is written by the notably conservative, iraq war supporter fareed zakaria, not some neurotic liberal living in la-la land)

Take the U.N. and make it what it was originally intended to be, get rid of Koffi Annan, get rid of anybody else that might have even been close to the Oil for Food scandal. Yeah, I would like to see the U.S. work with them then. As it is now, I'm not so sure, and under no circumstances do I want us to bow down to them.