What Treaties & Organizations Should the US Support?

What Treaties & Organizations Should the US Support? Is there really any reason for the United States to be involved with NATO or the United Nations? Is there any reason for us to continue pursuing failed and disadvantageous trade agreements like NAFTA? What about the WTO, IMF, World Bank, WHO, or any of these international bureaucracies the US has helped to establish? How about the CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation) or Kyoto?

Burning Giraffe said:

What Treaties & Organizations Should the US Support? Is there really any reason for the United States to be involved with NATO or the United Nations? Is there any reason for us to continue pursuing failed and disadvantageous trade agreements like NAFTA? What about the WTO, IMF, World Bank, WHO, or any of these international bureaucracies the US has helped to establish? How about the CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation) or Kyoto?

Click to expand...

Only trade agreements in my opinion, they are convoluted at the moment, but can always be refined, and all nations need trading partners.

The US Needs to get out of NATO. We don't need Europe.

Frankly, I think America's first order of business is to abandon its nonsensical alliance with its enemies in Europe by pulling out of NATO. The United States has enjoyed a long and significant relationship with the United Kingdom and we should form treaties and alliances with them, ignoring the European Union as whole. We have very little in common with them and no need to protect them. We can look to other allies in the world where we actually have strategic interests: Canada and Mexico, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, Denmark, Switzerland, South Korea, Japan, Israel, India, Australia, and Brazil. These are nations that we can work with.

Secondly, we need to pull out of the United Nations. However, we could not afford to do so unilaterally. We would need some other important nations to come out of the UN with us to form an organization of some of the most powerful nations, ignoring the ones with small an ineffective military or political presences: The United Kingdom, China, Russia, France, India, Australia, Brazil, and Japan. An alliance of just a few nations with much regional power is all we really need. We don't need to keep supporting developing nations or Islamist nations, or nations immersed in chaos and civil war. We simply distract ourselves from a positive vision of the future and any real momentum forward.

We need to renegotiate our trade agreements. These "free trade" agreements which give free trade to others while hampering our own should no longer exist. We need equal access. Forget "free trade" and "fair trade", the phrase that should be used is Equal Economic Access. Same standards. WE compromise on essential national industries, but no one nation need compromise more than the other. The United States has been bending and compromising so often over the last twenty five years that our economy is on the verge of breaking.

LaMidRighter said:

Only trade agreements in my opinion, they are convoluted at the moment, but can always be refined, and all nations need trading partners.

Click to expand...

I agree. We need to revamp these trade agreements. Frankly, I think some environmental cooperation with our neighbors is pragmatic and ultimately very important as technologies change to accommodate environmental conditions. Certainly we should want clear and open channels to exchange information between the neighboring nations. For the same reasons I think we should definitely invest in the World Health Organization. A Virus in the Sudan could kill Americans all over the world if not handled properly.

Just out of Curiosity, but do Europeans even want us to be a part of NATO? I mean, the chances are good that they do not and if we aren't wanted there, what's the point of being a member?

Not listed on but should support:

Non-Proliferation Treaty
Chemical and Biological Weapons treaties
SALT I & SALT II
Free trade treaties

Anyone want to guess who owns the last flow through account for the IMF?

Hint: It's a country with 50 states.

I don't think we should be in the United Nations or NAFTA.

I said "none of the above" because the question seems to imply these organizations are healthy and properly constructed as they stand.

The United States should be engaged in the world, and should seek a benevolent stance regarding the world. That much is merely what any would expect from any of his neighbors, and thus it what he should offer to any of this neighbors.

However, the United States is a sovereign nation. Within our borders, US law is the highest law there is, to be superseded by none. We owe no fealty to any higher entity, no duty of obeisance to anyone but ourselves; this is the nature of all sovereign nations. We are free to do as we will; none may command us to do otherwise.

Organizations such as the UN, and treaties such as Kyoto, seek to constrain and intrude upon that sovereignty. They seek to address not merely how nations should handle affairs beyond their borders, but within their borders--and no nation is obligated to surrender their sovereignty in that fashion.

Others, such as NATO, serve a purpose whose time may very well have passed, and it is not improper to question whether such an organization should be disbanded in favor of a more timely and relevant construct (although I stop short of claiming to know what that construct might be).

The US should be engaged in the world. It should be engaged as a sovereign nation, free and beholden to no one. It should preserve its sovereignty above all else--for any nation, defense of its sovereignty is the supreme civic virtue.

Burning Giraffe said:

I agree. We need to revamp these trade agreements. Frankly, I think some environmental cooperation with our neighbors is pragmatic and ultimately very important as technologies change to accommodate environmental conditions. Certainly we should want clear and open channels to exchange information between the neighboring nations. For the same reasons I think we should definitely invest in the World Health Organization. A Virus in the Sudan could kill Americans all over the world if not handled properly.

Click to expand...

I don't trust the W.H.O. at all, I'm an insurance agent(the full career) and have seen the ways they misuse data and their agenda negates any benefit they have in my opinion. But you have a good point on pandemic prevention, maybe a new body would be required? As far as environmental protection goes, those treaties go way to far, such as Kyoto and anything else that has come up the pike so far, proven pollutant control I can live with, theoretical pollutants and the laws that would damage us to control them is not.

You're forgetting the International Criminal Court. I support that too.

I think we should remain in most all of the organizations we now belong. NATO and the UN are a bit useless, but we suffer no consequence by staying. We have the largest veto power and as in Iraq, we act with or without consent.

Perhaps the most important, in my opinion at this point, is the Middle East Free Trade Initiative. I am an IR person and I think the key to solving the terrorist problem is by aiding in the establishment of a viable economy for the people of the ME. This will give the poor people of these countries an alternative to joining terror groups in order to support their families.

tlmorg02 said:

I think we should remain in most all of the organizations we now belong. NATO and the UN are a bit useless, but we suffer no consequence by staying. We have the largest veto power and as in Iraq, we act with or without consent.

Click to expand...

I want to see us end a lot of the one sided deals that we've undertaken in the past, they just aren't good for us IMO, the U.N. and NATO are useless, I would argue that we pay the "stupid tax" penalty by staying, that is, it doesn't benefit us in terms of international respect, they expect us to surrender a bit of our national sovreignity which is unacceptable, they try to missapply international law to our decisions, and all this after we waste money and resources in support of their inane agenda.

Perhaps the most important, in my opinion at this point, is the Middle East Free Trade Initiative. I am an IR person and I think the key to solving the terrorist problem is by aiding in the establishment of a viable economy for the people of the ME. This will give the poor people of these countries an alternative to joining terror groups in order to support their families.

Click to expand...

I agree in full to this, many of the countries in which we currently trade are U.S. friendly, we have a strong trading partnership with at least five M.E. countries and good diplomacy, I see nothing but benefit in increasing that number.

tlmorg02 said:

I think we should remain in most all of the organizations we now belong. NATO and the UN are a bit useless, but we suffer no consequence by staying. We have the largest veto power and as in Iraq, we act with or without consent.

Perhaps the most important, in my opinion at this point, is the Middle East Free Trade Initiative. I am an IR person and I think the key to solving the terrorist problem is by aiding in the establishment of a viable economy for the people of the ME. This will give the poor people of these countries an alternative to joining terror groups in order to support their families.

Click to expand...

Tim Im afraid this goes a little deeper than poverty. It is idological. For example the 911 hijackers where not poor. Many of them came from well to do families. Bin Laden himself came from a wealthy family. And what about work ethic. Is it possible to be productive when you are on your knees praying to Allah 5 times a day? I agree that MEFTI is a good idea I am just not sure it will reduce the pool from which our enimies recruit.

LaMidRighter said:

I want to see us end a lot of the one sided deals that we've undertaken in the past, they just aren't good for us IMO, the U.N. and NATO are useless, I would argue that we pay the "stupid tax" penalty by staying, that is, it doesn't benefit us in terms of international respect, they expect us to surrender a bit of our national sovreignity which is unacceptable, they try to missapply international law to our decisions, and all this after we waste money and resources in support of their inane agenda.
I agree in full to this, many of the countries in which we currently trade are U.S. friendly, we have a strong trading partnership with at least five M.E. countries and good diplomacy, I see nothing but benefit in increasing that number.

Click to expand...

I disagree, as much as I dislike the UN I believe it is necessary for us to maintain membership. Without the vetopower of the USA we will see a shift in the UN that would not be in our best intrest.

tlmorg02 said:

I think we should remain in most all of the organizations we now belong. NATO and the UN are a bit useless, but we suffer no consequence by staying. We have the largest veto power and as in Iraq, we act with or without consent.

Perhaps the most important, in my opinion at this point, is the Middle East Free Trade Initiative. I am an IR person and I think the key to solving the terrorist problem is by aiding in the establishment of a viable economy for the people of the ME. This will give the poor people of these countries an alternative to joining terror groups in order to support their families.

Click to expand...

We suffer costs. We suffer the expense. Europe has to deal with American Troops residing in their home lands. Neither NAFTA nor the MEFTI have anything to do with free trade. It's an unbalanced trade giving the Near East everything it wants from us without any reimbursement in return.

The Environment and the prevention of disease are important. We need to work together on these issues. But political issues and military issues? Things are different. The United States needs new foreign policy, we need to better our relationships with some nations, end our relationships with others, and make new friends in the world. We've got to stop thinking like its still the Cold War. We've got to get over this ridiculous idea that Europe is an ally. The UK and Ireland certainly are friendly, but Europe is no more friendly to us than China, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt. In fact, we probably get more out of these less ethical states than we do out of the Europeans.

SgtRock said:

I disagree, as much as I dislike the UN I believe it is necessary for us to maintain membership. Without the vetopower of the USA we will see a shift in the UN that would not be in our best intrest.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but who cares? It wouldn't apply to us.

Burning Giraffe said:

Yeah, but who cares? It wouldn't apply to us.

Click to expand...

That would be true.

SgtRock said:

I disagree, as much as I dislike the UN I believe it is necessary for us to maintain membership. Without the vetopower of the USA we will see a shift in the UN that would not be in our best intrest.

Click to expand...

I see your point as well, but we are already putting up with too much crap from that organization and if it can't restructure, then I still maintain it needs to go.

Burning Giraffe said:

We suffer costs. We suffer the expense. Europe has to deal with American Troops residing in their home lands. Neither NAFTA nor the MEFTI have anything to do with free trade. It's an unbalanced trade giving the Near East everything it wants from us without any reimbursement in return.

The Environment and the prevention of disease are important. We need to work together on these issues. But political issues and military issues? Things are different. The United States needs new foreign policy, we need to better our relationships with some nations, end our relationships with others, and make new friends in the world. We've got to stop thinking like its still the Cold War. We've got to get over this ridiculous idea that Europe is an ally. The UK and Ireland certainly are friendly, but Europe is no more friendly to us than China, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt. In fact, we probably get more out of these less ethical states than we do out of the Europeans.

Click to expand...

I agree that somethings must be changed, but I do not think it is true that we get nothing in return. For example, it is military policy to have bases throughout the world in order to have attack capabilities if so needed. The "Bush" pre-emptive doctrine. Right or wrong, there is some appeal to being prepared for all scenarios and keeping the fight away from the continent. As far as MEFTI, it is keeping oil companies in oil, I could argue either way for this, but in reality the ME is all about oil and we all know it. I think it as well as NAFTA need reform in order to create real free trade, as is NAFTA is responsible for the immigration increase from Mexico, but you will never hear that admitted.

SgtRock said:

Tim Im afraid this goes a little deeper than poverty. It is idological. For example the 911 hijackers where not poor. Many of them came from well to do families. Bin Laden himself came from a wealthy family. And what about work ethic. Is it possible to be productive when you are on your knees praying to Allah 5 times a day? I agree that MEFTI is a good idea I am just not sure it will reduce the pool from which our enimies recruit.

Click to expand...

You make valid points, but I think there was other motives other than zealotry in these attacks. Many ME scholars point to the psychological side of terrorism, that is many prominent and wealthy Arabs, such as Bin Laden, feel that their countries have been left behind the rest of the world. That is to say that at one point in history the arab nations were the epicenter of scientific thought. As time has past and the industrial revolution created new powerhouses, ie.. the U.S. and Europe, the ME was marginalized and essentially used however the powers saw fit. Britain did as it pleased in the Middle East, and the U.S. is hardly blameless as our activity has led to the Iran crisis and the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan after the Soviet War. Thus, these people see their primitive societies, excluding those wealthy oil states, they moved to fundamentalism to explain their dilemma and the "Great White Satan," was born.

So by building better economies in the ME and providing alternatives to terror groups, I think we may reduce the pool of candidates and make great headway.

I voted for all of them except the Kyoto Protocol.

North American Free Trade Agreement

Click to expand...

Yes, the more free trade, the better...especially with our neighbors. And before anyone starts shrieking about "managed trade," remember that the perfect is the enemy of the good. NAFTA is a *huge* improvement over the trade barriers that existed before. Eventually I'd like to get to the point where we have no trade barriers at all.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Click to expand...

Yes, although it seems to be outliving its usefulness. For now, I don't see any reason to leave it though. It would just damage our relationship with our allies. Eventually I would like to see this evolve into what John McCain calls a Concert of Democracies, which would be open to all democratic nations in the world. Not necessarily a military alliance anymore, but more of a political organization to sideline the UN Security Council.

The United Nations

Click to expand...

Yes, the UN is the only forum where all of the world's nations can voice their concerns about any international issue. Just because it doesn't always do what Americans want doesn't mean that it's worthless. Its resolutions are not binding anyway, and its treaties are not binding unless the US Congress ratifies them.

The World Bank

Click to expand...

Absolutely. IMO the World Bank is a key to alleviating poverty in developing states. It avoids some of the problems of direct foreign aid (e.g. corruption, logistics, targeting aid to the wrong projects, dumping food) by providing LOANS to nations for specific projects that it deems economically feasible and that will help the country develop. It helps them take responsibility for their affairs while at the same time assisting them with money.

The International Monetary Fund

Click to expand...

Yes. As we saw in the late 1990s, when currencies collapse due to intense speculation, they can take down the economies of other nations as well. The IMF is an important way to help stabilize the global economy.

World Health Organization

Click to expand...

Obviously, yes. The WHO is the best thing the UN has ever done...I really don't see any reason why anyone would ever be against the WHO, other than ideological extremism.

Kyoto Protocol

Click to expand...

Nah. For one thing, the Kyoto Protocol ends at 2013 anyway. At this point, there really wouldn't be much point to joining. Second of all, the requirements imposed on the United States would be too draconian and not achievable. Third of all, even if we met our goals it would be more than outweighed by the INCREASES in emissions elsewhere. Fourth of all, it is becoming clear that most of the nations who HAVE ratified the Kyoto Protocol are not going to meet their goals, which makes the treaty pointless.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation

Click to expand...

Yes. The environmental policies of Canada, the United States, and Mexico affect one another, since we share borders. It makes sense to coordinate our efforts.

Middle East Free Trade Initiative

Click to expand...

Yes, for the same reasons as NAFTA.

tlmorg02 said:

I agree that somethings must be changed, but I do not think it is true that we get nothing in return. For example, it is military policy to have bases throughout the world in order to have attack capabilities if so needed. The "Bush" pre-emptive doctrine. Right or wrong, there is some appeal to being prepared for all scenarios and keeping the fight away from the continent. As far as MEFTI, it is keeping oil companies in oil, I could argue either way for this, but in reality the ME is all about oil and we all know it. I think it as well as NAFTA need reform in order to create real free trade, as is NAFTA is responsible for the immigration increase from Mexico, but you will never hear that admitted.

Click to expand...

I don't know. I just don't see how bases in Germany are that strategic. All we really need are Navy Bases anyway, stationed around the world. We can use them for hospitals and getting our troops around the world. It doesn't take our military very long to set up a good base. If we wanted to set up a military base right beside the Kremlin, we could. There are plenty of countries that would give us land for military bases, I don't see why should be using Europe. I don't know, I'm sure the military people know what they are doing.

Re: The US Needs to get out of NATO. We don't need Europe.

Burning Giraffe said:

Frankly, I think America's first order of business is to abandon its nonsensical alliance with its enemies in Europe by pulling out of NATO. The United States has enjoyed a long and significant relationship with the United Kingdom and we should form treaties and alliances with them, ignoring the European Union as whole. We have very little in common with them and no need to protect them. We can look to other allies in the world where we actually have strategic interests: Canada and Mexico, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, Denmark, Switzerland, South Korea, Japan, Israel, India, Australia, and Brazil. These are nations that we can work with.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you, but the NATO alliance is keeping the Russians at bay incase they ever feel like picking up there balls again and trying something in Eastern Europe, and its vital as a world player that the US remains a world player and not the US and Russian, and it is also vital as a world player that it declares the importance and the need for other countries to respect there terratorial integrety and independance.

Secondly, we need to pull out of the United Nations. However, we could not afford to do so unilaterally. We would need some other important nations to come out of the UN with us to form an organization of some of the most powerful nations, ignoring the ones with small an ineffective military or political presences: The United Kingdom, China, Russia, France, India, Australia, Brazil, and Japan. An alliance of just a few nations with much regional power is all we really need. We don't need to keep supporting developing nations or Islamist nations, or nations immersed in chaos and civil war. We simply distract ourselves from a positive vision of the future and any real momentum forward.

Click to expand...

Agreed but it would be stupid not to include Turkey. Turkey is the only European country that provides a gateway straight into the middle east and Asia. Its a regional power and has the most effective and active army in that area. Its also a country that has a majority muslim populace (i wont say its a muslim country because its secular) so that would be a good gesture to those who think "the christians are gathering up on us".

The UN has been dead for a while and i think the majority of countries would be happy to pull out with the US.

We need to renegotiate our trade agreements. These "free trade" agreements which give free trade to others while hampering our own should no longer exist. We need equal access. Forget "free trade" and "fair trade", the phrase that should be used is Equal Economic Access. Same standards. WE compromise on essential national industries, but no one nation need compromise more than the other. The United States has been bending and compromising so often over the last twenty five years that our economy is on the verge of breaking.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Re: The US Needs to get out of NATO. We don't need Europe.

Burning Giraffe said:

Frankly, I think America's first order of business is to abandon its nonsensical alliance with its enemies in Europe by pulling out of NATO. The United States has enjoyed a long and significant relationship with the United Kingdom and we should form treaties and alliances with them, ignoring the European Union as whole. We have very little in common with them and no need to protect them. We can look to other allies in the world where we actually have strategic interests: Canada and Mexico, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, Denmark, Switzerland, South Korea, Japan, Israel, India, Australia, and Brazil. These are nations that we can work with.

Click to expand...

-> "Enemies in Europe" => LOL
-> Where are Denmark, Ireland and Switzerland?
-> What are your "strategic interests" with Singapore, which is a dictatorship, or New Zealand and Australia (which are quite insignificant, all they do is exporting meat)
-> As for India, I'm sorry but they're already with Russia

Secondly, we need to pull out of the United Nations. However, we could not afford to do so unilaterally. We would need some other important nations to come out of the UN with us to form an organization of some of the most powerful nations, ignoring the ones with small an ineffective military or political presences: The United Kingdom, China, Russia, France, India, Australia, Brazil, and Japan. An alliance of just a few nations with much regional power is all we really need. We don't need to keep supporting developing nations or Islamist nations, or nations immersed in chaos and civil war. We simply distract ourselves from a positive vision of the future and any real momentum forward.

Click to expand...

How can you expect Middle-Eastern countries to respect Human Rights or be democratic if you get out of the precize institution whose goal is to promote such things?

We need to renegotiate our trade agreements. These "free trade" agreements which give free trade to others while hampering our own should no longer exist. We need equal access. Forget "free trade" and "fair trade", the phrase that should be used is Equal Economic Access. Same standards. WE compromise on essential national industries, but no one nation need compromise more than the other. The United States has been bending and compromising so often over the last twenty five years that our economy is on the verge of breaking.

Click to expand...

Do you know what "fair trade" is about?

It doesn't take our military very long to set up a good base. If we wanted to set up a military base right beside the Kremlin, we could.

Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction]Russia and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

There are plenty of countries that would give us land for military bases

Click to expand...

Like Diego Garcia??

tlmorg02 said:

I think we should remain in most all of the organizations we now belong. NATO and the UN are a bit useless, but we suffer no consequence by staying. We have the largest veto power and as in Iraq, we act with or without consent.

Click to expand...

The problem with us being in the U.N and having the meetings in the U.S is it affords all of the countries of the world a door to an intelegence opperation. Indeed one the primary ways of Russia during the Cold War was to ask for sensitive but not Secret info under cover of some orginization in the U.N. Closing this door would be a great benifit.

With respect to NATO while i did select to keep it some changes are in order. Since the former Warsaw Pact Counties are considrably more friendly to us than the Central and Western we should have relationsips with those to counter any ambition Russia may show. With respect to the treat of terrorism most of it will be in the form of intelegence though as long as Islamic bassed terror occurs we will unfortunely will have to have some bases in Europe.

tlmorg02 said:

Perhaps the most important, in my opinion at this point, is the Middle East Free Trade Initiative. I am an IR person and I think the key to solving the terrorist problem is by aiding in the establishment of a viable economy for the people of the ME. This will give the poor people of these countries an alternative to joining terror groups in order to support their families.

Click to expand...

Even though the bulk of the terroist volunteers are children of the Middle Class? No doubt that improving the conditions would help but as long the regimes that exist there are either ruled by thugs or religious nutcases or both there will be no lasting peace.