Posted on 03/18/2008 4:56:09 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Americans and Europeans share a common goal – to build an enduring peace based on freedom. Our democracies today are strong and vibrant. Together we can tackle the diverse challenges we face, whether radical religious fanatics who use terror as their weapon of choice, the disturbing turn towards autocracy in Russia or the looming threats of climate change and the degradation of our planet.
But the key word is “together”. We need to renew and revitalise our democratic solidarity. We need to strengthen our transatlantic alliance as the core of a new global compact – a League of Democracies – that can harness the great power of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.
At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. We Americans recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we must pay “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed.
We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe that international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must also be willing to be persuaded by them.
The nations of the Nato alliance and the European Union, meanwhile, must have the ability and the will to act in defence of freedom and economic prosperity. They must spend the money necessary to build effective military and civilian capabilities that can be deployed around the world, from the Balkans to Afghanistan, from Chad to East Timor.
We welcome European leadership to make the world a better and safer place. We look forward to France’s full reintegration into Nato. And we strongly support the EU’s efforts to build an effective European Security and Defence Policy. A strong EU, a strong Nato and a true strategic partnership between them is profoundly in our interest.
We all have to live up to our own high standards of morality and international responsibility. We will fight the terrorists and at the same time defend the rights that are the foundations of our societies. We cannot torture or treat inhumanely the suspected terrorists that we have captured. We must close the detention facility at Guantánamo and come to a common international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.
International responsibility also means preserving our common home. The risks of global warming have no borders. Americans and Europeans need to get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand over a much-diminished world to our grandchildren. We need to reinvigorate the US-European partnership on climate change where we have so many common interests at stake. The US and Europe must lead together to encourage the participation of the rest of the world, including most importantly, the developing economic powerhouses of China and India.
I have introduced legislation that would require a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, but that is just a start. We need a successor to Kyoto, a cap-and-trade system that delivers the necessary environmental impact in an economically responsible manner. New technologies hold great promise. We need to unleash the power and innovation of the marketplace in order to meet our environmental challenges. Right now safe, climate-friendly nuclear energy is a critical way both to improve the quality of our air and to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
That dependence, I am afraid, has become a vulnerability for both the US and Europe and a source of leverage for the oil and gas exporting autocracies. The US needs to wean itself off oil faster. Europe needs a comprehensive energy policy so that Russia’s oil and gas monopolies cannot behave as agents of political influence.
The bottom line is that none of us can act as if our only concerns are within our own borders. We cannot define our national interests so narrowly that we fail to see how intimately our fate is bound up with that of the rest of humanity. There is such a thing as good international citizenship. If we wish to be models for others, we must be model citizens ourselves.
Certainly the US must be that model country. Leadership today means something different than it did in the years after the second world war, when Europe and the other democracies were recovering from the devastation of war and the US was the only democratic superpower. Today, there is the powerful collective voice of the EU, India, Japan, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, South Africa, Turkey and Israel, to name just a few of the leading democracies. And there are the struggling young democracies, such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, that need and deserve help – more, in fact, than we have been giving. In Russia, democracy has been temporarily suppressed, but we all have an interest in seeing this great nation return to the democratic path soon.
This is not idealism. It is the truest form of realism. It is the democracies of the world that will provide the pillars upon which we can and must build an enduring peace.
The writer is senator for Arizona and is the Republican nominee for the 2008 US presidential elections
From what I've seen, he has never introduced or sponsored any such bill. I understand your point.
Oh and he will finish off the US auto industry with foolish and unreasonable CAFE standards.
That addition to his platform was another unwelcome addition. I agree.
Reagan cannot sign anymore abortion acts. McCain CAN sign global warming acts. Therefore, the criticism is focused on the LIVING John McCain.
I can’t do that.
I pinged you because I anticipate a lot of his European visit has to do with forging ahead on global warming commitments. Blair was the one that got Schwarzenegger fully on board (and later Crist in Fl) before passing his “global warming solutions act” that allows for cap and trade. Since McCain wrote this policy-oriented op-ed that affirmed his views on global warming, I thought it might interest ya and the AGW list.
Personally, I think each party’s primaries should be restricted to its respective party members. But as long as the parties are stupid enough to allow crossovers and independents, we might as well jam up Obama by voting for Hillary now that McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee, thanks in part to independents and Democrat crossovers. :-)
“The answer to your question lies in the fact that preconditions to Kyoto are meaningless.”
This statement makes no sense. How can preconditions to international legislation be meaningless? If China and India are not participants, neither is the U.S. Your prediction that McCain will sign it regardless is contradictory to McCain’s statement. Do you have any evidence that he will sign on regardless of these preconditions? Unless you have a source that shows he will do as you say, I don’t see your prediction as having any substance.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't even connect our nuclear power discussion to nuclear weapons. McCain has been softening his stance a lot, of late. "Bomb, bomb, Iran" has been replaced today with "There'd be a broad range of sanctions and punishments to the Iranians to help try to convince them that their activities -- particularly development of nuclear weapons -- is not a beneficial goal to seek"
Not so hard line, anymore.
I agree, a level playing field concept would dictate all parties play by the same rules,, unfortunately, with scoundrels in the media and parties today willing to carve up their own grandmother to get ahead, the variety of different ways candidates are vetted and voted for and against, how can anyone question that what we have today bordering being a classic clusterf***.
a nation that is so vital to the prosperity of more than just its own citizens but also others should not allow foreign interlopers and political sell-outs to determine the direction of the nation.
“McCain will not be swayed. He is no different than the leftists on this issue.”
I disagree. Unlike the leftists, McCain insists on unrealistic preconditions.
Please re-read post 100.
Pre-conditions are meaningless and I clearly explain why.
As for my prediction about McCain, I have clearly told you that he already believes in global warming, an, coupled with his proven propensity to go with the Democratic agenda evidenced in his sponsorship of Dem legislation, is the best indicator of his future actions.
If his so-called pre-conditions are not met, he will not be able to resist committing America to Kyoto in the face of multilevel calls for him to provide”leadership” in the matter, even if China and India prove recalcitrant.
Past actions are the best indicator of future actions.
Any other questions?
Sactions AND punishments? What kind of punishment is their besides sanctions? It sounds as though he is leaving a military option on the table. If you are trying to insinuate that McCain will cave to the Iranians, you need to find a better quote than that. Regardless, the other party wants talks without preconditions. There is no comparison between McCain and the dems in regards to Iran.
I agree with exit82’s post #100.
“If his so-called pre-conditions are not met, he will not be able to resist committing America to Kyoto in the face of multilevel calls for him to provide”leadership” in the matter, even if China and India prove recalcitrant.”
You still have not provided any evidence of this. If you can find a quote by McCain or a staffer, saying he has changed his stance and will join Kyoto without the preconditions he had previously insisted on, by all means provide it. Otherwise, it seems as though it is baseless speculation on your part.
“his sponsorship of Dem legislation, is the best indicator of his future actions.”
If this were true, he’d have jumped ship on Iraq with the congressional democrats.
“Any other questions?”
Yes, what was McCain’s stance on the surge in comparison with the stance of Barrak/Hillary? (Yeah, I already know, but I like to ask you anti-McCain people questions in which you have to acknowledge stark differences between the canidates).
;-)
“You still have not provided any evidence of this. If you can find a quote by McCain or a staffer, saying he has changed his stance and will join Kyoto without the preconditions he had previously insisted on, by all means provide it. Otherwise, it seems as though it is baseless speculation on your part.”
We’re talking about a future action. How can I supply a quote on something that hasn’t happened yet? Yet, I have given you the evidence for making my prediction. That’s all I can give you until I finish my become-a-magician-by-mail course.
As for the surge, he supported it. So did I. Will you vote for me for President? He gets no points for supporting the surge—anyone who supported the troops, the President, and America winning in Iraq knew it had to be done.
Uh, WJC had to be pulled like a screaming two year old, with Dick Morris doing the pulling, to sign the 96 welfare reform act.
Just a question, which you don't have to answer, is your first name Monica?
Just as I said.
And you were wrong again.
“Your prediction that McCain will sign it regardless is contradictory to McCain’s statement. Do you have any evidence that he will sign on regardless of these preconditions? Unless you have a source that shows he will do as you say, I don’t see your prediction as having any substance.”
His record is enough to prove he will go along with Democrats at every turn. YOU on the other hand have no proof he would actually stand up to them on any principle. And that goes for any issue, not just this silly global warming crap.
“If this were true, he’d have jumped ship on Iraq with the congressional democrats.”
He will. He knows the war was his one hope of carrying him through the primary, and possibly the general. As soon as he’s President, he will work out a secret timetable with his Senate Dem buddies. The hints are there. His rhetoric about closing Gitmo, “our image”, “blood and treasure”, are signs that he doesn’t really doesn’t have George Bush’s will to carry out the campaign.
The interesting thing is, Hillary has thrown out hints of the opposite. Her talking about getting troops out “safely and responsibly” is code for staying there until it’s safe to leave. She also left herself open the possibility of attacking AQ targets. And God knows the Clintons have never been shy about using the military.
I fear John McCain.
If I thought Penny’s would deliver what i wanted after the election. Not a good assumption. I would probably go start my own store. translation - political agnostic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.