Health, Tobacco, Oceans, Smuggling - Treaties Don't Matter In Bushland

[hatrack]

"When he helped pioneer an antismoking movement a decade ago, Eduardo Bianco looked to the United States for novel ways to keep young people in Uruguay from taking up cigarettes. Today, the 49-year-old cardiologist no longer considers America a leader in the fight against smoking. That's because it is not among the 57 nations that ratified the first global tobacco control treaty, which took effect in recent weeks and imposes tough restrictions on tobacco advertising and packaging.

The Bush administration signed the treaty in May, but the president hasn't sent it to the Senate for ratification, saying it needs further study. Uruguay did ratify the treaty — and Bianco was among those who persuaded his government to do so. The tobacco treaty is the latest example of the Bush administration's reluctance to join international treaties. On issues including public health, maritime policies and environmental protection, Bush has signed or won ratification for far fewer treaties than his immediate predecessors, Presidents Clinton and George H.W. Bush. The White House says that it supports global agreements as long as they don't undermine America's ability to act in its own best interests. But critics say the administration's stance is endangering America's standing in the world and hindering efforts to resolve global problems.

The Kyoto Protocol, the international accord to combat global warming, recently took effect with ratification by 141 countries — including every industrialized nation except the United States and Australia. The president said the Kyoto pact was unrealistic and would hurt the U.S. economy by forcing American companies to shoulder the bulk of cleanup costs.

EDIT

Bush's hesitancy to spend political capital on treaties may be a reason for delays in ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention, which was originally championed by the United States in the 1970s and has been in force since 1994. More than 100 nations have ratified the wide-ranging agreement governing such things as ocean navigation, fishing rights and seabed mining. The treaty has garnered the support of Bush, the Navy and leaders in both parties. But conservatives argue the treaty would threaten U.S. sovereignty and endanger national security, forcing American fishing fleets and Navy ships to abide by the rules of a global body that could be hostile to U.S. interests. Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the conservative Center for Security Policy in Washington, said he was confident the president wouldn't push for the treaty now because it would antagonize the "core constituency" he needed if he was to win congressional approval of changes in Social Security and the tax code. But, say legal experts, opting out of these treaties means the U.S. has less power to influence the debate. Because it is not a member of the global maritime treaty, the United States has little leverage to persuade Asian countries to agree to a regional accord to protect tuna stocks in the Pacific Ocean, said Harry Scheiber, co-director of the Law of the Sea Institute at UC Berkeley. "What moral argument does the U.S. have for asking for cooperation, when we're not ratifying the basic agreement under which this treaty is going forward?" Scheiber asked."

EDIT

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-treaties13mar13,1,3036836.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

[etherealtruth]

1. No moral argument

"The White House says that it supports global agreements as long as they don't undermine America's ability to act in its own best interests."
A more honest statement:"...as long as they don't undermine 'corporate profits'."

I also believe some crazed "end time" theme runs through *'s mind, rendering facts irrelevant.