"There is such a thing as a global conscience" - But where's the punch line?
| By AndrewGarib - Dec 9th, 2005 at 4:14 pm EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Politics makes strange bedfellows, but sometimes the oddest antipathy can crop up, too - even between the closest of friends.
This month's UN climate change conference in Montreal proves the latter. Apparently some words coming out of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin's mouth at the conference didn't sit well with the White House:
(Schroeder, if you may recall, made a particularly undiplomatic comment during the fallout over Katrina: "I can think of a recent disaster that shows what happens when a country neglects its duties of state towards its people ....")
So what did Martin say at that global warming conference that was so rancorous?
You're probably wondering where the punchline is. I'm not sure if there is one. The Canadian Press reports that according to one State Department official, "Mr. Connaughton made very clear his unhappiness over Mr. Martin's comments and particularly singling out the United States." But Martin certainly didn't say anything as inflammatory as Schroeder's tasteless Katrina jab. In fact, what he said wasn't even noteworthy. How many times have you heard the words "leadership," "committment," and "action" during the run-up to an election?
As for Schroeder, Martin's election-time grandstanding against The Man George Dubya Bush - ever unpopular north of the 49th parallel - wouldn't hurt him domestically. But is this really the kind of statement - "let's cooperate and respect each other!" - that should so ruffle feathers in the Beltway? Or is this just a sign of how intractable and plain batshit crazy the Bush administration has gotten when it comes to issues surrounding international obligations - global warming, torture, genocide, and the use of effectively unilateral force, to name a few?
Then again, maybe we should be proud to see American leaders stand up against the evils that are an emerging global conscience and the resolve for global leadership on climate change.
Ah, there's the punchline.
This month's UN climate change conference in Montreal proves the latter. Apparently some words coming out of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin's mouth at the conference didn't sit well with the White House:
Jim Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, has told Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna that Martin's comments are the worst slight against President George W. Bush since Germany's Gerhard Schroeder suggested Bush's stance against the Kyoto Protocol was responsible for hurricane Katrina.
(Schroeder, if you may recall, made a particularly undiplomatic comment during the fallout over Katrina: "I can think of a recent disaster that shows what happens when a country neglects its duties of state towards its people ....")
So what did Martin say at that global warming conference that was so rancorous?
"There is such a thing as a global conscience," Martin said Wednesday at the UN Conference on Climate Change.
"Now is the time to listen to it. Now's the time to join with others in our global community. Now is the time for resolve, for commitment and leadership and, above all, now is the time for action. Because only by coming together can we make real and lasting progress."
You're probably wondering where the punchline is. I'm not sure if there is one. The Canadian Press reports that according to one State Department official, "Mr. Connaughton made very clear his unhappiness over Mr. Martin's comments and particularly singling out the United States." But Martin certainly didn't say anything as inflammatory as Schroeder's tasteless Katrina jab. In fact, what he said wasn't even noteworthy. How many times have you heard the words "leadership," "committment," and "action" during the run-up to an election?
As for Schroeder, Martin's election-time grandstanding against The Man George Dubya Bush - ever unpopular north of the 49th parallel - wouldn't hurt him domestically. But is this really the kind of statement - "let's cooperate and respect each other!" - that should so ruffle feathers in the Beltway? Or is this just a sign of how intractable and plain batshit crazy the Bush administration has gotten when it comes to issues surrounding international obligations - global warming, torture, genocide, and the use of effectively unilateral force, to name a few?
Then again, maybe we should be proud to see American leaders stand up against the evils that are an emerging global conscience and the resolve for global leadership on climate change.
Ah, there's the punchline.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
That said, in rejecting Kyoto (rightly), George Bush had a duty, as the leader of the free world, to propose a better path - to fight the good fight for a proactive response that would actually work.
He didn't do that. He sat on his hands, making it clear that if nobody proposed anything to our liking, we would do nothing. History will not judge him kindly.
That's putting it nicely.
Remember, when Schroeder said that he was not going to send our German troops into Iraq, all of a sudden Germany was not considered a friend anymore. Speaking of Schroeder, I think it's a good thing that he speaks out against Bush.
I don't know just what he compared Katrina to (I was not at home in Germany when that happened), and if it was something inapropriate then I'm sorry for that. But in general, I think there's nothin wrong with him speaking out against Bush.
This administration is not friendly to the international community, and that makes us a really bad neighbor. Watching the way this administration has been going, I would not be surprised to see it completely flaming out by late 2007.
History will not look very kindly on the House of Bush at all.