And for anyone ready to dismiss out of hand efforts to improve international governance, here’s a paragraph from p.2.
For you information only… I really don’t expect any responses. :s
Edit: Nix that. Base on the article I’ve got one clear cut, easily stated and answered question. And it applies to business as well as politics.[/color]
Q. Individuals and institutions invest in systems for the rewards they bring, only one of which is power. If you’re heavily invested in System X, and that system is potentially threatened by free radicals (outside agents), what’s your best bet for the future: diminish your own standing (power) within the organization in order to bring new players on board and protect the system from which you continue to benefit, or reinforce your position and try to compel the outsiders to join on your terms, thus risking the establishment of an alternative System Y?
My my, aren’t we pessimistic? I viewed the topic with interest, but I have held off bc right now I don’t have much spare internet time to read the article. Going by the selected quotes, I’ll say there may be valid reasons for supporting certain institutions but not others, and in light of the relative “newness” of the WTO as compared to the UN, it wouldn’t be surprising to find out that the UN structure needed reform, whereas the WTO didn’t. And as for these things being in American interests: well of course they are, it would be a deriliction of duty for the President not to act in the interests of the U.S. and its citizens. The question is whether they are a) violating standards of international law, and thus undermining U.S. credibility (which is possible), or b) violating what a consensus (or approximation thereof) of U.S. citizens would consider to be the standards of behavoir when dealing with foreign nations, if they had all the facts (also possible, but so far I haven’t had a chance to read the case as it were).