This war is simply wrong. But why are people focusing on Iraq which in reality is only a battle in a much larger war? Where does Kerry stand on the bigger picture?
Is Kerry’s stance a product of some really lousy advisors in an extremely poorly run campaign, which in itself does not console me? Because I find it difficult to accept that in some degree, however small, the views of his wife do not carry some weight. I have not run across a complete lack of empathy for the views of a spouse in most marriages.
If Kerry does mend fences with out allies as he claims I would think their allegiance will have a price and that cost will be an input that will probably dampen the aggressive ardor of the U.S. In addition Kerry recently called for UN control over the Iraq operation, claiming that he would like to "de-Americanize the effort and begin to put it under the United Nations umbrella." http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:cLyyRwzZw5AJ:www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/05-17-2004/kerry.htm....
I take his reaching for the UN as a good sign; albeit after Albright we need to revitalize the UN which we purposely weakened. It does, however, mean he is willing to subject the actions of the United States to the scrutiny of a world community.
Europe feels a Kerry victory will end neo-conservative policy-setting. Maybe they are being naïve, perhaps only a dilution and there are other groups who are very much aligned with the philosophy of the neo-cons waiting in line.
To me the danger here is that in viewing the EU as a real partner able to help the US in its fight against terrorism and also to tackle violence and bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan the EU/NATO/US could become as one entity and we would lose Europe in their role of a powerful differing influence. Therefore I am for more of an alliance with Europe but not so much a partnership that they cease to function as a separate unit.
Maybe nothing will change but there are some promising factors in place.
I realize the post was not addressed to me.
-Am
'Kitchen boys' in Europe would cheer Bush defeat By Shada Islam
BRUSSELS - Forget the handshakes and wide smiles at recent high-profile summits attended by United States President George W. Bush and European leaders. Transatlantic relations remain mired in acrimony.
Despite European Union (EU) declarations of support for the US, predictions that Europeans would overcome their misgivings over the Iraq war and join hands with the US to rebuild the country have been proven wrong.
Increasingly, in fact, with the US presidential election only three months away, European policymakers are in no mood to come to the aid of a president whose policies they dislike. However, with fingers crossed, and impressed by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's talk of building partnerships with America's allies, Europeans are watching and waiting for a change of guard in Washington.
Although most Europeans expect the Kerry-Edwards ticket to continue with Mr Bush's policies on Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan, officials in Brussels believe the policies will be articulated in a different, more palatable tone.
Iraq remains the biggest bone of contention in transatlantic relations. French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, both of whom opposed the Iraq invasion, are proving just as sceptical of the Bush administration's calls for more EU reconstruction assistance and Nato involvement. The French and German leaders vetoed the deployment of Nato combat troops in Iraq, agreeing only at the alliance summit in Istanbul last month that the organisation may train Iraqi soldiers and security forces, but only outside the country.
The rest of the 25-nation EU are also cautious about being drawn into helping post-war Iraq. In the first high-level contacts between European governments and the interim Iraqi authorities, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari secured a number of promises of pre-election support and help in rebuilding the country's legal system from EU foreign ministers who met him in Brussels on July 12. But the pledges remained vague, and EU ministers were careful not to make any specific promises of assistance.
Mr Chirac and Mr Schroeder are certainly the most unwilling to give Mr Bush a helping hand, but they are not alone. 'Most people want to help Iraq but not in a way that rewards Bush,' said a senior EU diplomat. EU policymakers also make no secret of their distaste for a raft of other policies pursued by the Bush administration, such as Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, its calls for abstinence in the fight against Aids, and its opposition to the International Criminal Court.
'Most Europeans are not anti-American, but they are anti-Bush,' said Mr Fraser Cameron of the Brussels-based European Policy Centre. Accordingly, a Kerry victory and an end to the influence of neo-conservative policy-setting in Washington 'will have chancelleries across Europe, including in London, heaving a collective sigh of relief', he said. 'If George W. Bush had a masterplan to upset Europeans - he could not have been more successful,' he added.
EU policymakers, who view almost all current American initiatives with suspicion, will be ready to give 'more credit' to the future actions of a Democratic presidency, even if the policies are not too different from current ones, said a senior EU diplomat.
For one, Mr Kerry's language of alliances and partners is music to EU ears after four years of being bullied and treated like 'kitchen boys' by the Bush administration. 'The collective build-up of transatlantic insults and bad faith under the Bush administration can be swept away only if there is a change in government in Washington,' said the diplomat.
Second, he said, the transatlantic divide would be much less acute if Europeans felt there was genuine US concern about questions such as global warming. 'Europeans are frustrated because Bush does not give credible evidence that he is even concerned by such issues,' the diplomat said, adding: 'If Kerry explains things differently, Europeans could be more open to ideas coming from the US.'
This change in rhetoric could certainly be the case with Turkey. Mr Bush's repeated calls in Istanbul last month that the EU should speed up moves to open its doors to Nato member Turkey have riled even those in the bloc who favour allowing Ankara to join the union. 'It's like Europeans telling America how to deal with Mexico,' fumed Mr Chirac. Meanwhile, diplomats in Brussels warn that, given the current transatlantic mood, active US lobbying in favour of Turkish membership in the EU could actually end up triggering the opposite result unless Mr Kerry makes the case more subtly.
Mr Kerry's election may be greeted with cheer in Europe, but it will place more burdens and responsibilities on the EU, argued Mr William Drozdiak of the Brussels-based Transatlantic Centre of the German Marshall Fund. 'Europeans can refuse to send troops to Iraq at the moment, arguing that they do not want Bush to be re-elected. But if Kerry makes a similar request, Europeans will be put on the spot. A negative EU response will be taken by the US public as evidence of anti-Americanism,' cautioned Mr Drozdiak.
The good news for many Europeans is that the Democratic presidential team is making an effort to get to know the EU. Vice-presidential candidate John Edwards has made two trips to meet top EU and Nato policymakers in the past two years, showing what Mr Drozdiak calls an impressive readiness to listen to European views on a range of issues. 'People found it refreshing to meet a US politician who wanted to hear them out rather than tell them what to do,' he said.
Whether it's Mr Bush or Mr Kerry in the White House next year, the new US administration will be dealing with a more confident and assertive EU. The newly expanded 25-nation bloc is set to sign its new Constitution in late October and will start immediate preparations for establishing its first-ever diplomatic service, including top policymakers from the European Commission and national governments.
As it spreads its wings, the EU will be ready to take on more global responsibilities, especially in the Balkans and the Middle East. While the Bush administration has seen Europe's coming of age as a threat to America's international standing, the hope in Brussels is that a new Democratic administration in Washington will view the EU as a real partner, not only able to help the US in its fight against terrorism but also to tackle violence and bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Increasingly self-confident Europeans and Americans may never see fully eye to eye on issues like the best way to combat global challenges, the role of the United Nations and US readiness to use military power. But with Mr Kerry in charge, there will almost certainly be more cooperation and less trading of insults across the Atlantic.
Reference: Albright fought for Annan because he appeared suited to effecting a low-profile stewardship of the UN organisation; someone, above all, who would work better as a manager of the institution and not a maker of diplomatic waves. The United States wanted an efficient chief executive whose first task would be to instill some order into the morass of UN bodies and agencies and bring about the reforms that Boutros Ghali had been so reluctant to carry through, or a puppet. It is within this framework of an organization whose leadership we have purposely chosen to undermine that we choose to obey the rules that suit us or discard those that do not fit our needs further serving to degrade the effectiveness of the body.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
