I guess they got sick of Mtv or something:

China bans new foreign investment in TV

BEIJING (AP) -- China has imposed a moratorium on new foreign investment in film and TV production companies, a news report on Friday quoted a regulatory official as saying.

The decision sets aside rules issued in 2004 that allowed foreigners to take minority stakes in local production companies, Zhu Hong, an official of the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, told The Financial Times.

[ . . . ]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHINA_TELEVISION_BAN?SITE=RIPRJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-12-08-03-25-55

Interesting. A bit of Chinese xenophobia? Or a CPC attempt at censorship critical of its government?

Interesting. A bit of Chinese xenophobia? Or a CPC attempt at censorship critical of its government?

From my research, Chinese government is worried that the American media will do to its citizens what it has culturally done to the average American. Out of all first world countries, Americans rank on the bottom with respect to knowledge of math and science. The top Americans are very smart, but the average american scores below the average european, japanese, korean, etc. 50% of americans don't vote, most are fat, most get drunk once a week, one third of all american children are bastard-childs, etc. China believes its the media that plays a big part in this.

It may indeed be one of the sources, so I suppose there is some wisdom in the move. That being said, it seems like it shall be a rather artificial protection, with the increasing access to global information.

What's wrnog with getting drnuk now and agian?

How else are they to face their big, fat wives and their hordes of bastard children?

From my research, Chinese government is worried that the American media will do to its citizens what it has culturally done to the average American. Out of all first world countries, Americans rank on the bottom with respect to knowledge of math and science. The top Americans are very smart, but the average american scores below the average european, japanese, korean, etc. 50% of americans don't vote, most are fat, most get drunk once a week, one third of all american children are bastard-childs, etc. China believes its the media that plays a big part in this.

whoa
i laughed at that
because it is true
and because it reminded me that things aren't supposed to be like that

and China is right about the media being the reason for all that. who glorifies drugs, violence, and excesses if not the media?

China's move is understandable. even if the real reason is to curb "anti-Communist propaganda", the abovementioned reasons are good enough

The American media, I believe, has intentionally assisted in creating the following American conditions:

From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/4/82551/91265


# The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (the New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).
# The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).

# Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth. Seventeen percent believe the earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).

[ . . . ]

# "U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty.

# Twelve million American families--more than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).

# The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).

# Bush: 62,027,582 votes. Kerry: 59,026,003 votes. Number of eligible voters who didn't show up: 79,279,000 (NYT, Dec. 26, 2004). That's more than a third. Way more. If more than a third of Iraqis don't show for their election, no country in the world will think that election legitimate.

# One-third of all U.S. children are born out of wedlock. One-half of all U.S. children will live in a one-parent house (CNN, Dec. 10, 2004).

# "Americans are now spending more money on gambling than on movies, videos, DVDs, music, and books combined" (The European Dream, p.28).

# "Nearly one out of four Americans [believe] that using violence to get what they want is acceptable" (The European Dream, p.32).

# Forty-three percent of Americans think torture is sometimes justified, according to a PEW Poll (Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2004).

From my research, Chinese government is worried that the American media will do to its citizens what it has culturally done to the average American. Out of all first world countries, Americans rank on the bottom with respect to knowledge of math and science. The top Americans are very smart, but the average american scores below the average european, japanese, korean, etc. 50% of americans don't vote, most are fat, most get drunk once a week, one third of all american children are bastard-childs, etc. China believes its the media that plays a big part in this. Mmm, yes. This is why Emperors in ancient China and other elite displayed their prodigious girth and absurdly long fingernails as symbols of wealth and leisure. MTV.

People become fat, lazy, and stupid when life is easy.

Face it, China (particularly the leadership) suffers from extreme xenophobia. Not that I blame them really. I applaud many of their efforts to modernize their country and raise its status in the global community without bastardizing their culture or “selling out”. Of course there are some extraordinary problems as well.

~Raithere

whoa
i laughed at that
because it is true
and because it reminded me that things aren't supposed to be like that

and China is right about the media being the reason for all that. who glorifies drugs, violence, and excesses if not the media? The media is a mirror. We get exactly what we want.

~Raithere

I guess they got sick of Mtv or something:

China bans new foreign investment in TV

So, are you posting from China?

I still can't get why do average people need to know math and sciences? Let smart people on the top know those things (if they want). Hell, for some engineers math is useless (not to speak of sciences). Common people, 80% of things out there - dull routine, you just need common sense to grasp it. One day chinese will understand this wisdom too and will stop torturing their already miserable population with useless crap.

So, are you posting from China?

Hell no. Chinese don't usually speak politics even if they live in states for many years. That math training does pay.

Yeah, I doubt they have access to a free media or a free internet in China. The ideas discussed on this forum might give them dangerous ideas.

But what would you rather be a fat American or a skinny *****?

Yeah, I doubt they have access to a free media or a free internet in China. The ideas discussed on this forum might give them dangerous ideas.

Chairman Mow say: "Idea stops being dangerous if you shoot believer of idea in head. If idea has spread, repeat for each believer for correct effect."

Apparently, they don't believe in diversity either.

And have a rich and vibrant culture rooted in an ancient past.

"Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth."

LOL! This can not be true, I don't beleive it

90% of American's believe that the supernatural exists and root their lives in fairytales.

90% of American's believe that the supernatural exists and root their lives in fairytales.

Yet the atheists/agnostics/rationalists have altruistic desires towards the common folk. What are the arguments for the people in this forum as to why they personally are concerned for the interests of the common folk who choose to behave as they do?

Mods: sorry, I lost my original passwords, so I started a new account, much apologies.

crunchy cat
i suppose you never celebrated christmas or easter with your children.

i suppose china doesn't have a child porn problem either.
some of these children are less than 8 years old, sex acts with them are carried out with the authorities having full knowledge of it.

This Chinese guy I know told me he never realised while in China how much of the media was under government regulation. Its only after he left his country did he realise how little access to information he had there.

90% of American's believe that the supernatural exists and root their lives in fairytales.OK this I can believe. But the Sun orbiting around the Earth ... come one, 20% !?!? there's no way.

This Chinese guy I know told me he never realised while in China how much of the media was under government regulation. Its only after he left his country did he realise how little access to information he had there.I know many Americans who have said the same after visiting Australia and watching SBS a few times....

I know many Americans who have said the same after visiting Australia and watching SBS a few times....

Yup, I've noticed the same thing after coming to the US. The media is totally biased here towards the government.

Yup, I've noticed the same thing after coming to the US. The media is totally biased here towards the government.

Good God?! Are you serious?????????

Hell, as I see it, the whole fuckin' nation is biased AGAINST the government. Where, please explain, do you get that idea, Sam?? (Except perhaps on national holidays or such ...when all Americans seem to lie!!!)

Baron Max

Good God?! Are you serious?????????

Hell, as I see it, the whole fuckin' nation is biased AGAINST the government. Where, please explain, do you get that idea, Sam?? (Except perhaps on national holidays or such ...when all Americans seem to lie!!!)

Baron Max

I suggest you start reading the BBC news website on a regular basis and compare it with the news you receive from the US media.

The difference is that B. Max can read BBC - in China popular websites that don't toe the party line get blocked. Like Google was before they sold out.

SamCDKey:

You do realize there was a HUGE news bias story leaked about the BBC, yes?

SamCDKey:

You do realize there was a HUGE news bias story leaked about the BBC, yes?

Was it by the American media?:)

Its easy to compare news bias by reading news from 5 different places, if you don't like the BBC try Australia, France, any country in Europe, Russia or Africa, newspapers from South East Asia. The easiest route is to read news about America in several newspapers that are not American in origin over a period of time and compare with the newspapers or news media in the States. Amazing what you can discover about media bias that way. (PS sometimes even internet access to webpages is regulated, which is also ascertained by accessing websites like Google from different locations on the globe).

I know that I have been very surprised by the way US foreign policy is presented here. Believe me, no one else in the world sees it that way.

The difference is that B. Max can read BBC - in China popular websites that don't toe the party line get blocked. Like Google was before they sold out.

So its even more of a shame how few people are even aware of being manipulated by the media then, isn't it?

Or do they just assume that all other media is biased against them?:)

I suggest you start reading the BBC news website on a regular basis and compare it with the news you receive from the US media.

since when is the Beeb the absolute base-line / golden standard for measuring bias?

it's a hateful left-wing corporation that bases their news stories on g-d knows what

I guess they got sick of Mtv or something:

China bans new foreign investment in TV

BEIJING (AP) -- China has imposed a moratorium on new foreign investment in film and TV production companies, a news report on Friday quoted a regulatory official as saying.

The decision sets aside rules issued in 2004 that allowed foreigners to take minority stakes in local production companies, Zhu Hong, an official of the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, told The Financial Times.

[ . . . ]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHINA_TELEVISION_BAN?SITE=RIPRJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-12-08-03-25-55


I am sick of MTV...as for chinese...its all for the better.

The media is a mirror. We get exactly what we want.

~Raithere

and who says that what we impulsively want is what's good for us?
if all the media in the US would collectively stop broadcasting porn / violence on TV, and started broadcasting educational programs (e.g. about math), you'll see the following:
1 - people will become more educated
2 - math would become much more popular (pop culture will then evolve around math, not around who's-fucking-who)
3 - there will be more demand for math-based programming

and who says that what we impulsively want is what's good for us? Not me.


if all the media in the US would collectively stop broadcasting porn / violence on TV, and started broadcasting educational programs (e.g. about math), you'll see the following:
1 - people will become more educated
2 - math would become much more popular (pop culture will then evolve around math, not around who's-fucking-who)
3 - there will be more demand for math-based programming No, what you would see is TV ratings drop like an anchor though the bottom of a glass bottom boat.

Educational programming is available. You’ll notice, however, that most of it gets relegated to PBS. This is because not enough people watch it to support it through advertising. We get what we desire, collectively speaking. Television is a true democracy. All the TV executives are interested in is getting as many people to watch as possible.

~Raithere

I know that I have been very surprised by the way US foreign policy is presented here. Believe me, no one else in the world sees it that way. The same can be said for any other country. Why would you be surprised?

~Raithere

The same can be said for any other country. Why would you be surprised?

~Raithere

Because the extent of the blinders on the common people is astonishing.

Most of them don't even have a clue as to the image of Americans abroad.

since when is the Beeb the absolute base-line / golden standard for measuring bias?

it's a hateful left-wing corporation that bases their news stories on g-d knows what

anti-Israel too, huh?

How about the Haaretz, then?

I know that I have been very surprised by the way US foreign policy is presented here. Believe me, no one else in the world sees it that way.

Can you be more specific, Sam? What US foreign policy(-ies) are you referring to here? I keep hearing such comments, yet no one seems to want to explain exactly what that is.

Now remember, we're not talking about free enterprise and/or private corporations doing business in other nations. Please .....we're talking about US government foreign policies ...where the government institutes laws and/or rules. Our government does not create laws so that MacDonalds can sell burgers in another country!

Baron Max

Can you be more specific, Sam? What US foreign policy(-ies) are you referring to here? I keep hearing such comments, yet no one seems to want to explain exactly what that is.

Now remember, we're not talking about free enterprise and/or private corporations doing business in other nations. Please .....we're talking about US government foreign policies ...where the government institutes laws and/or rules. Our government does not create laws so that MacDonalds can sell burgers in another country!

Baron Max

What is your definition of foreign policy?

What is your definition of foreign policy?

I figured you'd try to snake out of it!!! But lest you forget, it was YOU, Sam, who first made that accusation. And thus it's YOUR definition that's important at this time.

So ....when you made that statement, what did YOU have in mind????

Baron Max

I figured you'd try to snake out of it!!! But lest you forget, it was YOU, Sam, who first made that accusation. And thus it's YOUR definition that's important at this time.

So ....when you made that statement, what did YOU have in mind????

Baron Max

I want to know your definition of foreign policy to be clear what we are talking about. You are American, right? What do you think of when you think of US foreign policy?

I want to know your definition of foreign policy to be clear what we are talking about. You are American, right? What do you think of when you think of US foreign policy?

Trying to wiggle out of it now, Sam?! YOU were the one who made the accusation, so please give us your evidence of the fucked up US "foreign policy" that's ruining the entire fuckin' world, okay?

It was YOUR accusation, Sam, so please be forthcoming.

Baron Max

Trying to wiggle out of it now, Sam?! YOU were the one who made the accusation, so please give us your evidence of the fucked up US "foreign policy" that's ruining the entire fuckin' world, okay?

It was YOUR accusation, Sam, so please be forthcoming.

Baron Max

So if you don't agree with my accusation, tell me why.


we're not talking about free enterprise and/or private corporations doing business in other nations.

For example, tell me why this is not foreign policy when the US government (and taxpayers) heavily subsidize these corporations.

So if you don't agree with my accusation, tell me why.

No, Sam, I ain't gonna' let you out of this one!! I'll keep asking you until you finally give up ....and hang your head in shame at making an accusation against the US that you can't back up and, worse, you can't let go of because it's primary in your hatred of the US.

Now ..........

YOU made the accusation about US foreign policy ......NOW please tell us what foreign policy you meant?


For example, tell me why this is not foreign policy when the US government (and taxpayers) heavily subsidize these corporations.

Nope, that's not government foreign policy!! That's tax incentives and/or subsides, etc and it's given to many corporations that have nothing to do with them thar' damned furrinners!

Baron Max

anti-Israel too, huh?

How about the Haaretz, then?

of course it's anti-Israel! much more so than CNN, which has a strong anti-Israel bias too.

and Ha'Aretz is in the extreme left of the Israeli political spectrum. not the fringe, but they're extreme enough. the good thing about them is that at least they admit they are left. that's the thing with Israeli politics / media. they are honestly admitting their bias, unlike CNN / BBC, who claim they have none.

of course it's anti-Israel! much more so than CNN, which has a strong anti-Israel bias too.

and Ha'Aretz is in the extreme left of the Israeli political spectrum. not the fringe, but they're extreme enough. the good thing about them is that at least they admit they are left. that's the thing with Israeli politics / media. they are honestly admitting their bias, unlike CNN / BBC, who claim they have none.


CNN has an anti-US bias?

News to me.

[QUOTE]No, Sam, I ain't gonna' let you out of this one!! I'll keep asking you until you finally give up ....and hang your head in shame at making an accusation against the US that you can't back up and, worse, you can't let go of because it's primary in your hatred of the US.

Now ..........

YOU made the accusation about US foreign policy ......NOW please tell us what foreign policy you meant?


The policy of protecting their strategic interests at the expense of local life, economy and progress, installing puppet governments that oppress the locals, funding dictators and arming them, installing corporations that in the name of aid, destroy local economies, increase poverty and starvation and cause local conflicts.


Nope, that's not government foreign policy!! That's tax incentives and/or subsides, etc and it's given to many corporations that have nothing to do with them thar' damned furrinners!

Baron Max
Whatever helps you sleep at night.

The policy of protecting their strategic interests at the expense of local life, economy and progress, installing puppet governments that oppress the locals, funding dictators and arming them, installing corporations that in the name of aid, destroy local economies, increase poverty and starvation and cause local conflicts.

Hmmm, sounds impressive, Sam, but which US law or laws would that be? I don't get it, Sam, you've given me innuendo, but no laws or even stated US foreign policy. In reality, it seems that you've erroneously made the connection between government and private enterprise. That won't work, Sam, and you know it.

Besides, now you've made even more allegations against the US, but have provided no evidence or facts to back it up. If you're gonna' continue to make false allegations, then you need some evidence ...which you haven't presented in any form or fashion.

You're quick to make accusations, Sam, but damned slow to back 'em up!!

Baron Max

Hmmm, sounds impressive, Sam, but which US law or laws would that be? I don't get it, Sam, you've given me innuendo, but no laws or even stated US foreign policy. In reality, it seems that you've erroneously made the connection between government and private enterprise. That won't work, Sam, and you know it.

Besides, now you've made even more allegations against the US, but have provided no evidence or facts to back it up. If you're gonna' continue to make false allegations, then you need some evidence ...which you haven't presented in any form or fashion.

You're quick to make accusations, Sam, but damned slow to back 'em up!!

Baron Max

Do you mean to say that US government actions in other countries are against the law? That any actions of US foreign corporations subsidised by US taxpayers have no basis in US government policy?

This is exactly why I want you to define what you call US policy. What, in your opinion, is a definition of US foreign policy?

Because the extent of the blinders on the common people is astonishing. Again, how is this surprising, or different than anywhere else? It seems to me this is the rule and not the exception.


Most of them don't even have a clue as to the image of Americans abroad. Foreigners are always sterotyped. Whenever I have traveled abroad and told people I am from Chicago the reponse is, "Chicago. Bang! Bang!" or something quite similar. As if it's still the roaring 20's and Capone controlls the city. And typically the sterotypes I've held have been proven wrong as well. The reality is always different and far more complex.

~Raithere

Our government does not create laws so that MacDonalds can sell burgers in another country! Of course we do.

And they make laws and agreements so that they can sell their cars, wine, textiles, etc, etc, etc, here.

~Raithere

Again, how is this surprising, or different than anywhere else? It seems to me this is the rule and not the exception.

Foreigners are always sterotyped. Whenever I have traveled abroad and told people I am from Chicago the reponse is, "Chicago. Bang! Bang!" or something quite similar. As if it's still the roaring 20's and Capone controlls the city. And typically the sterotypes I've held have been proven wrong as well. The reality is always different and far more complex.

~Raithere

Foreigners may be stereotyped, what about the effects of your own government policies abroad?

Are Americans aware of the costs of maintaining their status of living to people from other countries?

Do you mean to say that US government actions in other countries are against the law?

Huh??? What the fuck are you talkin' about??


That any actions of US foreign corporations subsidised by US taxpayers have no basis in US government policy?

Sam, those same subsidies and tax incentives are given to other corporations that never set foot on foreign soil! Those things are just economic incentives or whatever, with no necessary connection to the State Department. You've made that connect all on your own, when in fact there's not evidence of that kind of thing happening.


This is exactly why I want you to define what you call US policy. What, in your opinion, is a definition of US foreign policy?

It's a law or ruling or edict that clearly outlines what the US is planning to do in or for another nation. It's a legal issue of government rules.

A good example, I think, might be that the US has made specific laws about US corporations selling or trading weapons of war. There are some nations that private corporations can sell to, and some that they can't. THAT would be considered "government policy" or "foreign policy".

What you've been trying to say as "foreign policy" is simply corporations doing business in other nations ...strictly private business. And that ain't got shit to do with the US government or US foreign policy!

Baron Max

Foreigners may be stereotyped, what about the effects of your own government policies abroad?

WHAT GOVERNMENT POLICIES?????

Sam, you can't just keep using that fuckin' term without having some idea of what the fuck you're talkin' about! Please be specific when you make those allegations!!

Baron Max

Of course we do. And they make laws and agreements so that they can sell their cars, wine, textiles, etc, etc, etc, here.

Which ones? What laws? Please be specific, and please make sure that it's "government laws".

Baron Max

WHAT GOVERNMENT POLICIES?????

Sam, you can't just keep using that fuckin' term without having some idea of what the fuck you're talkin' about! Please be specific when you make those allegations!!

Baron Max

I already described them.


The policy of protecting their strategic interests at the expense of local life, economy and progress, installing puppet governments that oppress the locals, funding dictators and arming them, installing corporations that in the name of aid, destroy local economies, increase poverty and starvation and cause local conflicts.

e.g.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

The policy of protecting their strategic interests at the expense of local life, economy and progress, installing puppet governments that oppress the locals, funding dictators and arming them, installing corporations that in the name of aid, destroy local economies, increase poverty and starvation and cause local conflicts. A government that is not out to protect its strategic interests is not doing its job sam. You're also cherry picking, selecting only negative influences of some US actions and attributing many actions motivated by the cold-war rather than general policy positions.

Why, after all did the UN vote not to go into Iraq? Because Saddam had bribed France, China, and Russia with kickbacks and agreements for proprietary oil rights(1). Not because they had some moral standing against it. Read past the propaganda.

(1) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1291280_1,00.html


~Raithere

Are Americans aware of the costs of maintaining their status of living to people from other countries? Most people are unaware of almost everything, whether they be American or some other nationailty.

If you're asking me I need clarification. Are you asking about the costs of political/military activities or economic ones?

~Raithere

Which ones? What laws? Please be specific, and please make sure that it's "government laws".

Baron Maxhttp://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Section_Index.html

Are you asking about the costs of political/military activities or economic ones?

~Raithere

Are they mutually exclusive?

Which ones? What laws? Please be specific, and please make sure that it's "government laws".

Baron Max

Here is part of the list.


Undermining Democracy in Latin America

America has frequently supported undemocratic governments, coups, or insurgent movements in Latin America - see Guatemala, Honduras with John Negroponte, the Chilean coup of 1973, and Operation Condor - and has on many occasions even invaded Latin American countries for the stated reason of preventing the spread of Communism in the Americas or of stemming the drug trade. This self-appointed role as regional power has roots that go back to the Monroe Doctrine from 1823.

The US provided significant support for General Augusto Pinochet in Chile, who came into power in the Chilean coup and went on to commit many human rights abuses. The role of the CIA in this context is the subject of fierce debate. The coup was particularly resented by supporters of Salvador Allende, the elected Marxist president whom Pinochet deposed.

It has also been alleged that the CIA was involved with the military coups in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, including military training in torture skills and political intervention.

The official American government view, which is shared by many, particularly more conservative, Americans, is that American influence (or interference) in Latin American countries was necessary to stop the spread of tyrannical Communism. Others, especially on the left, charge that America's main primary interest was economic, and that it was willing to do anything to further American corporate interests in the region. The Venezuela coup of 2002, taking place long after the collapse of the Soviet Union, can be read as confirmation of this view of US policy.

In Latin America, it has been alleged that the School of the Americas based in the US-owned Canal Zone taught Latin American officers torture techniques to combat subversion throughout the cold war, without concern for human rights.

[edit] Outside of Latin America

Another cause of resentment against America in the Middle East is that America supports regimes in many Middle-Eastern countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan that are unpopular with many people in those countries, and are seen as oppressive and tyrannical.

Critics have countered, however, that engagement with other countries is a way to promote democratic reforms. This approach is also adopted by European countries such as France and Britain. Though, of course, this has never been proven to actually work. And apart from that, 'engagement' and 'support' are not the same things; one can hardly claim that supporting oppressive regimes promotes democratic reform, for instance.

American support for the anti-communist government of George Papadopoulos in Greece (1967-1974), which many regarded as an oppressive military dictatorship and which compelled many prominent Greeks to flee Greece, has been a source of bad will across Europe. It is often held to have contributed to the split in NATO and the European Union over the US-led invasion of Iraq.

The United States was also criticized for meddling in the internal politics of some of its democratic allies. For instance, the US government funded some French unions through the National Endowment for Democracy, including some with links to far-right violent groups.

The CIA tried to assassinate democratically elected prime minister, Patrice Lumumba of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, until he was eventually killed by forces led by Joseph Mobutu, who was supported by the U.S.[1]

[edit] International institutions

America's treatment and use of international institutions such as the United Nations and World Trade Organization is often seen as self-serving and hypocritical in other countries. Critics point to non-payment of UN dues and refusal to heed to International Court of Justice decisions against America on the one hand, and to enthusiastic embrace of international trials against foreign war criminals and UN sanction mechanisms against official enemies on the other. America's veto power in the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly been used to prevent censure of Israel, thereby angering Arab countries and those supporting them in the Israel-Arab conflict. US unilateralism, or "going its own way" on issues varying from the International Criminal Court to the Kyoto Protocol (see below) is also a cause of criticism.

Some also complain about the fact that America has used the veto power in the United Nations Security Council more often than any other country, but considers it an offensive move when their allies use the veto against an American proposition.

It is also held against the United States that it refuses to sign the United Nations convention agreement from 1980 banning the use of napalm and other incendiaries against civilian populations. The same holds for the Ottawa Treaty from 1999 outlawing the use, production, stockpiling and trade in anti-personnel landmines.

[edit] International trade and trade embargoes

Some believe that America is not always as committed to free trade as it professes to be. The introduction of tariffs on steel imports in March 2002 was seen by many people outside the US as an instance of America failing to practice what it preaches in terms of free trade. Along with other western countries the United States evades free trade rules using non-tariff barriers to trade, such as antidumping and countervailing duties, and subsidizes its agricultural and textile markets while pressurizing poor countries to open up their markets to the West without any reciprocal trade agreements. A common argument is that subsidized American food exports are artificially cheap, making it impossible to compete against them in world markets, thus causing third world economies harm.

A long-standing irritant in relations between the United States and its neighbor Canada is the American refusal to abide by NAFTA and World Trade Organization decisions and admit Canadian softwood lumber without applying punitive duties.

The continuing embargo against Cuba is seen by a broad range of people as vindictive - and hypocritical in the face of mainland China retaining most favored nation trading status. In 1996 the U.S. passed the Helms-Burton Act, which included a controversial provision which, roughly, allows lawsuits against foreigners who do business with Cuban companies which use American property nationalized in the 1959 Cuban Revolution. Some saw this as an offense against other nations' sovereignty and a violation of World Trade Organization rules. And while President Clinton suspended the lawsuit portion of that act, and President Bush has continued its suspension, the act's mere existence is offensive to many.

The US government annually certifies whether other countries cooperate in its War On Drugs; countries which are judged uncooperative are sanctioned economically and diplomatically. This annual review is seen as offensive by many foreign countries, most notably by Mexico.

[edit] Arms trade and anti-proliferation measures

Many criticize the United States for boycotting the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Small Arms Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the anti-personnel landmine banning Ottawa Treaty. It is also known to hold the world's largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to continue development of new types of weapons although, along with many other powers, it campaigns against attempts to build weapons of mass destruction by countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea while ignoring similar alleged programs by Israel.

Many small and poor countries -- which lack nuclear weapons -- consider America's efforts to prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons to be a thinly veiled attempt to maintain its military advantage. America and most Western countries counter that these efforts benefit all because proliferation would destabilize many conflict regions, most of them involving poor countries.

Some countries, in particular the People's Republic of China, resent U.S. involvement in its internal affairs. For example, the U.S. selling weapons (all of it defensive type) to the Republic of China (Taiwan) and its deep involvement in the Taiwan issue has been seen as offensive by the PRC government. The PRC also has a conflict with the U.S. government that criticizes PRC's human rights practices. The PRC accuses the US of ignoring similar questionable practices in other countries, including the United States itself.

[edit] American funding of paramilitary groups

America has a history of supplying funds for paramilitary groups that may be called freedom fighters by the donors and their allies, but are usually regarded as extremists or terrorists by their opponents and critics. Such funding may be provided by the government, by private citizens, or by a combination of the two. The Contras in Nicaragua are an example of this.

Even a close ally like the United Kingdom has been the target of such action: there is a long history of Americans openly raising funds for both the Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Real Irish Republican Army. Funds for these groups are commonly raised by Irish-Americans, who feel a patriotic sense of involvement in The Troubles in Northern Ireland.

[edit] American support for government-sponsored death squads

The U.S. was responsible for arming and training the notorious Atlacatl Battalion in El Salvador. They were responsible for the rape, torture, mutilation, and murder of civilians, including children. A famous example of this was the El Mozote massacre. When word of this massacre got out, it was dismissed by the U.S. government as communist propaganda. In 1992, the United Nation Truth Commission investigated the site of the massacre and found 143 skeletons, including 131 children under the age of twelve. The ammunition found around the site of the massacre was manufactured in Lake City, Missouri.

Shortly after the massacre, Reagan signed Congress's amendment of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which said the El Salvadoran government "is making a concerted and significant effort to comply with internationally recognized human rights" and "is achieving substantial control over all elements of its own armed forces, so as to bring to an end the indiscriminate torture and murder of Salvadoran citizens by these forces."[2]

Are they mutually exclusive? Yes. They may be components of an overall strategy but they constitute very different types of actions.

~Raithere

Yes. They may be components of an overall strategy but they constitute very different types of actions.

~Raithere

Could you explain that a little more expansively?

And what do you think of these strategies?

Here is part of the list. Not that I necessarily share Baron's position but the only "law" you cited in your reference was NAFTA. Much of what you did list is cold-war era activity (although I would agree that unfortunately some of our politcy is still influenced by it) and there is a shit-load of unproven allegation.

The part that diappoints me is that you seem to think that this type of activity is somehow exlusively American. I suggest you do a bit more research and try to get a broader view:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/index-eng
http://www.hrw.org/
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/
http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/


~Raithere

Not that I necessarily share Baron's position but the only "law" you cited in your reference was NAFTA. Much of what you did list is cold-war era activity (although I would agree that unfortunately some of our politcy is still influenced by it) and there is a shit-load of unproven allegation.

The part that diappoints me is that you seem to think that this type of activity is somehow exlusively American. I suggest you do a bit more research and try to get a broader view:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/index-eng
http://www.hrw.org/
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/
http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/


~Raithere

Oh I don't think its exclusively American. But Americans seem to me to be particularly unaware of what their government does. Plus no single country abuses power on a world wide scale as much as the Americans do and still pretend to stand for human rights.

Notwithstanding the short attention span of most Americans, people in those countries are still suffering from the effects of the Cold War policies. Victims have longer memories anyway.

Could you explain that a little more expansively? I’m not sure what needs explaining. Drafting trade agreements, investing in foreign business, and assisting US companies in establishing themselves in other countries is significantly different than sending in troops, wouldn’t you agree?

Mostly what I would like to get at, however, is this notion that the US is some kind of economic leech that causes poverty.


And what do you think of these strategies? Depends upon which one you’re asking about. Overall I think the US is too heavy handed and unsubtle which is the primary reason for the widespread negative opinion people have of us. We tend to operate from ideology rather than pragmatism, but that’s just the way politics works. We tend to let ourselves get mired too quickly into issues that we should let the local people sort out themselves. And we allow both local and international politics to blunt the decisiveness and direction of our actions.

But I also find most of the criticism to be intensely hypocritical. Most of the world seems to think that the US should act to preserve everyone’s interests but our own. They are quick to request our involvement during a crisis but then resent our ongoing interest after we are already invested. Their own activates are also largely ignored. I also see a tremendous amount of revisionist positioning where the inception of the situation is recast much later on to create the impression that the opposing position was untenable from the start.

~Raithere

Mostly what I would like to get at, however, is this notion that the US is some kind of economic leech that causes poverty.

I think what I object to is their basic goals.

i.e. they invest in a Third World country not to minimise poverty but to maximise their own profits. One does not expect the US to invest at a loss, but to completely overwhelm the local economy for profit making shows a callous disregard for the fate of the people that exist there.

e.g. a refusal to sign forced labour and child labour, paying 11 cents an hour for a product with a net cost of 2 dollars which sells for 200 dollars etc.



Depends upon which one you’re asking about. Overall I think the US is too heavy handed and unsubtle which is the primary reason for the widespread negative opinion people have of us. We tend to operate from ideology rather than pragmatism, but that’s just the way politics works. We tend to let ourselves get mired too quickly into issues that we should let the local people sort out themselves. And we allow both local and international politics to blunt the decisiveness and direction of our actions.


I think it is the other way around. The US goes into countries and ignores human rights violations if they are able to get the local politics to be helpful in their goals of maximising profits. It is only when locals refuse to play ball or demand accountability that the US uses its military power to get what it wants anyway.

So its either dictator regimes or war. The only thing that can and does regulate US action is the public opinion, especially American public opinion, as seen by election results. Power ultimately is the goal of both the political parties and they like to be seen to be apparently doing what the public wants.



But I also find most of the criticism to be intensely hypocritical. Most of the world seems to think that the US should act to preserve everyone’s interests but our own. They are quick to request our involvement during a crisis but then resent our ongoing interest after we are already invested. Their own activates are also largely ignored. I also see a tremendous amount of revisionist positioning where the inception of the situation is recast much later on to create the impression that the opposing position was untenable from the start.

~Raithere


Thats because the US is the one with the money and power.
Do people have a right to expect help without being rewarded by dictator regimes and economic hardship?

Oh I don't think its exclusively American. But Americans seem to me to be particularly unaware of what their government does. I disagree. I try to keep an eye on international news and I do not see internal discussion and debate anywhere else in the world that compares to what goes on within the US. That being said, I will reiterate that most people everywhere have little knowledge or interest in what goes on.


Plus no single country abuses power on a world wide scale as much as the Americans do and still pretend to stand for human rights. I believe we would disagree on what we consider abuse. But I would point out that this is also a function of how much power one has as well as selective sampling. I find your sourcing to be extremely biased.


Notwithstanding the short attention span of most Americans, people in those countries are still suffering from the effects of the Cold War policies. Most of today’s situation was precipitated by post WWII politics and that was precipitated by pre-war imperialism. American’s aren’t the only ones with short attention spans. Are you asserting that the US was the only participant in the cold war? Shall we investigate the historical background of, let’s say, the Middle East to determine just how the current situation arose? How many of the problems in Africa today can be attributed to European imperialism? Shall we examine the agressiveness of post-war communism or Muslim nations? You've isolated US activity from all historical perspective and then hold it to an idealistic measure.

~Raithere

I disagree. I try to keep an eye on international news and I do not see internal discussion and debate anywhere else in the world that compares to what goes on within the US. That being said, I will reiterate that most people everywhere have little knowledge or interest in what goes on.

I believe we would disagree on what we consider abuse. But I would point out that this is also a function of how much power one has as well as selective sampling. I find your sourcing to be extremely biased.

Most of today’s situation was precipitated by post WWII politics and that was precipitated by pre-war imperialism. American’s aren’t the only ones with short attention spans. Are you asserting that the US was the only participant in the cold war? Shall we investigate the historical background of, let’s say, the Middle East to determine just how the current situation arose? How many of the problems in Africa today can be attributed to European imperialism? Shall we examine the agressiveness of post-war communism or Muslim nations? You've isolated US activity from all historical perspective and then hold it to an idealistic measure.

~Raithere

If you see relative contributions of single countries to any aspect of Third World politics, economy and quality of life, which country has the capacity to bring about the maximum change? And which one has had the maximum negative impact?

I think what I object to is their basic goals. Which are?


they invest in a Third World country not to minimise poverty but to maximise their own profits. First off, you’re talking about corporations, not the US government, and the function of a corporation is to generate profit. Nor is this exclusive to US corporations; would you like to examine the diamond trade in Africa or the gold trade in South America and who owns these companies? How about manufacturing in China?

Secondly, I believe you are largely wrong. While there have been many abuses most often it comes about through companies taking advantage of the lack of rights and protections in the county, not as a violation of existing rights. It is the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens not that of foreign businesses. You don’t see sweatshops in America because US law prohibits them, not because US or foreign firms are out to protect Americans.

Additionally, international corporations typically bring in higher than standard wages and rights simply because they are operating at an international level and must consider the legal positioning in all countries, often taking the highest common denominator as their official standard.


One does not expect the US to invest at a loss, but to completely overwhelm the local economy for profit making shows a callous disregard for the fate of the people that exist there.
e.g. a refusal to sign forced labour and child labour, paying 11 cents an hour for a product with a net cost of 2 dollars which sells for 200 dollars etc. You’re showing a naiveté of economics here. First of all, a large corporation coming in to a 3rd world country and raising the average wage to US standards would be tremendously destabilizing to the local economy and cause all kinds of problems. Secondly, it eliminates any incentive to invest in a 3rd world nation at all. How is no investment better?



I think it is the other way around. The US goes into countries and ignores human rights violations if they are able to get the local politics to be helpful in their goals of maximising profits. It is only when locals refuse to play ball or demand accountability that the US uses its military power to get what it wants anyway. Show me where the US has acted with the purpose of reducing human rights.


Thats because the US is the one with the money and power. So then it’s not a difference in what we do that you object to, only our ability to do it when contrasted to other nations? In other words, it's okay for France, China, and Russia to support a tyrannical, genocidal dictator because they have less influence and ability to do so.

~Raithere

If you see relative contributions of single countries to any aspect of Third World politics, economy and quality of life, which country has the capacity to bring about the maximum change? And which one has had the maximum negative impact? And which has had the maximum positive impact?

This reminds me of the story I read about an international AIDS conference a few years ago. The US was thoroughly lambasted for its less than progressive stance on AIDS. Of course, the US also contributed more to AIDS research and aid than all the other participating countries combined.

http://coburn.senate.gov/ffm/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=99547cc4-248a-4642-8011-e540f1b74e70

~Raithere

Which are?

First off, you’re talking about corporations, not the US government, and the function of a corporation is to generate profit. Nor is this exclusive to US corporations; would you like to examine the diamond trade in Africa or the gold trade in South America and who owns these companies? How about manufacturing in China?

The corporations are set up as a condition of aid. i.e. the Third World countries have to open up their markets to US imports and corporations- these are the strings tied to the aid. Setting up of cash crops at the expense of local produce is also part of the conditions.

The corporations do not act on their own. They receive tax benefits and are heavily subsidised by the government (and hence the US taxpayer)


Secondly, I believe you are largely wrong. While there have been many abuses most often it comes about through companies taking advantage of the lack of rights and protections in the county, not as a violation of existing rights. It is the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens not that of foreign businesses. You don’t see sweatshops in America because US law prohibits them, not because US or foreign firms are out to protect Americans.

So a Third World country with a dictator or a puppet government that has strings tied to aid and funding will protect the local population?


Additionally, international corporations typically bring in higher than standard wages and rights simply because they are operating at an international level and must consider the legal positioning in all countries, often taking the highest common denominator as their official standard.


Is that why the US refuses to sign the international treaties against forced labour and child labour ?

-because they are setting such high standards?


You’re showing a naiveté of economics here. First of all, a large corporation coming in to a 3rd world country and raising the average wage to US standards would be tremendously destabilizing to the local economy and cause all kinds of problems. Secondly, it eliminates any incentive to invest in a 3rd world nation at all. How is no investment better?

How about investing in a country to create jobs instead of supplanting them?

How about not flooding the market with cheap American produce putting local farmers out of a job (aka food dumping)?

Will that help?



Show me where the US has acted with the purpose of reducing human rights.


There are whole books on it.

Here is one example:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/school_of_the_americas

Founded in Panama in 1946 and moved to Fort Benning in 1984, the SOA has trained more than 60,000 Latin American soldiers in military and law-enforcement tactics. The Pentagon has acknowledged that in the past the SOA used training manuals advocating coercive interrogation methods and extra-judicial executions, and over time SOA alumni have been linked to many of Latin America's most heinous human rights atrocities, from widespread torture to massacres of young children.

Congress renamed the SOA the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001; since then thousands of foreign soldiers have journeyed to Fort Benning for training. However, with political change currently sweeping through Latin America, several countries have cut ties with the SOA in recognition of its notorious track record. "Many of the governments here in South America are now made up of people who were thrown in prison and tortured in the past," says Lisa Sullivan, a Caracas-based organizer for SOA Watch, "so they're taking a very different look at the role of their armed forces and their military relations with the United States."


So then it’s not a difference in what we do that you object to, only our ability to do it when contrasted to other nations? In other words, it's okay for France, China, and Russia to support a tyrannical, genocidal dictator because they have less influence and ability to do so.

Not ability so much as the scale.

The corporations are set up as a condition of aid. i.e. the Third World countries have to open up their markets to US imports and corporations- these are the strings tied to the aid. Setting up of cash crops at the expense of local produce is also part of the conditions. So you think it is the US’s responsibility to give something for nothing?


The corporations do not act on their own. They receive tax benefits and are heavily subsidised by the government (and hence the US taxpayer) This is support, not direction of activity. And how is this different than any other country?


So a Third World country with a dictator or a puppet government that has strings tied to aid and funding will protect the local population? Care to show me a government that does not have its economic interests at heart? All politics works this way.


Is that why the US refuses to sign the international treaties against forced labour and child labour ? The US signs some such treaties and does not sign others. Just like all other nations. It has championed much of this type of legislation. You need to examine the treaties to find out who signs or does not sign them and why. A blanket statement that the US simply refuses to sign child and forced labor treaties is a lie.


How about investing in a country to create jobs instead of supplanting them? Not sure what you mean here. Can you site an example?


How about not flooding the market with cheap American produce putting local farmers out of a job (aka food dumping)? So we should reduce the global food supply in order to subsidize inefficient farming techniques? Make certain that more people will starve so that those that survive can earn a better living?


There are whole books on it. Show me where the purpose of the action was to reduce human rights?


Not ability so much as the scale. So really your entire argument is that the US is too powerful.

~Raithere

So you think it is the US’s responsibility to give something for nothing?

Only if it is claiming to be working towards that goal, i.e. foreign aid



This is support, not direction of activity. And how is this different than any other country?

Its not but as a condition of foreign aid, it defeats the purpose of the aid.


Care to show me a government that does not have its economic interests at heart? All politics works this way.

How many train foreign political groups in torture techniques?


The US signs some such treaties and does not sign others. Just like all other nations. It has championed much of this type of legislation. You need to examine the treaties to find out who signs or does not sign them and why. A blanket statement that the US simply refuses to sign child and forced labor treaties is a lie.


They ignore the ones they sign anyway, so whats the difference?
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/04/16/global179.htm


Not sure what you mean here. Can you site an example?

What can actually be done?


So we should reduce the global food supply in order to subsidize inefficient farming techniques? Make certain that more people will starve so that those that survive can earn a better living?

How does taking away someones livelihood make him more food secure?
Name one country where US investment in foreign aid has reduced starvation.



Show me where the purpose of the action was to reduce human rights?

You mean training militant groups in torture techniques (after many of them have been shown to be involved in the torture and massacre of children) protects human rights?


So really your entire argument is that the US is too powerful.


My argument is the US repeats the same cycle over and over, with devastating consequences to whole countries and populations.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2001/06/04/usint196.htm

And which has had the maximum positive impact?

This reminds me of the story I read about an international AIDS conference a few years ago. The US was thoroughly lambasted for its less than progressive stance on AIDS. Of course, the US also contributed more to AIDS research and aid than all the other participating countries combined.

http://coburn.senate.gov/ffm/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=99547cc4-248a-4642-8011-e540f1b74e70

~Raithere

The positive impact is why people have expectations of the United States to begin with. Does the government invest in AIDS research ?

I hope the 200+ delegation had a good time in Barcelona, even if it was at the taxpayers expense.

Most people are unaware of almost everything, whether they be American or some other nationailty.

If you're asking me I need clarification. Are you asking about the costs of political/military activities or economic ones?

~Raithere

I've always found people from other western nations, and even some eastern ones, to be far more educated and knowledgeable of the world than the typical American.

Of course, there may be some selection bias, as I could really only converse with those that knew English, which would make them educated. But I hear learning english is part of compulsary education in most countries these days.

I’m not sure what needs explaining. Drafting trade agreements, investing in foreign business, and assisting US companies in establishing themselves in other countries is significantly different than sending in troops, wouldn’t you agree?

Supporting oppressive regimes through money and arm sales is virtually the same. It's our hardware keeping their countries economically viable for us.

Only if it is claiming to be working towards that goal, i.e. foreign aid Seems to me that the goals are typically stated quite clearly. We will do x and y if you do a and b.


Its not but as a condition of foreign aid, it defeats the purpose of the aid. So it’s only wrong when the US does it. How do you justify such a statement?


How many train foreign political groups in torture techniques? The question is not who is guilty of “torture” but who is not:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-313/index


They ignore the ones they sign anyway, so whats the difference? It’s fun to watch you wiggle sam. Where in that article does it show the US ignoring agreements on forced or child labor?


What can actually be done? To create jobs instead of supplanting them? Once again, I need clarification about what you mean here. Do you mean that instead of offering manufacturing jobs and having the local population leave farming we should offer farming jobs? That kind of thing?


How does taking away someones livelihood make him more food secure? I wasn’t proposing that it did. The US has unbalanced some areas and displaced some people with poorly considered aid attempts. Unfortunately, politicians often make decisions without properly considering the long term effects.


Name one country where US investment in foreign aid has reduced starvation. You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Are you daft or just brainwashed?

* Food aid. The United States annually provides more than half of total global food assistance, most of it as grants. In fiscal year 2001, U.S. international food assistance totaled over 6 million tons, including more than 4 million provided by USDA. A large portion of this assistance was distributed through private voluntary organizations (PVOs) and the World Food Program of the United Nations.
* Food safety. The United States provides technical assistance to countries participating in international standard-setting bodies; developing national science-based measures for animal and plant health and food safety; improving capacity in food pathogen control, pest and disease management, surveillance, risk assessments, and inspections; improving infrastructure for processing plants and laboratories; developing optimal manufacturing practices; and conducting research.
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0901/ijee/usda.htm More than half of ALL food assistance in the world but you know, I’m sure none of it has helped anyone. It’s all just a US plot to destabilize foreign economies. Your wanton ignorance pisses me off sam.


You mean training militant groups in torture techniques (after many of them have been shown to be involved in the torture and massacre of children) protects human rights? Debatable issues sam not to mention more selective data picking. Training groups in interrogation techniques does not mean national approval of massacring children. And in most instances brutality and human rights violations are being committed on both sides so no matter who we support we’re indirectly supporting such atrocities. So should we support the bad guys who will deal with us or the bad guys who won’t?


My argument is the US repeats the same cycle over and over, with devastating consequences to whole countries and populations. Oh BS. You have no point as far as I can see. You don’t care if every other country does the same thing, you cherry pick your data, you ignore anything positive the US does. How can you possibly claim to have a more objective understanding about any of this than the average American?

~Raithere

I've always found people from other western nations, and even some eastern ones, to be far more educated and knowledgeable of the world than the typical American. I find the average people from everywhere to be pretty much the same. They are concerned and knowledgeable with what affects them directly, a few cherished beliefs and ideologies, and not too much else.

Remember that you have to account for scope. A Frenchman knowing something about Spain is like a New Yorker who knows something about New Jersy. You also have to account for location, people living in urban areas tend to have a broader range of knowledge than rural.


Supporting oppressive regimes through money and arm sales is virtually the same. It's our hardware keeping their countries economically viable for us. I would count direct monitary funding for military and arms sales to be military activities. I'm contrasting that as well as direct involvement with say, shipping food or making a trade agreement.

And what, btw, is wrong with helping a country towards economic viability?

~Raithere

Seems to me that the goals are typically stated quite clearly. We will do x and y if you do a and b.

So it’s only wrong when the US does it. How do you justify such a statement?


How do you reach such a conclusion? Its wrong regardless of who does it.
Does the fact that other countries also do it make it alright for the US to do it?
How does putting a disadvantaged country into debt through aid help the people of that country? How can it even be justified?



The question is not who is guilty of “torture” but who is not:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-313/index


They do it too is NOT a justification.


It’s fun to watch you wiggle sam. Where in that article does it show the US ignoring agreements on forced or child labor?

So has the US signed the International Labour Organisation's Convention 138?
Which puts minimum age of labor for children at 15?

http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/01908/1024/childlaborus_childlabor.htm

Hidden slaves:
http://www.hrcberkeley.org/research/hiddenslaves.html



To create jobs instead of supplanting them? Once again, I need clarification about what you mean here. Do you mean that instead of offering manufacturing jobs and having the local population leave farming we should offer farming jobs? That kind of thing?

No I mean supplanting farms growing food that supports the local people with cash crops.

I'm talking about structural adjustment policies
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/SAP.asp

And farm subsidies that destroy local farmers
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0506-09.htm


As a condition for helping Jamaica service its large foreign debt, international lending agencies demanded that the country keep its tariffs low. The government was unable to bar American sugar, grain, and other food products from the island, so its own farmers were stuck.

But this analysis, which is typical of many "progressive" complaints about trade and globalization, seriously missed its mark. And if you were watching last week as the U.S. Congress moved toward passage of a massive new farm-subsidy bill, the real source of Jamaican farmers' problems became apparent.

The farm bill, which the House of Representatives has approved and which the Senate could vote on this week, calls for taxpayers to fork over some $180 billion to farmers during the next decade. That's a 70 percent hike above the cost of current farm-subsidy programs, most of which represent direct payments to wealthy farmers and agribusinesses.

Those subsidies make it possible to export millions of tons of food so cheaply that native farmers in places such as Jamaica can't possibly compete.

By guaranteeing U.S. farmers a minimum payment for commodities such as corn, rice and soybeans, the government encourages overproduction. That drives down the market price, forcing even higher subsidies and creating surpluses that can be shipped to Jamaica and elsewhere.


I wasn’t proposing that it did. The US has unbalanced some areas and displaced some people with poorly considered aid attempts. Unfortunately, politicians often make decisions without properly considering the long term effects.


Ok


You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Are you daft or just brainwashed?
More than half of ALL food assistance in the world but you know, I’m sure none of it has helped anyone. It’s all just a US plot to destabilize foreign economies. Your wanton ignorance pisses me off sam.


Do you think it makes me happy? Exploitation is the sad truth of the world today. Who really cares about poor people?


While the U.S. was the single biggest provider, it and other major donors often channel supplies through third parties. Thus, multilateral agencies, such as the World Food Program (WFP), provided 51 percent of food aid delivered in 2003; NGOs, 28 percent; and bilateral sources, such as national aid agencies, 21 percent, according to a WFP report published last year.

Last year, the major recipients included Ethiopia, North Korea, Sudan, Bangladesh and Eritrea.

Washington's dominance of the global food aid picture has made it the subject of two major complaints at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

First, while the monetization of food aid generates money for NGOs to pursue other aid activities, according to the report, it also reduces prices for local producers and traders in poor countries, effectively rigging the market against them. All such programs should be phased out, according to the report.

Second, export credits provided to U.S. agribusiness result in food dumping -- overseas sales of food for less than the costs of production. According to the report, the EU has now put forward a proposal at the WTO, which will be taken up at the next Ministerial Meeting in Hong Kong in December, requiring all food aid to be cash-based and untied from requirements that it originate in the donor country.

U.S. food aid is currently provided under six different programs controlled by two different bureaucracies, the Agriculture Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). That results in administrative confusion and some duplication, according to the report.

What makes U.S. food aid more objectionable, however, is the ”iron triangle” of interest groups that are its greatest beneficiaries. These groups -- agribusiness, shipping companies, and NGOs -- enjoy a ”stranglehold on food aid practice,” according to the report, perpetuating a dysfunctional system through their influence on Congress and the government.

Under U.S. law, for example, a minimum of 75 percent of U.S. food aid must be sourced, fortified, processed and bagged in the U.S., and only a handful of firms, notably Cargill and Archer-Daniels Midland (ADM) are qualified to bid on the procurement contracts. The result is that the government has paid on average about 11 percent more than open-market prices for food aid.

U.S. law similarly requires that 75 percent of all food aid must be transported on U.S.-flagged vessels, despite the fact that the shipping industry has been failing over the past few decades and currently handles only three percent of all U.S. imports and exports (excluding food aid) and, according to recent study, cost nearly 80 percent more than foreign-bulk carriers using the same routes with similar cargo.

While NGOs take pride in keeping their costs low and in using the money made from food aid sales to help the poor, they find themselves supporting a system that threatens local producers and traders in the interests of maintaining ”an important revenue stream for ...funding of their ongoing development work,” according to the report.

Other food aid donors provide much of their food aid to NGOs in the form of cash, precisely to avoid harming local markets and hence, long-term food security.

IATP is calling for a transition to an untied, cash-based food aid system, including the phasing out of all sales of food aid and monetization; the imposition of strict limits, except in cases of emergencies, on shipping food aid over long distances; much-greater efforts at increasing domestic food production in poor countries; and the abandonment of policies promoted by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund that require countries to invest more in export crops in countries where such strategies have failed to improve the plight of the poor.

”African farmers are capable of producing a lot more food for their communities and nearby regions,” according to McAfee. ”But policies of the U.S., the WTO, and the World Bank promote the use of African land and resources for export crops instead, and many African governments neglect agriculture for domestic food needs. This must change, or hunger will increase."

And:

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1016


The US refused to sign a UN declaration to fight hunger and poverty because part of the discussion surrounding the statement called for levying a global tax on financial transactions as well as arms sales. The declaration was signed by 110 heads of state and was the result of a meeting of leaders from 50 nations on Monday ahead of the 59th UN General Assembly. The declaration followed the release of a UN study that found that over one billion people in the world live on less than $1 per day.



Debatable issues sam not to mention more selective data picking. Training groups in interrogation techniques does not mean national approval of massacring children. And in most instances brutality and human rights violations are being committed on both sides so no matter who we support we’re indirectly supporting such atrocities. So should we support the bad guys who will deal with us or the bad guys who won’t?

What about the bad guys at home?



Virginia-based homeland security services contractor CACI International, whose private interrogators have been linked to torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, said its bottom line increased 42 percent over the last year. From June 2003 to June 2004, which marks CACI's fiscal year, net income rose to $63.7 million.


During April, May and June of 2004 -- the months after allegations of CACI's involvement in the Abu Ghraib torture scheme -- CACI's profits soared 56 percent to just over $20 million. In April, an internal Army report said a CACI interrogator instructed soldiers working at Abu Ghraib to set conditions for interrogations and said he "clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse."

CACI has provided the US Army with over three dozen interrogators in Iraq since August 2003 as part of a $23 million technology contract awarded to the company. On August 12, CACI received a no-bid extension from the Army, worth up to another $23 million, to continue its work in Iraq. The Pentagon has opened an investigation into the torture scheme, but has so far declined to punish CACI for any potential involvement.

CACI, in an internal investigation, cleared its workers of any wrongdoing. The company is, nonetheless, the subject of at least two civil racketeering lawsuits related to charges of torture.



Oh BS. You have no point as far as I can see. You don’t care if every other country does the same thing, you cherry pick your data, you ignore anything positive the US does. How can you possibly claim to have a more objective understanding about any of this than the average American?


Whatever.

And what, btw, is wrong with helping a country towards economic viability?

Economic viability for us is a hell of a lot different than economic viability for them.