Just a note on yesterday’s class. First, the movie clips and such on Bush #41 matched up quite closely from what the reading said about him, how he is very reactive and responsive to situations that occur but that there is definitely a lack of strategic planning. Also, I would choose him over his son because it seems like the first Bush really did focus and sanctify the importance of personal relationships, he did make it a priority to meet face to face with state leaders and gave off more of a diplomatic vibe. I don’t see that too much with George W. I would have said this in class but after sitting there for 2.5 hours straight…its no longer that important.
Anyways, on a different note, I think the significance of environmental policy is going to be on the rise in foreign policy debates. In this article, the former UN secretary general urges that its polluter vs. non-polluter, and that the modertnized nations really are the ones to blame, not the lesser developed states. I find this to be interesting because it was the US’s key reason for not signing the Kyoto protocol that it should be all nation’s responsibility to protect the environment, not just the more industrialized states, so the US refused to sign it until every state was included in the accountability. Annan completely contradicts this and says that nations strickened with poverty aren’t doing the polluting and thus shouldn’t be further burdened. So who is right? Should every sovereign state share the same responsibility to combat “the Tragedy of the Commons” regardless of GDP, or should the states that are doing the majority of the polluting be responsible? I think I might have to side with Annan on this, but its definitely a tough situation. The article is here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080624114449.9wjckc1h&show_article=1
