Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 6, 2002)
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 Email: editor@dailyemerald.com Online Edition: www.dailyemerald.com Wednesday, November 6,2002 -Oregon Daily Emerald Commentary Editor in Chief; Michael J. Kleckner Managing Editor. Jessica Richelderfer Editorial Editors: Salena De La Cruz, Pat Payne VOTE / AtOT SHov/eT'bdlo^f ^ THPjbftT TH| {-twasn't who J 'fou& • THESE WEEKS PAS£ ■ M W *ew Steve Baggs Emerald Bush is forcing Europeans to put American policy first Guest commentary Last month, the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter for his global advocacy of freedom and democratic governance. While honoring Carter, the com mittee chairman told reporters that it “must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq.” As an American — and University alumna — living in Britain, I can testify that the committee’s de cision is illustrative of broader European opin ions. Like all Americans, Europeans share our basic values of promoting human rights and supporting democracy. Nevertheless, Euro peans are deeply concerned with the policies of President Bush’s administration, which they view as problematic, if not counterproductive, to the advancement of these shared values. While many Americans view Bush as an en gaging leader who builds international coali tions, Europeans often see Bush as a unilateral ist who strong-arms other governments. Many Europeans believe Bush has forced their lead ers to elevate American interests over their own global and national priorities. Now, Bush’s “with us or against us” attitude toward war in Iraq is coercing many European leaders to sup port a military campaign that a majority of their citizens oppose. I am currently studying politics at Oxford Uni versity, where I have had extensive exposure to the opinions of Europeans on U.S. foreign policy. For example, many British citizens I meet in Ox ford feel that their role in their country’s foreign policy is being sidelined as decision-making is pulled from London to Washington. I believe such reactions indicate that Bush’s foreign policy may eventually undermine America’s long-term security by straining rela tions with our most important allies. As more Europeans feel their voices are undercut by Bush’s antagonistic approach to foreign policy, they have increasingly sought to distance themselves from America in general. The re cent election of Gerhard Schroeder in Ger many bears witness to Europeans’ growing preference for leaders willing to take a tough stance against American policy. The consequences to this widening divide with Europe could imperil American security. Bush’s strong advocacy of multilateralism in the imme diate aftermath of Sept. 11 led to unprecedented international cooperation. But as Bush and his advisors have moved toward a more unilateral approach in recent months, these collective ven tures have been jeopardized. With their views constantly dismissed or challenged, Europeans naturally see less incen tive to cooperate with the United States. To close the widening distance between America and our European allies and promote stronger international security, it is imperative that we pursue a mature foreign policy of dialogue rather than dominance. The United States is unquestionably the pre eminent global power today, which is a pro found responsibility indeed. Our president should use his unparalleled prominence to lead by example, using diplomacy and building in ternational coalitions that support U.S. goals. Through such efforts, we can restore America’s rapidly deteriorating image in Europe. Other wise we might soon witness increasingly as sertive and coordinated movements by Europe to thwart American goals. A few weeks ago, more than 150,000 people marched through central London urging the United States and Britain not to invade Iraq. Be fore coming to Oxford, I might have failed to see the significance of this massive demonstration of public opinion. I now know better. Our European allies are fighting for the same values we are. Tressa Steffen Gipe, Class of '96, studies politics at Oxford and is a member of Americans for Informed Democracy. Football and beer are an American tradition atAutzen stadium Guest commentary In regards to the sports column, “Drunk Ducks,” (ODE, Oct. 24), we find it pathetic that a student at the University, a “liberal” college, is so close-minded. It’s sad that a personal complaint made it into our student newspaper. As a journal ist, she should have considered both sides of the story before forming such a strong opinion. It was juvenile and completely unprofessional. For example, the people surrounding her who were “overly friendly” could easily have been 21, therefore giving them every right to drink. For all she knows, they could have bought their drinks at the Moshofsky Center. As for the supportive pat on the back when she hung her head, all we have to say is, get over it. We Ducks are a community. When we score a touchdown, we give “high-fives” to anyone, friend or stranger, around us. If something goes wrong, we support each other. With regards to children attending football games, we’ve been attending them since the age of five, and don’t have any memories of alco hol. If the parents had a problem with the alco hol, obviously they wouldn’t bring their chil dren to the games. We find it hard to believe that a child is able to “differentiate the smell of beer from vodka by their 10th birthday” from going to a couple of football games a year. This is yet another unprofessional assump tion from an unresearched article. As for the smell factor, what about people with body odor? Or strong perfume? Deal with it, every one else does. If you had a problem, you should have taken it up with the people around you, instead of making a public com plaint about it. Football and beer go together—it’s an Amer ican tradition. If you don’t like it, watch the game at home. Marisa Haworth and Kristin Mellum are undeclared sophomores. Letter to the editor Democratic rally story misrepresents facts I was very displeased and disagree with the perspective and attitude presented by Jan Montry regarding the Democratic rally at Mac Court (ODE, Oct. 31). First, the headline of “Scaring Up Votes” with former President Bill Clinton’s picture underneath seems to infer, or could be in terpreted, that Clinton used “scare tactics” and fear in his presentation for votes. As usual for Clinton, he was positive and up beat, and the crowd frequently cheered. The second statement that I adamantly disagree with was: “Unlike Kulongoski, Bradbury focused on personally attacking his opponent.” I heard Bill Bradbury briefly state that it would be scary for Gordon Smith to be in office for another six years and discounted Smith’s statement about being a moderate. However, most of Bradbury’s speaking was “focused” on the positive things that he wants to do for Oregonians, and that he is there to support what the majority of Oregonians want. My suggestion for the Emerald is: Next time, please have a Democrat do the report for a Democratic rally. The Register Guard did a much better job. Athena Yemaya senior anthropology Is survival more important than democracy? The issue of global wanning is one that reaches beyond the question of whether or not the at mosphere is indeed heating up due to the long enduring emission rates of greenhouse gases. Al though debate may continue regarding whether global warming is real or not, another issue worth examining, in my view, is whether democratic systems of government are effective in protect ing society’s welfare against systematic long-en during threats such as global warming. As people may agree, democracy appeared to harness a collective intelligence of a population for the purpose of protecting the population’s wel fare. Candidates for political office are elected on the basis of how well they represent the views and interests of the populace. But just what are the interests of the populace? Are society’s long-enduring survival interests al ways aligned with the collective interests of a giv en population? It appears to me that in the early stages of glob al warming where no imminent threat appears present to a given populace on earth, regardless of how threateningglobal warming can be expected to be for future generations, a given populace can not be expected to democratically elect leader ship that mandates sacrifices on the populace for purpose of responsibly addressing the global warming issue. The single lifetime interests of cit izens comprising the populace will not be suffi ciently aligned with the multiple lifetime inter ests of the society they live in. Joe Kinney Danville, Ind.
