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.