International -- Readers Report
Why the U.N.'s Opinion Matters
True, Saddam Hussein violated some rules of ethics that he must account for in a court of law, but is it justified to apply a political-military solution to an ethical problem ("Dollar diplomacy," American News, Mar. 10)? Does one man, even as President of the most advanced country in the world, have the sole right to decide on a matter where every nation on earth has a stake? The questions then are: Will the U.N. be pressured to give more weight to one powerful man's demand and thus ignore the clamor of the many? Should that happen, won't we find ourselves in deeper trouble? That would surely cause a loss of credibility in the U.N. and consequently in its efficiency, since that would be contrary to the purpose of its creation. How will that affect democracy if not to cause it to be seen as the perpetrator of double standards?
To be sure, this isn't a case of "You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine," as President Bush is reported to have said. Truth is still the only basis for good human conduct, without which we may as well consider ourselves even lower than the wild beasts in the seas and jungles that are known to be good caregivers to their young.
Ernesto Kelly Magtoto
Las Piñas City, Philippines
Your suggestion that the beleaguered American taxpayer would bear the brunt of the Iraqi military campaign costs is an affront to the intelligence of your readers. You should also mention the benefits accruing to the very same taxpayer on account of lower energy costs, courtesy of the postwar surge in Iraqi oil exports, which could depress global oil prices. My guess is that the payback is less than two years, even if one conservatively considers only the absence of a "war premium."
Chandran Perumal
Madras, India
We are indeed paying a high price for the pathetic foreign relations of the Bush Administration's "dollar diplomacy." The dollar amounts we have to spend to recruit "allies" are merely the tip of the iceberg. By walking away from the Kyoto Protocol, ignoring the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, pulling out of negotiations on enforcement of the Biological Weapons Convention, scrapping the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and recanting the U.S. signature on the Treaty of Rome to establish the International Criminal Court, this Administration has in a dazzling combination of ignorance and arrogance not only offended just about every one of our traditional allies but, perhaps more important, has also seriously undermined trust in this Administration's judgment and intent.
Paul W. Rosenberger
Manhattan Beach, Calif.
Attacking the U.S. is a cheap shot. I find it incomprehensible how short the world's memory is. Russia and France owe their very existence to the U.S. Germany was spared terrible vengeance thanks to the U.S. after World War II. Even Afghanistan should have shown how much we respect individual countries' rights to self-determination. As for "no blood for oil," one of the popular current antiwar mantras, we could buy a lot of oil for the cost of the current effort in the Middle East. The U.S. could have voted to lift the Iraqi sanctions and had a flood of oil.
I don't like buying friends, but the Bush Administration is not the first to do so. In Turkey's case, there is reason to pay for the damage that country is likely to sustain and the political price the government may have to pay.
Richard Harem
Marfa, Tex.
What Do the French Really Want?
To this British citizen living in France, it seems that there are opinions that differ from those of President Bush ("France's dangerous hypocrisy," Editorials, Mar. 10). To express those contrary opinions is not necessarily, as your editorial suggested, "anti-American." The leaders of France, Germany, and Russia are democratically expressing the views of their citizens. While citizens do not always have sensible views, listening to those views is what democracy is about. Listening to the views of the members of the Security Council is what the U.N. is about. If there is a nation undermining the U.N., it clearly is not France, but the U.S.
France might be Old Europe, but thank goodness its leaders still have the courage to stand in the face of threats of U.S. sanctions and say: "Case not proven." The specter of the U.S. doing the rounds and "buying" the votes of such democracies as Angola can hardly be said to be strengthening the U.N.
America, we love you. We haven't forgotten your sacrifices in the world wars. All we are asking is: Do not start this war just yet on the flimsy evidence so far produced.
Maurice C. Elstub
Cannes
The camp of appeasement -- France, Germany, Russia, China -- admits that Iraq accepted Resolution 1441 and is more cooperative primarily because of the increasing military presence of America. This camp recommends an extension of inspections, which in its eyes could last many months and perhaps years. Why doesn't this camp propose to substitute itself, in part or completely, to the American military either physically or financially? It would appear much less hypocritical since at present it is comfortably surfing on an effort exclusively made by America.
J. Hazan
Paris
Your statement that France's true aim "increasingly appears to be nothing less than pure anti-Americanism" implies that we Americans are right and the French are obstructing us. This is a dangerous misunderstanding of reality. The French are not obstructing anything. The French are French. We are not right. There is no "right." The truth of this problem or any is that it is composed of countless pieces seen by many eyes. We should be listening with extreme care to the French, the Germans, and everyone else with a point of view because in that composite, not in our own American sense, is the solution to this dangerous situation.
Ted Gregory
Yokohama, Japan
I consider France's position not as anti-Americanism but as anti-Bushism. Unilateralism, not honoring international treaties and contracts, and a pro-war attitude definitely are not what I learned about Americanism when I lived in the U.S. Dialogue, honor, desire for freedom, and a pro-peace attitude are what I (and maybe most Brazilians and French) learned about America.
Sergio Mainetti Jr.
Curitiba, Brazil
Accounting Standards Are No Substitute for Management
"The year of nasty surprises" (Finance, Mar. 10), about Europe's accounting scandals, addresses important issues. However, clarification may be in order. Complicated acquisitions are problematic not because of how they are accounted for. They are problematic either because they should not have happened (bad business decisions) or because they cannot be controlled (bad management). The important question regarding the premium paid for a company (accounting's "goodwill") is not how its write-offs affect earnings (international accounting standards and U.S. generally accepted accounting principles currently differ on this). The important question is whether the premium was excessive considering the value received (again, a quality of management issue).
Without honest management, transparent reporting is not possible, no matter what treatment is used.
John P. McAllister
Professor of Accounting
Kennesaw State University
Kennesaw, Ga.
|
Copyright 2003, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.
Printer-Friendly Version
