As the Vote to Approve the IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY in Congress Approaches, we are again Subjected to Meaningless Rhetoric that Completely Misses the Point, and is USED TO PROMOTE FEAR AND HATE INSTEAD OF REASON AND PRAGMATISM. So, let us again see if we can Cut Through Bluster and Noise, and find Common Ground.
First, Ignore the Text, and Toss Out Any Objections That Have Been Raised Denouncing the Agreement. Go into an EXAMINATION OF THIS TREATY, OR ANY TREATY FOR THAT MATTER, AS A DISINTERESTED OBSERVER WHO HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH FINDING THE MOST EQUITABLE SOLUTION THAT WOULD BENEFIT ALL SIDES.
#1- Listen to ALL SIDES OF THE SUBJECT MATTER TO DETERMINE WHAT EACH SIDE VALUES MOST OF ALL, AND CONSIDER THE ELEMENTS THAT SEEM TO BE OF LITTLE CONCERN TO EACH.
#2- What Category do the Most Important Goals of Agreeing to a TREATY FALL INTO, FOR EACH PARTICIPANT?
- ECONOMIC- IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE, OR IMPORT/EXPORT
OPPORTUNITIES.
- MILITARY/PROTECTION FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES.
- STABILITY- ALLIES TO MAINTAIN GOOD RELATIONS, OR PLEDGE
OF SUPPORT.
AMONG OTHER THINGS.
#3- TO MEET THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT EACH SIDE IS LOOKING FOR, WHAT WILL THE OPPOSITION HAVE TO AGREE TO, OR
SACRIFICE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN?
#4- IS ONE SIDE , OR THE OTHER, PUSHING AN AGENDA THAT THE
OTHER SIDE COULD NOT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO AGREE TO.
IS ONE SIDE OFFERING JUST TOKEN CONCESSIONS, WHILE DEMANDING
EXTENSIVE SACRIFICES FROM THE OPPOSITION?
As I Mentioned in an Earlier Post, GOVERNMENTS DO NOT ENTER INTO THESE NEGOTIATIONS FOR NO REASON. EACH SIDE HAS SOMETHING THE OTHER WANTS.
This Leads us to the FINAL STEP- IF THE SITTING GOVERNMENT PROPOSING THE FINISHED TREATY IS FACED BY INTERNAL OPPOSITION, THEY MUST ALSO BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS. OPPOSING A TREATY, OR ITS COMPONENTS, IS EASY TO SAY, BUT TO OFFER NO REALISTIC ALTERNATIVES IS JUST OBSTRUCTIONIST POLITICS.
Date- 9/2/2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment