Joe Szalai writes:
>
><snip>
>
>It's not the idiosyncrasies of the American political system that are
>irksome but that they're always played out on the international scene.  Is
>it too much to expect, that at a *summit*, leaders come prepared to make
>deals, sign treaties, etc..  All the background politics, the wheeling and
>dealing back home, the side arrangements, etc., etc., should have already
>been done.
>
>Joe Szalai
>
Precisely what would you have the Senate debate BEFORE the President
negotiates with other summit leaders?  The different positions the
President may take?  The parameters within which he must stay?  Clearly,
that's impractical.

Democracy is a basic, generic principle that stipulates that a country's
government is elected by the people.  How it's implemented from country to
country may differ.

Like it or not, the US is a major player on the world scene and it has its
own rules for negotiating and ratifying treaties.   The Executive Branch
(the President) is given the right to conduct foreign policy.  His right is
controlled by the Representative Branch, specifically the Senate, that has
the right to approve treaties, declare war, etc.  The Judicial Branch has
the right to overturn these actions, if they are found to be unconstitutional.

In practical terms, the President and his State Department set the
direction of foreign policy, as in deciding to expand NATO.  If the
President did not want to expand NATO, there would be no eventual bill for
the Senate to consider and there would be no expansion.  Of course, any
smart President keeps close contact with Congress and especially in foreign
policy rarerely pulls surprises out of a hat without prior discussions.

At the summit, the President negotiates with leaders of other countries.
He gives a little, takes a little, works out the final direction and his
staff works out the details.  Eventually, the leaders initial the agreement.

The final agreement is then presented as a proposed treaty to the Senate.
After a debate it requires a 2/3 majority of Senators present to approve
the Treaty.

I don't see anything evil or undemocratic in this process, just as I don't
fault the other systems.  As long as the elected representatives of the
people and their elected leaders have a chance to debate and vote on the
Treaty, its fits within the democratic principles.

As far as debating and approving a Treaty BEFORE it is negotiated with the
other parties, I find that impractical.  It takes away the meaning of
NEGOTIATIONS, since the government is locked in to a single set of words
approved by the Parliament and any changes to those words require a new
debate.  Any government that takes that approach is basically saying to its
negotiating partners:  take it or leave it, this is what we want, and your
opinion doesn't count.

In Clinton's case, he went to the Madrid summit with an expansion limit of
3 countries in mind, while some Europeans wanted 5.  Had the Europeans held
out for 5, Clinton was in a position to accept that on the spot, without
lengthy congressional hearings, debates and votes.

At 08:44 PM 8/1/97 -0400, you wrote:
>At 08:11 AM 8/1/97 GMT, janos wrote:
>
>>muska'tli? or ibolya? or tulipa'n?
>>
>>my vote is the tulip! it *is* the national flower!
>
>Are we Dutch?
>
>Gabor D. Farkas
>
>

Actually, tulips were introduced to Europe in the 15/16th centuries by the
Turks (along with coffee) through rump Hungary and Austria, their most
immediate western neighbors.  Tulipmania spread through Europe like
wildfire and prized bulbs went for astronomical sums.  Eventually the tulip
futures market collapsed and the flower bulbs returned to a more humble
status.  The simple shape of the tulip found its way into Hungarian folk
art and the tulip bulbs found a most hospitable home in the westernmost
Hapsburg holding, Holland.  The Dutch also use the tulip as a frequent folk
motif in their decorations.  Some of the round "house blessings" you see in
the Pennsylvania or upstate New York Dutch homes always have tulips in
them, reminding me very much of Hungarian folk art.

Kedves Barataim!

Mint a mellekletbol lathatjatok, Miklos csak JOVO HETFON telefonal Carternek,
igy a mi leveleink csak az UTAN aktualisak.

En augusztus 15-en erek vissza.

Kosz a sok segitseget. Olel: Bela
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subj:   Re: Konferencia az ember jogarol a nyelvehez, kulturajahoz
Date:   97-08-04 04:36:40 EDT
From:    (Miklos Kontra)
To:     
CC:     

Kedves Bela!

En most szabadsagon is vagyok, meg nem is. Azt hittem,
ma visszaterek, de nem igy lett. Csak jovo heten
jovok vissza. Addig, jovo hetfoig, nemigen tudok
a Carter ugyben telefonalni sem, ugyhogy legyetek szivesek
varni a levelakcioval, hogy ne elozzetek meg engem. Amint
elorehaladtam, jelentkezem.

Barati udv:

Miklos


On Thu, 31 Jul 1997  wrote:

> Igen Miklos, szerintem az lenne a jo, ha eloszor Toled hallna Carter, ugyan
> abban sincs semmi baj, ha ugyanazt tobbektol, tobb idoben hallja, elvegre a
> konferencia tenye nem titok.
>
> Vasarhelyi valaszolo masinajan hagytam uzenetet, de azert ajanlanam, hogy
Te
> is hivjad, (315-0303), vagy latogassad meg Hankoczi u 15, masodik
keruletben.
> Felhivtam Sorost is, de csak a titkarnoig jutottam, s o is azt mondta, hogy
> legjobb, ha Vasarhelyitol jon a keres.
>
> CF (azaz Calmayer Feri) epitesz, eleg jo nevu, ugy remlik utoljara
Lakitelken
> epitett valamit (templomot?). En a helyedben a Magyarok Violagszovetseget
> kerdeznem, de elotte a telefonkonyvet, mert azt hiszerm Pest-i.
>
> Olel: Bela
>

****************************************************************************
Miklos Kontra                      email:  
Linguistics Institute              smail:  H-1250 Budapest, P.O.Box 19, Hungary
Hungarian Academy of Sciences      Tel: (361) 1758-011x243   Fax:
(361)212-2050
                                        (361) 1758-285
                                   Home phone: (361) 111-0122
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

- Ki az abszolut paraszt?
- Aki a fagyit is bicskaval eszi.