Checks and Balances
by Jermaine Smith

It seems like déjà vu: the Germans will not enter a war they do not initiate, the French would be German were it not for the U.S., and so on. For decades, France and Germany have been the butt of American jokes, though each has become an invaluable and influential American ally and possesses a respected voice in international affairs.

Recently, however, some United States citizens have proved that these voices are not respected this side of the Atlantic Ocean. As Iraq scrambles to adhere to United Nations resolutions and avoid a possible run-in with U.S. armed forces, France and Germany remain fixed to their original stance of allocating more time for UN inspections in Iraq.

Updates pour in daily concerning Iraq’s weapons and the pending world response. The United States put forth a hard-line position early: nothing less than the immediate elimination of weapons of mass destruction, the complete cessation of development of such weapons and the expulsion of the Hussein regime will do. Failure to comply with these demands, as President Bush has indicated so diplomatically, will mean that we have no alternative than the use of force.

Not all nations favor this cavalier attitude, particularly France and Germany. Because the issue revolves around a UN resolution, it requires cooperation of numerous nations to act. The governments of France and Germany have made clear their lack of interest in entering a war and their opposition against the use of force.

Why is this deemed unreasonable?

The French and German people do not wish to go to war. There is nothing outrageous about this position. Neither suggests leaving Iraq to its own devices nor supports the use of force to gain compliance. Yes, perhaps it relates to the investment by both countries into Iraqi oil, or the French involvement in Iraqi arms. Should they not protect their investments? Would the U.S. not do the same?

We pride ourselves on our basic civil liberties in this country, including the freedom to protest, which we often exercise. This is because we can choose for ourselves what to think or believe. It is as fundamental as our right to vote and freedom of speech. However, the suggestion of boycotting French and German products in response to their refusal to invade Iraq is an effort to deny those countries those same civil liberties we claim to be universal.

Granted, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Iraq began destroying weapons this past weekend, though none of mass destruction. Does Iraq’s prior defiance of international regulations still warrant the use force? Perhaps it does. Does their defiance in any way relate to the opinion of two sovereign nations? Absolutely not.

A boycott of either country’s products is unreasonable and ineffectual. There will not be sufficient support for such a boycott to begin with because France and Germany largely provide luxury items to the U.S. How many of us own luxury vehicles or enjoy wine with each meal? I certainly do not. However, if you have the economic means to purchase French wine rather than California wine or a German-designed BMW rather than a Dodge (no disrespect to either), chances are, you will.

Let us further investigate the benefits of protesting French and German products beyond “sending a message.” Major French exports are intermediate goods or raw goods, such as steel. Major German exports are predominantly automobiles. In fact, we have luxury vehicle plants here in the U.S, such as BMW and Mercedes-Benz. In protesting France we will not demonstrate much as their trade exports rely neither on wine nor cheese. This is not evidence of a major economic power whose future is affected by a loss of a few wine purchases. However, we should keep in mind the consequences of a potential German product boycott.

As mentioned, there are several German automobile companies. BMW, Volkswagen and Mercedes are familiar to U.S. consumers and dealerships for each exist in practically every major city. There is also the matter of German vehicle manufacturing plants on U.S. soil. Assuming that a boycott were supported by enough consumers (and I doubt it would be), we would be denying ourselves quality products (which opposes basic free trade principles) and weakening the job security of the people who work in these plants: Americans. This rejection of goods can cause a destabilization of the labor force thereby affecting members of all socioeconomic strata.

A decision to boycott is neither a fair nor intelligent response to our allies. The opinions of both France and Germany carry as much weight as our own, as evidenced by the roadblock they present. Does U.S. will transcend the cooperative United Nations in world affairs? These allies were by our side after the 9/11 attacks, including France as a member of NATO. Those who would reject their products based on their attempt to seek peaceful resolution should reflect on their own limited position.

Now that irrational verbal jabs bounce harmlessly off these respective world powers, some United States citizens aim to threaten with checkbook diplomacy by way of economic sabotage. This will be no more effective and, indeed, may prove to do little more than burn our proverbial bridges. By employing economic penalties in response to political dissention, we can say au revoir to our position as a diplomatic superpower.

Reflections on the Democratic Primary:
Why Dick Gephardt’s Nomination Would Mean Four More Years of Republican Hegemony
by Anna Schwartz

The last time Dick Gephardt ran for the Democratic nomination, I was six years old. My concerns were focused around graham crackers and apple juice, rather than political strategy and the outcome of elections. These days, my attention has switched: I would rather debate politics than debate my next meal. As a twenty-year-old college student in a Republican-dominated universe, in the past few years I have felt that I exercise little to no influence in politics. Come the 2004 election, hopefully that will change.

In a field crowded with qualified (and unqualified) candidates, Dick Gephardt is the one serious candidate who is least likely to be a strong contender in the race against Bush next fall. Gephardt not only lost the Democratic nomination in ’88 to Dukakis (who was summarily trounced by Bush The First), but resigned from his position as House Majority leader when the Democrats were routed by the Republicans last midterm election. As Majority Leader, he was in a position to ensure that the political climate did not manifest itself in a way that allowed Bush and the Republicans to establish a majority influence in Congress. The Democrats failed beyond all expectations this midterm election, and Gephardt was a major cause of that failure.

Gephardt has historically had strong support from unions, partially because his father was a Teamster. But last week, when five of the Democratic contenders went to an AFL-CIO executive meeting in Florida to try to attract union support, Gephardt was not automatically the front-runner. Why? Gephardt has twenty-six years experience in the House, and has supported labor his entire career. Nevertheless, even labor leaders acknowledge that he’s just not tough enough, not well-rounded enough, not Presidential material -- by denying him their full endorsement, they admit his inadequacy implicitly. In his speech at the meeting, he reminded these same leaders that he’s the only one who has been through the process of fundraising and creating a campaign war chest.

What he forgot to mention is that he lost last time.

To be fair, we must examine Gephardt’s stance on the issues before totally dismissing him as a viable candidate. He has positioned himself as the anti-Bush: a populist concerned with the economic well-being of the people that Bush marginalizes. He supports universal Health Care through employer tax credits and an expansion of Medicare. He is against the privatization of Social Security and wants to implement universal pensions. He favors the working-class over the rich because giving working class Americans a boost will give the entire economy a boost.

Some of his positions are merely platitudes, some are unrealistic, and some are absolutely unfeasible, such as implementing an international minimum wage to protect American jobs. Exactly how he presumes that he’ll be able to convince developing nations whose only comparative advantage is the low wages paid to their workers that they should suffer the risk of devastating their economies through immense hyperinflation and low growth is totally unclear to me (and pretty much everyone else who has ever taken Introduction to Macroeconomics).

The cornerstone of the Gephardt campaign will be the health care issue, which is much more realistic than an international minimum wage but no less controversial. Gephardt has purposely placed himself as the exact opposite of Bush on this issue. But how will he mobilize voters’ support? The other three major competitors (of those who have announced this early), Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts, Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, and Senator John Edwards from North Carolina, appeal largely to the non-working class Democratic constituency; the educated urban elites who are much more likely to vote in both the primaries and the November 2004 election. And while Gephardt may have the support of the white working class, he won’t necessarily have the same support in the African-American working class: the good Reverend Al Sharpton (a major figure in the black community in New York – think Jesse Jackson with bigger hair) and the totally unqualified and highly incompetent Carol Mosely-Braun will ensure an erosion of support in that demographic.

Gephardt seems to pride himself on his partisanship, a trait that might help him in the primaries but will harm him immeasurably next fall. Kerry, the frontrunner, is a straight-laced Massachusetts liberal, Edwards is a centrist a la Clinton, and Lieberman should really be a Republican. But Gephardt has framed all Republicans as the enemy in his campaign thus far, in a way that none of his competitors have or will attempt in today’s political climate. This indicates that his competitors have much more political savvy than he, rather than demonstrating any weakness on their parts. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean effectively dismissed himself as a competitor by giving an anti-war speech last week; Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman will not make the same mistake.

Gephardt lacks the funding, the expertise, and the support to be this nation’s next President. A viable candidate who possesses all of these qualities is exactly what the Democrats need to win next year’s election. Gephardt is and will remain an unrealistic idealist and a weak leader who proved himself unable to rally the country’s Democrats twice before – let’s not give him a third chance.