U.S. Gives a Cold Shoulder to Treaties
Mar 13th 2005 | 5:47 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
U.S. Gives a Cold Shoulder to Treaties
The world should give up on treaties with the United States, "la parole
d'etat" has
no meaning in a country which has 50 of them and its own interests are
primary.
When traveling, realize that once you leave the USA, you are no longer
under the protection of that nation, unless you are a corporation.
Travelers beware.
*****
U.S. Gives a Cold Shoulder to Treaties
Sun Mar 13, 7:55 AM ET
By Evelyn Iritani Times Staff Writer
When he helped pioneer an antismoking movement a decade ago, Eduardo
Bianco looked to the United States for novel ways to keep young people
in Uruguay from taking up cigarettes.
Today, the 49-year-old cardiologist no longer considers America a
leader in the fight against smoking. That's because it is not among the
57 nations that ratified the first global tobacco control treaty, which
took effect in recent weeks and imposes tough restrictions on tobacco
advertising and packaging.
The Bush administration signed the treaty in May, but the president
hasn't sent it to the Senate for ratification, saying it needs further
study. Uruguay did ratify the treaty - and Bianco was among those who
persuaded his government to do so.
The tobacco treaty is the latest example of the Bush administration's
reluctance to join international treaties.
On issues including public health, maritime policies and environmental
protection, Bush has signed or won ratification for far fewer treaties
than his immediate predecessors, Presidents Clinton and George H.W.
Bush.
The White House says that it supports global agreements as long as
they don't undermine America's ability to act in its own best
interests. But critics say the administration's stance is endangering
America's standing in the world and hindering efforts to resolve global
problems.
The Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites), the international accord to
combat global warming, recently took effect with ratification by 141
countries - including every industrialized nation except the United
States and Australia. The president said the Kyoto pact was unrealistic
and would hurt the U.S. economy by forcing American companies to
shoulder the bulk of cleanup costs.
The Bush administration has reversed U.S. support for several other
major treaties, including the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with
Russia. The missile treaty was rejected because it was seen as an
obstacle to building an American missile shield.
The administration also nullified America's signature on the
International Criminal Court and indicated it was not planning to
support a prior commitment to ratify the landmine ban treaty by 2006.
Last month, the U.S. helped block a global treaty to curb mercury use.
Some consumer advocates, legal experts and others say Bush's
hesitancy to join treaties has reinforced the notion that the United
States is a "go it alone" superpower interested only in coalitions it
can control.
Those fears were heightened last week when the Bush administration
appointed John R. Bolton, an outspoken critic of multilateral
institutions, as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (news - web
sites). Bolton pushed for U.S. withdrawal from the missile pact and
opposed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court. The U.S.
said Thursday that it was withdrawing from an accord that allowed the
International Court of Justice to rule on U.S. treatment of foreigners
in its jails.
Those who disagree with the administration's stance say the U.S. is
alienating foreign allies at a time when nearly every pressing issue it
faces, such as curbing the spread of nuclear weapons, fighting disease
and tracking terrorism financing, requires global cooperation. And they
say it is doing so just as the political and economic landscape is
increasingly being reshaped by China, India and the European Union
(news - web sites).
"The message we are giving to the world is, 'We are powerful and we
don't care,' " said Ved Nanda, an international law expert from the
University of Denver and board member of the United Nations Assn. of
the United States, a foreign policy think tank. "The only terms we are
willing to play by are our terms."
Bush would not be the first president to show a wariness toward
international entanglements.
Throughout history, U.S. leaders have shown an "extraordinary
ambivalence" about global pacts because of a concern that national laws
would be superseded by an international authority, said Shepard Forman,
founder and director of the Center on International Cooperation, a
Washington think tank.
Treaties are not the only measure of international cooperation.
Informal coalitions and trade pacts, working through international
agencies such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization (news -
web sites), International Monetary Fund (news - web sites) or World
Bank (news - web sites), are avenues that have been pursued by various
administrations.
Citing the importance of economic stability, Bush has made the United
States a leader in promoting trade, pushing for completion of a new
round of global trade talks and dozens of bilateral agreements.
Bush has signed six treaties, none of which have been ratified by the
Senate, according to an analysis of 550 treaties by the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, a Minneapolis agriculture policy group.
Ten treaties signed by Bush's predecessors were ratified under his
watch.
Clinton, in two terms, signed 32 treaties and oversaw the ratification
of 30 more, according to the study. Bush's father signed 13 treaties
during his single term and got 10 more ratified.
Once a treaty is signed, the president must send it for ratification by
two-thirds of the Senate.
Some controversial treaties were signed but gathered dust for decades.
It wasn't until 1988, four decades after it was signed, that the United
States ratified the U.N. genocide convention. The U.S. and Somalia are
the only countries that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights
of the Child, which was adopted in 1989.
Bush's hesitancy to spend political capital on treaties may be a reason
for delays in ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention, which was
originally championed by the United States in the 1970s and has been in
force since 1994. More than 100 nations have ratified the wide-ranging
agreement governing such things as ocean navigation, fishing rights and
seabed mining.
The treaty has garnered the support of Bush, the Navy and leaders in
both parties. But conservatives argue the treaty would threaten U.S.
sovereignty and endanger national security, forcing American fishing
fleets and Navy ships to abide by the rules of a global body that could
be hostile to U.S. interests.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the conservative Center for Security
Policy in Washington, said he was confident the president wouldn't push
for the treaty now because it would antagonize the "core constituency"
he needed if he was to win congressional approval of changes in Social
Security (news - web sites) and the tax code.
But, say legal experts, opting out of these treaties means the U.S. has
less power to influence the debate. Because it is not a member of the
global maritime treaty, the United States has little leverage to
persuade Asian countries to agree to a regional accord to protect tuna
stocks in the Pacific Ocean, said Harry Scheiber, co-director of the
Law of the Sea Institute at UC Berkeley.
"What moral argument does the U.S. have for asking for cooperation,
when we're not ratifying the basic agreement under which this treaty is
going forward?" Scheiber asked.
Similarly, if it does not sign on to the global tobacco-control treaty,
the U.S. will not be involved in shaping the rules of enforcement.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the State Department was still
reviewing the tobacco control treaty.
Under the World Health Organization (news - web sites)'s Framework
Convention on Tobacco, countries are obligated to restrict tobacco
advertising and sponsorship, increase the size of warning labels and
limit the use of terms such as "light" and "low tar" that may convey a
more healthful image.
The treaty also seeks to combat smuggling. After the 2001 terrorist
attacks, the United States took a keen interest in that issue because
of concern that illicit proceeds from contraband cigarettes were used
to finance terrorism.
"It should be in the best interest of the U.S. to do something," said
Luk Joossens, smuggling expert at the Assn. of European Cancer Leagues
in Brussels. "And the best way to do it is through an international
treaty."
d'etat" has
no meaning in a country which has 50 of them and its own interests are
primary.
When traveling, realize that once you leave the USA, you are no longer
under the protection of that nation, unless you are a corporation.
Travelers beware.
*****
U.S. Gives a Cold Shoulder to Treaties
Sun Mar 13, 7:55 AM ET
By Evelyn Iritani Times Staff Writer
When he helped pioneer an antismoking movement a decade ago, Eduardo
Bianco looked to the United States for novel ways to keep young people
in Uruguay from taking up cigarettes.
Today, the 49-year-old cardiologist no longer considers America a
leader in the fight against smoking. That's because it is not among the
57 nations that ratified the first global tobacco control treaty, which
took effect in recent weeks and imposes tough restrictions on tobacco
advertising and packaging.
The Bush administration signed the treaty in May, but the president
hasn't sent it to the Senate for ratification, saying it needs further
study. Uruguay did ratify the treaty - and Bianco was among those who
persuaded his government to do so.
The tobacco treaty is the latest example of the Bush administration's
reluctance to join international treaties.
On issues including public health, maritime policies and environmental
protection, Bush has signed or won ratification for far fewer treaties
than his immediate predecessors, Presidents Clinton and George H.W.
Bush.
The White House says that it supports global agreements as long as
they don't undermine America's ability to act in its own best
interests. But critics say the administration's stance is endangering
America's standing in the world and hindering efforts to resolve global
problems.
The Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites), the international accord to
combat global warming, recently took effect with ratification by 141
countries - including every industrialized nation except the United
States and Australia. The president said the Kyoto pact was unrealistic
and would hurt the U.S. economy by forcing American companies to
shoulder the bulk of cleanup costs.
The Bush administration has reversed U.S. support for several other
major treaties, including the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with
Russia. The missile treaty was rejected because it was seen as an
obstacle to building an American missile shield.
The administration also nullified America's signature on the
International Criminal Court and indicated it was not planning to
support a prior commitment to ratify the landmine ban treaty by 2006.
Last month, the U.S. helped block a global treaty to curb mercury use.
Some consumer advocates, legal experts and others say Bush's
hesitancy to join treaties has reinforced the notion that the United
States is a "go it alone" superpower interested only in coalitions it
can control.
Those fears were heightened last week when the Bush administration
appointed John R. Bolton, an outspoken critic of multilateral
institutions, as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (news - web
sites). Bolton pushed for U.S. withdrawal from the missile pact and
opposed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court. The U.S.
said Thursday that it was withdrawing from an accord that allowed the
International Court of Justice to rule on U.S. treatment of foreigners
in its jails.
Those who disagree with the administration's stance say the U.S. is
alienating foreign allies at a time when nearly every pressing issue it
faces, such as curbing the spread of nuclear weapons, fighting disease
and tracking terrorism financing, requires global cooperation. And they
say it is doing so just as the political and economic landscape is
increasingly being reshaped by China, India and the European Union
(news - web sites).
"The message we are giving to the world is, 'We are powerful and we
don't care,' " said Ved Nanda, an international law expert from the
University of Denver and board member of the United Nations Assn. of
the United States, a foreign policy think tank. "The only terms we are
willing to play by are our terms."
Bush would not be the first president to show a wariness toward
international entanglements.
Throughout history, U.S. leaders have shown an "extraordinary
ambivalence" about global pacts because of a concern that national laws
would be superseded by an international authority, said Shepard Forman,
founder and director of the Center on International Cooperation, a
Washington think tank.
Treaties are not the only measure of international cooperation.
Informal coalitions and trade pacts, working through international
agencies such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization (news -
web sites), International Monetary Fund (news - web sites) or World
Bank (news - web sites), are avenues that have been pursued by various
administrations.
Citing the importance of economic stability, Bush has made the United
States a leader in promoting trade, pushing for completion of a new
round of global trade talks and dozens of bilateral agreements.
Bush has signed six treaties, none of which have been ratified by the
Senate, according to an analysis of 550 treaties by the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, a Minneapolis agriculture policy group.
Ten treaties signed by Bush's predecessors were ratified under his
watch.
Clinton, in two terms, signed 32 treaties and oversaw the ratification
of 30 more, according to the study. Bush's father signed 13 treaties
during his single term and got 10 more ratified.
Once a treaty is signed, the president must send it for ratification by
two-thirds of the Senate.
Some controversial treaties were signed but gathered dust for decades.
It wasn't until 1988, four decades after it was signed, that the United
States ratified the U.N. genocide convention. The U.S. and Somalia are
the only countries that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights
of the Child, which was adopted in 1989.
Bush's hesitancy to spend political capital on treaties may be a reason
for delays in ratifying the Law of the Sea Convention, which was
originally championed by the United States in the 1970s and has been in
force since 1994. More than 100 nations have ratified the wide-ranging
agreement governing such things as ocean navigation, fishing rights and
seabed mining.
The treaty has garnered the support of Bush, the Navy and leaders in
both parties. But conservatives argue the treaty would threaten U.S.
sovereignty and endanger national security, forcing American fishing
fleets and Navy ships to abide by the rules of a global body that could
be hostile to U.S. interests.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the conservative Center for Security
Policy in Washington, said he was confident the president wouldn't push
for the treaty now because it would antagonize the "core constituency"
he needed if he was to win congressional approval of changes in Social
Security (news - web sites) and the tax code.
But, say legal experts, opting out of these treaties means the U.S. has
less power to influence the debate. Because it is not a member of the
global maritime treaty, the United States has little leverage to
persuade Asian countries to agree to a regional accord to protect tuna
stocks in the Pacific Ocean, said Harry Scheiber, co-director of the
Law of the Sea Institute at UC Berkeley.
"What moral argument does the U.S. have for asking for cooperation,
when we're not ratifying the basic agreement under which this treaty is
going forward?" Scheiber asked.
Similarly, if it does not sign on to the global tobacco-control treaty,
the U.S. will not be involved in shaping the rules of enforcement.
White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the State Department was still
reviewing the tobacco control treaty.
Under the World Health Organization (news - web sites)'s Framework
Convention on Tobacco, countries are obligated to restrict tobacco
advertising and sponsorship, increase the size of warning labels and
limit the use of terms such as "light" and "low tar" that may convey a
more healthful image.
The treaty also seeks to combat smuggling. After the 2001 terrorist
attacks, the United States took a keen interest in that issue because
of concern that illicit proceeds from contraband cigarettes were used
to finance terrorism.
"It should be in the best interest of the U.S. to do something," said
Luk Joossens, smuggling expert at the Assn. of European Cancer Leagues
in Brussels. "And the best way to do it is through an international
treaty."
Mar 13th 2005 | 10:18 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. Gives a Cold Shoulder to Treaties
Gaston the Second <[email protected]> wrote:
[]
[from a news report]
> Today, the 49-year-old cardiologist no longer considers America a
> leader in the fight against smoking. That's because it is not among the
> 57 nations that ratified the first global tobacco control treaty, which
> took effect in recent weeks and imposes tough restrictions on tobacco
> advertising and packaging.
Well, that's one side of it, sure. On the other hand, the US tends to
have much stricter rules on smoking in public than many other countries.
Recent countrywide bans notwithstanding, the US has long seemed to me to
be further ahead in terms of banning smoking in public spaces. Public
smoking in the UK is bad enough, any of the countries I've been to in
Europe are even worse.
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
[]
[from a news report]
> Today, the 49-year-old cardiologist no longer considers America a
> leader in the fight against smoking. That's because it is not among the
> 57 nations that ratified the first global tobacco control treaty, which
> took effect in recent weeks and imposes tough restrictions on tobacco
> advertising and packaging.
Well, that's one side of it, sure. On the other hand, the US tends to
have much stricter rules on smoking in public than many other countries.
Recent countrywide bans notwithstanding, the US has long seemed to me to
be further ahead in terms of banning smoking in public spaces. Public
smoking in the UK is bad enough, any of the countries I've been to in
Europe are even worse.
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Mar 13th 2005 | 8:36 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. Gives a Cold Shoulder to Treaties
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:18:14 +0000, [email protected]
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
>Gaston the Second <[email protected]> wrote:
>[]
>[from a news report]
>> Today, the 49-year-old cardiologist no longer considers America a
>> leader in the fight against smoking. That's because it is not among the
>> 57 nations that ratified the first global tobacco control treaty, which
>> took effect in recent weeks and imposes tough restrictions on tobacco
>> advertising and packaging.
>Well, that's one side of it, sure. On the other hand, the US tends to
>have much stricter rules on smoking in public than many other countries.
>Recent countrywide bans notwithstanding, the US has long seemed to me to
>be further ahead in terms of banning smoking in public spaces. Public
>smoking in the UK is bad enough, any of the countries I've been to in
>Europe are even worse.
Italy is substantially better than UK.
--
Martin
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
>Gaston the Second <[email protected]> wrote:
>[]
>[from a news report]
>> Today, the 49-year-old cardiologist no longer considers America a
>> leader in the fight against smoking. That's because it is not among the
>> 57 nations that ratified the first global tobacco control treaty, which
>> took effect in recent weeks and imposes tough restrictions on tobacco
>> advertising and packaging.
>Well, that's one side of it, sure. On the other hand, the US tends to
>have much stricter rules on smoking in public than many other countries.
>Recent countrywide bans notwithstanding, the US has long seemed to me to
>be further ahead in terms of banning smoking in public spaces. Public
>smoking in the UK is bad enough, any of the countries I've been to in
>Europe are even worse.
Italy is substantially better than UK.
--
Martin
Mar 15th 2005 | 1:31 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. Gives a Cold Shoulder to Treaties
"Gaston the Second" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] oups.com...
> Today, the 49-year-old cardiologist no longer considers America a
> leader in the fight against smoking. That's because it is not among the
> 57 nations that ratified the first global tobacco control treaty,
One thing that people should realize about the United States and treaties:
The US is a federal republic. While some people believe that having the
President sign and Senate ratify a treaty, makes that treaty the "law of the
land," it is really not that simple. First, the concept of senatorial
ratification came about when the word "treaty" meant an agreement between
national governments on how they would behave toward each other. Today,
"treaty" often means legislating how the citizens of a country behave. The
Senate can ratify a treaty but many treaties require what's called "enabling
legislation". This is particularly true if money must be appropriated. If so
much as a cent of public money needs to be spent, then the House also has to
approve and they are often of quite a different mind than the Senate. The
usual practice is for the Congress (House and Senate) to pass different
bill, compromise in a joint committee, vote on the same compromise bill,
send it to the President who can sign it or veto it. In the case of a
treaty, the Senate has to vote up-or-down on what the President signed.
However, the enabling legislation, if it ever passes both houses, may bear
absolutely no resemblence to the treaty it enables.
Now, comes the kicker. The Federal Government is actually not all-powerful.
It is very limited in how much it can dictate to the individual States how
they manage their internal affairs. This actually comes as a shock to some
people, but plain old regular murder is not a Federal crime in the US,
unless it takes place on Federal property or involves a Federal officer, or
perhaps someone engaged in "Interstate Commerce" (e.g. truck driver). Murder
is actually tried in the State courts (Although convictions are often
appealed to the Federal courts on one ground or another) and the States
punish the convicted. The Federal government must tread very lightly here
because the Supreme Court has already nullified some Federal laws as being
too intrusive on local and State governments. A Federal law that says that
State or local police must notify the cosular office of a foreign nation
whenever a foreigner is arrested would probably be struck down by the
Supreme Court on just this issue.
So, a treaty that set about to regulate how individuals grow and local
States tax and regulate the sale of tobacco, would
1. Run into a roadblock when it comes to the Senate's ratification.
2. Run into more roadblocks when both House and Senate must agree on
enabling legislation.
3. Run into another roadblock when the enabling legislation is struck down
in the courts.
This is why the Federal Government must be very careful about entering into
treaties that encroach on the rights of the citizens or of the States. It
was the States that created the Federal Government, not the other way
around.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
news:[email protected] oups.com...
> Today, the 49-year-old cardiologist no longer considers America a
> leader in the fight against smoking. That's because it is not among the
> 57 nations that ratified the first global tobacco control treaty,
One thing that people should realize about the United States and treaties:
The US is a federal republic. While some people believe that having the
President sign and Senate ratify a treaty, makes that treaty the "law of the
land," it is really not that simple. First, the concept of senatorial
ratification came about when the word "treaty" meant an agreement between
national governments on how they would behave toward each other. Today,
"treaty" often means legislating how the citizens of a country behave. The
Senate can ratify a treaty but many treaties require what's called "enabling
legislation". This is particularly true if money must be appropriated. If so
much as a cent of public money needs to be spent, then the House also has to
approve and they are often of quite a different mind than the Senate. The
usual practice is for the Congress (House and Senate) to pass different
bill, compromise in a joint committee, vote on the same compromise bill,
send it to the President who can sign it or veto it. In the case of a
treaty, the Senate has to vote up-or-down on what the President signed.
However, the enabling legislation, if it ever passes both houses, may bear
absolutely no resemblence to the treaty it enables.
Now, comes the kicker. The Federal Government is actually not all-powerful.
It is very limited in how much it can dictate to the individual States how
they manage their internal affairs. This actually comes as a shock to some
people, but plain old regular murder is not a Federal crime in the US,
unless it takes place on Federal property or involves a Federal officer, or
perhaps someone engaged in "Interstate Commerce" (e.g. truck driver). Murder
is actually tried in the State courts (Although convictions are often
appealed to the Federal courts on one ground or another) and the States
punish the convicted. The Federal government must tread very lightly here
because the Supreme Court has already nullified some Federal laws as being
too intrusive on local and State governments. A Federal law that says that
State or local police must notify the cosular office of a foreign nation
whenever a foreigner is arrested would probably be struck down by the
Supreme Court on just this issue.
So, a treaty that set about to regulate how individuals grow and local
States tax and regulate the sale of tobacco, would
1. Run into a roadblock when it comes to the Senate's ratification.
2. Run into more roadblocks when both House and Senate must agree on
enabling legislation.
3. Run into another roadblock when the enabling legislation is struck down
in the courts.
This is why the Federal Government must be very careful about entering into
treaties that encroach on the rights of the citizens or of the States. It
was the States that created the Federal Government, not the other way
around.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net
Mar 22nd 2005 | 3:21 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. Gives a Cold Shoulder to Treaties
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn wrote:
> Gaston the Second <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> []
>
> [from a news report]
>
>
>> Today, the 49-year-old cardiologist no longer considers America a
>>leader in the fight against smoking. That's because it is not among the
>>57 nations that ratified the first global tobacco control treaty, which
>>took effect in recent weeks and imposes tough restrictions on tobacco
>>advertising and packaging.
>
>
> Well, that's one side of it, sure. On the other hand, the US tends to
> have much stricter rules on smoking in public than many other countries.
> Recent countrywide bans notwithstanding, the US has long seemed to me to
> be further ahead in terms of banning smoking in public spaces. Public
> smoking in the UK is bad enough, any of the countries I've been to in
> Europe are even worse.
>
Actually, europe is waking. The recent no smoking rule for restaurants
in Italy appears to be very effective. I saw no violations in 10 days
of traveling.
> Gaston the Second <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> []
>
> [from a news report]
>
>
>> Today, the 49-year-old cardiologist no longer considers America a
>>leader in the fight against smoking. That's because it is not among the
>>57 nations that ratified the first global tobacco control treaty, which
>>took effect in recent weeks and imposes tough restrictions on tobacco
>>advertising and packaging.
>
>
> Well, that's one side of it, sure. On the other hand, the US tends to
> have much stricter rules on smoking in public than many other countries.
> Recent countrywide bans notwithstanding, the US has long seemed to me to
> be further ahead in terms of banning smoking in public spaces. Public
> smoking in the UK is bad enough, any of the countries I've been to in
> Europe are even worse.
>
Actually, europe is waking. The recent no smoking rule for restaurants
in Italy appears to be very effective. I saw no violations in 10 days
of traveling.
Mar 22nd 2005 | 6:12 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. Gives a Cold Shoulder to Treaties
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:21:33 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
... Actually, europe is waking. The recent no smoking rule for restaurants
... in Italy appears to be very effective. I saw no violations in 10 days
... of traveling.
The Italians must have been replaced by aliens...
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
... Actually, europe is waking. The recent no smoking rule for restaurants
... in Italy appears to be very effective. I saw no violations in 10 days
... of traveling.
The Italians must have been replaced by aliens...
Mar 22nd 2005 | 2:30 pm
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. Gives a Cold Shoulder to Treaties
Magda wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:21:33 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>
>
> ... Actually, europe is waking. The recent no smoking rule for restaurants
> ... in Italy appears to be very effective. I saw no violations in 10 days
> ... of traveling.
> The Italians must have been replaced by aliens...
It was surprising but that was what I saw last week.
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:21:33 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
>
>
> ... Actually, europe is waking. The recent no smoking rule for restaurants
> ... in Italy appears to be very effective. I saw no violations in 10 days
> ... of traveling.
> The Italians must have been replaced by aliens...
It was surprising but that was what I saw last week.
Mar 22nd 2005 | 5:13 pm
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: U.S. Gives a Cold Shoulder to Treaties
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 03:30:58 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Frank F. Matthews"
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
...
... Magda wrote:
...
... > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:21:33 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Frank F. Matthews"
... > <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
... >
... >
... > ... Actually, europe is waking. The recent no smoking rule for restaurants
... > ... in Italy appears to be very effective. I saw no violations in 10 days
... > ... of traveling.
...
... > The Italians must have been replaced by aliens...
...
...
...
... It was surprising but that was what I saw last week.
I do believe you - but, knowing the Italians, it's a *big* surprise indeed.
<[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
...
... Magda wrote:
...
... > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:21:33 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "Frank F. Matthews"
... > <[email protected]> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :
... >
... >
... > ... Actually, europe is waking. The recent no smoking rule for restaurants
... > ... in Italy appears to be very effective. I saw no violations in 10 days
... > ... of traveling.
...
... > The Italians must have been replaced by aliens...
...
...
...
... It was surprising but that was what I saw last week.
I do believe you - but, knowing the Italians, it's a *big* surprise indeed.
