| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:55 pm Bush, Blair to Announce Africa Aid Plan |
|
| Quote: |
Bush, Blair to Announce Africa Aid Plan
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
WASHINGTON � President Bush and Tony Blair were meeting at the White House Tuesday for their first get-together since Blair's government won a close re-election last month, but the British prime minister has already lost out on two top priorities.
Bush served notice that he can't deliver on his British counterpart's main requests � a big boost in aid for Africa and an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol (search), the international global-warming treaty.
Bush will, however, agree to a modest $674 million increase in African famine-relief aid, FOX News has confirmed. That may take some of the sting out of Bush's opposition to Blair's proposal to double current aid levels.
Besides the $674 million, the United States has earmarked $1.4 billion requested by the United Nations to address emergency needs.
The new funds will come from an emergency supplemental bill just passed by Congress and from a trust fund administered by the Department of Agriculture (search).
The two leaders also will call on other countries to increase their commitment to deal with humanitarian emergencies in Africa, White House officials said.
However, the other issue topping Blair's foreign policy this year � fighting global warming � may further strain his relationship with Bush.
Blair has made both issues the twin focus of Britain's year-long chairmanship of the G-8 group of wealthy nations, and has been shopping the African aid package and climate-change initiative in other world capitals in advance of the G-8 meeting next month.
Some critics say Bush owes Blair for his unconditional support of the Iraq war despite strong British public opposition, but others say that wasn't Blair's intention.
"I think he supported the Bush administration in Iraq because he believed it was the right thing to do," Christopher Makins, president of The Atlantic Council, told FOX News. "He didn't do it because he was trying to earn some entitlement for the future."
Bush indicated a week ago that Blair's $50 billion Africa aid proposal was too expensive.
"We have made our position pretty clear on that, that it doesn't fit our budgetary process," Bush said. "On the other hand, I've also made it clear to the prime minister I look forward to working with Great Britain and other countries to advance the African agenda that has been on the G-8's agenda for, ever since I've been the president."
Blair has been pushing not only for more emergency food aid, but also wants G-8 countries to commit new money to Africa instead of just reallocating funds already earmarked for foreign assistance.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the $674 million commitment should be considered separate from any G-8 action. He said the United States is still discussing debt relief for African nations with other members of the G-8, although he would not discuss what additional aid the U.S. might be willing to commit to before Bush's meeting with Blair.
Blair did say Tuesday that his plan to ease African debt was making good progress among G-8 leaders. He also said the U.S. famine relief plan would be only a small part of the effort to boost African development.
"We are a significant way toward a deal," on African debt relief ahead of the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, next month, said Blair, briefing reporters at the British embassy. "There are still issues we need to resolve, but I am increasingly hopeful we will get a good deal on that," he said.
Blair said the $674 million White House plan for famine relief in Ethiopia (search) and Eritrea (search), being formally announced later Tuesday, was only a small step toward a $25 billion increase in African aid that he hopes to secure at the summit.
"It is important we deal with the situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea, but obviously, there's a lot more that needs to be dealt with ... the [Bush] administration itself has made clear that this is not the only commitment," he said.
The money the U.S. has already committed will be drawn from funds already approved for an Agriculture Department food aid account and other funds available in a recent supplemental appropriation.
Besides focusing on the food needs of 14 million people vulnerable to famine in Ethiopia and Eritrea, the joint initiative will address humanitarian needs in Somalia and Djibouti, McClellan said.
"The two leaders will also be calling on other countries to increase their funding to meet this emergency," McClellan said. "This is something that is needed now, in the coming months."
American support is crucial to Blair, but he may face an uphill fight to win it on global warming. The president opposes the Kyoto Protocol, and his administration questions scientists' views that man-made pollutants are causing temperatures to rise.
"I think what Mr. Blair is trying to achieve is to bring the United States back into these international discussions," Makins said of Blair's desire to return Bush to Kyoto Protocol talks.
Bush has also said indicated he's happy to go along with global-warming studies, but not a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
His aides say any pollution-reducing actions by the United States and Western Europe would likely be more than offset by increased pollution from China, India and other developing countries. The better solution, they have said, would be to provide those nations with non-polluting technologies.
FOX News' Wendell Goler and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
SEARCH
Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds
Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships at FOX News Channel (Summer internship deadline March 1, 2005).
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
[email protected]; For FOX News Channel comments write to
[email protected]
� Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright � 2005 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.
|
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:21 pm |
|
Why won't he reduce pollution? If America cut down on it's pollution, the rest of the world would follow suite. I can understand that pollution from recently industrialised nations would then cause problems, but it's important to sort out problems on your own doorstep anyway. Whether pollution is causing climate change or not, it is still a big problem as it is a health hazard for people and wildlife.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:29 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | | Why won't he reduce pollution? If America cut down on it's pollution, the rest of the world would follow suite. I can understand that pollution from recently industrialised nations would then cause problems, but it's important to sort out problems on your own doorstep anyway. Whether pollution is causing climate change or not, it is still a big problem as it is a health hazard for people and wildlife. |
I somewhat agree, but you have to understand, government here has relatively small power over businesses. He could increase regulations, but what I really think is that we should come up with technology that reduces pollution...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:37 pm |
|
Yes, and stop driving those damn dirty SUVs in towns. You don't need them, they pollute more than other cars and they are more dangerous to pedestrians.
But, it is good that you have school buses in America. I will praise you for that.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:45 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | Yes, and stop driving those damn dirty SUVs in towns. You don't need them, they pollute more than other cars and they are more dangerous to pedestrians.
But, it is good that you have school buses in America. I will praise you for that. |
There's nothing wrong with driving an SUV. Sure, it has pollutants that come out, but it's fine enough. And my dad has an SUV. I see no problem with people owning them, even though they SHOULD have them less, but nonetheless...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:47 pm |
|
Sometimes for certain jobs you need SUVs. Lexus is coming out with a hybrid SUV, soon.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:48 pm |
|
I understand people who live on farms or out in the middle of nowhere or those who do lots of sports with large equipment having SUVs, but come on, why would someone need one in NYC?
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:49 pm |
|
They're safer, and people don't drive very well in NYC, 
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:53 pm |
|
They're not safer. That's a common misconception. They are actually quite dangerous. Most only get two stars in the ENCAP safety rating, whereas a car like a Renaut Scenic gets four. They are more dangerous if you get hit by one too, because of the shape of their fronts. Instead of going over the car, you go under it and it's more likely to kill you.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:17 pm |
|
Well, I guess it depends on the SUV. Some are like tanks, but some aren't.
Anyway, we should be getting back on subject, 
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
madlilnerd
Duchess of Dancemat
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 5885
Location: Slough, England
|
| Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:37 pm |
|
Back on subject:
My prime minister sure kisses your president's butt a lot... but the aid thing is good. About 25% of Iraqis are completely dependant on aid rations but are suffering from malnutrition as the rations are only grains like rice and corn so they are getting no protien or vitamins. Increasing aid will help them and people like them around the world
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue Jun 07, 2005 4:00 pm |
|
Cutting polution = Loss of jobs.
Man > Tree.
People also forget that Bush has been steadily committed to researching alternate forms of energy, he's put more money into cold fusion (which could be the most promising clean energy discover in history) that any of his predecessors. Simply put, the media ignores president Bush's environmental bids, because they like to label him as a right wing, waste dumping, war mongering, Nazi.
George W. Bush is a realist. He may not support the cleanest immediate solutions which would cost jobs, but he is looking into long term changes which could revolutionize industry and help create jobs in the future, while helping the environment.
The environment is in no imminant danger, shes risilliant, and with technology going how it has been, all of todays problems will have simple solutions in the near future.
|
|
|
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
| Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:30 pm |
|
Man > tree buuuuuut Man < oxygen < tree
Suuuuuuuuvs are less safe, but suppose it's yankee tradition and culture to go for the wasteful big cars.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:15 pm |
|
| madlilnerd wrote: | | Why won't he reduce pollution? If America cut down on it's pollution, the rest of the world would follow suite. I can understand that pollution from recently industrialised nations would then cause problems, but it's important to sort out problems on your own doorstep anyway. Whether pollution is causing climate change or not, it is still a big problem as it is a health hazard for people and wildlife. |
America IS cutting down its pollution. And the world IS following suit. Change is slow.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:18 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | Cutting polution = Loss of jobs.
Man > Tree.
People also forget that Bush has been steadily committed to researching alternate forms of energy, he's put more money into cold fusion (which could be the most promising clean energy discover in history) that any of his predecessors. Simply put, the media ignores president Bush's environmental bids, because they like to label him as a right wing, waste dumping, war mongering, Nazi.
George W. Bush is a realist. He may not support the cleanest immediate solutions which would cost jobs, but he is looking into long term changes which could revolutionize industry and help create jobs in the future, while helping the environment.
The environment is in no imminant danger, shes risilliant, and with technology going how it has been, all of todays problems will have simple solutions in the near future. |
He is also protecting the current oil industry, in which he is heavily invested.
And (no offense), but if you truly believe the environment is not in danger, then you are hopelessly ignorant and/or naive.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:20 am |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | madlilnerd wrote: | | Why won't he reduce pollution? If America cut down on it's pollution, the rest of the world would follow suite. I can understand that pollution from recently industrialised nations would then cause problems, but it's important to sort out problems on your own doorstep anyway. Whether pollution is causing climate change or not, it is still a big problem as it is a health hazard for people and wildlife. |
America IS cutting down its pollution. And the world IS following suit. Change is slow. |
Don't you mean America is following a lot of the world? And not quite far enough yet... it's getting there though.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
