Do you find any of this surprising? On 9/13/05, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The US basically wishes to remove ALL references to any sort of treaty > or proposal which would curb US businesses which pollute the > atmosphere, which would hold the US to any ideals of Foreign Aid, > which would hold the US to any International standard of Human > Rights,And which would hold the US to any strategy for relieving the > debt, poverty, trade imbalances of poorer countries, removing any > mandate to prevent Genocide in countries around the world and the > removal of any UN standing army peacekeeping force. Thus setting the > entire negotiations to make the UN a relevant force in the 21st > century back after all other countries of hte world had reached > agreement on these issues. The gutting of the proposals leaves, once > again, the United States as the only relevant force in the world. > > Truly the actions of a country that tries to project itself as the > pinnacle of good will, human kindness,philantropy and altruistic > action to the rest of the world..eh? > > "There is no such thing as the United Nations," Bolton once said. > "There is only the international community, which can only be led by > the only remaining superpower, which is the United States." > > That sums up the current US Administration's view of the world, and > the US as it's Imperial Ruler. > --------- > If we set out to create a farm in the wilderness, we should not expect > the top local predators to help. We have our interests, and they have > theirs: as our little patch of order spreads, their ability to hunt > freely and dominate the local environment will be increasingly > constrained. > > So we should not be surprised that John Bolton is trying to sabotage > the reform of the United Nations. > > The United States ambassador to the UN, recently appointed by > President Bush in defiance of Congress's wishes, believes that if the > United Nations is not an instrument of American power, then it is an > obstacle to the free exercise of American power. There is no point in > getting angry about that. He and his neo-conservative colleagues are > deeply traditional men and women who see world politics as a zero-sum > game in which there are only winners and losers, and they believe that > America's best chance of remaining a winner is to preserve the world > as a free-fire zone for the exercise of US military and economic > power. > > That is why Bolton, at the last moment, entered over 400 objections to > the draft agreement on the changes that are needed to make the UN > relevant to the challenges of the 21st century. About 175 heads of > state and heads of government will be in New York by Wednesday for a > three-day session to mark the UN's 60th anniversary and approve the > landmark document that has been under negotiation for the past year, > but the last-minute US intervention has re-opened many issues that > were all but settled and it is doubtful that there will even be a > final document by Friday. > > This is not necessarily an deliberate American stratagem. The Senate's > refusal to confirm Bolton as ambassador to the UN distracted the White > House from the actual negotiations underway at the UN, and in any case > the Bush administration has always been sloppy and offhand about the > nitty-gritty of detail work. For example, US negotiators at the UN > originally proposed that only democratic countries should be eligible > for membership on the new Human Rights Council that is to replace the > old and discredited Human Rights Commission. > > Fair enough: it made no sense that oppressive countries like Sudan and > Libya which abuse human rights themselves should sit in judgement on > others. But how do you define "democratic countries"? American > negotiators suggested that they could be defined simply as those > countries that have signed the major international treaties on human > rights-and then hastily withdrew their suggestion when they realised > that that would disqualify the United States itself from membership. > > Such difficulties can be resolved by creative diplomacy: you just > require that countries be elected to the Human Right Commission by a > two-thirds majority in the UN General Assembly, which allows even a > minority of fully democratic countries to block any undesirable > candidate without the need to define "democratic". But what Bolton > dropped into the laps of the negotiators, only three weeks before the > UN summit opened, was quite different. He effectively demanded that > the draft be torn up and rewritten to suit US tastes. > > Bolton demanded that all references to climate change be removed, and > likewise all references to wealthy countries like the US committing to > a goal of 0.7 per cent of their gross national product in foreign aid. > > There was to be no special help for developing countries to join the > World Trade Organisation, and no commitment by nuclear-weapons > countries to work towards nuclear disarmament. There should be no > reference to the International Criminal Court (which the US is trying > to destroy), and no reference either to the UN Millennium Development > Goals on poverty, education, disease, trade and aid. > > Passages promising a larger role for the General Assembly were to be > struck out, as was the promise to create a standing military capacity > for UN peacekeeping. Gone was the reaffirmation that "the use of force > should be considered as an instrument of last resort," the promise to > "encourage pharmaceutical companies to make anti-retroviral drugs > affordable and accessible in Africa," and any legal responsibility for > the Security Council to authorise intervention to stop genocides and > ethnic cleansing. Bolton even wanted to remove the phrase "respect for > nature" from the section on Values and Principles. > > The option of pressing ahead without American participation, as was > done with the Kyoto accord, the International Criminal Court and a > number of other recent international initiatives, does not exist in > this case, for the US is a veto-wielding permanent member of the > Security Council and also contributes a quarter of the UN's budget. > But the current US administration and its extreme world-view do not > represent the views of all Americans - the United States was, after > all, the original moving spirit behind the principles of the United > Nations - and President Bush will not be in power forever. > > "There is no such thing as the United Nations," Bolton once said. > "There is only the international community, which can only be led by > the only remaining superpower, which is the United States." That sums > up the neo-conservatives' view of the world, but their political power > is waning as their Iraq adventure collapses and their inability to > cope even with domestic disasters becomes plain. Rather than agree to > an inadequate document now and foreclose the possibility of further > reform for many years to come, it would be better to let the current > attempt fail and try again in three years' time. > > (Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist) > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:174071 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
