US envoy sets out to wreck UN reform deal
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 26/08/2005)
America's controversial new ambassador to the United Nations is threatening to torpedo 12 months of negotiations on the reform of the organisation.
With only three weeks to go before world leaders arrive in New York to agree the deal, ambassador John Bolton has tabled at least 500 amendments.
In a letter to fellow UN ambassadors, Mr Bolton said the 38-page document might have to be ditched altogether and replaced with a far less detailed alternative. The letter, which was leaked yesterday, asks other ambassadors to remain "open to alternative formats if they help us achieve consensus".
Mr Bolton's intervention has greatly raised the stakes in the search for a deal. America is now effectively asking the world whether it wants a new deal, or no deal.
The agreement was negotiated by all UN members states, but its predictably UN tone seems to have angered the no-nonsense Mr Bolton, a former senior state department official.
Large sections would commit Washington to policies with which it profoundly disagrees. America is being asked to promise 0.7 per cent of its national income for foreign aid; acknowledge the role of the International Criminal Court, which it has not joined; and cut extreme poverty and introduce primary education for all children within 10 years.
America wants the UN to back fundamental reform of the organisation's management structure; to agree measures to fight terrorism and to abolish its human rights machinery. OUTRAGEOUS!
The ambassador's intervention is precisely what his supporters wanted. American conservatives believe the UN is corrupt and unaccountable. Congress is currently examining a Bill that would cut off American funds unless the UN makes major changes.
Nile Gardiner, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said: "Bolton is sending a very clear message that the US is not going to go along with [the UN secretary general] Kofi Annan's definition of reform. Bolton is throwing down the gauntlet to the UN establishment."
Congress is currently examining a Bill that would cut off American funds unless the UN makes major changes.
And Bolton is there to stop any major changes.
So he is really there to get the US out of the UN.
"changes" the UN decided upon. Stupidest thing you could ask a corrupt insitution is for it to mandate measures to reform itself. Which is what the UN's doing, and what Bolton is decrying, and why a man like him is desperately needed at that shithole.
4
monkeybuttt
Los Angeles, CA
June 2005
AUG 26, 2005 04:13 PM
i have no comment that could describe the enormous idiocy of the point this thread is trying to make. therefore, i will hold my tongue.
Congress is currently examining a Bill that would cut off American funds unless the UN makes major changes.
And Bolton is there to stop any major changes.
So he is really there to get the US out of the UN.
"changes" the UN decided upon. Stupidest thing you could ask a corrupt insitution is for it to mandate measures to reform itself. Which is what the UN's doing, and what Bolton is decrying, and why a man like him is desperately needed at that shithole.
What are the alternatives then? Set up an independant body to reform and govern an independant body?
Or perhaps have the UN be reformed in a way more benefical to US( or any other single government for that matter) policies?
I don't understand how saying twelve months of work amongst a multitude of countries being sidelined by any one country is good thing?
I don't think this is a John Bolton issue. This is power sharing issue between the US and other countries in the UN. John Bolton has no tact, but I hardly think that his ammendments are his alone.
America wants the UN to back fundamental reform of the organisation's management structure; to agree measures to fight terrorism and to abolish its human rights machinery
America wants to make the UN a servant to US foreign Policy
It is really irritating, on the road to global dominance, to have to deal with all of these extraneous issues - like the concerns of the other 192 sovereign nations in the world.
Great we pissed of France, irritated England, Enraged Germany, didn't do a whole lotta good in the mideast, enflamed Iraq and Afganistan, now let's annoy the rest of'em. To be honest, I haven't yet read the texts you refer to at the top, so I can't say one way or the other but "abolish it's human rights machinery" that can never be a good thing.
stockula
Anchorage, AK
May 2003
AUG 26, 2005 04:00 PM