Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on September 13, 2005, 09:55:59 pm
-
As predicted (//"http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1556790,00.html") in virtually every newspaper on the planet, UN ambassador by appointment John Bolton has basically taken a long piss on the historic UN World Summit, which was supposed to introduce far-reaching reforms.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4243580.stm
The draft hammered out after weeks of bitter wrangling pledges to honour anti-poverty goals, but other points are diluted or omitted entirely.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan told reporters the draft document had two important omissions - non-proliferation and disarmament
"This is a real disgrace," he said, adding that he hoped world leaders would take up the issues up at the summit.
Brazil's UN ambassador, Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg, said the compromise package contained little that was new.
The BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Bridget Kendall, says the reforms now agreed upon are a far cry from what Mr Annan had been envisaging.
Amazing how a single beaurocrat acting without even the authorization of his own people can scuttle policies which is essentially a consensus among the world's nations. But what is equally amazing is how the UN just sort of sits there and takes it, as opposed to, say locking Bolton in a closet until the summit is over. Seriously, how can the world allow itself to intimidated by such a sorry excuse for a human being? I would have paid someone like Belize $50 to throw a punch, at least it would be something.
-
*imagines that Bolton could solve world hunger and establish balanced, working republics in every country on Earth and he'd still be panned*
-
Excuse me? He took every good thing in the proposal, such as the Millenium Goals for reducing poverty, nuclear disarmament, action against global warming, endorsement for the ICC, endorsement of the test ban treaty and either removed it or watered it down to such a level that it's as good as dead.
Point to one positive contribution by Bolton? Believe it or not, the entire freaking world wants to eliminate poverty and nuclear weapons and protect the environment, but along comes Bolton who manages to over rule world opinion with his own. I ask you, is that justice?
-
He has the authorization "of his own people". His nomination went through. Its a republic. The people's representatives approved him.
Sure the guy's a dick, but at least get your facts straight.
-
The US government was close, but not quite on the money. Who we really need for the UN is Michael Bolton.
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Mistah_Kurtz/bolton.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
*imagines that Bolton could solve world hunger and establish balanced, working republics in every country on Earth and he'd still be panned*
Of course, that presumes he COULD.
Rictor's right in this case, albeit wrong on the "authorization" thing. Non-proliferation and disarmament are painfully important.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
He has the authorization "of his own people". His nomination went through. Its a republic. The people's representatives approved him.
Sure the guy's a dick, but at least get your facts straight.
Technically, yes. But we all know it's not as good as the real thing. When you are forced to resort to appointment, democracy is not in good shape. It's just semantics.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
*imagines that Bolton could solve world hunger and establish balanced, working republics in every country on Earth and he'd still be panned*
I can't see that ever happening...
Establishing balanced working republics everywhere, in the face of years of luxury and destitution, power and oppression.
Own up to it. The choice made for the Ambassador to the UN was a controversial and ultimately, as is seen, crippling. I'm fairly certain the present U.S. Administration wants to see the U.N.'s role challenged so much that they are essentially tossed aside. It sure would make declaring war on another country easier...
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Technically, yes. But we all know it's not as good as the real thing. When you are forced to resort to appointment, democracy is not in good shape. It's just semantics.
Last I checked, all ambassadors are appointed.
And this isn't a democracy.
NOT A DEMOCRACY.
NOT A DEMOCRACY.
NOT A DEMOCRACY.
Its a REPUBLIC.
Christ.
-
Alright, jeez. Temper.
(and I meant appointment without oversight. I can see the arguement that many nations directly appoint ambassadors without consulting the legislature, but if the US wanted to do it that way they (as in those who established the laws, I don't know if it was the founding fathers in this case or someone later) shouldn't have required confirmation hearings as part of the process.)
-
Is it just me, or has the US become a Neo-Soviet Union, willing to screw over everyone else in the world to get ahead, the consequences be damned...:doubt:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
*imagines that Bolton could solve world hunger and establish balanced, working republics in every country on Earth and he'd still be panned*
I'd rather have fully working democracies, but maybe that's just me. Of course, technically I could do that. The operative word being 'could', as in when hell freezes over (actually, I'd probably be more likely to achieve it by then than Dr Robotnik here)
Bolton is doing his job perfectly; to weaken the UN and by doing so factionalize the world into easily dominateable small groups of nations. Didn't the Bush administration publicly call for UN reform? And yet their chosen - ramroded home - representative has done everything in his power to weaken and prevent reform; tabling over 500 amendment just months before the bill was due to be approved, and 12+ after it was formed.
No mention of improving the UN High Comission on Human Rights, no measures for anti-nuclear proliferation (and those on normal weapons watered down), no definition of terrorism and no requirement to protect against it (this was changed to a duty to only protect the countries own citizens - but against their own abstract definition of terrorism)- why is America so resistant to these? Especially the latter - are they scared that they might be less able to discredit and ignore the UN?
(thing I found; http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3026891)
[q]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 U.S. ambassador to the U.N., recently appointed by President Bush in defiance of Congress' 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 U.S. military and economic power.
That is why Bolton, at the last moment, entered more than 400 objections to the draft agreement on the changes that are needed to make the U.N. relevant to the challenges of the 21st century. About 175 heads of state and heads of government will be in New York by today for a three-day session to mark the U.N.'s 60th anniversary and approve the landmark document that has been under negotiation for the past year, but the last-minute U.S. intervention has reopened 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 a deliberate American stratagem. The Senate's refusal to confirm Bolton as ambassador to the U.N. distracted the White House from the actual negotiations under way at the U.N., and in any case the Bush administration has always been sloppy and offhand about the nitty-gritty of detail work. For example, U.S. negotiators at the U.N. 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 judgment 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 realized 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 U.N. 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 U.N. summit opened, was quite different. He effectively demanded that the draft be torn up and rewritten to suit U.S. tastes.
Bolton demanded that all references to climate change be removed, and likewise all references to wealthy countries like the United States committing to a goal of 0.7 percent of their gross national product in foreign aid. There was to be no special help for developing countries to join the World Trade Organization, and no commitment by nuclear-weapons countries to work for nuclear disarmament. There should be no reference to the International Criminal Court (which the United States is trying to destroy), and no reference either to the U.N. 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 U.N. 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 authorize intervention to stop genocides and ethnic cleansing. Bolton even wanted to remove the phrase "respect for nature" from the section on values and principles.
Since the core project of expanding the Security Council has already been postponed for several months in the face of apparently irreconcilable ideas about how to do it (and may actually be postponed for years), Bolton's demands pretty much pulled the rug out from under the whole U.N. reform project. In three weeks of hectic negotiations, his only significant retreat has been to permit a reference to the Millennium Development Goals. So the choice effectively becomes to let the Bush administration gut the reform process - or to let it fail for now.
The option of pressing ahead without American participation, as was done with the Kyoto accord on global warming, the International Criminal Court and a number of other recent international initiatives, does not exist in this case, for the United States is a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council and also contributes a quarter of the U.N.'s budget. But the current U.S. 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. [/q]
-
[color=66ff00]This my friends is the legacy of greed.
The more you have the less willing you are to share.
[/color]
-
Humanity's great isn't it!
-
The United Nations was set up to protect the weakest from the strongest, the poorest from the richest. Today, in an era that only vaguely remembers the the days of Churchill, Stalin, Hitler and Roosevelt, no one truly understands why the UN is such an important organisation and why it's weakening is a worrying step on the road to a return to Total War*.
We can respect Bolton if he honestly believes the UN is a problem to be overcome for his own nation, but we cannot sit idly by while he and his government tear down what little credibility the UN has left. Yes, this is a time for change. That change however should be to strengthen the UN and to define a more unified military power that can enforce Security Council resolutions - be they in Zimbabwe or Palestine, Afghanistan or South America. Britain should be at the forefront of this case for true change.
Her Majestys government has pledged to support the United Nations and to uphold the ideals we signed up for all those decades ago. Not only that but we have a history of global enrichment and improvement of the quality of living - contrary to the politically correct view, the Empire laid the foundation for the democracy that exists today in India, the public infrastructure and transport system. Countless near-east nations also benefited in such ways. Why, then, do we find Tony Blair supporting President Bush in his attempts to circumvent the UN? Perhaps because the PM has to appear strongly against foreign (read: European) influence on his government at a time when the EU is gaining unpopular levels of power, yet in a way that he cannot openly oppose.
*Look it up if you don't get the reference
-
you're blaming the EU for this? :wtf:
-
Did you read what I posted? I'm not blaming any one group. I am pointing out the reason why Blair is so eager to jump on the anti-UN band wagon as it's a way to deflect criticisms over his engagement with the EU.
Which might I add was merely a footnote to my main point.
-
Additionally: 3-2, 3-2, 3-2!
-
Originally posted by vyper
Did you read what I posted? I'm not blaming any one group. I am pointing out the reason why Blair is so eager to jump on the anti-UN band wagon as it's a way to deflect criticisms over his engagement with the EU.
Which might I add was merely a footnote to my main point.
So it's really the people launching into the EU in the 'we fought a war 50 years ago against this' type bandwagon who are to blame for kow-towing to the Americans?
Oh, and :D (http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/050913/8/dm2m.html) indeed
-
[color=66ff00]:lol: fibble fans.
[/color]
-
I think some of you have failed to notice that for some strange reason Sudan and China are sitting on the Human Rights council, by what right do they sit on a body that has anything to do with something they have no respect for?
The UN is broken.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I think some of you have failed to notice that for some strange reason Sudan and China are sitting on the Human Rights council, by what right do they sit on a body that has anything to do with something they have no respect for?
Then why has the US blocked attempts to create a more sensible membership system?
For example, he requested the deletion of the following;
"We emphasize the responsibilities of all states, in conformity with the charter to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinctions of any kind, such as to race, colour, sex, language, or religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."* (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/090105O.shtml)
(and also deletion of segments regarding corporate responsibility and for drugs companies to work towards providing cheap anti-viral drugs to third world nations. Not to mention removing an repsonsibility for the security council to respond to genocide, and indeed removing text which acted to condemn incitement of genocide. Oh, and deleting a reference to the killing of civillians being unaceptable for any cause.
Although he wants to strengthen property rights - bless 'im)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So it's really the people launching into the EU in the 'we fought a war 50 years ago against this' type bandwagon who are to blame for kow-towing to the Americans?
Oh, and :D (http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/050913/8/dm2m.html) indeed
No I'm saying he can't oppose Europe and win the popular "British" vote that way because it feels like a 50/50 split in the UK and he can't risk the EU response, so he has to oppose the UN because it's win/win.
On the :D note: it was touch and go though - they have to tighten up if they expect to get any further.
-
Originally posted by vyper
No I'm saying he can't oppose Europe and win the popular "British" vote that way because it feels like a 50/50 split in the UK and he can't risk the EU response, so he has to oppose the UN because it's win/win.
I'm still not sure how the trials and tribulations of the UN would have any effect upon the EU; to me a strong UN is good if you want to reduce the influence of the EU, as without it you'd be risking degenerating into an alliance system (not militarily but in terms of politics and economics) and becoming reliant upon the group power of the EU in that respect. After all, one of the main good things about the EU - at least in concept - is that it provides a counterweight for the likes of Britain against larger nations like the USA.
Blair has been ****ed over politically (they dropped what, 20-odd seats to the Tories alone last election?) as a result of his military support to the US, and I'm not sure why he'd wish to reduce the little influence he can bring to bear (mainly the UK vote in the security council). I can only imagine it's simply down to not having the backbone to publicly contradict the US because of historical alliance; even if the days of needing US backup for defence (i.e. against the USSR) are long gone.
Originally posted by vyper
On the :D note: it was touch and go though - they have to tighten up if they expect to get any further.
Rodriguez needs a good kicking for that second goal. Bring back Marvin 'Danger' Andrews any day, I say. Bernard is pish, too; they should have kept Murray at left back and held Rae in midfield IMO. I hope they get Burkey fit soon, as well, cos I'm not sure Namouchi is up to that level. Jeffers did ok, though. Bit more sharpness and he'll be firing away. And Prso is just superb, even if I was a wee bit worried when he malkied that guy.
-
[q]And Prso is just superb, even if I was a wee bit worried when he malkied that guy.[/q]
That looked painful, even if somewhat comical. He played his heart out though, and he set up a lot of good chances only to find no one in the box to cross to. I thought Jeffers was getting too pushy - could be a liability if he does something stupid at the edge of an 18-yard box (like give away a free kick).
-
Well, Jeffers worked his arse off IMO. And after the last 2 games, that's a good sign - players actually giving a ****.
-
[color=66ff00]Tsk, you two get a room.
And a telly for the highlights.
[/color]
-
Well, whilst I'm not surprised, amazingly enough AntiEuropeanism isn't nearly as widely documented and shouted about as anti-Americanism, but it certainly exists, and yet is, oddly enough, never ever taken to be as 'bad' :/
The reason this man threw this meeting into disarray was to attack Europe and the EU.
Anyone remember the Shadows last act of Spite in B5, 'If we can't have it, we'll screw it up for everyone else'?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I think some of you have failed to notice that for some strange reason Sudan and China are sitting on the Human Rights council, by what right do they sit on a body that has anything to do with something they have no respect for?
The UN is broken.
This, I conceed, is the only point where Bolton might have something.
BUT
Human rights are ever so slightly subjective. So while North Korea can be said to be trampling over all rights, presumably the US would seek to bar a country like Venezuela from the Human Rights Commision, or a similar nation, in which the claims of human rights abuse are completely politicized and often provided without backing.
The counter arguement is that such a commision, like all UN commisions, should be completely random and rotating, to avoid political influence which is a very real and great menace to fair conduct. I don't see how you can be against Sudan sitting on the Human Rights commision but support Bush in appointing oil industry lobbyists to the EPA, military tech lobbyists to the military appropriations commitee, hunters to the wildlife conservation department (I don't know if that exists as such, probably part of the EPA) or in fact Bolton himself, a man who said that the UN does not or should not exist, as UN ambassador. Sounds like an extereme case of double standards, especially considering who is making the arguement in front on the UN.
However, I don't see what that has to do with nuclear disarmament, the environment, poverty, an international court system or any of the other proposals. And even in the case of the Human Rights Commision, I very much doubt that the position taken by Bolton is because of altrusitic reason.
-
I linked a while back to an article suggesting a criteria for being in the UN HRC would be approval of over 2 thirds of the UN membership; I think that would make sense. The Us suggested a criteria of having signed the relevant human rights treaties; except that would have disqualified them, so it was withdrawn.
-
They should have accepted and then promptly kicked the US off of the commission. :D
To save face the US would have had no choice but to sign or look like fools :)
-
Indeed!
US should be kicked out of UN. Who needs them anyway...
-
Quite honestly, the UN. The US is the worlds sole remaining military superpower, and is by far the most powerful country economically, even though some people are trying their best to dismantle the base of the economy.
-
[q]and is by far teh most powerful country economically[/q]
It is until the Asian/Far-East banks call time on the debt.
-
Much of that debt will most likely not be called in for a while. For example, IIRC, the entire national reserve of South Korea is in the dollar.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
He has the authorization "of his own people". His nomination went through. Its a republic. The people's representatives approved him.
Sure the guy's a dick, but at least get your facts straight.
his nomination DID NOT go through - he was appointed on a temporary basis via the reccess appointment cheat
-
How long does that last anyway? Can Bush keep appointming him indefinitely or will he have to face the music at some point?
-
I believe he has until next summer, when the session of Congress ends.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
his nomination DID NOT go through - he was appointed on a temporary basis via the reccess appointment cheat
It's not a cheat, Kaz. It's one of the powers of the office and you know it. Had some Red Diaper Doper Baby used it we would not be having this discussion.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I think some of you have failed to notice that for some strange reason Sudan and China are sitting on the Human Rights council, by what right do they sit on a body that has anything to do with something they have no respect for?
The UN is broken.
You're right about that, but you are forgetting something: The US government trying to destroy the UN by blocking reform efforts for one simple reason: It can't control it.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
I believe he has until next summer, when the session of Congress ends.
Damn, he could do a lot of damage in that amount of time...
-
You arent going to eliminate poverty with dictators running the poor countrys. The "war of poverty" has lasted 40 years and has cost in excess of 6 trillion dollars, with absolutely NOTHING to show for it.
-
If that's the case why has the US spent so many years toppling democratic governments in order to put dictators in charge of them.
-
Short-term gain for long-term instability.
-
Of course but it sort of undermines DeepSpace9er's basic point doesn't it.
-
I was just stating the United States rationale for their answers. Each time when we've backed dictators its to combat some perceived threat in the present, ignoring consequences down the line.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
You arent going to eliminate poverty with dictators running the poor countrys. The "war of poverty" has lasted 40 years and has cost in excess of 6 trillion dollars, with absolutely NOTHING to show for it.
You're not going to do any better by reducing the country to rubble or starving them to death, either. Better to have some money going to feed people (through NGOs if need be) and some being stolen, than just abandoning people because of some bastard they didn't get the choice to elect.
Whatever happened to 'charity is it's own reward', anyways?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It's not a cheat, Kaz. It's one of the powers of the office and you know it. Had some Red Diaper Doper Baby used it we would not be having this discussion.
yes, Mr Savage, we would, as you would have brought it up.
-
You're not going to do any better by reducing the country to rubble or starving them to death, either. Better to have some money going to feed people (through NGOs if need be) and some being stolen, than just abandoning people because of some bastard they didn't get the choice to elect.
Because "some of it" doesnt get to the people... none of it does. And it keeps the warlords in charge of the countries. Does much more harm than good.
Remember the movie Black Hawk Down where the militias were killing people and then taking the grain? That is what happens to foreign aid.
-
Then maybe we need to give the UN the power to ensure the aid gets to the people it's supposed to.
Bolton's appointment is nothing less than an underhanded attempt to abuse the power granted by Churchill, deGaulle and Roosevelt. We're seeing how a 'permanent' seat on the security council gives a nation the ability to ignore the rest of the world and proceed as it sees fit.
Bush and his administration want to either control the UN, or castrate it. We've already seen how the US responds when push comes to shove over certain issues with the UN (the Iraq war) and how the UN responds (Kyoto.)
Bolton's blatent advancing of the current Republican agenda at the expense of the health, safety, peace and happiness of the rest of the world's population is unfathomable. Someone in such a position of power with such diametrically-opposed philosophy can only lead to the ruin of the establishment. It would be akin to appointing an outspoken Anarchist to a state governor, or a radical Muslim cleric to that of a bishop. There's no qualifications or recommendations as to why he got his job, except to destroy.
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
Because "some of it" doesnt get to the people... none of it does. And it keeps the warlords in charge of the countries. Does much more harm than good.
Remember the movie Black Hawk Down where the militias were killing people and then taking the grain? That is what happens to foreign aid.
Why do you think I said 'NGOs'?
NGOs simply would not operate in the conditions you describe, hence this would not be an issue (especially where the NGO role include on site medical assistance and monitoring). If we have a situation where militias are stealing off people, why is that an excuse to withhold aid to those people? Because they're suffering? Do we deny aid to the most needy, the most oppressed, just because they're oppressed?
What NGOs can do is cut through the 'corrupt governments deserve to have their people die' bull**** and deliver aid directly. Some money, unfortunately, does go to greasing palms just to get it there, but some aid does get there.
All I imagine, is that your perspective - that all aid is stolen by crooked thieves etc - helps soothe any prospect of guilt over low donations by either yourself or your country. Would you deny aid to refugees in Darfur because the government of Sudan is out to kill them?
Albeit I remember a while back checking the details of the 13 poorest nations in the world, the majority of which were democratic. Of course, poverty and crisis provides an impetus for violent change; but it certainly doesn't strengthen representative democracy. Unless you can point to a situation where, for example, famine has caused the emergence of democracy?