j2k4's United Nations.

l had to paste this whole, it really doesn't abbreviate well, so l apologise for it's length.

------------------------------------------------------


Road map for US relations with rest of world.

Hundreds of deletions and insertions on just about every global issue could undermine the UN summit agreement

Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday August 27, 2005
The Guardian


For any student of the Bush administration's foreign policy, the US version of the draft United Nations summit agreement, leaked earlier this week, is an essential text.

The hundreds of deletions and insertions represent a helpfully annotated map to Washington's disagreements with most of the rest of the world on just about every global issue imaginable.

Most of the disagreements illustrated in this document are longstanding. President Bush was never going to sign a document urging UN member states to support the Kyoto protocol on climate change, or the international criminal court. The mystery is how these differences surfaced only at the end of a long drafting process.

There are two versions of how this happened. The US delegation says it was raising its objections informally at meetings to discuss the draft, and was forced to circulate its blunt list of deletions and additions only after those objections were ignored.

The account provided by European officials at the UN explains the late timing of this intervention by turmoil inside the US foreign policy establishment. For the first seven months of this year, as the draft was being hammered out, the US had no full permanent representative at the UN. John Danforth retired in January, and the White House's attention was focused on persuading the Senate to confirm John Bolton. A career diplomat, Anne Patterson, led the delegation in the interim, but reportedly received little political guidance from Washington.

When Mr Bolton arrived this month, finally forced in by the president with a temporary executive appointment, the change was dramatic. The leadership shifted from a non-political diplomat to one of the most ideological and partisan US permanent representatives in recent history.

The document reflects Mr Bolton's belief that the assertion of US interests should almost always take precedence over the search for compromise with an international community that includes despotic and corrupt regimes.

Of particular interest is the repeated deletion of the word "disarmament" in the section on nuclear arms. The Bush administration wants global counter-proliferation strategy to focus exclusively on preventing more countries acquiring nuclear weapons. It is seeking to play down the importance of reducing the stockpiles of the established nuclear powers, as it has plans to overhaul its own arsenal and develop new weapons, such as nuclear "bunker busters".

The removal of any mention of the Millennium development goal for rich countries to donate 0.7% of their gross national product to the developing world, marks a final break with the pledge agreed by the Clinton administration. US overseas development assistance is below 0.2% and near the bottom of the league.

The deletion of references to "corporate responsibility" reflects an ingrained distaste for regulation of the private sector in the pursuit of social goals such as the elimination of poverty or the treatment of HIV in Africa.

Here are some of the US changes:

Values and principles

We further reaffirm that core values and principles, such as respect for human rights and human dignity, freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, [deleted: respect for nature], the rule of law, shared responsibility, multilateralism, and non-resort to the threat or use of force [inserted: in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations] are essential for peaceful coexistence and cooperation among states.

We rededicate ourselves to support [deleted: all] efforts to uphold ... the sovereign equality of all states, respect for their territorial integrity and political independence, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, resolution of disputes by peaceful means, and the right of self-determination of peoples [deleted: which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation]

We pledge to make the United Nations more relevant, more effective, more efficient, more accountable and more credible [deleted: and to provide the organisation with the resources needed to fully implement its mandates].

Development

We [deleted: remain concerned, however, by the slow and uneven implementation of the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium development goals and] reaffirm our commitment to eradicate poverty and promote sustained economic growth, sustainable development and global prosperity for all.

We resolve to... make the fight against corruption at all levels a priority, as agreed at Monterey, and welcome all actions taken in this regard at the national and international levels including the adoption of policies that emphasise accountability, transparent public sector management, competitive markets [deleted: and corporate responsibility and accountability]

[Deleted: We welcome the establishment of timetables by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7% of gross national product for official development assistance by no later than 2015 and to reach at least 0.5% by 2009 and urge those developed countries that have not yet done so to make concrete efforts towards allocating 0.7% of their GNP for ODA...]

Protecting our common environment

[Deleted: We recognise that climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the world. We call for further technological and financial international cooperation for the sustainable use and management of natural resources in order to promote sustainable production and consumption patterns as a means of keeping the balance between the conservation of natural resources and the furtherance of social and economic objectives.]

We therefore resolve to [deleted: undertake concerted global action to address climate change, including through meeting all commitments and obligations under the Kyoto protocol...].

Meeting the special needs of Africa

We resolve to provide, as a priority, assistance for HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment in African countries [deleted: on a grant basis, and encourage pharmaceutical companies to make anti-retroviral drugs affordable and accessible in Africa]

Use of force under the UN charter

We also reaffirm that the provisions of the charter of the United Nations regarding the use of force are sufficient [deleted: to address the full range of security threats and agree that the use of force should be considered as an instrument of last resort].

Disarmament and non-proliferation

We also recognise that non-compliance with existing arms control, non-proliferation and [deleted: disarmament] agreements and commitments also threatens international peace and security of all nations and increases the possibility of terrorist acquisition of WMD.

We reiterate our firm commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty [deleted: its three pillars, disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy].

Impunity

... we commit to end the impunity for the most serious violations of international humanitarian law, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes [deleted: by cooperating with the international criminal court, the existing ad hoc and mixed criminal tribunals and other mechanisms for international justice as well as through strengthening national legal systems].

The hostile messenger

John Bolton is the perfect messenger for the blunt challenge Washington has thrown down to the international consensus. He is famous for his brusque manner and deep scepticism, verging on hostility, towards the UN.

During his Senate confirmation hearings, previous glib remarks came back to haunt him, such as the observation that if the UN headquarters "lost 10 storeys today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference".

He also came under scrutiny for claims he tried to have state department analysts sacked if they did not conform to his political beliefs.

After months of wrangling, the White House had to resort to a "recess appointment", a means of bypassing the Senate, to get Mr Bolton to the UN. The manoeuvre sent a signal that although he was the president's envoy, he did not represent all of the US.


-----------------------------------------------------

So what this adds up to is the US's desire for the United Nations to reflect US policy whether the rest of the world likes it or not. The hypocrisy is staggering, the arrogance, however, is typical.

Wtf is this thread called "j2k4's United Nations"? :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Wtf is this thread called "j2k4's United Nations"? :huh:

---

Because it's the one j2k4 has been pushing for, so it's only fair he takes some of the credit.


Mr Bush fires a missile

Leader
Saturday August 27, 2005
The Guardian


Less than three weeks before world leaders are due to meet in New York for an unprecedented summit aimed at reforming the United Nations and preparing it to face the challenges of the 21st century more effectively, Washington has suddenly proposed hundreds of amendments to the working document. In effect they are telling officials to tear it up and start again.

The amendments begin ominously on page one of the 40-page document where, among a list of core values such as freedom, equality and the rule of law, the US - in a none-too-subtle snipe at the Kyoto protocols - wants to delete "respect for nature". The amendments continue in a similar vein over the remaining pages, weakening references to the millennium development goals (agreed by 191 members of the UN five years ago as a strategy tocombat poverty), deleting a statement that force should be a "last resort" when dealing with security threats, and so on.

What these amendments actually say comes as no great surprise. We have already heard them from the Bush administration many times, but they are also a sign that hopes for a less divisive approach from Washington during the president's second term may be misplaced. The forum in which this is happening is also significant. Mr Bush has never really forgiven secretary general Kofi Annan and other senior UN figures for their failure to support his invasion of Iraq. Although no one disputes that the UN is in need of reform, the American notion of reform looks more like a settling of scores than an attempt to improve its workings.

The president's controversial appointment of John Bolton as his ambassador at the UN - during a recess without the senate's approval - is a case in point. The abrasive Mr Bolton once famously remarked before his appointment: "There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States." He also observed that the UN headquarters building in New York has 38 storeys and that "if it lost 10 storeys, it wouldn't make a bit of difference".

Mr Bolton is described by some as a multilateralist - though he seems to favour the kind of multilateralism where the US occupies the driving seat, such as Nato and the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. At the same time he has opposed other international initiatives that might impose constraints on the US, including the international criminal court and treaties restricting landmines, biological weapons, nuclear weapons testing and the small arms trade.

He was reportedly disappointed that President Bush did not include Cuba in the axis of evil along with Iraq, Iran and North Korea. While working at the state department under Colin Powell, he described President Kim Jong Il as a tyrannical dictator - which, true though it may be, is not the sort of language to yield productive results in the world of international diplomacy. North Korea responded in kind by calling Mr Bolton "human scum" and a "bloodsucker".

This confrontational style goes down well with the American neoconservatives who, little more than two years ago, were arguing that a dose of "creative destruction" in Iraq would work wonders for the Middle East and apparently hope to try the same remedy at the UN now.

It is difficult to see, though, how this can be squared with the efforts of Condoleezza Rice who, since she took over as secretary of state, has been trying to repair diplomatic damage caused by the Iraq war, or the appointment of former White House counsellor Karen Hughes to improve America's faded image abroad. While Ms Rice is busy building bridges, Mr Bolton seems equally busy blowing them up.

---------------------------------

PS: Using WTF for Why the Fuck is confusing, l propose you use YTF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whypikonme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Wtf is this thread called "j2k4's United Nations"? :huh:

---

Because it's the one j2k4 has been pushing for, so it's only fair he takes some of the credit.


PS: Using WTF for Why the Fuck is confusing, l propose you use YTF.

---

Ok you got it though. I doubt you were THAT confused.

j2 is pushing for what exactly? Everything that was deleted?

Some of those deletions make sense.

are these seriously the changes?

they might as well just officially pull out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

are these seriously the changes?

they might as well just officially pull out.

---

What if we did?

Absent the U.S., you could make the U.N. precisely would you would like it to be, and best of all, you could do it somewhere other than that prime piece of upper-east side real estate.

Why should we tie ourselves irrevocably to an inane institution currently led by an official with a psycopathic aversion to performing his custodial duties, an organization which is anti-Semitic, and totally committed (to the effective exclusion of it's chartered aims) to marginalizing the U.S. and any other capitalist system?

It must be said that the U.S., as a fully-realized concept, functions somewhat less-than-perfectly, but in a way that far outstrips the U.N.

Let the U.N. become the example it truly should be, instead of the faux-moralistic pretender it is.

I think why...me's document is a good start, but doesn't quite go far enough.

As he/she seems to want a sum-total refutation of his/her post, I hereby consent to parse the deletion of his/her choice...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

are these seriously the changes?

they might as well just officially pull out.

---

What if we did?

Absent the U.S., you could make the U.N. precisely would you would like it to be, and best of all, you could do it somewhere other than that prime piece of upper-east side real estate.

Why should we tie ourselves irrevocably to an inane institution currently led by an official with a psycopathic aversion to performing his custodial duties, an organization which is anti-Semitic, and totally committed (to the effective exclusion of it's chartered aims) to marginalizing the U.S. and any other capitalist system?

It must be said that the U.S., as a fully-realized concept, functions somewhat less-than-perfectly, but in a way that far outstrips the U.N.

Let the U.N. become the example it truly should be, instead of the faux-moralistic pretender it is.

I think whypikonme's document is a good start, but doesn't quite go far enough.

As he/she seems to want a sum-total refutation of his/her post, I hereby consent to parse the deletion of his/her choice...

---

Refresh my memory...

Who's idea was the UN, and which country basically wrote the rules? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

What if we did?

Absent the U.S., you could make the U.N. precisely would you would like it to be, and best of all, you could do it somewhere other than that prime piece of upper-east side real estate.

Why should we tie ourselves irrevocably to an inane institution currently led by an official with a psycopathic aversion to performing his custodial duties, an organization which is anti-Semitic, and totally committed (to the effective exclusion of it's chartered aims) to marginalizing the U.S. and any other capitalist system?

It must be said that the U.S., as a fully-realized concept, functions somewhat less-than-perfectly, but in a way that far outstrips the U.N.

Let the U.N. become the example it truly should be, instead of the faux-moralistic pretender it is.

I think whypikonme's document is a good start, but doesn't quite go far enough.

As he/she seems to want a sum-total refutation of his/her post, I hereby consent to parse the deletion of his/her choice...

---

Refresh my memory...

Who's idea was the UN, and which country basically wrote the rules? :rolleyes:

---

It was one of our Democrats; do you know which one?

Never mind-it really doesn't matter.

We need have looked no further than Wilson's League of Nations for an example of the impending failure of such a venture.

I think we should spend our U.N. chit on our own national healthcare proggy instead.

In any case, if we wrote the rules, they aren't being followed, and a re-write is in order. ;)

Roosevelt was a very popular Democrat, to have won so many elections though, dontcha know :snooty:

Shame he kicked the bucket before the war ended, and so failed to see his dream become a reality....

Quote:

---

Why should we tie ourselves irrevocably to an inane institution currently led by an official with a psycopathic aversion to performing his custodial duties, an organization which is anti-Semitic

---

LMFAO, riiite j2, if they really were Anti-Semitic, Israel would have been screwed a long time ago....I very much doubt that the UN is racially biased. If anything, they're pro-semitic (just a thought, I'm not contradicting myself, I'm just saying).