Bolton: U.N. Council Expansion Will Fail

AP ^ | 10/14/5 | BETH GARDINER

[SmithL]

LONDON, United Kingdom -- John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, predicted Friday that efforts to greatly expand the Security Council will fail.

Bolton's remarks were a rare case of a U.S. official publicly speculating on the outcome of a bitter Security Council reform debate. In the past, he and other officials have repeated strong American opposition to rival proposals for adding at least 10 seats to the 15-nation body.

Bolton, who has made overhauling the United Nations a priority since President Bush appointed him to the job, said the world body must become more efficient, effective and accountable. Making the Security Council too large would undermine that goal, he said.

Increasing the number of seats to 25 or 26 "gives us great pause," he said, adding that the maximum that Washington could support would be 19 or 20 seats.

U.S. opposition is a key factor because there is no consensus among the 191 U.N. member states on how to expand the council. Also, while the United States does not have the power to block a vote in the General Assembly, where there are no vetoes, its support would be crucial when necessary changes to the U.N. Charter would have to be approved by national legislatures.

Giving his first talk in Europe since taking his post in August, Bolton noted previous efforts to restructure the powerful Security Council had foundered.

"Our prediction would be that this latest effort at changing the composition of the council is not going to succeed,"

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Bolton should have been Secretary of State back in 2000. He should even think about running for President in 2008. This guy's a winner.

[Maceman]

Speaking of the UN, let us never forget the words uttered in 1999 by "the most trusted man in America" -- Walter Cronkite.

“It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace.

To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order.

But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen.

[paguch]

Yes, but he makes George Voinovich cry.

[highlander_UW]

Bolton, who has made overhauling the United Nations a priority since President Bush appointed him to the job, said the world body must become more efficient, effective and accountable. Making the Security Council too large would undermine that goal, he said.

He sure is on target with this statement. BTW, why hasn't the world come to an end...wasn't that the fear of the Left if Bolton was our representative at the UN?

[inquest]

Bolton, who has made overhauling the United Nations a priority since President Bush appointed him to the job, said the world body must become more efficient, effective and accountable. Making the Security Council too large would undermine that goal, he said.

How often and loudly does he need to keep saying it before it starts to sink into conservatives that he actually favors strengthening the UN? Maybe he favors weakening the existing veto power as well. After all, that would make it more "efficient" and "effective" also.

[Chode]

[inquest]

Ultimate endgame will be an argument to get rid of the permanent vetoes.

That's the endgame of the notion that the UN needs to be more "efficient" and "effective". As long as our govenment doesn't promote such nonsense, the other countries can howl about getting rid of the veto all they want. We'll just veto all such moves.