If you aren't informed about this stuff, you will be made sick. If you are informed, you will be made mad, all over again.
Posted on 11/15/2005 12:05:52 AM PST by ncountylee
WINGATE, N.C. (AP) -- United Nations Ambassador John Bolton catalogued the agency's problems Monday, saying Americans want to fix the U.N. or find an alternative to it.
"Being practical, Americans say that either we need to fix the institution or we'll turn to some other mechanism to solve international problems," he said in a speech to several hundred people as part of the Jesse Helms Lecture Series at Wingate University.
One issue that exemplifies the United Nations' problems is that it has become a place where terrorist nations serve on the human rights commission and where even denouncing terrorism is debated, Bolton said.
He noted that a recent session bogged down in discussion over whether national liberation movements should be allowed to engage in terrorism.
-snip-
Bolton spoke forcefully of the split between the United Nations and the United States over support for Israel
-snip-
Other continuing problems, Bolton said, include the oil-for-food scandal, which helped empower Saddam Hussein in Iraq; the tendency for U.N. peacekeeping missions to last indefinitely; and the troubling proclivity toward sexual exploitation and abuse "of the very people they're sent to protect" by U.N. peacekeepers.
"This is not something we can pass off as boys will be boys," Bolton said.
Forgot to check excerpt, click AP via TBO.
Gee, go figure.
If you aren't informed about this stuff, you will be made sick. If you are informed, you will be made mad, all over again.
BANG! ZOOM!
Love it or hate it, but the UN is needed as a forum between the nations on this planet. It is for sure not a place of morale, but it is a good place to communicate. Even the standpoints of the pariahs like Iran or North Korea can be checked through the UN without any problems.
I doubt that the UN has the justification to play the "world representation" or the "world sheriff", since there is absolutely no democratic basement. Anyway some achievements like the standards on human rights, justified or unjustified war etc. are not bad.
If the US are lauching an "alternative" they only would have the backing of their traditional allies like GB (maybe yes maybe no - maybe Jimmy maybe Joe - hehe), Australia and several smaller countries. America would isolate itself, since it still doesn't represent the world alone.
I think that we rather need a debate over the duties and responsibilities of the UN. Bolton is right - we have to fix the institution, but he shouldn't forget that the world doesn't consist only of friendly nations. It is unrealistic to declare a "pax americana" as long as America has not the means to deal with all those thugs alone and immediately. During the Iraq crisis America proved that it can handle its problems alone, although the discussion with the other nations was more than painful. Unregarded the fact that there was no consistent international backing for the Iraq war, the debate helped to show the new political realities after the cold war. Furthermore it showed the weaknesses in the system of the West. What is i.e. the NATO worth if not all members will stand in for their duties? What has to be done in Europe? What are the new focuses of power (China, India?)? What is the American role in the future? How can old constallations (France, Germany) be restored?
It is better to have a organisation that reflects the real world and its disabilities than a congregation of false allies who will backstab the only remaining world power as soon as they can.
bttt
bttt
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Yep! Although it is interesting that most other countries expect exactly this form of promotion from the UN. The world never seem to learn.
Thanks for posting this reminder that Bolton is on the job. He's not in the news much lately, though you would have thought Bolton was the only bad man left on earth, back when the Dems were using the press to attack him 24/7.
If all that's needed is a forum to communicate, then just outsource its function to a corporate meetings planner.
Have a UN meeting four times a year at various locations around the world.
We don't need a permanent, entrenched bureaucracy with arrogant aspirations to being the world's highest government authority, and the power to levy taxes, raise armies and control the Internet.
The only thing worse than the UN's ineptitude is the horror of having it be empowered and efficient.
The question will be what is going to be a clever alternative to the UN without losing the claim to be really global. As I already said, a solely American solution will not help, since the nations who would take part will not represent the whole world. Nations like China, Russia, Japan, Germany, France, India, the UK and Brasil have simular interests like the US. They need a safe basement for trade and their security. Therefore they will help the US if they share its interests. For this kind of help the UN is still a working frame. Smash it would mean, that there will be no continuing contact between the leading nations in this world. This would be a high price for the satisfaction of kicking Kofi Annans a**.
I'll take choice B: find an alternative ;-)
Right next to being empowered and efficient is empowered and INEFFICIENT, or an even greater black hole of money and resources with the power to tax and make people wear the blue helmet whether their goobernments like it or not.
I doubt that this will work. Your alternative exclusively for democratic countries would exclude such powerful nations like China and Russia. Furthermore it is unlikely that the western Europeans would join in and leave the UN instead. A new "American UN" limited to countries like Tuvalu and Australia would be simply ridicoulus. Such a development would only damage the US. America is for sure the most contemporary powerful nation on this planet, but it is not powerful enough to rule the world alone. The foreign help of the US is no important political factor in the world, exept to some little countries like Israel or Irak, who are completely dependent on it. Therefore this is no instrument to put on pressure to other nations.
BTW - The communications between nations would of course not stop in this case, but there would be no bigger global forum to discuss tricky business. As I already said: The UN is useless for solving millitary or social problems, but it is the right place to do the negotiations.
"The UN is useless for solving millitary or social problems, but it is the right place to do the negotiations."
Wrong, you can't negotiate with terrorists,ie NK, Iran, Syria, Sommalia, Sudan.
"Furthermore it is unlikely that the western Europeans would join in and leave the UN instead."
Then they would be exposed for being on the dark side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.