Posted on 03/25/2002 2:04:25 AM PST by JohnHuang2
With far more political acuity than critics expected, President George Bush disarmed world government proponents while promising more aid to developing nations. The U.N.'s High Level Panel on Financing Development concluded its four-day conference in Monterrey, Mexico, without explicit authorization for U.N. taxes on currency exchange, fossil fuels and a host of other tax targets.
The conference, publicized as a poverty-reducing initiative, was, in fact, another effort by the U.N. to gain taxing authority. Ernesto Zedillo, head of the U.N. panel, issued a report on June 28, calling for the new taxing authority. U.S. delegates to the conference made it clear that the U.S. would not support any document that included U.N. taxing authority.
The final "consensus" document was toned down substantially, and reference to taxing authority was removed. When the conference opened on March 18, however, delegates from Germany, Britain and other European countries tried to reinstate language to authorize global taxation. Again, U.S. delegates, with help from Japan, blocked the effort.
Then Vincente Fox, president of Mexico, renewed the call for U.N. taxing authority when he spoke to the delegates. The U.S. stood firm, and U.N. taxing authority was excluded from the final document.
Had Al Gore been elected president, the outcome would have likely been different. Gustave Speth, a member of the Clinton-Gore transition team who then was appointed head of the U.N. Development Program, was a strong advocate of U.N. taxing authority, and promoted the scheme during his U.N. tenure.
Bush did even more to confuse the world government crowd. He diffused the anticipated criticism of U.S. aid by announcing a sharp increase in foreign aid over the next three years. European nations made a similar commitment, leading conference officials to claim victory before the conference even convened.
When he spoke to the delegates on Friday, however, Bush made it clear that U.S. aid would no longer be poured down the U.N. rat-hole as it has been in the past. U.S. aid will be placed into a special "Millennium" account, not simply handed over to the U.N. The U.S., not the U.N., will establish the criteria that must be met by developing nations before receiving U.S. aid.
Bush told the delegates that no longer can poverty relief be measured simply by the amount donor nations give. The real measure of poverty relief must be based on the achievements produced by the aid.
Bush made it clear that U.S. aid will go only to countries whose governments exist with the consent of the citizens, that commit to open markets, and that promote the principles of freedom.
U.N. conferences are not accustomed to hearing this kind of talk from a U.S. president. Bill Clinton told the Millennium Summit in 2000 that the time had come for national sovereignty to take a back seat to U.N. activism. Bush invoked U.S. sovereignty by defining the conditions upon which U.S. aid will be granted. And he did it with a smile, and without confrontation.
Castro, on the other hand, spoke to the delegates in his usual "fatigues," with his usual dictatorial bluster, calling U.S. policies "economic genocide."
The Bush administration is clearly changing gears with its U.S. aid. U.S. aid will now be aimed at helping nations build the infrastructure to create wealth, rather than on programs that simply feed global poverty – and enrich those who administer the programs.
This change will not be welcomed by the U.N. bureaucracy, nor by the IMF, that is building a new $250 million palace in Washington to house its expanding bureaucracy in anticipation of becoming the chief administrator of anti-poverty wealth redistribution.
The U.N.'s quest for global taxing authority will not go away. Even though this effort has been thwarted, temporarily, the U.N. can be expected to continue its efforts to get out from under the control of the United States. The World Summit on Sustainable Development, which will convene in Johannesburg, South Africa, next August, will likely hear sharp criticism of the U.S., and more calls for financial independence for the U.N., among the many other agenda items.
For now, at least, the world has dodged a bullet, thanks to the Bush administration. Those who believe national sovereignty should be superior to any scheme of global governance cannot rest easy, but instead, must keep a vigilant eye on both the U.N., and the U.S. government. There are plenty of people in the U.S. who do not agree with Mr. Bush's determination to advance the principles of freedom.
Okay, " talk is cheap " . and whatever President Bush said to Fox, Fox did what he pleased. How would you have handled it ; held a gun to Fox's head ? As for Canada, a Socialist haven, what did you expect ? Oh yes, please forgive, yet o9nce again ... I keep forgeting, that in your universe, the American president is GOD, and can make everyone bend to his will with a word.
At least you admitted that President Bush did well; even IF it was a left handed compliment, and had to be aqueezed out of you. Thank you for that . : - )
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD ... when are you and your ilk going to see reality for what it is ? If you refuse to , I can gaurentee you one absolute certainty in your lives ... you will NEVER, be happy / pleased / satisfied with any president 's term in office ! If you want to live your life, with your guts forever in knots, churning out one post after another BORING post, with bashings , you will have accomplished less than nothing.
I give up.
To Hell with the Consitutition...I just wanna' be happy!
The UN, NAFTA, NATO, IMF, WTO, GATT, and those who endorse them need reality therapy.
BTW, your "rant" was just that, sound and fury signifiying nothing but obeisance to the Bush dynasty of a NWO.
Nicely said.
The best interest in question may be different depending on the adminstration but it is always "what can we get in return for the aid !"
If you disagree with any aid then you are ignorant of the facts and why we give foreign aid. If you don't agree with the reasons or who we give the aid to then that's you opinion !
Not even Ronald Reagan did.
And ain't that pathetic?
Damn betcha! You and all the other stary-eyed one-worlders have a death wish for this country.
Your view of the world is so distorted it is not even worth arguing with you. Ronald Reagan was a Liberal in your eyes.
You just can't let it go can you. There is an ongoing thread about the UN tax and all the dire predictions that Bush would come back and immediately start printing up the forms. I wonder if you was on that thread?
Bush can't be compared to Reagan. W has never worked a day in his life nor provided for himself and his family on his own. He had no career before politics and doesn't even give lip service to the Constitution.
If Bush is going to make Reagan look like a liberal, he sure is off to a slow start.
"Oh, the starving poverty stricken children in _________ (fill in the blank). These heartless conservatives think they don't deserve our help."
That sounds so familiar coming from Kennedy and his pals. It sounds comical coming from what passes for a conservative in your party. It's just that you wouldn't refer to those of us who oppose giving away money we don't have as "conservatives". You'd have to call us "tinfoilers" or something else in order to maintain the illusion that you boys are the real conservatives.
This is wonderfully entertaining material for a Tuesday morning. Give me some more of it, young fellow.
Fine. Show me the grant of power in the Constitution which covers this. If you're going to claim it's covered in a treaty, show me which UN treaty requires foreign aid from the US and how much it requires.
I'll wait as long as it takes you to look it up.
Has Bush advocated the withdrawl of the US from the un? I must have missed that.
Regards
J.R.
Of course, Clinton was full of sh!t 99% of the time, but once his first two years were an utter failure he decided that his own career was more important than his liberal principles and toed the Republican Party line for the most part.
The most lasting impacts of these presidents are their Supreme Court appointments, and Reagan's weren't much better than anyone else's.
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.