August 27, 2005
OUR AMBASSADOR TO THE UN, NOT THEIRS TO US:
U.S. Demands Spur Crisis Talks at U.N.: New U.S. ambassador John R. Bolton has surprised diplomats with 750 amendments to a reform document key to next month's summit. (Maggie Farley, August 27, 2005, LA Times)
Faced with a last-minute list of demands from Washington, key nations met in crisis talks here Friday to head off a collapse of a U.N. reform summit of 180 world leaders next month.John R. Bolton, the new U.S. ambassador to the world body, surprised diplomats returning from vacation this week with 750 amendments to the reform document that is supposed to be the focus of the 60th anniversary summit Sept. 14. [...]
The U.S. draft significantly reduces a section on poverty in favor of bolstered sections on strengthening free-market values and spreading democracy. It deletes mention of institutions and treaties the U.S. opposes, such as the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto treaty on global warming.
The draft also deletes a proposal that nuclear powers dismantle their arsenals, while strengthening passages on fighting terrorism. [...]
Despite various objections from other regional groups, the focus is on the concerns of the U.S., in part because of Bolton's reputation for being a U.N. skeptic and a take-it-or-leave-it negotiator.
It is also a moment for Bolton to prove his mettle after the Senate refused to vote on his confirmation, leading the president to install him in a recess appointment without congressional approval.
U.S. officials say the 11th-hour introduction of their many amendments was not an act of sabotage, but simply a result of a lengthy interagency consultation in Washington.
But some criticize the U.S. for being nearly silent during the months of the original negotiations this year.
Which is exactly how the appointment of Mr. Bolton was supposed to work, the only problem being the Democrats dragged their feet. Posted by Orrin Judd at August 27, 2005 8:29 AM
But some criticize the U.S. for being nearly silent during the months of the original negotiations this year.
Who could have been so deluded as to believe that the U.S. would be approving of such things as:
mention of institutions and treaties the U.S. opposes, such as the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto treaty on global warming, and a proposal that nuclear powers dismantle their arsenals ?
Those are exactly the type of things that cause ordinary Americans to have deep contempt for diplomats and diplomacy. They've spent months working on language that addresses irrelevant points, and crafting proposals that have a 0% chance of being implemented.
The hard truth is that if the UN was ever necessary, that need passed with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The G7&1/2 conferences are much more relevant to world affairs than the UN is.
The bit about "strengthening free-market values and spreading democracy" seems like a sure-fire way to lessen poverty, and I hope that the UN eventually adopts such language, on the off chance that it would do some real-world good.
However, every nation on Earth has known for twenty years that emulating the Anglosphere is the only sure route to success, and yet progress on that front has been slow, if inevitable.
The wogs are apparently a bit thick-headed.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 27, 2005 4:03 PM
I'm just a guy with a talent for joinery and woodworking, but the immediate effect I see in 750 amendments is a screeching halt to the UN chattering over the spelling of terrorists vs. Terrorists. Bolton and the country he represents, US, the good guys, have a lot of weight and he's thrown onto the tracks. Regardless of the Dhims dragging their feet two things. The President has the nominee he wanted, and I'll presume he knew He'd get Bolton one way or the other. It's win-win for him, lose-lose for the Dhims. They could have had win-lose by voting to affirm even though opposed, but pissed in their own soup by stalling. Secondly, and I'm speculating, (see first sentence above), but one doesn't just pull 750 amendments out of a casual hip pocket without some planning. I'd love to know how long this derailment had been planned.
Posted by: Kerry at August 27, 2005 10:06 PM