Full Version: Bolton Begins?
Although I'm sure that John Bolton is merely speaking in place of the Bush administration, some people are likely to guess that their fears of the man have been justified by recent developments.
Bolton Makes His Case at U.N. for a New Focus for Aid Projects
Bolton Voices Opposition to U.N. Proposals
New U.S. envoy throws wrench into UN reform
Needless to say this runs counter to the policies of many of our allies. and risks scuttling a very important set or reforms.
So...
Are people fears about Bolton being realized or is this simply a straightfoward indication of the Bush administrations views?
Do you support the change Bolton is requesting in the UN reform document?
Are these objections worth risking the whole of the reforms?
Do you believe the reforms will pass?
What will be the affect on the international community of either passage outcome?
QUOTE
John R. Bolton, the American ambassador here, came under fire and fired back on Wednesday over hundreds of changes he is seeking to a pivotal document on aid for the developing world and change at the United Nations.
The dispute centers on American objections, which became public only late last week, to objectives covering poverty, hunger, education, health, the environment and humanitarian intervention.
They are known as the millennium development goals and are considered the framework of a summit meeting of more than 170 presidents and prime ministers in two weeks.
"The United States came in a few days ago essentially to try to gut this document," said Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and special adviser to Secretary General Kofi Annan on the millennium goals. "Their purpose is clear: to try to eliminate the momentum behind the millennium development goals and to wriggle free of the commitments they have made."
The dispute centers on American objections, which became public only late last week, to objectives covering poverty, hunger, education, health, the environment and humanitarian intervention.
They are known as the millennium development goals and are considered the framework of a summit meeting of more than 170 presidents and prime ministers in two weeks.
"The United States came in a few days ago essentially to try to gut this document," said Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and special adviser to Secretary General Kofi Annan on the millennium goals. "Their purpose is clear: to try to eliminate the momentum behind the millennium development goals and to wriggle free of the commitments they have made."
Bolton Makes His Case at U.N. for a New Focus for Aid Projects
QUOTE
John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has voiced firm opposition to U.N. reorganization measures that the Bush administration fears would inhibit U.S. authority to use force and place new legal obligations on countries to intervene where genocide, ethnic cleansing or war crimes were being committed.
Bolton Voices Opposition to U.N. Proposals
QUOTE
"It's shaping up as a train wreck -- it's not looking good at all," one senior diplomat said yesterday.
"We're now into a destructive cycle where other countries that have been biting their tongues about things they don't like are revisiting those issues."[...]
Among the changes that Mr. Bolton is demanding is the deletion of a clause that would urge the five permanent members of the Security Council not to veto action aimed at halting genocide or ethnic cleansing.]
"We're now into a destructive cycle where other countries that have been biting their tongues about things they don't like are revisiting those issues."[...]
Among the changes that Mr. Bolton is demanding is the deletion of a clause that would urge the five permanent members of the Security Council not to veto action aimed at halting genocide or ethnic cleansing.]
New U.S. envoy throws wrench into UN reform
Needless to say this runs counter to the policies of many of our allies. and risks scuttling a very important set or reforms.
QUOTE(The Globe and Mail)
Reform proposals
The United Nations aims to improve its handling of development, security and human-rights issues. To that end, world leaders will debate the following reform proposals next month:
Developing countries are to implement national action plans, supported by increased assistance from developed countries to reach 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2015;
Mobilize science and technology and commit to a more inclusive international framework for stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012;
Adopt a convention against terrorism based on a clear and agreed definition;
Implement a treaty to reduce the risks of proliferation of nuclear materials;
Create a Peacebuilding Commission to help win the peace in post-conflict countries;
Replace the Commission on Human Rights with a smaller, more-empowered UN Human Rights Council from which rights-violators would be banned;
Embrace "responsibility to protect" as a basis for collective action against genocide and ethnic cleansing;
Establish a Democracy Fund to provide funding and assistance to countries seeking to establish or strengthen democracy;
The United Nations aims to improve its handling of development, security and human-rights issues. To that end, world leaders will debate the following reform proposals next month:
Developing countries are to implement national action plans, supported by increased assistance from developed countries to reach 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2015;
Mobilize science and technology and commit to a more inclusive international framework for stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012;
Adopt a convention against terrorism based on a clear and agreed definition;
Implement a treaty to reduce the risks of proliferation of nuclear materials;
Create a Peacebuilding Commission to help win the peace in post-conflict countries;
Replace the Commission on Human Rights with a smaller, more-empowered UN Human Rights Council from which rights-violators would be banned;
Embrace "responsibility to protect" as a basis for collective action against genocide and ethnic cleansing;
Establish a Democracy Fund to provide funding and assistance to countries seeking to establish or strengthen democracy;
So...
Are people fears about Bolton being realized or is this simply a straightfoward indication of the Bush administrations views?
Do you support the change Bolton is requesting in the UN reform document?
Are these objections worth risking the whole of the reforms?
Do you believe the reforms will pass?
What will be the affect on the international community of either passage outcome?
You did a good job presenting one side of the argument turnea, but what about the actual changes that Bolton (and the US) wants?
From the NYT article:
What happened here is that the actual "legislation" if you will did not match what the US agreed to. Therefore, it is seeking changes. This is perfectly understandable.
I would hope that the US doesn't simply roll over and agree to a document which promotes institutions and treaties with which we have serious disagreements (Kyoto and the ICC).
The Guardian has a list of deletions the US wants to make: Road map for US relations with rest of world
I have serious objections to pledging 0.7% of our GDP to this effort. At the current level ($11.75 trillion) that is a commitment of over $82 billion--which is about 15% of the entire sub-Saharan region of Africa. Where's this money going to come from if it becomes national law through the treaty?
I've said this before: the US does business differently than other countries. The government does not control the GDP here the way that other countries do. The percentage of the GDP controlled by the government is much less here, making the relative percentage of government expenditure higher.
I applaud Bolton's defense of our previously stated position, rather than rolling over and signing something which contains many provisions that we oppose.
From the NYT article:
QUOTE
Mr. Bolton, who met with Mr. Annan, said the proposed changes were being wrongly portrayed as a break with past American commitments that were agreed to at the millennium summit meeting in 2000.
He said what the United States objected to was the way the United Nations secretariat later codified those goals into numerical targets and timetables, like the pledge that countries devote seven-tenths of 1 percent of gross national product to development assistance.
"Quite some time ago the president said unequivocally we support the development goals in the millennium summit declaration," Mr. Bolton told reporters. "Now that's different from the goals that were actually written by the secretariat. There is no backing away by the United States in the support for the millennium summit declaration."
Mr. Bolton also disputed charges that the hundreds of changes the United States was requesting came at the 11th hour, or that he had originated them.
He said what the United States objected to was the way the United Nations secretariat later codified those goals into numerical targets and timetables, like the pledge that countries devote seven-tenths of 1 percent of gross national product to development assistance.
"Quite some time ago the president said unequivocally we support the development goals in the millennium summit declaration," Mr. Bolton told reporters. "Now that's different from the goals that were actually written by the secretariat. There is no backing away by the United States in the support for the millennium summit declaration."
Mr. Bolton also disputed charges that the hundreds of changes the United States was requesting came at the 11th hour, or that he had originated them.
What happened here is that the actual "legislation" if you will did not match what the US agreed to. Therefore, it is seeking changes. This is perfectly understandable.
I would hope that the US doesn't simply roll over and agree to a document which promotes institutions and treaties with which we have serious disagreements (Kyoto and the ICC).
The Guardian has a list of deletions the US wants to make: Road map for US relations with rest of world
I have serious objections to pledging 0.7% of our GDP to this effort. At the current level ($11.75 trillion) that is a commitment of over $82 billion--which is about 15% of the entire sub-Saharan region of Africa. Where's this money going to come from if it becomes national law through the treaty?
I've said this before: the US does business differently than other countries. The government does not control the GDP here the way that other countries do. The percentage of the GDP controlled by the government is much less here, making the relative percentage of government expenditure higher.
I applaud Bolton's defense of our previously stated position, rather than rolling over and signing something which contains many provisions that we oppose.
Amlord, do you have anything to refute Annan's "last minute" claim, other than Bolton's protestations? I've been following this story since it broke a few weeks back, and so far he hasn't said or done anything to demonstrate that the proposals he suggested were delivered promptly. No date for when they were presented has been offered, or even a loose time-frame.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Sep 1 2005, 12:33 PM)
Amlord, do you have anything to refute Annan's "last minute" claim, other than Bolton's protestations? I've been following this story since it broke a few weeks back, and so far he hasn't said or done anything to demonstrate that the proposals he suggested were delivered promptly. No date for when they were presented has been offered, or even a loose time-frame.
I guess I should have included the next two paragraphs:Bolton Makes His Case at U.N. for a New Focus for Aid Projects
QUOTE
To demonstrate his point, he held up documents from the United States mission dating back to June and July showing many of the language deletions and amendments. Mr. Bolton took up his post on Aug. 1.
"I think it's important that people understand we haven't done something at the last minute that wasn't part of an effort that was ongoing from the beginning," he said.
"I think it's important that people understand we haven't done something at the last minute that wasn't part of an effort that was ongoing from the beginning," he said.
These objections pre-date Bolton getting the job at the UN.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.