Bolton Sticks Up for UN
Ideological biases are annoying to me when they are not acknowledged which is what makes reading the top newspapers so annoying. Case in point is John Bolton's visit to Capital Hill yesterday. The WashTimes emphasized John Bolton's concern that about the pace of reform at the UN and acknowledged his opposition to Henry Hyde's plan to cut off funding to the UN to encourage reform. The WaPost stressed Bolton's opposition to the funding cut issue noting that his stand pretty much kills the measure. The left coast's paper of record LAT highlighted Bolton's call that UN agency's recieve voluntary contributions and couldn't bring itself to mention Bolton's opposition to Hyde's measure. They even implied support by mentioning Kofi's chief of staff's stated opposition and remaining quiet on Bolton's opinion. How slimey is that?
posted by theCardinal @ 6:20 AM
4 Comments:
A fundamental change in governance is, of course, being proposed here. Only if the United Nations does what the US nation tells it, will the US pay its dues.
In other words keep the UN system in name, for global legitimacy, but use it to implement one nation's foreign policy.
When the UN was set up after WW2, five nations were given a veto. No doubt many of the 191 nations would like a sole veto too. Nice try.
The cut in funding is an overreach on the part of some prominent conservative House Republicans. It is not going to get anywhere particularly with their posterchild John Bolton opposing it.
I would not read too much into the effort. There has always been a strong anti-UN undercurrent in certain conservative circles. I distinctly recall in the '80's still seeing "Get US Out" bumper stickers and a petition to kick the UN out of New York. The fact that some cons are settling for just stop paying dues is a major improvement.
Its disturbing that Congressional politics on the economic and corruption reform of the UN's many suborganizations and committees overrided our support of UNSC reform. Instead of supporting the entry of worthy allies like Japan and India (and to an extent, Brazil), we ended up with little to no real reform at the UN.
I have to agree with sentiments previously expressed by IJ that Sec. Council expansion is but one of many needed reforms. Nonetheless it is something that I agree needs to be pursued particularly for the three countries you mentioned. Germany would also like to join the club but 3 Euros may be too much. Then again it could dilute France's voice which would be an intriguing prospect.
Unfortunately the political gamesmanship playing out in the Congress is ill-timed and jeopardizes not only SC expansion but other much needed reforms.
Post a Comment
<< Home