In political talk, Friday is often called "take out the trash day." Reason being, Saturday is the least likely day people will read through the morning newspaper. So whatever politicians don't want people to read, they release to the press on Friday. U.N. ambassador John Bolton not only has a trash bag to throw out, he has an entire dumpster. In the past few days, the U.S. has introduced more than 750 amendments that, among other things, would eliminate promises of foreign aid to impoverished countries, scrap provisions to halt climate change and urge nuclear powers to dismantle nuclear weapons at faster rates. Other U.S. objections include the International Criminal Court, which the Bush crime family fears will bring war crimes against them, the Kyoto Project, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
At the same time, Bolton is also urging his fellow ambassadors to strengthen the language in a document to halting the spread of deadly weapons, promoting human rights and democracy, and taking tougher action against terrorism. I guess because a "War on Terror" isn't tough enough. All of this coming less than one month before world leaders arrive in New York for a world summit on world poverty and U.N. reform.
I find the most concerning of all these amendments is the Bush administration going back on commitments made at the G-8 summit to fight poverty and disease in Africa. The proposed U.S. amendment include cutting all references to the Millennium Development Goals (the internationally agreed targets for halving world poverty.) Currently 1.2 billion people live on less than one dollar a day and half the world's population (3 billion) live on under two dollars per day.
Millions of people across the world as part of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty are calling on their leaders to honor their word and keep their commitments. United by the campaigns global symbol, the white band, world leaders will be 'woken up' to poverty on 10 September, just before leaving for New York, by alarm bells, marches and iconic buildings wrapped with the white band.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Sounds like Bolton is right on track. Glad to hear he's finally doing some of the vital work that has needed to be done for so long.
>> find the most concerning of all these amendments is the Bush administration going back on commitments made at the G-8 summit to fight poverty and disease in Africa.<<
Frankly, I'm amazed and impressed that the US has actually acted on this. I was afraid that the efforts of African reformers to get attention from the G8 was Quixotic and would achieve no results at all. But if the US signs on to the plan to force reform in Africa by cutting aid maybe some of the other G-8 members will sign on too.
Since you seem not to know about the situation in Africa let me recommend these two articles:
Western Aid is Destroying Africa
Killing with Kindness
Dave
2 - Bob A. Booey
If all this is true, Bolton's credibility with the UN is already shot. He has no relationship with them and he's alienating them already. The UN will not support the US in any of the major policy interests we pursue in the UN if this trend continues and if Bolton doesn't learn how to sell the UN persuasively and build support.
Dave, your angry white male politics have become borderline sadistic now.
You really think that revising language to lessen our responsibility to stop genocide is a good thing when you've already gone on record as saying we should intervene in Darfur? How about opposing the ICC and CTBT, which everyone on Earth basically agrees are important treaties?
You've relished the one African economist's take on development aid and African corruption far too much to justify some sort of weird social Darwinism. Africa is poor as a result of colonialism -- the oil, diamonds, and natural resources he speaks of continue to be exploited by Western companies that prop up corrupt dictatorships that commit horrible human rights abuses, like in Nigeria. The way to get the governments to reform isn't to have all humanitarian aid dry up -- it's to apply political pressure for reform through bodies like the UN without alienating all our allies (as Bolton is already doing). "Eliminating all food aid," as this wacky self-hating African economist suggests, would only make desperate regimes more violent and foment civil unrest that has led to genocide in various parts of Africa. And now, we're scaling back language on genocide in Africa, apparently, so we won't and can't do anything about it. Poor, starving people are also more likely to turn to terrorism in places like Liberia. You could almost respect the bootstraps language of this wacko economist until he says something ridiculous like "AIDS is a political disease" and suggests we be skeptical of the reports of people with AIDS in Africa. That's just bizarre, as is the idea of millions dying of starvation due to the aid that does get through to them. Africa isn't a battlefield for democracy and ideology right now, it's a humanitarian crisis.
His ridiculous anecdotal statements on "too many clothes and too much food" in Kenya just isn't true for most of the continent and he clearly does not understand that millions would die without food aid, and possibly thousands more in genocide and political violence as a result of famine and unrest.
Bolton will be an abject failure at the UN. The US has no credibility or instituational authority to reform the UN by alienating everyone, trying to "kick ass" all over the place, and ignoring the process of consensus by which things happen in the UN. If it's true that he's gone in bull-headed and with all these piss poor ideas, you really will see what conservatives have long said they want: a US free from UN influence, a US that is isolated from international organizations, a US that has neither obligations to nor respect and cooperation from crucial bodies like the UN.
Enjoy.
That is all.
3 - Al Barger
John, this article was a good effort, but a bit frustrating to me basically because you took too big a bite. Not being familiar with most of the specific things you mentioned here, I was a little lost.
You summed up, what did you say, 750 items in a couple of hundred words. Some of them sounded like good ideas, as Monsieur Nalle noted, but mostly I couldn't tell what they were about enough to make any informed judgement from this.
Perhaps you could separate out a few specific things from this that trouble you, and give a more complete accounting of the top ten things in this pile that you think look bad. Here's the old language, here's the new, links to stories about the specific issues involved, etc.
Break it down for a Kentuckian, if you would.
4 - Bob A. Booey
While this could have been 4 or 5 different posts, if you haven't heard of these issues (which are the basic ones the UN deals with), that's just ignorance on your part. He's a better writer than the people who have commented on this post (myself included).
Which of the administration's ideas that Bolton's pursuing here do you specifically think are good ones? Either of you right-wing man-children can answer me on this. I'd like you to defend them for once.
The one area where I think you could have had more specific links at least were for the ICC and genocide stories, which are huge ones in their own right. Share some of the research you came across there with us.
That is all.
5 - John A. Conley
Bob, thank you for you comments and thank you Dave and Al for you criticism. I did bring up a lot of subjects in this post because it was my first on this site and I was getting more mad as I wrote it. I'll try to spoon feed better next time.(Just joking) Dave, I know all about what Shikwati has said and I do not see the logic in the best help being no help. There isn't going to be any government to worry about if nobody is alive to run it.
Bob, all health figures are stright from the WHO. And I saw an article today they put out that tuberculosis kills 540,000 people a year in Africa and has been declared a medical emergency in the Africa region. But don't worry, the problem will just go away if we don't do anything about it, or at least that's what I've been told.
6 - John A. Conley
Sorry, forgot to add you can find the World Health Organization (WHO)can be found here
7 - Al Barger
One story maybe about this long on one specific change, that would be the most useful breakdown. That could be a whole bunch of individual posts hammering away every day for awhile.
Not only would it be more informative, it would probably get more attention that way.
8 - Dave Nalle
>>If all this is true, Bolton's credibility with the UN is already shot. He has no relationship with them and he's alienating them already.<<
And this is a bad thing?
>> The UN will not support the US in any of the major policy interests we pursue in the UN if this trend continues and if Bolton doesn't learn how to sell the UN persuasively and build support.<<
Are they supporting us a lot now? I know we're supporting them to the tune of several billion dollars. What do we get for it?
>>Dave, your angry white male politics have become borderline sadistic now.<<
Ah, you must have read my article on Hugo Chavez.
>>You really think that revising language to lessen our responsibility to stop genocide is a good thing when you've already gone on record as saying we should intervene in Darfur?<<
I didn't actually express support for that, just for Bolton kicking their asses around a bit and on the Africa issue. Plus the administration clearly expressed their intention to take action in Darfur last week.
>> How about opposing the ICC<<
That one I'm certainly for. The ICC is a terrible, dictatorial organization which threatens our basic rights and sovereignty. Membership in it is probably unconstitutional as well.
>> and CTBT, which everyone on Earth basically agrees are important treaties?<<
Talk to the French about the CTBT. I'm not necessarily against it, but if the UN can't strong-arm France, India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea into signing it, then it's a lost cause and we shouldn't be part of it either.
>>You've relished the one African economist's take on development aid and African corruption far too much to justify some sort of weird social Darwinism.<<
I didn't relish it, it was more of a revelation. I had never considered the impact of African aid before, and Shikwati really opened my eyes on this issue.
>> Africa is poor as a result of colonialism <<
Then why are the few stable governments in Africa in those countries which have had the longest and most pervasive influence from colonial powers?
>>-- the oil, diamonds, and natural resources he speaks of continue to be exploited by Western companies that prop up corrupt dictatorships that commit horrible human rights abuses, like in Nigeria. <<
This is certainly part of the corruption, but it has to be dealt with in Africa by changing those regimes. You're not going to find someone other than DeBeers, Royal Dutch and their like to buy these resources no matter who is in power.
>>The way to get the governments to reform isn't to have all humanitarian aid dry up -- it's to apply political pressure for reform through bodies like the UN without alienating all our allies (as Bolton is already doing). "Eliminating all food aid," as this wacky self-hating African economist suggests, <<
He's not self-hating, he's sensible. There are some countries where food aid is essential, but for countries like Zaire and Kenya which are perfectly capable of feeding themselves if allowed by their repressive governments, food aid only does harm.
>>would only make desperate regimes more violent and foment civil unrest that has led to genocide in various parts of Africa. <<
This is how you get rid of repressive regimes.
>>And now, we're scaling back language on genocide in Africa, apparently, so we won't and can't do anything about it. Poor, starving people are also more likely to turn to terrorism in places like Liberia.<<
So you're basically saying to prop up the dictators because the alternative would be worse? I don't see how it could be.
>> You could almost respect the bootstraps language of this wacko economist until he says something ridiculous like "AIDS is a political disease" and suggests we be skeptical of the reports of people with AIDS in Africa.<<
It makes perfect sense, and it's actually supported by reports from humanitarian organizations which contradicted the previously accepted estimates. Governments have clearly been inflating the AIDS figures to get a bigger piece of the pie.
>> That's just bizarre, as is the idea of millions dying of starvation due to the aid that does get through to them. Africa isn't a battlefield for democracy and ideology right now, it's a humanitarian crisis. <<
It's a civil rights crisis more than anything else. They need to restore private land ownership, rebuild their agricultural classes and become self-sufficient.
>>His ridiculous anecdotal statements on "too many clothes and too much food" in Kenya just isn't true for most of the continent and he clearly does not understand that millions would die without food aid, and possibly thousands more in genocide and political violence as a result of famine and unrest.<<
Obviously every country faces its own unique set of problems, but his observations certainly seem to be valid for Kenya and some other countries. Recent experiments with privatizing land ownership in Zimbabwe, for example, have had remarkable success.
>>Bolton will be an abject failure at the UN. The US has no credibility or instituational authority to reform the UN by alienating everyone, trying to "kick ass" all over the place, and ignoring the process of consensus by which things happen in the UN.<<
The process of consensus which got us no support in Iraq?
>> If it's true that he's gone in bull-headed and with all these piss poor ideas, you really will see what conservatives have long said they want: a US free from UN influence, a US that is isolated from international organizations, a US that has neither obligations to nor respect and cooperation from crucial bodies like the UN.<<
The crucialness of the UN is certainly debatable. There are a lot of people on both the left and the right who would agree that it's a failed concept that needs to be done away with and replaced with something either more practical or more effective.
Dave
9 - Bob A. Booey
And those people are wackjobs.
Most of what you say here is so unreasonable that I can't even imagine you'd respond to anything I have to say, but I will remind you that you said you'd probably support an intervention in Darfur during that big, stupid discussion about the Geneva convention and definitions of genocide vis a vis Stalin, Pol Pot and politically murderous regimes.
Go back and find that thread and see what you said.
The ICC and the UN are the best and only ways we have today to deal with genocide and war criminals. But maybe that's not as important to you as "weaning" Africa off of food aid and AIDS assistance, because "survival of the fittest" will teach them a lesson for being so poor and not learning to love the legacy of colonialism. Your statement on the most stable governments in Africa having the longest histories of colonial influence is dubious and grandiose. And whichever nations you have in mind are hardly wealthy nations relative to any reasonable standard of human subsistence -- poverty, famine and AIDS are destroying large parts of even wealthy nations like South Africa.
That is all.
10 - Bob A. Booey
If you can't see that the CTBT is a good idea and don't realize that most international relations scholars think that our refusal to sign it is a major reason the major hold-outs you list don't believe it's credible, then you're further gone than I thought.
It's not always necessary to be an outraged right-wing caricature who has a knee-jerk reaction to any sort of internationalism, is it?
That is all.