| Submit your comments on this article | |
| International-UN-NGOs | |
| Tele: UN in dramatic climbdown after American pressure | |
| 2005-03-20 | |
| The security of America and other wealthy countries will for the first time be declared a key priority for the United Nations under reforms designed to restore confidence in the crisis-ridden international body. The reforms, to be announced tomorrow by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, will be seen as a concession to Washington after repeated clashes with President George W Bush over US foreign policy, including the war in Iraq. The UN Secretariat promises a "real re-launch — a fundamental manifesto" after criticism of its performance since the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq oil-for-food scandal. Mark Malloch Brown, the Briton newly appointed as the UN's chief of staff, said: "Reform really has to align the UN behind an agenda that includes a security system which can fully meet US concerns on terrorism." Abject surrender and obsequious pandering. I love it. He said that the drive to cut poverty and tackle social problems in developing nations would be couched in terms of the threat to the security of the West. These clowns still don't get it. Those things should be done because they are the right things to do. And they should start doing them right. Enough corruption and pedophilia. I think they know it has to change but they haven't figured out to what it should change. "For the first time since 1945, the UN is looking at what the world wants us to do," he said. "We need to offer something for everyone, something for The Sunday Telegraph reader as well as the struggling African." Chidyan Siku, Zimbabwe's ambassador to the UN, gave the proposals a cool reception. "My feeling, and the feeling of colleagues from developing countries, is that the Secretariat is trying to please America by slanting towards the strategic agenda of the North. That will not find favour with us," he said.
Opposition from Zimbabwe and it's ally France. The old UN isn't gone yet. | |
| Posted by:Mrs. Davis |
| #19 Vetos cut both ways, lol. We can do a better job. Put this failure out of our misery and start designing something that actually makes sense, has provisions for admittance - and expulsion, etc. The value of the UN (lol!), NATO, the lot, needs some airing out and close examination. It's like cleaning out your wallet periodically. A card for a car repair in your old home city in another state can be safely discarded. So can many of our accumulated Everything of value will survive a sunset provision - it should be a standard clause in anything we sign onto. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-20 9:04:08 PM |
| #18 a cut seems to be in order - call it "a lesson" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-20 8:55:18 PM |
| #17 Another part of Kofi's proposal is for the Security Council to come up with a formal set of rules for when any nation is permitted to go to war, and I suspect for everyone (i.e. the US) to formally agree that from now on they won't do it without UN approval. Fat chance. |
| Posted by: Steven Den Beste 2005-03-20 8:53:58 PM |
| #16 As dot-com suspected, that 0.7% number came out of the recent Madrid conference, where our European betters once again affirmed that the "root cause" of terrorism is world poverty, and that the only way for the First World to eliminate terrorism is to pay danegeld. The chance of Bush and/or Congress agreeing to such a huge increase in foreign aid is negligible, of course. (Or at least it better damned well be negligible.) |
| Posted by: Steven Den Beste 2005-03-20 8:52:02 PM |
| #15 Well, after deducting the EU-calculated derivative based upon their respective negative GDP, their "fair share" is approx $1.95 and a bottle of Baden Reisling or Poully Fume, respectively. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-20 8:35:08 PM |
| #14 I can just see Chirac and Schröeder lining up to pay their fair share of this "tax" now. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-03-20 8:30:07 PM |
| #13 I was frankly amazed he said these things. Its as if he said "We don't believe any of this shit, but we think Bush and the Americans are dumb enough to buy it and it will get them off our back." |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-03-20 8:24:35 PM |
| #12 Fear not, Bolton will hold Kofi's feet to the fire. I haven't been this delighted with our foreign policy since the days when Moynihan was ripping the UN morons a new arsehole every other week. |
| Posted by: thibaud (aka lex) 2005-03-20 8:23:43 PM |
| #11 SDB - Is this where Bush does his best Jackson impersonation and says, "...now let's see them enforce it."? I don't know if they still do it, or not, but this stinks in the same way that the United Fund used to come into our workplaces and tell us what our fair share was. And the pressure was on for company managers, groups leaders, et al, to extract 100% compliance, er, participation. Fuckers. I got in deep shit more than once for saying No. I expect all of this sort of crap, Chirac's tax schemes, Kofi and this "reformed" UN expecting the US to conform to some Eurobureaucrat's idea of our "fair share" to be weaseled / insinuated, somehow, into existing global agreements, such as the WTO. In other words, I don't think they'll ever take No for our answer. We need to throw the UN out and, from there, sign nothing that isn't simple, clean as the driven snow, and as pure as rainwater with Everclear. More than our bodily essences are at stake, here. Lol. Sorry to be so windy. Struck a nerve! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-20 8:20:48 PM |
| #10 It's also a sneaky way of insinuating that American security is dependent on the UN. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-03-20 8:15:30 PM |
| #9 It's not the same old shit. Part of Annan's new program is that the wealthy nations will promise to give 0.7% of GDP to help "third world poverty". In other words, in exchange for pious words from the UN about American security against terrorists, the US is expected to give about $75 billion per year to the organization which did such a marvelous job managing the Oil-for Food program. |
| Posted by: Steven Den Beste 2005-03-20 8:07:33 PM |
| #8 "...the drive to cut poverty and tackle social problems in developing nations would be couched in terms of threat to the security of the West." In other words,same old s***,new paper bag. The cowboy and the rest of the Americans are so dumb that they will let us spend their billions just like we did before,only now we will say we're doing it to prevent terrorism. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2005-03-20 3:26:35 PM |
| #7 It's a feast day! Hi Dave D! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-03-20 12:26:17 PM |
| #6 I've got a better idea - shut 'em down and throw 'em out. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-03-20 11:14:57 AM |
| #5 It's hard to imagine just how the UN could be a more miserably failed institution. It is amazing, since the flaws were there from Day One, that it almost / kinda / sorta worked for the first 30 years of its existence. That it has failed spectacularly for the last thirty years is absofuckinglutely indisputable. How obvious does it need to be? For the Clueless Moonbats: Yo, it's the gigantic dead mouse on the world's kitchen floor. How putrid and rancid and vile does its corpse have to be before we finally ignore the claims of the chorus of Lilliputians that it is really a rose? We should trust our own instincts, for a change -- bury it under a rose bush and move on, already. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-20 10:53:55 AM |
| #4 For the first time since 1945, the UN is looking at what the world wants us to do Nice statement. They are finally admitting it really WAS all about them and their 5-star lifestyles. |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2005-03-20 9:52:10 AM |
| #3 I also have a feeling this mostly means a purge of some of the nepotistic bureaucratic cesspits that plague the UN. That is, if el dictator has two counsins, one of whom has a high school diploma and the other is feeble-minded, they will ask him to send the smarter one for the job, for a change. Seriously, right now, the average education for *delegates* to the general assembly is 5th grade. Literally. You just can't work with that. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-03-20 9:38:55 AM |
| #2 An official at the French mission said: "They may be going too far in trying to please Washington. The UN is not only about the US." No, it's not "only" about the US; but it's damn well going to start being about us TOO, not just your precious Third World shitholes with their constant yammering for free handouts at our expense. Either that, or the bloody UN is simply not going to BE, period. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-03-20 9:37:25 AM |
| #1 Well the G10 will not like this, good. :D We will see if their is any substance to this. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-03-20 8:41:27 AM |