U.N and U.S.A clash

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
UNITED NATIONS - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan defended his top deputy Thursday from sharp U.S. criticism about a speech that faulted Washington's attitude toward the United Nations.

ADVERTISEMENT


Annan told reporters the thrust of the speech from Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown was that the United States and the United Nations need each other. He also warned the U.S. against abandoning efforts to reform the world body because of the remarks.

"If one is going to use the argument that 'I'm not satisfied with reform and I'm going to close down the shop,' they will have lots of explanation to do, not just in this building but to the people out there," Annan said.

Malloch Brown's speech to a conference on Tuesday was a rare direct rebuke of the top financial contributor to the U.N. He said the United States relies on the U.N. diplomatically but refuses to defend it before its critics at home.

"Much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News," Malloch Brown said.

The next day, Bolton called the speech a "very, very grave mistake." In remarks that were unusually strong even for the outspoken diplomat, Bolton ominously warned that the speech threatened the organization itself.

In a speech in London on Thursday, Bolton repeated his belief that Malloch Brown's comment could wreak havoc on efforts to reform the U.N. He called the remarks a "classic political mistake and I don't think we've seen the end of the consequences."

The back and forth highlighted the often tense relationship between the United States and the U.N., which was seriously strained after the U.N. Security Council refused to back the Iraq war in 2003.

The relationship has been further strained since the arrival last year of Bolton, a blunt advocate for U.S. interests who has a penchant for eschewing diplomatic language and speaking plainly about his belief that the United Nations desperately needs reform.

That has sometimes alienated other U.N. ambassadors and some U.N. officials, who have said they do not help the reform effort. In an interview with USA Today, Malloch Brown himself said Bolton was "a real force here, but in a way that provokes a lot of reaction and opposition from others."

That tension has been made clear as member states wrestle with proposals to overhaul the way the U.N. is run by giving him more power to make financial decisions and hire and fire staff.

Rich nations including the United States back those reforms, while developing nations that only pay a tiny portion of the U.N. budget are opposed.

Those concerns are particularly pressing because member states imposed a budget cap at the U.N. that expires at the end of June and can only be lifted if they see progress on reform.

Annan told reporters he believed that member states would work out their differences over the budget cap.

"Quite frankly I think we are all too excited and nervous about this budget issue," he said. "I do not see a major budget crisis at the end of this month."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed her disappointment over Malloch Brown's remarks in a phone conversation with Annan on Wednesday.

McCormack said the United States stands by Bolton's remarks about Malloch Brown's speech.

Yet he also sounded a note of reconciliation, saying that the United States and the United Nations "do a lot of good work together around the world."

"We're a leading supporter of the World Health Organization, which is fighting HIV/ AIDS around the world as well as the threat of avian influenza," McCormack said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060609...9chDEus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

So the windbag Bolten is at it again. Luckily with Congressional elections in Nove hopefully he wouldn't be back in January.

Kind of like Harper I am taking by ball (aid and reform inititives) if you don't treat me nicely. I will have a party when he is not the U.S ambassador to the U.N.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
RE: U.S. and U.N. Clash

This seems somewhat arrogant to me.

I would suggest that the comments that the representative for the United States of America have made amount to something in the area of, "This may be a democratic body, but the United States is above your democracy." I would suggest that even a nation such as the United States should think twice before turning its back on two hundred-some nations.
 

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
Jersay said:
UNITED NATIONS - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan defended his top deputy Thursday from sharp U.S. criticism about a speech that faulted Washington's attitude toward the United Nations.

ADVERTISEMENT


What is the point of having the United nations?? USA are doing whatever they please them with them, and once they can't get it from United nation, they undermined them, until everyone seemed to be involved in corruption, and more importantly usa , uk, china and israel arent following the rules.

I am all to abolish this organisation, anyway, the united nations as the usa and uk wants, was hitler wet's dream.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
67
Saint John, N.B.
Re: RE: U.S. and U.N. Clash

FiveParadox said:
This seems somewhat arrogant to me.

I would suggest that the comments that the representative for the United States of America have made amount to something in the area of, "This may be a democratic body, but the United States is above your democracy." I would suggest that even a nation such as the United States should think twice before turning its back on two hundred-some nations.

Ah, excuse me Five,I know what you mean, but it needs to be pointed out that the United Nations is most emphatically NOT a democratic body.

It does not have representation by population (Thank God), the representatives there are not elected but appointed, and most of the governments that appoint them are not democracies.

The UN is not, at this time, nor has it ever been, a force for the democratization of the world. Just the opposite, IMHO.

The people of the world are not represented at the UN, only the governments, and most of them do not represent their people.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
RE: U.S. and U.N. Clash

Perhaps, then, we should move toward a reformed United Nations, where populations could be represented in some sort of Lower Chamber (which would have very restricted powers, however, since I don't think that a membership proportionate to the world's populations would be particularly effective) to bring issues to the attention of an Upper Chamber, which could be comprised of deputies selected by the populations of the various member nations (for example, Canada would elect its representative through whatever system of election that nation might choose? I dunno, just throwing things out there.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
I disagree Five. The U.N is in need of change, but that is the thing it is open to all voices. So if it is a world organization it needs all the voices in there somehow and not some snuby west kind of organization like the G8.

Trying to put one particular struture from a nation or nation into the U.N is kind of dangerous.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
RE: U.S. and U.N. Clash

Perhaps you misunderstood my suggestion, Jersay.

I was in no way suggesting or recommending that the membership of the United Nations restrict membership from any particular nations — rather, I think the entire point of the United Nations is to ensure that nations are heard, whether or not they have a democracy, and whether or not the majority of other nations approve of whatever method of selection they would deem for their Upper Chamber.

The purpose of a Lower Chamber would be for populations of nations to bring issues to the attention of the "Upper Chamber" (as per my suggestion), whether or not the representative approved of by the government of that nation agrees with the premise of raising such an issue.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Ah, the formation of an actual system of world government. On U.S soil. Perfect, then they can't resist the U.N taking over. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Really even though I did misinterpert your suggestion, the overhaul has to start in the Security Council, lessen its power, or something and then go outwords.

And with this brining issues and such, what would that mean to the WHO and UNICEF if their issues are brought up in some other forum??
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Re: U.S. and U.N. Clash

I despise the present form of the Security Council of the United Nations.

If anything, I would suggest that the Security Council should be elected from among the membership of the United Nations (granted, however, the requirements for a nation to have the right to stand for election to that Council would need to be set up so as to ensure that nations who are reasonably suspected as having committed violations of human rights, and other such matters, would not stand), and that the members thereof should be renewed every few years.

I would suggest that the Council should be one which acts more as an emergency check on the decisions of the Upper House (as per my suggestion) of the United Nations. Where a majority of the members of the Council agree that a decision should be overruled, then the Council could invoke a group veto (however, I think that the practice of one particular nation having an absolute veto should be discontinued — a suspensive veto might be a reasonable compromise, though). However, perhaps there should be methods whereby the membership of an "Upper Chamber" can overrule the Security Council (such as through a two-thirds, or three-quarters vote).
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
Re: RE: U.S. and U.N. Clash

Colpy said:
FiveParadox said:
This seems somewhat arrogant to me.

I would suggest that the comments that the representative for the United States of America have made amount to something in the area of, "This may be a democratic body, but the United States is above your democracy." I would suggest that even a nation such as the United States should think twice before turning its back on two hundred-some nations.

Ah, excuse me Five,I know what you mean, but it needs to be pointed out that the United Nations is most emphatically NOT a democratic body.

It does not have representation by population (Thank God), the representatives there are not elected but appointed, and most of the governments that appoint them are not democracies.

The UN is not, at this time, nor has it ever been, a force for the democratization of the world. Just the opposite, IMHO.

The people of the world are not represented at the UN, only the governments, and most of them do not represent their people.

Exactly right Colpy. The U.N. is not a democractic body, as colpy said, the reps are not elected, and hell, more than half of the nations in the U.N. are utterly undemocratic. So the question remains, what exaclty is the U.N.? My two cents:

The United Nations is nothing more than a forum for the Worlds leaders to get together and discuss global issues. It is, not in and of itself, a means to any particular end. The U.N. is nothing more than a neutral setting for nations, often at odds, to hammer out their differences and work towards a better world. Should it, as a combined body, be able to pass judgement on other nations? I don't think so. Membership in the U.N. is not mandatory by some divine law, it's optional, however being a member is in the best interests of any nation, from the U.S. right down to Luxembourg. What really bugs me, is how the U.N. carries itself with this "holier than thou" attitude. They often pass judgement on nations, or groups of nations for their actions, yet utterly fail to remember the massive flaws and/or failures the U.N. itself has made. The U.N. is too bureaucratic for it's own good. When it was formed, it was a decent organization, now, it simply doesn't function any more, as the World is a far different place that it was over 1/2 a century ago. Times change, the U.N. has not. There inlies the problem.
 

drose

New Member
Jun 1, 2006
8
0
1
The United States is above the UN. As is Canada, for that matter.

When the legitimate interests of either country and/or the rights of the citizens of either countryis directly contravened by the bloviating, corrupt gasbags in the assembly of fools, then national interest and law trumps the UN.

To hell with the UN.