Once again Bush's USA is blackmailing the United Nations, threatening to block the UN's budget unless US-imposed reforms are approved by the end of the year.
Neo-con crazy John Bolton, Bush's illegitimate representative at the UN, says this "is a moment of crisis for the United Nations".
Sure, just like the US Social Security crisis. And the WMD crisis. And the bird flu crisis... Yes, it's a crisis, but once again it is a completely engineered one.
"Business as usual has gotten us to the state where we need a revolution in reform and business as usual isn't going to accomplish that revolution," Bolton said.Tell me, US readers, do you really think of the UN as a "competitor in the marketplace for global problem-solving"? If so, tell me who the other competitors are, please!
Bolton also questioned the usefulness of the United Nations to the American public as the main global problem solver.
"Americans are a very practical people and they don't view the UN through theological lenses," he said. "They look at it as a competitor in the marketplace for global problem-solving and if it's successful at solving problems they'll be inclined to use it."
Now everybody knows the UN has organisational issues and budgetary concerns. But that is not the Bush neo-con's real concern here. They are trying to either seize control of the UN agenda or, if that is not possible, render the organisation impotent. Kofi Annan is trying to work with the US push to achive some genuinely needed reforms, but he is dancing with the devil.
The USA contributes around 20 percent of the UN budget, yet it habitually delays payment as a means of negotiating increased power in UN decision-making. UN moves to criticize Israel's atrocious apartheid policies towards Palestinians, the key obstacle to any kind of Middle East peace [and the #1 cause of terrorism in the world], are ALWAYS vetoed by the USA. Annan has already said the US invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law.
To me, the UN's next course of action is very clear: suspend both USA and Israel from the organisation until THEY institute some much-needed Democratic reforms [and agree to once again abide by international law]!
Without the USA's blocking game, it just might be possible for Annan to implement some real UN reforms, like expanding the Security Council or saving the lives of 6 million children who die of hunger around the world every year. He might find renewed interest from many nations as the UN becomes a real counterweight to the "world's only superpower", which is racing towards militant Fascism at an alarming rate. And he might find that such a move energizes public interest around the world (including within the US and Israel) in a very positive way.
Somebody has to stand up to these crazies.
1 comment:
The UN was created as a body to solve interntaional problems
Bush's USA has become an international problem, as has Israel. If the USA cannot solve its own problems, the UN should do something about it.
If it truly seeks to be a counterbalance to US interest, then why would we fund it?
If you are expelled, you won't have to. Go spend the money on New Orleans or something. Or more nukes, more likely...
the clear competitors would be regional alliances...
How many of these are really geared up to handle a tsunami, or a major famine beyond their borders, or even a politicized war in which member states are overly entrenched? How effective have they been in any such fields to date? Not very.
It's easy to criticize the UN exactly because it has been hobbled at every step. The tsunami response could have been and should have been better. Agreed. But when you have UN members like the US arguing that the UN should not even be doing such work, holding back funding on an habitual basis and sending ambassadors like John "Frankenstein" Bolt-on, what do you expect?
What I'm saying is that cutting loose the US and Israel will give the UN an opportunity to move forward. There would be an increased burden of financial costs to all members, for sure, but if member states could put aside petty squabbles and get behind the move they might well find it a worthwhile investment.
Look at the "Food for Oil" debacle, and their impotence in the face of both Saddam and Bush.
What hope is there for the USA when even anti-Bush people like you have been led to believe things like that? As we now know, the UN had Saddam militarily contained. His WMD programs were defunct. The sanctions did not work because of widespread corruption involving nearly every one of the Western countries that so loudly called for sanction - including the USA!
Remember when the USA declared Chalabi and spy, raided his office and grabbed his computer discs? That's exactly what they (and he) were after - the evidence on Food-for-oil corruption, so they could manipulate it to suit their purposes (which they duly did).
As for the UN's impotence in the face of Bush - that's exactly what I am talking about! Annan already labelled Bush a war criminal, but nobody at government levels wanted to hear it (we, the people of the world, heard it alright). So now it is time for something more.
Ultimately, what good are they, unless you have a hardon for Israel?
Exactly. Throw out Israel and its Security Council protector, the USA, and the UN will finally be able to pass a whole slew of resolutions against Isreal. My guess is they would start by imposing sanctions, with a predominantly Arab security ring around the country to enforce them!
I am elevating this post back to the top of the blog because I am keen to continue this discussion, if anyone is interested.
Post a Comment