WaPo: U.S. Wants Changes in U.N. Agreement

[grytpype]

Bolton kicks off his diplomatic career by trying to derail an already-agreed-upon statement on poverty and UN reform to be signed next month. Read the whole article, it's a goddamned disgrace.

This would be a good chance for the international community to flip Bush off. "Screw you Bolton, you don't want to sign, we'll sign without you."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/24/AR2005082402321.html

U.S. Wants Changes In U.N. Agreement

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 25, 2005; Page A01

UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 24 -- Less than a month before world leaders arrive in New York for a world summit on poverty and U.N. reform, the Bush administration has thrown the proceedings in turmoil with a call for drastic renegotiation of a draft agreement to be signed by presidents and prime ministers attending the event.

The United States has only recently introduced more than 750 amendments that would eliminate new pledges of foreign aid to impoverished nations, scrap provisions that call for action to halt climate change and urge nuclear powers to make greater progress in dismantling their nuclear arms. At the same time, the administration is urging members of the United Nations to strengthen language in the 29-page document that would underscore the importance of taking tougher action against terrorism, promoting human rights and democracy, and halting the spread of the world's deadliest weapons.

...

The proposed changes, submitted by U.S. ambassador John R. Bolton, touch on virtually every aspect of U.N. affairs and provide a detailed look at U.S. concerns about the world body's future. They underscore U.S. efforts to impose greater oversight of U.N. spending and to eliminate any reference to the International Criminal Court. The administration also opposes language that urges the five permanent members of the Security Council not to cast vetoes to halt genocide, war crimes or ethnic cleansing. WTF?

... much more at link

[bicentennial_baby]

1. oh, grrrrrrrr

:mad:

"The U.S. amendments call for striking any mention of the Millennium Development Goals, and the administration has publicly complained that the document's section on poverty is too long. Instead, the United States has sought to underscore the importance of the Monterrey Consensus, a 2002 summit in Mexico that focused on free-market reforms, and required governments to improve accountability in exchange for aid and debt relief."

[MisterP]

6. down with the Randroids!

[katsy]

2. Oh for fucks sakes...

this is a preamble for the corporate/facist haves and have mores to HAVE IT ALL.

[Pirate Smile]

3. Here are the first four paragraphs:

U.S. Wants Changes In U.N. Agreement

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 25, 2005; Page A01

UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 24 -- Less than a month before world leaders arrive in New York for a world summit on poverty and U.N. reform, the Bush administration has thrown the proceedings in turmoil with a call for drastic renegotiation of a draft agreement to be signed by presidents and prime ministers attending the event.

The United States has only recently introduced more than 750 amendments that would eliminate new pledges of foreign aid to impoverished nations, scrap provisions that call for action to halt climate change and urge nuclear powers to make greater progress in dismantling their nuclear arms. At the same time, the administration is urging members of the United Nations to strengthen language in the 29-page document that would underscore the importance of taking tougher action against terrorism, promoting human rights and democracy, and halting the spread of the world's deadliest weapons.

Next month's summit, an unusual meeting at the United Nations of heads of state, was called by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to reinvigorate efforts to fight poverty and to take stronger steps in the battles against terrorism and genocide. The leaders of 175 nations are expected to attend and sign the agreement, which has been under negotiation for six months.

But Annan's effort to press for changes has been hampered by investigations into fraud in the U.N. oil-for-food program and revelations of sexual misconduct by U.N. peacekeepers."

I started to say this was un-friggin-believable but it actually was completely predictable.

Recommended.

[knowbody0]

4. oh, and by the way,

eliminate the criminal court. WTF?

[FormerRepublican]

5. Oh, I get it.

"The administration also opposes language that urges the five permanent members of the Security Council not to cast vetoes to halt genocide, war crimes or ethnic cleansing."

BushCo is planning on doing this sh*t, so they don't want anyone telling them no. I only hope the people they're doing it against isn't us (because I'm :scared: that's EXACTLY what they're planning to do). 2008 = US Genocide to retain BushCo power.

[kysrsoze]

7. We're going to either get kicked out of, or quit the UN

We're headed toward the fourth reich. There are no good intentions here.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. A de facto case could be made for this sentiment.

[Theduckno2]

9. Yep, a disgrace.

Bolton might as well say "We have both money and power and we intend to keep them".

Their belligerence is breathtaking, nuclear testing, less aid for poor nations and no ICC recognition, to name a few.

Things like this make me fearful for the course of humanity. Bushco is comprised of some really ugly people.

[wli]

10. b/c Bushler wants to commit war crimes, genocide, & do ethnic cleansing

[AlamoDemoc]

11. This is a must read article

Recommended and :kick:

[ninkasi]

12. This is the most disgraceful piece of garbage I've seen in a long time

Why doesn't Bush just get his pet viper Bolton to get in front of the U.N. and say, "Fuck you, all of you!" Well, he is saying it, but saying it in language that can not be misunderstood. If you're poor, tough. We want everybody else to disarm, while we have the only weapons. We want to be able to invade any country we want, commit as many atrocities as we want, and not be called to account.

This is outrageous. I feel like apologizing to everybody else in the world, for the shameful, cowardly, craven acts of this most corrupt administration. I thought I couldn't hate them more, or be more sickened at them, but I was wrong.

[0007]

17. Outrageous!

In meetings with foreign delegates, Bolton has expressed concern about a provision of the agreement that urges wealthy countries, including the United States, to contribute 0.7 percent of their gross national product in assistance to poor countries. He has also objected to language that urges nations to observe a moratorium on nuclear testing and to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Bush administration opposes.

The hand writing is on the wall folks.

[jillan]

13. This makes me fucking sick, and at the same time, not at all surprised

Here we go giving the finger to the world.
And I can hear the rightwingidiots spewing praise for doing this.

[NightOwwl]

21. self-delete n/t

[maddezmom]

14. what a disgrace

:puke:

[neweurope]

15. The Bushistas are beginning to show their true colors quite

openly now.

"The administration also opposes language that urges the five permanent members of the Security Council not to cast vetoes to halt genocide, war crimes or ethnic cleansing."

Interesting times.

:scared: :scared: :scared:

-------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[grytpype]

16. kick

[bemildred]

18. "Bolton attempts to sabotage UN agreement on poverty and reform"

Corrected headline.

[Spazito]

19. No surprise here, this is why Bolton was appointed

and the leaders of the other member countries knew it from the beginning. If they do not vote the US down re these amendments, the UN is, indeed, toothless.

[anotherdrew]

20. fine - time to move the UN out of the US. Isolate this rouge regime now

If the US will let such fools run our nation we don't deserve to be members of the UN. Time for the world to wake up to the fascist imperial US and shut these fools down.

[NightOwwl]

22. Six million dollar question...

How can anyone approve of this?

I mean, I know the right-wing fascists are going to love it, but WHY? It goes without saying they aren't in their right minds, but seriously, what reasons do they give for justifying these type of actions? How is this a positive step forward?

I just don't get it. :banghead:

[whosinpower]

23. Well - they won't approve it

and that is the point - to which Bolton will declare the UN irrelevant.

Don't you see? Bolton's job is not to reform the UN - it is to dismantle it.

[Stuckinthebush]

24. We have a winner!

Yep...that is exactly what's going on.

I'm surprised that Bolton didn't add an amendment that the UN cafeteria must serve haggis every Thursday.

Can't you just see the little boy king swagger to the podium to denounce the UN as irrelevant? God, this administration is evil.

[struggle4progress]

26. They're playing "uproar": the game is pick fights, piss people off, and

then whine about how everybody is against Uncle Sam, how people refuse to work with Uncle Sam, how misunderstood Uncle Sam is, and how pointless it is for Uncle Sam to try work with anybody ...

[struggle4progress]

25. Ya know, I'm thinkin there might be worldwide support for ..

.. a war crimes tribunal in coming years ...