UN must reform by year's end or risk cuts: Bolton

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Stephanie, Sep 12, 2006.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,361
    By Irwin Arieff
    Mon Sep 11, 7:20 PM ET
    :clap:


    NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States should give the United Nations until the end of the year to reform and then consider cutting back on its U.N. dues if the changes fall short, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said on Monday.

    "Is good management and lack of corruption too much to ask for?" he asked, calling the United Nations "severely challenged from a management and accountability point of view."

    Bolton made his comments in response to a question after addressing a symposium on the future of the United Nations sponsored by the conservative Hudson Institute.

    The United States, one of 192 member-nations, now pays about a quarter of the U.N. budget. Conservative members of Congress have threatened spending cuts for the past two years.

    Bolton said Washington had set a goal of "complete concentration on the reform process" through the end of 2006.

    "So I think what we need to do is wait until we reach the end of the year and then make an evaluation. And I think our determination and our objectives are very clear to all of the other U.N. members, and I think they can calculate the stakes if reform does not succeed."

    A survey released at the symposium found that 57 percent of Americans believe the United Nations should be shut down and replaced if it cannot be made more effective.

    But the same poll, by Luntz-Maslansky Strategic Research in Arlington, Virginia, also found that 73 percent want Washington to "take a more active role" in the United Nations because "it is the best way for us to influence world affairs."

    The poll relied on telephone interviews with 800 people and had a margin of error of 3.5 percent, meaning actual results could vary by that much in either direction.

    In naming Bolton as his U.N. ambassador, President George W. Bush, called on him to lead a major overhaul of the world body following findings of widespread mismanagement and corruption in the now-defunct oil for food program for Iraq.

    But reforms adopted in the year since his appointment -- which bypassed the Senate -- have been weak -- due at least in part to his unconventional and often abrasive style.
    ( yeah right! Now where have I heard THAT before...)...
    Leading a loose coalition of rich nations, Bolton pushed aggressively for more ambitious steps, antagonizing poor nations that make up the majority of U.N. members.

    U.N. General Assembly President Jan Eliasson, speaking on the final day of the assembly's 60th session, acknowledged that "our work is not finished" even as he praised the body's score-card on reform as "a good one."
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060911/pl_nm/un_reform_dc
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I've gotten to the point where I think that working to rid the US of UN membership might be more useful than worrying about who's elected to national offices here. These 'leaders' make France look consistent between words and deeds:

     
  3. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,576
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,220
    Honestly, i think the only thing the UN has been good for is keeping records of treaties every nation is in. I just dont really see how its doing any good in the world.

    Take Darfur for example. It was the UN politics that kept anything from happening. If the UN didnt exist we could have just had a couple nations who wanted to help go in and help out and if they didnt want to they didnt have to.

    Or Iraq. Saddam played games with them for years and they still refused to even attempt enforcing their resolutions. it was rather frustrating. If President Bush didnt go into Iraq, then the UN would be nothing but a paper tiger. Im still not sure the UN isnt just a paper Tiger.

    There is only one international government that has lasted from the beginning and is organized in a way that will promote and protect freedom: The United States of America.
     
  4. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +491
    about freaking time, I'd like to us leave the United Nitwits entirely

    better yet, if New York State ever legalizes gambling, perhaps Donald Trump could buy the building and turn it into a casino and hotel....

    another idea of mine is to turn it into a museum honoring fraud, waster, inefficiency and ineffectiveness

    If the UN hates the US so much, perhaps Fidel or Kim Jong Il can host them instead, they may have to close a death camp or two to make room, but I'm sure they'll manage
     
  5. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    Thank God for John Bolton.
     

Share This Page