This Just In: Bolton Out

[jeff]

Hang on a minute Jeff, before we talk about bias, lets remember that you have started a thread for no other reason other than to bash the UN and that you (like most Americans) have a serious bias in this regard.

Wrong from the very beginning of your post. Trouble yourself to actually read the opening post which expresses almost the exact opposite sentiment. Here, I'll highlight this to make it easier: "So, Bolton bolts, so let's talk about him... Is this good or bad? Personally, I enjoyed him telling off jerks at the UN - but that's not necessarily the most useful method for getting your objectives met and gaining cooperation from people and countries we need. Diplomats sometimes have to be diplomatic, eh?" Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, which would explain much.

I'm not going to waste any more time on you now. Perhaps next year. In the meantime, go on with your beliefs that the US is the threat to world safety (alas a popular foolish belief, I think Bernard Henri Levin got it right: "Anti-americanism is a form of fascism"), that Iran's proclaimed goals of nuclear genocide are merely campaign rhetoric, that removing Saddam had no value, that the Saudi's aren't afraid of Iran nuclear hegemony, and that it's not the US that protects the Koreans, saved Kuwait in Gulf War I (one of the "benefits" you can't think of), and other delusional beliefs.

And hand the Elgin Marbles back to where they belong.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

An interesting hypotheses. I also can't calculate the net effect, but I figure it can't be a good thing to put bozos in charge of larger budgets than they would otherwise have had, in global situations with wider consequences and with less accountability. I don't know how to calculate a scoresheet on that.

You are right, but see it from the perspective of the individual national leader (president, PM, king, etc.) He moves a local bozo from a budget that was taken out of the wealth of his country, to a budget in New York!

On the topic of "larger budgets", I looked up the UN budget. See:
All about the United Nations Budget | UNAUSA.org

The US share of the UN budget
The United States is assessed for the regular budget at the ceiling rate of 22 percent, which in 2006 was $423,464,855 of the total $1,924,840,250. This works out to be a contribution of about $1.42 per American citizen, according to 2006 census data. Japan, the second largest contributor to the regular budget at 19.47 percent, pays $374,727,900 or about $3.94 per citizen in comparison.

So, if the USA would not pay anything to the UN, that savings could pay for one newspaper per citizen and year. Or five tip screws, if you want to do a fencing comparison.

If I understood the budget papers that I googled, Fresno County has an annual budget of about 1.3 billion, compared to the 1.9 billion of the UN. King County, home to Seattle, has a budget in excess of 2.5 billion. What has Fresno and Seattle done to the world? And what has the UN done, with similar money?


Have nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[jeff]

Yes, that makes sense - it might be bozo-positive in effect, and the same for the budget in the country of origin (which might also get benefit by having more funds steered to it)

Regarding relative payments, that must be the effect of the ceiling. Wouldn't be interesting to have that calculated on the basis of GNP/citizen, or net surplus/deficit of countries' national budgets. I imagine there are other countries with higher per-capita payments, and I note that the article you cite says most countries pay late to the UN. Didn't know that.

I guess the difference with Fresno and Seattle is that completely different things are being compared. Those are first-world city governments providing all the things municipalities do, which is not directly comparable to what the UN does. Besides, Seattle gave us Hendrix!

[pigeonmeister]

Wrong from the very beginning of your post.Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, which would explain much.

You are missing the point. You havn't got a good word to say about the UN. I havn't a good word to say about US Middle East policy (or most of its foreign policy) It's that simple, yet you seem to think that I am a fascist, I'm not sure why.

In the meantime, go on with your beliefs that the US is the threat to world safety (alas a popular foolish belief, I think Bernard Henri Levin got it right: "Anti-americanism is a form of fascism"),

What was that about comprehension skills?- I just noted that America had recently been voted such. I happen to think that the American policies in the Middle East over the last 50 years has, overal, made the world less safe. Which is a very different assertion. I asserted that, for example the building up of as Saudi Arabia's military capability, has contributed to Iran's desire to develop nuclear weapons. Then again Britain's BAE has supplied £40 billion worth of hardware since 1989 as well.

that Iran's proclaimed goals of nuclear genocide are merely campaign rhetoric

I don't believe Iran wants to throw nuclear bombs at Israel. Very few sensible people do. You were very wrong about Saddam's agenda, why are you so sure about Iran? But then you'd be had pushed to find an American that speaks sense about Iran. Of course you would be equally hard pressed to find an Arab/Persian that speaks sense about Israel.

that removing Saddam had no value,

Well as a supporter of the war I would like you to articulate what, of value, has been achieved by his removal. Apart from a show trial and a civil war.

that the Saudi's aren't afraid of Iran nuclear hegemony

Not sure where you have got that from. I believe that most Gulf states see the presence of US troops in the region as the biggest source of instability in the region. But again that is a very different assertion to the one you have characterised.

and that it's not the US that protects the Koreans,

I questioned whether 30,000 US troops in Korea (i.e conventional forces) is all that is stopping N Korea from invading, I questioned whether they should be included in the US's 'quota' contributing to overal peacekeeping forces. Who is that can apply the most pressure on N Korea? China or US 'peacekeepers'?

saved Kuwait in Gulf War I (one of the "benefits" you can't think of)

I, like many, identify Desert Storm as part of a continual US strategy to control the region- a strategy that placed overiding importance in maintaining US interests. Bottom line- I don't believe the US has a right/obligation to use its military to control the Persian Gulf. If that makes me an anti-American fascist then I can only shake my head in disbelief. Saving Kuwait was not a humanitarian imperative for the US, it was part of a US geo-economic strategy. The difference is profound- If you only 'save' states in vital areas to yourself, then you are not true peace-keepers.

And hand the Elgin Marbles back to where they belong

If this was a policy that was costing lives and plunging a whole region into dispair then I would be happy to give them back. Instead it's more of an issue of restoration I believe.

Merry xmas Jeff.

[D'Artag-NOT]

. . . when I saw the title of this thread I honestly thought that someone had published the news that Michael Bolton was gay.

[Inquartata]

"News"?

[jeff]

That's like if you saw the 'Sharon has stroke' headline, and thought 'Gee, who would have thought Ozzie would out live her?'

[Inquartata]

Meh, I'd think it was a soft-core porn film title, myself...

[jeff]

Ooh, that's a revealing remark!

[jBirch]

The fundamental issue with the UN is that it has no power to enforce its will. Until it does, it is a nice forum for global issues, but certainly not the place to look for global leadership or global action.

James.

[scrapinpeg]

It's nobody's fault but the UN's, if countries tend not to follow its directions. It's not an issue of power, so much as one of authority. Authority must be earned.

No country is going to cede any portion of its sovereignty unless there's a darn good reason to do so. When the UN's voice tends to say things contrary to what a country perceives to be its national interest, that country is not likely to let the UN have any binding authority over it.

The UN is good for giving a world voice to countries that otherwise have none. Lack of economic, military and cultural power do not diminish one's vote.

The UN is good for coordinating international relief efforts for the victims of natural and man-made disasters.

The UN is good at being an intermediary for diplomatic pressure -- an American asking some countries to do something, no matter how right or good, is going to have a harder time if she's acting as an American than if she's acting as a UN official.

But the UN is not good at political leadership or policy-making. Too many of its resolutions say nothing of use. And by giving the same vote to the many oppressive regimes as it gives to progressive nations, its moral authority is weakened when it wants to actually say something. And when it does speak out in less than a namby-pamby way, it tends to be more likely to criticize the good guys in the world than it is to even raise an eyebrow at the bad guys. It practically takes a holocaust for the UN to speak out against the bad guys, it seems. So it's pretty hard to take the UN seriously on policy matters.

Let the UN do what it's good at. It's very good at it. But until the UN can earn the authority to direct policy, I see no reason to complain when its directives aren't followed.

[Inquartata]

The fundamental issue with the UN is that it has no power to enforce its will.

And thank all the gods for that!