This Just In: Bolton Out

[jeff]

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?

Who is next, and will he/or she be of the same stripe, and will he/she be approved by the Senate?

[Inquartata]

I have a feeling that chimpanzee would accomplish exactly as much as a Thomas Jefferson or a Winston Churchill would at the UN; to wit, nothing useful. The place is hopeless. So IMO it scarcely matters who represents us there.

I have no idea what Bolton has been doing during his tenure, so I can't render a verdict on him. I was all in favor of his appointment just because of his reputed abrasiveness and inflexibility; if our ambassador couldn't get anything done, at least he could tweak a few noses. But I don't even know if he managed to do that...

[jeff]

I suppose so (what, no argument!?!??). Well, at least the chimpanzee would have provided the entertaining spectacle of 'flinging poo' at some who deserve it.

(so much for this attempt to awaken the slumbering Politics area!)

[ThatReallyHurt]

I don't know - the way I read Inq's post made me think that he thought Bolton was a chimp.

Seriously, though - the way the media was playing up here, it was almost like Bolton was appointed on the sole basis that he is overbearing and abrasive.

I thought Bolton was a poor way to go. I really don't know enough about US politics to suggest a better candidate, but why send someone as an ambassador anywhere when you think they may be an irritant?

[pigeonmeister]

I really don't know enough about US politics to suggest a better candidate, but why send someone as an ambassador anywhere when you think they may be an irritant?

Because the Bush adminstration have extrememly poor listening skills. Because they thought his obvious contempt for the UN, and belief that only what America does matters, were deemed good credentials. Because they thought that sticking two fingers up at the UN was the best way of reforming it. Because they knew it would annoy the Europeans, because they knew it would annoy the Democrats.

America's foreign policy and diplomatic credibility lies in tatters, whoever they appoint for this role is crucial. However much you want to bash the UN, America has done more to erode its position than reform it's inadequecies. US unilateralism has died on its ass, there is no other option than get behind the UN. Get this position right and in 5 years maybe the US can claw back some degree of global respect.

My choice would be George Mitchell.

[jeff]

As much as I'm dismayed, and sometimes disgusted, by current administration foreign policy, the UN is about the only institution that surpasses it for being totally useless, when not actually contributing to the world's problems. The UN's impotence, corruption, fecklessness, lack of transparency are illustrated by its failures in the Balkans, Darfur, Rwanda, Iraq and elsewhere. Its ineptness and malfeasance far precede GWB, though it never seems to be held accountable by the same people who quickly point at the US.

[Slim]

As much as I'm dismayed, and sometimes disgusted, by current administration foreign policy, the UN is about the only institution that surpasses it for being totally useless, when not actually contributing to the world's problems. The UN's impotence, corruption, fecklessness, lack of transparency are illustrated by its failures in the Balkans, Darfur, Rwanda, Iraq and elsewhere. Its ineptness and malfeasance far precede GWB, though it never seems to be held accountable by the same people who quickly point at the US.

Right on.

[pigeonmeister]

As much as I'm dismayed, and sometimes disgusted, by current administration foreign policy, the UN is about the only institution that surpasses it for being totally useless, when not actually contributing to the world's problems. The UN's impotence, corruption, fecklessness, lack of transparency are illustrated by its failures in the Balkans, Darfur, Rwanda, Iraq and elsewhere. Its ineptness and malfeasance far precede GWB, though it never seems to be held accountable by the same people who quickly point at the US.

To be honest, there is not much here that I disagree with either.

But I am of the opinion that America, rather than actually working to reform the UN has actually enjoyed its impotence and inability to pursue actions contrary to its own pursuit of hegemony. We saw this in the 1980's when the UN effectively gave cover for the massive projection of US power into the Persian Gulf (on the back of the Iran-Iraq war) We also saw this in Iraq, we also saw this in Lebanon very recently.The UN is useless but America could have gone two ways after 9/11- it singularly failed to see the benefits of multilateralism despite the enormous sense of combined sympathy the world extended. Instead almost everything the US has done since then has further eroded the UN's capacity to be a positive force in the world. Bolton was the epitomisation of this fact.

I'm of the view that the imperial policies of the UK and the hegemonic policies of the US has done more to destablise the world than the UN. The UN just hasn't been able to restabilise it very well. I think that the US has rather enjoyed this fact- it has allowed it to use its military and economic force to act unilateraly and dicatate their own terms in relation to their national security strategy.

America also dominates the World Bank and IMF, two institutions that should not (in my opinion) be independent of the UN- this has further eroded the UN in my view.

In conclusion, you may knock the UN but is has allowed America to act as they have done since the end of the cold war.

[jeff]

It's nice that we partially agree, but you're mistaken if you think that the US enjoys the UN's impotence and wrongheadedness (It's not just useless; it's frequently a contributor to the problem)

We have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars (we're the largest financial contributor) to fund an institution that has increasingly been a focal point of corruption and anti-Americanism. The events of the last few months illustrate that. It has nothing to do with Bush-ite unilateralism: the UN lost any moral value for the mid-east long before 9/11 with its infamous "Zionism equals racism" and other forms of anti-Israel discrimination. If the UN didn't act effectively in Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, or reaching all the way back, to the Soviet invasion of Hungary or Britain's misadventure in the Sudan (which come to think of it, Eisenhower forced the UK to back away, not the UN), what would make you think they would (or even should) prevent "projection of US power into the Persian Gulf", which is hardly a crime. IMO, the very statement you pose demonstrates anti-American bias/

The page United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia gives a good overview of UN problems. Ranging from oil-for-food, to inaction on genocide, to appointing Libya and Sudan to United Nations Commission on Human Rights, To think that the US takes any pleasure or benefit from these self-inflicted travesties is absurd.

On the contrary, the UN's uselessness has only led to the US having to take a more active role than many of us would like - at the cost of thousands of American lives, and billions of our dollars. Sure, we love that. And of course, we earn enmity and contempt from those who condemn us for taking actions they don't like while they sit on their hands and avoid responsibility.

[pigeonmeister]

It's nice that we partially agree, but you're mistaken if you think that the US enjoys the UN's impotence and wrongheadedness (It's not just useless; it's frequently a contributor to the problem) We have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars (we're the largest financial contributor) to fund an institution that has increasingly been a focal point of corruption and anti-Americanism

I thought you were 1.2 billion dollars in debt? As a percentage I don't think America's contribution is the same as other countries with much less influence.

The page United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia gives a good overview of UN problems. Ranging from oil-for-food, to inaction on genocide, to appointing Libya and Sudan to United Nations Commission on Human Rights, To think that the US takes any pleasure or benefit from these self-inflicted travesties is absurd.

It seems unneccesary to list the short comings of the UN- they are well documented. I would not even go as far as saying the US takes pleasure from the UN impotence. I would simply say that the US quest to control oil via the projection of huge military power in the Gulf, from the 1980's to now, was only possible given this impotence. If the US had listened to the UN and, for that matter, a lot of other people, then they would not now be taking bites out of the biggest **** sandwich since Vietnam.

the UN's uselessness has only led to the US having to take a more active role than many of us would like - at the cost of thousands of American lives, and billions of our dollars.

I'm afraid that this is where we depart. Rather than reluctant policmen. I would suggest that the US first artificially amplified the Soviet threat to move into the Gulf, then, during the Iran-Iraq war, artificially amplified the Iranian threat to Gulf shipping in order to maintain the Naval presence in the Gulf and military bases surrounding it. When Iran actually moderated its regional policy, and the idea that it threatened the region was undercut. Low and behold the US artificially amplified the threat of Saddam.

Initially America made the decision that controlling that region was necessary to deny Soviet Russia its oil. They then deemed that maintaining a cheap supply of Gulf oil, in the face of hostile regional powers, would underpin the Western economic model for the next generation or so. America's strategy and appetite to control the Gulf thus transcends the Cold War. The Russians, via the UN, sought to reign the agressive American push into the Gulf. America's dominance of the UN, at that time, meant little was done. An example being how the UN supported US ally Iraq over Iran, refusing to condemn the Iraqi invasion or blame Iraq for starting the war. This supported the US agenda. Then the shooting down of an Iranian airbus in 1988 was hardly criticised within the UN

Iraq was meant to be an example of American power. Nothing to do with a benign and reluctant global police force 'taking one for the team' in the absence of the UN. If you think thousands of your countrymen are dieing in Iraq because the US are pursuing a role they would rather be played by the UN, I would say that is a very.....interesting point of view.

The American hegemony exists for the benefit of America, not for any other reason. Bolton knew that more than anyone. If America wanted to play policemen they might have considered a genuine contribution to UN peacekeeping forces. The rest of the world are desperate for the UN to reign in the US. This, implicitly, makes the point that the UN has not been able to stop the US agenda- an agenda that is demonstrated to be contrary to global stability. So you are saying that America wishes the UN had a greater ability to stand up to itself?

Britain's misadventure in the Sudan (which come to think of it, Eisenhower forced the UK to back away, not the UN)

Do you mean Suez? Eisenhower thought that Eden was playing into the hands of the Arab nationalists, increasing pressure on Arab states to nationalise the oil industry that American corporations were making a fortune in. In the end Eisenhower, in his memoirs, regretted his decision as the natioanlists were emboldened and a key ally humilated. His decision had very little to do with conflict resolution or legal righteousness.

projection of US power into the Persian Gulf", which is hardly a crime. IMO, the very statement you pose demonstrates anti-American bias/

You deny that this projection existed? That it was a crime (or even just a mistake?) Western access to Gulf oil was never threatended, not by Qaddafi, Hussein, Khomeini, Bin Laden. The Iran-Iraq war for example did not effect Oil prices significantly (even before US started 'protecting' Kuwait shipping) Instead America spent billions and billions pissing off the Arabs, and proping up totalitarian dictators. The cost of maintaining the supply overides the savings on cheap oil- and goes against US national interest because most of that oil was never destined for US markets anyway. The rationale for America's involvment in the Gulf is based on half truths and straight lies. That they are actually doing what the UN should be doing is just the latest.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Enter law of unintended consequences.

In all countries, there will be people who have risen above their level of competency, and in non-tyrannical countries they will typically not be killed for their failings. If they fail at a sufficiently low level, they will stop there, or be fired if they fail hard enough.

However, if they have reached close enough to the top, they will present a problem for the ultimate leadership of that country. In many cases, they can not be fired, since they know too much dirt. Leaving them where they are makes the top leaders seem ineffective, but the top leader has to do something.

The UN then becomes a convenient dumping ground. A UN job is sufficiently cushy to keep the underachiever satisfied and silent, while simultaneously mostly below national media radar.

Even if most people sent to the UN actually are hard-driven people, the relative concentration of those who are underachievers and used to perks will poison the work ethic and lead to all sorts of bad social dynamics.

Another thing hamstringing the efficiency of the UN is that so many decisions can only pass unanimously, or nearly so. Imagine what would happen to the US senate if all legistion could be vetoed - without any veto override - by any of the senior senators from either California, Texas, New York, Florida, or Illinois!

When they recently voted for the Latin American spot on the security council there was a long string of elections - but it surfaced that to win, the vinning country must get 2/3rds of the (secret-ballot) votes, and there was no formal procedure to stop never-ending voting series.

OTOH, the UN enables various countries to keep the average competency level of its senior officials somewhat higher, which should improve the professionalism with which those countries are run. Therefore, the existence of the UN may actually improve the lot of the world, simply by providing a convenient way of getting the laggards out of the way.

In Sweden, the governorships are used in a similar way. Here, governors are appointed by the prime minister, not voted upon by the citizens of that region. They have much less actual power than US. governors, so the population very rarely grouses about getting an unpopular governor appointed to them. In most cases, governorships are given to former members of govt, high-ranking politicians, or high-ranking leaders of either the unions or employer organizations. It is very often the last job of the person involved.

BTW: while they have less actual power than US. governors, they do - by happenstance and grand-fathering - have a quite special power. In times of extreme crisis, their word does not only supersede law, it also supersedes the constitution. "Extreme crisis" is whatever they think it is. AFAIK, there are no constitutional safeguards except the common sense of the individual governor. However, that power has not been used in at least the last 100 years, probably because they understand that an irresponsible use will undermine its legitimacy.

With some deft appointment of governors, the Swedish govt. has at times broken up political impasses, and got the system going again. Logjam-breaking at a quite low price, if you see it from the national point of view.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[jeff]

pigeonmeister: I'm afraid I will have to disagree sharply with your characterization. Yes, we act on our own interests - as does every country - but we also act where there is no direct benefit to ourselves, and often to our cost. The lack of leadership from UN or Euro community is a moral, strategic, and military vacuum that sadly too often requires being filled. I dispute you again minimizing what the US thinks are strategic risks. We don't do this for fun. Yes, of course, I was referring to Suez, that was a mistake on my part to have written "Sudan", when I meant the blatant imperialist action of the fading British Empire that the US smacked down. Which reminds me: consider the traditional British foreign policy for the Continent of never letting one power become predominant and a threat, by always favoring the ones with less strength. If you find the US playing Iraq vs. Iran games odd, you can merely look to traditional British policy for a precedent. The idea that ensuring cheap Persian Gulf oil is somehow irrelevant to US interests is particularly bizarre. There is a thing called the global oil market, and we had our shocks of the mid-70s (OPEC, Middle East embargo) to sensitize us to the issues of oil shortages created by the middle East. It's ahistoric to think it's not a strategic issue for the US. No matter what the subject is, it always seems that the conversation turns to the iniquities of the US. Amazing.

Oh, US contributions to UN: U.S. Participation in the United Nations: U.S. Financial Contributions Why shouldn't the US dominate the IMF and World Bank? We're the largest source of funds there, too. Let other nations pay for the privilege of having more power in the international scene.

Peter: you do know that the problem of people who have "risen above their level of competency" is called "the Peter Principle". No invidious implication intended! You raise a good point about structural problems impacting the UN, though I don't follow the logic behind the statement that it creates a benefit by providing "a convenient way of getting the laggards out of the way". Are you saying that the UN provides what I call a "turkey farm" for the useless clods, safely in the UN where they can do little harm, and thus improving the average competency of where they come from? Or do I misread you?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Peter: you do know that the problem of people who have "risen above their level of competency" is called "the Peter Principle". No invidious implication intended! You raise a good point about structural problems impacting the UN, though I don't follow the logic behind the statement that it creates a benefit by providing "a convenient way of getting the laggards out of the way". Are you saying that the UN provides what I call a "turkey farm" for the useless clods, safely in the UN where they can do little harm, and thus improving the average competency of where they come from? Or do I misread you?

I am perfectly aware of the "Peter principle" term, and no offense taken.

Yes, that is just what I meant as a possible benefit of merely having the UN in existence. Whether the effect is so great as to offset the direct costs of UN, is another matter - I do not know enough to hazard a guess.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE]

pigeonmeister: I'm afraid I will have to disagree sharply with your characterization. Yes, we act on our own interests - as does every country - but we also act where there is no direct benefit to ourselves, and often to our cost.

It is important to note that for every rare occasion when the council thwarts Washington, there are a dozen more when it acts in accordance with U.S. wishes and compels other countries to do the same.

but we also act where there is no direct benefit to ourselves, and often to our cost

That's why you contribute less than 1% of peacekeeping troops around the world? If you look at the more costly American actions- Beirut, Gulf Wars I and II, then lets be honest we are talking about pursuing an American agenda, not the world's. I don't see this 'act where there is no direct benefit' happening much. I don't see much cost either. Many countries contribute more blood for a lot less influence and no veto. Look at our erstwhile Candadian cousins.

Also, despite some well-publicized failures, UN peacekeeping can work (and works a lot better than US peacekeeping). The UN's "blue helmets" won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988; since then, they have brought peace and democracy to Namibia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique, and East Timor; helped ease the U.S. burden after regime changes in Haiti and Afghanistan; and policed largely bloodless stalemates from Cyprus to the Golan Heights to Western Sahara. It does so on a shoe string also- Two days of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 cost more than the entire UN peacekeeping budget that year, and one week of Operation Iraqi Freedom would amply pay for all UN peacekeeping for 2003. It spends less per year on peacekeeping worldwide than is spent on the budgets of the New York City Fire and Police Departments.

The UN's record of success and failure is no worse than that of most representative national institutions, yet its detractors seem to expect the UN to succeed (or at least to agree with the United States) all the time. You blame the UN for not preventing genocide in Rwanda -- despite the fact that Washington itself had blocked the Security Council from taking action in that crisis. The UN also got the blame for a ,totaly American induced, disaster in Mogadishu in October 1993.

Over twenty million refugees and displaced persons, depend on the UN for shelter and security. How many refugees has America created in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who's part of the problem then?

The alternative to the UN is strong military powers developing enough resources to force through their political agenda in spite of the UN, and the smaller powers taking refuge by allying themselves with these super powers.

The bottom line is that America, after the Cold War was the dominant force in a unipolar world. That was felt to be its birthright and reward for 'winning the cold war'. The UN was not designed to operate in a unipolar world- it is not surprising that Americans have got frustrated with it. Appointing Bolton was purely and simply a piss take.

If a new, more internationalist American foreign policy takes root, the UN would benefit from the change. That much is clear, and thus America is part of the problem as much as UN wasteage, mismanagement and inefficiencies. The idea that America can offer more moral leadership (or fill any such vacuum) is folly in my opinion.

The lack of leadership from UN or Euro community is a moral, strategic, and military vacuum that sadly too often requires being filled. I dispute you again minimizing what the US thinks are strategic risks. We don't do this for fun

That rests on an assertion that America equates what is good for America as what is good for the world. If you see the war in Iraq as America dealing with a problem that the UN should have sorted out then fine. If, as I do, you see the war in Iraq as part of a continuous policy of projecting US military power in the Gulf. If, as I do, you see the war in Iraq as a political war; a symbolic example of American power, part of an ambitious attempt to change the political landscape for the benefit of American interests. Then it is impossible to see America benignly and begrudgingly accepting its position as world policemen- as you you suggest. You don't do it for fun, America did it because they feared in 20 years, in a multipolar world once more, the US might not be powerful enough to do anything.

Yes, of course, I was referring to Suez, that was a mistake on my part to have written "Sudan", when I meant the blatant imperialist action of the fading British Empire that the US smacked down

Slapped down for doing exactly what America did for the next 50 years- antagonising Arab nationalism (i.e threatening the nationalisation of their oil industries) and spreading Islamism. America acted equally imperially in relation to its propping up of the Shah, once Britain could no longer 'defend' western oil interests in the region.

Which reminds me: consider the traditional British foreign policy for the Continent of never letting one power become predominant and a threat, by always favoring the ones with less strength. If you find the US playing Iraq vs. Iran games odd, you can merely look to traditional British policy for a precedent.

I think you are mistaking me for someone who doesn't recognise the enormous damage Imperial policies have done to Western prestige and diplomacy. America IS making the same mistake, I do hold our policies in contempt. That is the difference.

The idea that ensuring cheap Persian Gulf oil is somehow irrelevant to US interests is particularly bizarre. There is a thing called the global oil market, and we had our shocks of the mid-70s (OPEC, Middle East embargo) to sensitize us to the issues of oil shortages created by the middle East. It's ahistoric to think it's not a strategic issue for the US.

That is the simplest errror America made. Cheap Persian Gulf oil is the bedrock of the Western global economy. It is the idea that America's military dominance was needed to ensure it flowed to Western markets that is folly. THEY NEED US MORE THAN WE NEED THEM- they need our markets. That is why the Iranians were happy to sell us oil despite the fact that America supported Iraq against it. (It was America, in 1994 that broke off oil deals)

It is not difficult to see just how idiotic US reasoning was. By 1997 the Pentagon was paying up to $60 billion a year to protect the import of $30 billion worth of oil that would flow anyway. Playing the role of regional hegemon tied the US to troubled regimes, while its allies sat back. American tax payers were paying to secure French or Japanese oil companies, oil that wasn't even threatened. Even the Iran-Iraq War of 198o-88 with its assaults on oil platforms, pipelines, terminals, and tankers did not seriously affect the oil market or Western economies.

"Oil" may have been part of the early rationale for U.S. intervention after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 199o, but the real stakes were larger: U.S. leadership and global order.

No matter what the subject is, it always seems that the conversation turns to the iniquities of the US. Amazing.

Yea you would have though that the world was fed up with 5 years of Bush wouldn't you. The thing is, we see very little in the way of acknowledgment in terms of the damage US foreign policy has caused. At least I accept that our Imperial polcies were racist and selfish, I accept that Blair has made my country more hated and (ultimately) less safe.

[jeff]

Yes, that is just what I meant as a possible benefit of merely having the UN in existence. Whether the effect is so great as to offset the direct costs of UN, is another matter - I do not know enough to hazard a guess.

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.

[jeff]

This reminds me it is futile to discuss politics with you. Your anti-American bias imputes ill motive or incompetence to everything we do. I'll persist a bit to punish myself for getting involved again.

for every rare occasion when the council thwarts Washington, there are a dozen more when it acts in accordance with U.S. wishes and compels other countries

The Soviet Union/Russia vetoed 120 times, the US 76, Britain 32, France 18 and China 5. The US cannot compel other members to not veto. If your assertion is that there are over 12x times the council went where the US wanted it to go, it means we formed a consensus. A +, not a -

you contribute less than 1% of peacekeeping troops around the world? If you look at the more costly American actions- Beirut, Gulf Wars I and II, then lets be honest we are talking about pursuing an American agenda, not the world's.

Your 1% figure is rubbish. It doesn't include Korea (the only thing keeping the North from occupying the South). I don't see the EU providing global security. Or even locally.US military capability served in the Balkans, in the European's back yard. And what did we get there or Lebanon?

You cite Gulf I, where Europe and the Arab countries were on our side and grateful for saving Kuwait from Saddam. We saved their asses for selfish reasons, uh-huh. "Projecting military power" in the 80s is what made it possible. You act as if it were a bad thing. You also say we inflated other dangers (eg: the Soviets). We don't think so.

I don't see this 'act where there is no direct benefit' happening much. I don't see much cost either. Many countries contribute more blood for a lot less influence and no veto. Look at our erstwhile Candadian cousins.

You are predisposed to not see beneficial things from US actions. You don't see cost to US? That's so silly. Iraq alone is thousands of US lives and over $500B.

Cheers to our Canadian neighbors.

UN peacekeeping can work (and works a lot better than US peacekeeping). (snip)

I look forward eagerly to the Euro zone providing the funding and soldiers the UN lacks. You just showed why the US does all the big jobs: no one else is able or willing to.

The UN polices stable situations, at best. You cited Cambodia, but the UN cannot be credited: it did not put Khmer Rouge out of business. The Khmer lost their sponsors and the Vietnamese took them apart. Remember Rwanda then and Darfur now. US peacekeeping worked well in Eastern Europe and works well in Korea now.

Winning a Nobel peace prize proves little, alas. Kissinger, Arafat, Begin, Carter,...

The UN's record of success and failure is no worse than that of most representative national institutions,(snip)

Totally induced Mogadishu? Things were fine till we showed up? That paragraph is one-sided. Nobody expects the UN to succeed all the time.

Over twenty million refugees and displaced persons, depend on the UN for shelter and security. How many refugees has America created in Iraq and Afghanistan?

You've forgotten the "Oil-for-Food scandal" which pervaded the entire UN. Yet, aid is the one thing the UN has any positive record with, except when their staff rapes the recipients and interferes with the investigation.

Sometimes the refugee support is a negative. The UN is violently (not too strong a word) biased against Israel, and their support for the PA and its predecessors is a corrupter and enabler that subsidizes them, including their pro-genocide propaganda and military efforts.

We created chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan by removing its dictator, but refugees?

The alternative to the UN is strong military powers developing enough resources to force through their political agenda (snip)

Strong military powers throughout the world attain their political agendas exactly that way today. Israel, Iraq and Syria, Pakistan, India.... The UN hasn't prevented this.

Which reminds me: the Saudis aren't as sanguine as you about Iran. They see it as a terrifying threat, and made it clear to the US. One advisor was fired for saying in public what they say privately, and just said to Cheney. If the US pulls out of Iraq, they will step in to fend off massacre of their Sunni brothers by the Shia and to fight off Iran's growing power. If you're concerned about hegemony, start there. You whinge about the US, but dismiss Irani nuclear efforts while calling for nuclear genocide - that shows your lack of balance and perspective.

We don't think it's our birthright, any more than we have this burning need to enforce "hegemony" on the world. It's your national anthem that claims to "rule the waves"

Silly people prated about the "end of history" and the world being unipolar. Events have proven that a lot of nonsense. The US really doesn't have the power to shove people around if they decide to defy us. Do you think we invaded France for flouting us over Iraq?

The UN failed of its mission long before the Cold War ended. Morally and physically. And yes, we do think we deserve a reward for winning the Cold War, but it can be in the form of thanks and shouldering the burdens that continue

If a new, more internationalist American foreign policy takes root, the UN would benefit from the change. That much is clear, and thus America is part of the problem as much as UN wasteage, mismanagement and inefficiencies. The idea that America can offer more moral leadership (or fill any such vacuum) is folly in my opinion.

You're so young that you don't have the perspective of pre-Bush politics. We've been internationalist and multilateral. Blaming the US for the UN's own problems (bias, corruption, inactivity) just shows you blame the US for other people's faults. I look forward to your screeds against Chinese and Russian unilateralism wrt Korea, Sudan, Iran.

That rests on an assertion that America equates what is good for America as what is good for the world. (snip) America did it because they feared in 20 years, in a multipolar world once more, the US might not be powerful enough to do anything.

Your assertion, not ours. We're not simpletons that think the what's Good For The US Is Good For The World. Stop ascribing thoughts and motives to us that we don't possess.

You think the UN would have sorted out Gulf I before Kuwait was eliminated? I'm ashamed that we twisted the evidence to make it look as if WMD were still in Iraq, but the UN's inaction at that time anyway shows that it is futile to wait on them. The inaction wasn't because they figured out the evidence was crap - it was because they weren't going to act anyway. The same applies to Iran's nuclear efforts now. It's largely in Euro and Russian hands. Do a good job with it.

Your view of US motivation is all wrong. The world is multipolar already. We have clear evidence of the limits of our power. We don't do it because 20 years from now people might tell us to piss off - they do it now. We do it because there will be a crisis we will be brought into that will directly affect our national interests, or cause loss of our lives. Sometimes we do it foolishly, as with Iraq, because we have a bozo for president, punch drunk with triumphalism. But that's not a permanent condition of our nation. All we really want to do is watch TV and eat (summoning the other stereotype)

Slapped down for doing exactly what America did for the next 50 years- antagonising Arab nationalism (i.e threatening the nationalisation of their oil industries) and spreading Islamism. America acted equally imperially in relation to its propping up of the Shah, once Britain could no longer 'defend' western oil interests in the region.

Ah, I see. When we support the official government of a country, we're wrong (the Shah). If we take the government of a country down (Saddam) we're also wrong. You're wrong about the nationalization aspect too. That was about Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) not one of ours, and it was you lot that dragged us in.

I think you are mistaking me for someone who doesn't recognise the enormous damage Imperial policies have done to Western prestige and diplomacy. America IS making the same mistake, I do hold our policies in contempt. That is the difference.

What makes this almost funny is how you unashamedly defended the spoils of Britain's imperialist past in the Elgin marbles thread.

That is the simplest errror America made. Cheap Persian Gulf oil is the bedrock of the Western global economy

Yes, it's more than just about oil, but oil is definitely part of it. Glad you figured it out. I agree that it's foolish to spend more to ensure oil product than it costs at the pump, but that factors into the total cost. By this you retract your claim it's irrelevant to the US because that Gulf Oil mostly goes other than to the US now.

Yea you would have though that the world was fed up with 5 years of Bush wouldn't you. The thing is, we see very little in the way of acknowledgment in terms of the damage US foreign policy has caused. At least I accept that our Imperial polcies were racist and selfish, I accept that Blair has made my country more hated and (ultimately) less safe.

You haven't been paying attention. There is a great deal of comment and acknowledgement that we've done exactly those things. You won't see it from the White House, but there are many other voices in the US political world. Learn something. In the meantime, shift your concern to the parties you've made excuses for and are far more dangerous.

[introspective]

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?

Who is next, and will he/or she be of the same stripe, and will he/she be approved by the Senate?

Let me tell you a horror story. Beginning in 1980's the so-called 'leader' of the SGI completely screwed up the United Nations by getting his group involved and bringing up the numbers of NGO's. Sgi is responsible for screwing up the world. They should never have been allowed to interfere with the United Nations. It is something left to real diplomats who know world affairs. After you sweep those people out, the world will recover its senses. But right now, they're crawling around in NGO's with the UN's blessing and the UN is now completely aware of them.

[jeff]

SGI? Silicon Graphics? No wonder they're in chapter 11.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Let me tell you a horror story.

Well, to me the horror right in front of me is ONE WHOLE POST IN RED. Ferchrissakes! Tone it down - literally!

Also, do not assume that others know what you mean with the acronym SGI.


Sheesh.


Peter Gustafsson

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE]

This reminds me it is futile to discuss politics with you. Your anti-American bias imputes ill motive or incompetence to everything we do. I'll persist a bit to punish myself for getting involved again

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.

Lets also remember that I have bashed my own country's policies and legacy (within the world) equally. It really doesn't take much to get a rise out of you these days.

The Soviet Union/Russia vetoed 120 times, the US 76, Britain 32, France 18 and China 5. The US cannot compel other members to not veto. If your assertion is that there are over 12x times the council went where the US wanted it to go, it means we formed a consensus. A +, not a -

Veto use is not the issue here. I'm saying that the US as been succesful in influencing UN actions to suit their agenda. I gace the Iran-Iraq war and Lebanon as two examples, here are two others.

Canada caves under US pressure at UN - Word Warriors 2005
FT.com / World / US & Canada - US pressure 'delayed UN Arab report'

Bolton was not averse to saying- do what we want or we cut UN funding.
Apologise or we'll cut your funding, US envoy tells UN - World - Times Online

Your 1% figure is rubbish. It doesn't include Korea (the only thing keeping the North from occupying the South). I don't see the EU providing global security. Or even locally. US military capability served in the Balkans, in the European's back yard. And what did we get there or Lebanon?

US troops in Korea are a relic of the Cold War, they are not peace-keepers in the multilateral sense, they are under US orders (as all US 'peace keepers', in general, insist) they are a relic of a past US war. I am not convinced that they are, now, the only thing stopping an Northern invasion. Are we to thank the US nuclear arsensal for its peace-keeping influences as well?

You also say we inflated other dangers (eg: the Soviets). We don't think so.

We?- you speak for your nation? Well I'm afraid that the idea that America overassesed the Soviet threat in order to scare Conservative Gulf monarchies is a common thesis. (principaly the Saudis who had always been petrified of The Soviets - indeed if you look at the evolution of Saudi-US relations a shared fear of communism is a defining feature. The civil war in Yemen had a particularly profound effect on Saudi attitudes).

The bottom line is that it is very difficult to square the threat of Soviet Russia, as pronounced by amongsts others- Reagan, with the actuall threat Russia posed.

You are predisposed to not see beneficial things from US actions. You don't see cost to US? That's so silly. Iraq alone is thousands of US lives and over $500B.

I see no beneficial consequences to US policy on the middle east in the last 20 years. Unless you think arming brutal dictators, fuelign civil wars, heightening regional tensions and trampling on religious sensibilities. Is it anywonder that Iran want nuclear weapons, when American troops are next door and America has spent the last 30 years selling weapons systems to all its regional rivals- again most significantly its main strategic, economic and religous rival- the Saudis.

As for the benefits of the recent war in Iraq- you are kidding?

Totally induced Mogadishu? Things were fine till we showed up? That paragraph is one-sided. Nobody expects the UN to succeed all the time.

Maybe it is one sided. I repeate your 'critique' of the UN is hardly balanced. In that you havn't got a good word to say about it and seem to conform to and symbolise a Boltonite view that is not shared in Europe.

You've forgotten the "Oil-for-Food scandal" which pervaded the entire UN. Yet, aid is the one thing the UN has any positive record with, except when their staff rapes the recipients and interferes with the investigation.

Your line about rape is actually quite a nasty thing to say. Adding this comment to a begrudging acknowledgment that the UN does a lot of great thing is unnecessary and very telling. Shall we talk about the conduct of US troops?

[QUOTE]

The UN is violently (not too strong a word) biased against Israel.and their support for the PA and its predecessors is a corrupter and enabler that subsidizes them, including their pro-genocide propaganda and military efforts.

I would dispute the word violently, the UN supported an Israeli agenda in Lebanon- under MASSIVE American and British pressure. Israel was created under a UN mandate. The UN and EU support the PA, financialy, for humanitarian reasons.

We created chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan by removing its dictator, but refugees?

So you deny that people have been displaced

Iraq Conflict Fuels Rise in Global Refugees to 12 Million: Survey

You whinge about the US, but dismiss Irani nuclear efforts while calling for nuclear genocide - that shows your lack of balance and perspective

American policy has contributed to Iran;s desire to seek nuclear weapons. I do not fear an Iranian bomb any more than I would fear a Saudi or I do fear a Pakistani. I believe the Iranian regime is reprehensible if it makes you happy.

We don't think it's our birthright, any more than we have this burning need to enforce "hegemony" on the world. It's your national anthem that claims to "rule the waves"

That's just silly!

The US really doesn't have the power to shove people around if they decide to defy us. Do you think we invaded France for flouting us over Iraq?

That's because America only picks on third world countries.

The UN failed of its mission long before the Cold War ended. Morally and physically.

Possibly because of the Cold War?

And yes, we do think we deserve a reward for winning the Cold War, but it can be in the form of thanks and shouldering the burdens that continue

(pats America on the back)

Wasn't America recently voted the greatest threat to world peace- above Iran and N Korea?

The world is multipolar already. We have clear evidence of the limits of our power.

The limits are evident NOW. But I have to wonder if you have actually bothered to read some of the neo-con national security strategy documents. They are littered with the assertion that America plays in a uni-polar game.

Have to go now.