A Looming UN Crisis Posted by Morton H. Halperin

Having spent most of Friday at the United Nations headquarters in New York, I am much more pessimistic about the chances for reaching agreement on a new human rights council.  More alarming, I fear that the US is precipitating a crisis which will further weaken American ability to lead and which could debilitate the UN. 

As reported in an editorial in the New York Times on Friday,  John Bolton has informed his colleagues that the United States will only support an interim three month budget for the UN and will accept a longer budget only after the US reform agenda is implemented.   This position has provoked a sense of alarm in New York, causing the Secretary General to cancel a long-planned trip to Asia.   With the possible exception of Japan, the US position has no significant support. UN officials say that the UN will run out of money by late February if this course is adopted.

Perm Reps from friendly nations, deeply involved in these negotiations, believe that Bolton went directly to the President (perhaps through the Vice President) and that the Secretary of State was told by the President that the US would not budge from its opposition to adopting the regular UN budget this month.

So much for the promise to the Senate that Bolton would simply be an Ambassador taking orders from the State Department. Only a concerted counter-attack from supporters of the UN, in the administration, the Congress, and the public, can prevent a train wreck.

Comments

[Idon't thinkso]

Train wreck? TRAIN WRECK?!! I hope the UN is REMOVED from the shores of the US, as it should go the way of the League Of Nations.

And for you Dems who can't stomach that thought? Move along WITH the UN to whatever failed state will take them once we kick them out.

P.S. Only concerted attack from critics of the UN will finally rid us of this institution. And screw the LA Times!

[JohnFH]

I don't understand what Halperin doesn't like about forcing the issue regarding needed reforms at the UN. Those who are willing to force the issue are paying back handed homage the importance the US places in having a functional UN.

The comment by Idon't think so is an exercise in venting, not a sound policy proposal.

Perhaps Halperin thinks the US reform agenda itself is misguided. He should say so if that's the case. Perhaps he just doesn't like heavy-handed tactics. Then he needs to show, based on precedent, why a nicey-nicey approach will acheive better results.

[Jeff younger]

Oh dear. Idon't thinkso, conservative thought is much more reasonable and reasoned than what you present. This is one of the few internet sites where liberals and conservatives can have sober discussions.

Please don't ruin our little oasis with hyperbolic rhetoric. No one will give serious regard to such writing, in any case.

[Jeff younger]

John, I agree. I view the UN today as a train wreck. The institution is manifestly corrupt, incapable, incoherent and on occasion even dangerous.

I can warrant legitimate opposition to Bolton's methods, but defense of the UN status quo seems wholly indefensible.

[Cal]

John, I agree. I view the UN today as a train wreck. The institution is manifestly corrupt, incapable, incoherent and on occasion even dangerous....defense of the UN status quo seems wholly indefensible.

Why? Much the same could be said of the US gov't, but no one's calling for its termination. (The US lost $9 billion of Iraqi money last year.)

The UN still does a lot more good than harm, and a bad UN is still better than no UN.

AP:

Armed conflicts have declined by 40 per cent since the end of the Cold War primarily because the United Nations was finally able to launch peacekeeping and conflict-prevention operations around the world, says a new study....

According to the report, armed conflicts have not only declined by more than 40 per cent since 1992, but the deadliest conflicts with over 1,000 battle deaths have dropped even more dramatically - by 80 per cent....

A Rand Corp. study earlier this year concluded that the United Nations was successful in 66 per cent of its peace efforts...

[William]

First, it must be remember that the U.N. had nothing to do with the ending of the Cold War. If anything, the U.N. was a Soviet enabler. The decrease in armed conflict is linked to the fact the Soviet Union doesn’t exist and can’t “exporting revolution” or more accuracy, export totalitarian genocide.

A U.N ‘peace mission’ is into—what—its 10 year in Balkans? The U.N. ignored genocide in Rwanda, and Zimbabwe maybe Marist, but its no paradise, just asked the dead farmers there and the starving masses.

Compare the U.S. with the U.N.? Well, I’d have to say that the U.S. is a world organization at that. Even the U.N. comes to the U.S. with hat in hand looking for cash.

[J Thomas]

William, you make an important point about funding for the UN.

The USA does provide a disproportionate part of UN money. What happens when our economy goes so bad that we simply can't afford to do that? The UN will be much weaker at precisely the time it's most needed.

I don't have any suggestions how anybody can prepare for that, but it's something to consider.

[ghghg]

CHEAP rs gold
MY lotro gold
CHEAPEST aion gold