4 Comments

And the next Secretary General enjoys USA backing to boot. I am at a total loss to understand our actions. As it is Asia’s turn there are a number of tough, credible candidates who could actually improve conditions at the UN. The WSJ mentioned one today in Afghanistan’s Finance Minister, there is Lee Kwon Yew, Koizumi and the list goes on. Why do we promote less than mediocre candidates in todays dangerous world and continue to foot the bill in the promotion of anti american, anti peace, anti humanitarian actions? Are we a nation of masochists?

I’m groping in the dark, desperately looking for some reason here.

The only rational explanation I’ve been able to come up with is that the US (or, more specifically, the Bush administration) has written off the UN. We’ll continue to belong and play the game only insofar as it suits our interests, one of which may be the appearance of playing the game — then we’ll apologetically do our own thing (hopefully in spades) irrespective of what the UN says.

Brian

I am reduced to humble admiration in the face of your expression of hope and idealism about the UN. For only someone who still hopes can feel that the UN failed “utterly to stop Iran’s nuclear bomb program”, that is, that the UN actually tried, and failed. Such a sentiment supposes that the UN as a whole is still trying to live up to its Charter in good faith, that it may yet redeem itself. For this inherent idealism, I salute you. Though, beware — an idealist is too often condemned by the disappointments of this relative world to tread the bitter path of the cynic.

Sadly, after viewing the General Assembly’s tumultuous Mahmoud and Hugo Show, and the boffo response of the delegates and ministers of the member states, I can no longer share the hope that I find implicit in the first paragraph of your post. Any group, even the UN, is governed by the collective consciousness of that group. UN membership today is made up mostly of despotic totalitarian/terrorist supporting/kleptocratic states. Only 46% of UN member states are technically democracies (v. Eye on the UN), and even amongst those states the intent of some is questionable (v. France). The events of this year’s G.A. was the last straw for me. It confirmed for me that, if anything, the vast majority of UN member states consider Iran one of their own, and are rooting for Iran’s success in its various aspirations. Such a group does not act to thwart the efforts of those it cheers. If anything, they would applaud the advent of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

My reluctant conclusion is that the UN is a lost cause, and that it is past time for us to close up shop for them and see them off. The installation of Mr. Ban as S.G. seems from early reports to portend an era of Kofi Lite. Though the, shall we call it, gift giving spree of the South Korean government to Security Council member states, to smooth Mr. Ban’s way to the big chair may yet show Mr. Ban to be a worthy successor to our Kofi. I would be delighted to see events contradict my weary conclusions.

Isn’t it time for a Federation of Democracies to lead the world to actually fulfill a higher canon of aspirations rooted in the principles of freedom and human rights? I, for one, have had enough of the despots and kelptocrats of Turtle Bay.

CTBT Secretariat in crisis: Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Threatened.
Inside Report: The Nuclear Test-Ban Commission Is on the Verge of Collapse

http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/211/6080

The CTBTO Preparatory Commission: Nine Years of Blatant Fraud

The PTS and the Tsunami Tragedy
CTBTO commits mass murder: Warning system could have spared tsunami victims

The CTBTO Preparatory Commission could have spared the lives of the tsunami victims from 50 countries who were in the affected 13 countries in Asia and Africa . The International Monitoring System (IMS) of the CTBT could have saved the lives of the 285,000 persons killed by the Tsunami in December 2004. The PTS has 337 monitoring stations in four technologies around the world, including in Indonesia , Sri Lanka , Thailand and the Indian Ocean .

In fact, it has stations in the affected areas, including hydroacoustic monitoring stations in Australia , Cape Leeuwin , WA Hydroacoustic Station HA01 -34.4 115.1, and one very close to Sri Lanka at BIOT/Chagos Archipelago Hydroacoustic Station HA08 -7.3 72.4. This island is also known as Diego Garcia. There is a US Naval support facility on it as well. In fact, Dr. Wolfgang Hoffmann was in Sri Lanka and Indonesia just two weeks prior in early December 2004. There is a CTBT monitoring station located in Sri Lanka , six in Indonesia and one in Thailand .

Almost all nations in the affected region have signed the CTBT and receive data on a regular basis. The CTBTO Preparatory Commission has committed mass murder by its negligence. Will the affected states, and persons including tourists file a class action lawsuit against the CTBTO Preparatory Commission? Now is the time to Suenami.

The PTS was on holiday till 4th January 2005. If it was working may be the lives of the over 285,000 killed would have been spared as Indonesia , Thailand , Sri Lanka are part of the CTBT Organization even if they are not part of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Network. The PTS could have given these states a head start of two hours about the approaching Tsunami.

This would have been enough time for these states to inform their citizens and tourists to move to higher ground. The PTS needs to accept responsibility for its failure and needs to offer an unconditional apology to the affected states and individuals.

http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/know/read.php?itemid=3205

Who succeeds Annan as UN Secretary General?

Ban Ki Moon:

Republic of Korea ’s (ROK) candidate, who topped the July straw poll and the second one this month, has had 35 years of distinguished service both in the government and on the global stage. He has nurtured longstanding ties with the UN dating back to 1975, when he was a staff member of the UN division at the home office.

The work expanded over the years with assignments as first secretary at the Permanent Observer Mission of the ROK to the UN in New York, director of the UN Division at headquarters, and Ambassador to Vienna, during which time he served as chairman of the preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) in 1999.

http://www.thetidenews.com/article.aspx?qrDate=09/21/2006&qrTitle=Who%20succeeds%20Annan%20as%20UN%20Secretary%20General?&qrColumn=FOREIGN

North Korea’s Foreign Ministry says country plans to conduct nuclear test

[Is this intended to help or harm Ban Ki Moon’s UNSG prospects?]

North Korea is to conduct a nuclear test, the foreign ministry has said in a statement.
The move would “bolster” the country’s self-defence in the face of US military hostility, North Korea ’s official KCNA said.

“[ North Korea ] will in the future conduct a nuclear test under the condition where safety is firmly guaranteed,” the ministry said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5402018.stm

Disarming America ’s Treaties — State Department’s Arms-Control Chief Often Gets His Way

By Carla Anne Robbins
1258 words
19 July 2002
The Wall Street Journal
A4
English
(Copyright (c) 2002, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

Washington — ASK JOHN BOLTON HOW he feels about the U.S. pulling out of the treaty creating the new International Criminal Court, and he doesn’t hesitate: “It was the happiest moment of my government service,” he says.

The State Department’s Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security, a longtime anticourt crusader, relished the move so much he asked Secretary of State Colin Powell if he could sign the letter informing the United Nations of the decision. Mr. Powell agreed.

Mr. Bolton’s fierce skepticism about arms control and most multilateral treaties is shared by President Bush, and that means that more often than not Mr. Bolton gets his way. The fact that he works at Mr. Powell’s kinder and gentler State Department has only increased Mr. Bolton’s influence, officials say, tamping the department’s natural protreaty instincts in interagency debates. During the past year and a half, the U.S. also has pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia , scuttled an important protocol to the biological-weapons ban, ousted the head of the organization that oversees the chemical-weapons treaty, watered down an accord on small-arms trafficking and refused to submit the nuclear test-ban treaty for Senate ratification.

What is most notable about Mr. Bolton is his combative style. Supporters and even some critics say his willingness to publicly finger malefactors such as Iraq , North Korea , Syria , Iran and most recently Cuba for their alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction has increased the pressure on them — as well as on allies who tend to look the other way. But critics also warn that his in-your-face approach feeds the resentment of U.S. “unilateralism,” undercutting even well-reasoned arguments.

Amy Smithson, a biological-weapons expert at the Stimson Center , a think tank here, says the U.S. was right to reject a protocol for verifying compliance with the biological-weapons ban. “They inherited a lemon. . . . But Bolton was so in-your-face, rejecting the entire negotiations, that he angered even allies who wanted to work with the United States to create a much stronger monitoring regime.” Mr. Bolton says that with current technology, no system can verify if a country is violating the ban, while opening U.S. laboratories to inspectors could jeopardize proprietary information. “It is fantasy to think that by adding another layer of treaties . . . you can get [violators] to comply,” he says.

A Yale-educated lawyer, and top aide in the first Bush State Department, Mr. Bolton’s ties to the current administration were forged during the Florida recount, where he joined his onetime boss — former Secretary of State James Baker — as part of the Republicans’ legal team. At the entrance to his seventh-floor office are two instantly recognizable pictures of Palm Beach County Judge Charles Burton holding a ballot up to the light, with Mr. Bolton peering over his shoulder. His most memorable moment came after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a halt to the recount, when Mr. Bolton strode into a Tallahassee library, where the count was still going on, and declared, “I’m with the Bush-Cheney team, and I’m here to stop the vote.”

That service won him powerful backers. At a Washington dinner a few days later, Vice President-elect Dick Cheney thanked him for all he had done. “People ask what [job] John should get,” Mr. Cheney mused with a chuckle. “My answer is, anything he wants.” The talk in State Department corridors is that Mr. Powell was reluctant to have him. A top State aide denies that, saying the secretary hired him at the request of the vice president but also after checking with Mr. Baker — another boss with more moderate views — who assured Mr. Powell that while “John holds strong opinions, he will also be extremely loyal.” The aide says both have proved to be true.

The new administration spent much of its early months tearing down old treaties and building up missile defenses. “They seem to have decided that they couldn’t stop proliferation, all they could do was defend against it,” says Robert Einhorn, Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation in the Clinton administration.

Then, Sept. 11 turned nonproliferation into a major element of the war on terrorism, as fears mounted that the next al Qaeda attack could be with a biological, chemical or even nuclear weapon. Mr. Bolton signaled the shift in a November speech in Geneva that foreshadowed Mr. Bush’s “axis of evil” speech. Declaring he was ready to “name names,” he accused Iraq , North Korea , Iran , Libya , Syria and Sudan of secretly pursuing biological weapons. Delegates for four of those states were seated in the room.

Mr. Einhorn says sometimes bluntness is necessary, “even the much-maligned `axis of evil’ [speech]. . . . Before that, the world was drifting into accepting” countries like Iraq , Iran and North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons.

Mr. Bolton avidly reads intelligence reports and has demanded that his staffers aggressively push for economic sanctions to punish proliferators. So far, China has been the main target: more than a dozen Chinese entities have been sanctioned for selling missiles and other proscribed technology to Iran and Pakistan . Another set of sanctions is expected within a week.

Mr. Bolton also has been one of the fiercest opponents of U.S. engagement with North Korea . Mr. Bolton says that for the worst offenders, the U.S. has other tools it can use, including covert operations and military action.

The Brookings Institution’s Ivo Daalder warns that after discarding so many international agreements, the U.S. may have a hard time rallying support for tougher measures, including military action. “You have the worst of both worlds: weaker international regimes and no support for tough action,” he says.

Not surprisingly, inside the State Department Mr. Bolton gets his highest marks for the one arms agreement he helped negotiate, the Treaty of Moscow, codifying deep cuts in American and Russian long-range nuclear weapons. “His personal preference was clearly for no treaty at all, but he . . . got the deal,” another aide says. Outsiders are skeptical. “It isn’t much of a treaty,” Mr. Daalder says, noting that it has only one legally binding obligation: that the two sides reduce their weapons by Dec. 31, 2012. “And that expires 24 hours after it goes into effect,” he says.

The administration gets more praise from outsiders for committing $10 billion over the next decade to dismantling Russian nuclear, chemical and biological weapons — with another $10 billion anted up by Europe and Japan. Mr. Bolton’s job was to persuade the Russians to open their books and their weapons plants so donors could be sure the money is well spent. The Russians agreed in principle, but there are still a lot of difficult details to be worked out.

At times even the administration’s most vigilant arms-control skeptics have found Mr. Bolton’s pugnacity worrisome. Officials say National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was especially angry after the biological-weapons meeting blew up last fall. Mr. Bush was getting ready to pull out of the ABM treaty, and the last thing she wanted was more headlines about U.S. unilateralism. Mr. Powell and the White House also overruled Mr. Bolton’s calls to pull the U.S. signature off the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty. But that debate, says another top official, isn’t over.