US wants changes in UN reform plan.

[Phlegm]

From Associated Press:

(AP) U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said that the United States wants a strong document that all 191 U.N. member states can adopt at next month's U.N. summit, but many developing countries oppose Washington's proposed changes.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan invited world leaders to take fresh action on the 60th anniversary of the United Nations to meet U.N. goals to reduce poverty and promote development and to reform the world body so it can meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Last week, the United States made extensive comments and proposed hundreds of changes to the latest draft document, which runs 39 pages and was put together by General Assembly President Jean Ping.

Bolton told reporters Thursday that the proposed changes "are not that dissimilar to changes that we've been talking about here at the U.N. for months."

But coming less than three weeks before the summit starts on Sept. 14, in New York, they have added to the anxiety about whether all countries will be able to agree on a final text that has substance rather than just flowery phrases.

"Our hope is to have a strong consensus document for the high-level event," Bolton said. "We're working on that and we're making our views known as are other governments."

Washington's changes would eliminate references to the Millennium Development Goals, adopted by world leaders in September 2000, just before President George W. Bush was elected. The goals include cutting extreme poverty by half, ensuring universal primary education, and stemming the AIDS pandemic, all by 2015.

The proposed U.S. changes would also delete a call for rich nations to increase development assistance and all references that donor countries spend 0.7 percent of GNP on development aid. The United States opposes the target. On Thursday, a U.N. report said the U.S. spent 0.16 percent of GNP on international assistance in 2004.

The U.S. amendments would also eliminate a call for further action to tackle climate change, a reference to the U.N. Security Council's use of force "as an instrument of last resort," and numerous calls for nuclear disarmament by the nuclear powers.

In addition to those cuts, the United States wants several additions that include extensive management reforms, a Human Rights Council to replace the discredited U.N. Commission on Human Rights, and more action against terrorism.

By contrast, the priority of developing countries is action to tackle poverty and meet the U.N. development goals — not management reforms that would take power away from the majority of U.N. member states to oversee the world body, as the U.S. advocates.
Egypt's U.N. Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz said many differences remain with the United States and others — from the development agenda to defining terrorism, deciding whether the United Nations should have the right to intervene in a country in cases of genocide, disarmament, and changing the human rights machinery.

Many developing countries, for example, object "to the use of human rights for political considerations" and want the United Nations to do more to address the root causes of terrorism "that would have somebody blow himself up in a bus," he said.

In a letter to other ambassadors on Tuesday, Bolton said "time is short" and there is a need for flexibility "to maximize our chances of success." He called for "open and transparent negotiations" to begin immediately.

Ping is trying to put together "a core group" of 20 to 30 countries as soon as possible to negotiate key controversial issues.

Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said every nation has its position.

"So the number of amendments can be 400 or 500 — any figure is appropriate," he said. "My concern is that we need to produce something tangible before our leaders come here."

Denisov said every international conference faces similar negotiations but "the problem here is shortage of time ... and we have to speed up."

[ClakarEQ]

Phelm, I'm going to take a stab here as you often post some of the most current information.

Are you an avid listener of NPR? I get most of my news from them ( but I still turn on 89x (local Detroit alt station) if my windows are down and I drive by some lovelies. Otherwise I feel like a 65 year old in a 36 year olds body.)

Regarding this news bit though, IMHO some of the changes imply the US not wanting to step up to responsibilities. We like to send stuff off shore but we don't want to help those nations. The cake and eat it too approach generally only works short term.

I think we should help folks at home over other countries (obviously there are some excpetions), we don't do enough here for as rich as we are. Not stepping up on a global scale seems even more backwards to me.

Maybe I'm off target regarding this issue though.

[Themosticles]

This article is too short and doesn't explain the entirety of the provisions it sites. There are 158 provisions being presented. Just like bills that go through our Senate, the name or main theme can be totally different than some of the attached pork. W/o knowing what pork is attached and what it implies you'd have no idea why someone would vote yes/no on the main issue. (I hope that makes sense)

Example:(taken from here)

SNIP....The section on the environment commits governments to promoting something called "sustainable consumption." Consumption is your standard of living...It means that a government that endorses it will limit its citizens' standard of living in line with the U.N.'s view of its environmental sustainability. And we all know from other pronouncements that the U.N. and its agencies consider U.S. consumption to be unsustainable.

The same section commits governments to undertake "concerted global action" to meet their commitments and obligations under the Kyoto protocol. Well, the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto some years ago — and earlier this year it rejected Senator John McCain's legislation that would have introduced Kyoto-style targets and penalties. So which body and set of rules are to govern Americans — the U.S. Congress and the laws it passes? Or the U.N. and its conference declarations?...SNIP

Washington's changes would eliminate references to the Millennium Development Goals, adopted by world leaders in September 2000, just before President George W. Bush was elected. The goals include cutting extreme poverty by half, ensuring universal primary education, and stemming the AIDS pandemic, all by 2015.

My point is that this article doesn't do enough to explain why the US is making their proposed changes. There has to be something...

[Phlegm]

Phelm, I'm going to take a stab here as you often post some of the most current information.

Are you an avid listener of NPR?

No. I dont listen to NPR at all. Most of the articles I posted on this board came from email I received from various sources.