America, the Beautiful

[winterbadger]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/24/AR2005082402321.html

So, basically, we're in favour of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and war crimes; we don't want to talk about the Millenium Development Goals--how to sell things to people more cheaply is more important than ameliorating poverty and disease and starvation; and we think that what the world really needs is more and better nuclear weapons.

There are times my government makes me sick.

No, let's not kid ourselves. There are very few times that my government does *not* make me sick.

Comments

[mazzie.livejournal.com]

I was just reading that and when i got to:

"The U.S. amendments call for striking any mention of the Millennium Development Goals, and the administration has publicly complained that the document's section on poverty is too long."

I stopped reading, took off my glasses, rubbed my eyes, and thought, "I hate us."

[winterbadger]

Yeah. After all, G*d forbid that a conference called to talk about povetry and hunger waste any time talking about, you know, poverty and hunger when they could be talking about killing terrorists.

[mazzie.livejournal.com]

I'm convinced that Bolton's appointment as UN ambassador is just another step in the Administration's plan to dismantle the entire organization. Probably as retribution for not backing the US on attacking Iraq. The Bush-Cheney-Rove White House is nothing if not vicious and vindictive.

[winterbadger]

Oh, it was definitely a giant finger (or two, for the UK version) pointed in the direction of the East River. Folks in the UN know that Bolton hates the entire organization and has no intention of engaging constructively (if such were even possible for a member of this administration).

What I love is that, on top of that, he was basically emasculated during the no-confirmation confirmation process, but Rice saying things like "We'll be monitoring him very closely" and "We'll keep him on a short leash". You don't say things like that about trusted advisors; you say thigns like that about pit bulls. The UN has often been a place that the US conducted delicate negotiation, a place where you needed someone with tact and finesse, who had the respect of his or her peers and the confidence of the President and his cabinet. Bolton clearly has none of those things. But he doesn't need them, because he's there to be a speaking trumpet, a mouthpiece for the one-way "diplomacy' (IOW, do what we tell you or else) conducted by this administration.

As someone who trained to be a member of the United States' diplomatic corps and has worked off and on for 15 years in our defense, intelligence, and law enforcement community, I have been impressed by the caliber of some of our UN ambassadors, admired many of them (Lodge, Stevenson, Moynihan, Young, Walters, Albright), and had a grudging respect for others (Kirkpatrick, Negroponte). Bolton's appointment is a sham and a disgrace. But, then, so is this whole presidency.

[appleblossomtru.livejournal.com]

Yep. Just another reason to start writing letters to my congressmen and senators, not that any of them will see fit to do anything about it, since Ohio is run by a crooked governor and is represented in D.C. by Republicans. I'm sick of it all.

No wonder I want to move, but from what my friends in the UK tell me, it's no better there.

[incursus.livejournal.com]

Yeah, unfortunately our government can be just as shitty too. It's not normally quite as blatant (even though Tony Blair did get caught lying to the British people over Iraq, and still somehow managed to get back in), however sneaky underhanded shittiness can be a lot worse.

[arosoff.livejournal.com]

To be cynical and devil's advocate-ish, would it actually make any difference if Bolton didn't want any of these things? If I wanted things _done_, I wouldn't go to the UN. This is an organization that put Syria on the Human Rights Commission.

(which isn't to defend unilateralism, only to point out that faith in the UN is touching but perhaps overoptimistic)

[winterbadger]

Thinking that the UN is probably not going to make fundamental changes in the nature of the world is probably evidence of sanity. :-) But, to continue with the Devil's Advocaty thing, Bush-Bolton are not saying "We think it is pointless to talk about things at the UN"; they are saying "We're happy to talk about stuff, but let's not waste time talking about helping poor and hungry people". And they're not saying "it's pointless to engage in multilateral security treaties" (after all, they're quite happy to push other multilateral security arrangments); they're saying "we don't want to commit to a global ban on nuclear testing" whihc leads (me at least) to the conclusion that they plan on doing more nuclear testing, the only conceivable purpose of which would be to test new nuclear weapons designs. While, of course, advocating that other nations give up or not be allowed their own nuclear weapons (which is one hypocrisy that, though they may be adherents, they are hardly responsible for originating).