After at least six month of serious debate, the majority of states at the U.N. was prepared to agree on some pretty serious reform points. Then Bolton arrived. Steve Clements, (currently at TPM), has the evidence and posts some of the points Bolton wants to change, after the U.S. had agreed on them, in a last minute drive:
In short, the document does the following:
~ knocks out entirely the Millennium Development Goals
~ continues to undermine collective efforts against climate change
~ knocks out targets and timetables for all goals and objectives
~ guts any efforts toward further disarmament objectives and focuses exclusively on non-proliferation, while both had always been important objectives in the past
~ strikes the section that states that countries will use force only as last resort
~ and oddly, strikes out the need to establish a legal definition of terrorism, which the Bush administration has previously stated is a requirement before proceeding towards a U.N. Convention on Terrorism.
WaPo had a lame piece on this today, while the NYT was asking for permission to ream Bolton’s ass.
Why would you want a legal definition of terrorism when it is your justification to do whatever you like to do?
Bolton does not want a U.N. at all (because Cheney dose not want it) so he will sabotage any U.N. action, may it be reform, elimination of poverty, food-aid or genocide-intervention, as long as it does not further his (Cheney’s) position.
He will lose furthering his points but he will also block the U.N. from any relevant action in the years to come. Unfortunately this at a moment where concerted U.N. action is, unlike in the 70’s, really possible and could be valuable.
In the end, this will diminish the U.S. position in the U.N. and the world opinion for the generation to come. But maybe that’s the way things will, and should, evolve anyhow.