Did any of you "knee jerk" reactionaries bother to read the article? If you had you'd know that the most inept , ineffective Secretary General of all time is very vulnerable, because of all the corruption he has allowed on his watch.
Take off your blinders and admit that the UN needs reform and Bolton, with Bush's backing, may, I repeat, may be able to ram through something significant. The focus would be to initiate changes that would transform the UN into a meaningful and relevant organization with transparent accounting of funds and staffed by individuals who can be held accountable for their actions.
Thanks for proving my point, rayban.
Yeah, I read the article. Not much content there, but you can outline the whatever details you think are meaningful.
The article talks about the "tranzis" and how bad they are. It talks about how the US won't allow any other nation to gain more influence. And, of course, about corruption. (Not the main point of the article, I'd say. Would be difficult, since it has become common knowledge that the US admin knew about corruption but didn't bother to do anything about it. Probably because of the big deals of the US enterprises involved.)
If the US wouldn't want to have any new veto powers granted, for example, why reform the UN at all? Every meaningful reform to the UN can only translate into one thing: a loss of power for the post-WWII allies.
Moreover, the debate over U.N. reform is not
about whether sovereign nation states or transnational UN bodies should be the main players in international relations. Why not? Simply because the UN is
a transnational organization.
If you don't approve of that and think that sovereign nation states should be the global players, forming new "coalitions of the willing" whenever a crisis would arise, then again there's no need for a reform.
So what's the new thing in the article? Just one thing: the talk about the UN as a meaningful and relevant organization.
Uh? How come?