PDA

View Full Version : Sarkozy is Tougher on the U.N. than Obama



PoliCon
03-11-2010, 11:17 PM
Sarkozy is Tougher on the U.N. than Obama

Posted By Brett Schaefer On March 11, 2010 @ 5:38 pm In American Leadership | 2 Comments

Sarkozy [1]

In a startlingly blunt manner, French President Nicolas Sarkozy today demanded [2] that the United Nations be reformed and argued that key international issues could not be resolved by negotiations among 192 U.N. member countries. According to the AFP account, Sarkozy announced that “The UN is absolutely indispensable and yet at the same time, it’s not working … I am certain that we need to reform the United Nations, otherwise the United Nations will end up in an impasse.”

He went on to criticize the practice of negotiating agreements among all member states simultaneously – the default process at the U.N. – wondering “who can believe that this can work?” He concluded that a better strategy would be for a “representative” group of countries to do the essential haggling. This makes eminent sense if the “representative” group of countries is composed of those that are going to be expected to bear the burden of whatever is being negotiated. The fundamental flaw of including all countries in U.N. negotiations is the tendency of a majority of countries to seek agreements that garner benefits to themselves and shift the lion’s share of costs to a relative few countries. All too often the U.S. is among the few.

As Sarkozy observes, this dynamic crippled the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen this past fall. But it also applies to a broad range of activities and responsibilities on the U.N. docket. As stated in the conclusion of ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives [3] :

No compelling reason dictates that multilateral action to advance human rights should be the exclusive purview of the United Nations… Moreover, some purportedly global problems are clearly not global or may in practice be better addressed through selective participation. Including nations with little at stake or minimal ability to effect a solution to a problem—which is the default process in the U.N.—can impede international action. Such was clearly the case with the Kyoto Protocol. Why should land-locked nations be considered essential parties to the Law of the Sea Treaty? Or nations with no outer space capabilities strongly influence deliberations of the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space by constituting an overwhelming majority of its sixty-nine members?

…. The United States must be flexible in its approaches to international cooperation. If the United States and other nations operate only through the U.N., they hand the spoilers the means to frustrate their efforts. Multilateralism is a tool, not an end in itself. The United States should be open to working through the U.N. and other international organizations to address joint concerns, but the United States must not allow solutions to be held hostage by an irrational adherence to past practice or theoretical jurisdictions.

Although it must be said that Sarkozy’s proposed solutions (like expanding the U.N. Security Council) are not well thought out and would probably make the problem even worse [4], it is edifying that even France recognizes the fatuousness of the U.N. obsession of seeking a “consensus” solution to all problems and the need to explore alternatives.

Contrast this to the strange reluctance of the Obama Administration to press for reform of the U.N. Instead of demanding increased transparency, accountability, and oversight at the U.N. and calling for budgetary restraint, the U.S. has gone along with U.N. budget increases [5] and allowed the U.N. member states to charge U.S. taxpayers even more [6] to support the organization. Even other U.N. member states and U.N. officials have quietly expressed puzzlement over U.S. silence on U.N. reform issues that have characterized U.S. policy for decades.

America’s experience over the years shows how hard it is for any one nation to impose reform on the U.N. It would seem that another country may finally be fed up with the status quo at the U.N. It’s a shame that just as France is stepping up; the Obama Administration and Congress are stepping down.

FROM - http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/11/sarkozy-is-tougher-on-the-u-n-than-obama/

fettpett
03-12-2010, 06:56 AM
let the French have the UN...like the whole burden, bet we could solve most of our finacial issues if we stopped funding it along with all the little tin pot dictators that make their home there bashing the US. lets turn the UN building into appartments and actuallly get some use out of it. Hell it could turn into a waste managment faclity and get more use than it does now

PoliCon
03-12-2010, 09:22 PM
If actual factual reforms can be made - it would behoove us to keep the UN.

Rockntractor
03-12-2010, 09:23 PM
If actual factual reforms can be made - it would behoove us to keep the UN.
We don't need the UN in any form!

PoliCon
03-12-2010, 09:34 PM
We don't need the UN in any form!

Need it - no. Benefit from it - perhaps. IN THE RIGHT FORM.

Rockntractor
03-12-2010, 09:37 PM
Need it - no. Benefit from it - perhaps. IN THE RIGHT FORM.

It was started by liberals and has been kept alive by liberals.

PoliCon
03-12-2010, 09:40 PM
It was started by liberals and has been kept alive by liberals.

it was started by progressives - and is run by progressives and is chasing progressive goals - BUT it could be better and it could be effective.

Rockntractor
03-12-2010, 09:43 PM
it was started by progressives - and is run by progressives and is chasing progressive goals - BUT it could be better and it could be effective.

So was Greenpeace, do you want to salvage them too.

PoliCon
03-12-2010, 09:48 PM
So was Greenpeace, do you want to salvage them too.

nope. Of course I'm not convinced that the UN can be saved - only that it could be. :)

Rockntractor
03-12-2010, 09:52 PM
nope. Of course I'm not convinced that the UN can be saved - only that it could be. :)

The intentions may have been good on their part in the first place but like so many things socialists do it isn't working.

PoliCon
03-12-2010, 09:54 PM
The intentions may have been good on their part in the first place but like so many things socialists do it isn't working.

Of course not - it was flawed from the get go. It gave equal status to all states regardless of their governance - a mistake.

fettpett
03-12-2010, 09:59 PM
letting tin pot dictators have a forum to bash the US was the biggest mistake...what I never understood was China getting a permant seat at the time when the Communist had just come to power.

PoliCon
03-12-2010, 10:08 PM
letting tin pot dictators have a forum to bash the US was the biggest mistake...what I never understood was China getting a permant seat at the time when the Communist had just come to power.

Communists and progressives and natural allies. :rolleyes:

fettpett
03-12-2010, 10:18 PM
i know...still never made sense, seeing as they weren't even close to a emerging power let a lone a great power

PoliCon
03-12-2010, 10:21 PM
i know...still never made sense, seeing as they weren't even close to a emerging power let a lone a great power

Welp, The Communist Chinese at that point were still closely allied with Moscow so - that played a part as well. The soviets wanted someone else on there as their ally. Remember - originally, communists were denied recognition. Taiwan held the chinese seat.