Fwd: [slickmisc] Money For the U.N., None For Katrina?

John blueoval at 1SMARTISP.NET
Wed Sep 7 10:17:03 MDT 2005


Money For the U.N., None For Katrina?
By Cliff Kincaid  |  September 2, 2005

Now for the rest of the story.  Send this page to a friend
Format this page for printing

With the Hurricane Katrina disaster still unfolding, events at the 
United Nations might not seem of much consequence. But if 
resources are truly in short supply in dealing with domestic 
problems, it is worth noting that a major push is underway to 
force the U.S. to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the 
rest of the world through a global tax.

In a September 2 editorial, The Washington Post has weighed in on 
the subject, basically saying that the U.S. should go along with a 
controversial U.N. World Summit document that would commit the 
U.S. to spending $845 billion, over and above what the U.S. is 
already providing in foreign aid. Why pick a fight with the U.N.? 
It's not worth "going to the mat" over such matters, the paper 
insisted in its editorial. In an apparent reference to proposals 
in the document for global taxes on the American people, the paper 
says these may be "vaguely annoying" but other countries support 
them so why put up a fuss. Finally, the paper expresses the hope 
that the State Department will stop U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. 
John Bolton from objecting to such controversial provisions in the 
document.

But the Post editorial was itself vague. The paper never 
explicitly stated that the summit document endorsed global taxes. 
To do so would raise far-reaching questions about the hidden 
agenda of those running the U.N. and the non-governmental 
organizations (NGOs) supporting it. The paper also never mentioned 
the $845 billion figure, which is what Annan adviser Jeffrey Sachs 
indicates it would cost the U.S. to meet the U.N.'s Millennium 
Development Goals.

Since the paper was not honest with its readers about the U.N. 
agenda and what it would cost the American people, it was easy for 
the Post to pretend that there is nothing worth fighting about in 
the document, and that the U.S. should just let the U.N. have its 
way. In the editorial, entitled "UNdiplomatic," the Post said that 
most of Bolton's complaints were "insubstantial." The editorial 
made a brief mention of the antics of Sachs, U.N. 
Secretary-General Kofi Annan's top adviser on foreign aid, who has 
been publicly criticizing the U.S. position.

Now for the rest of the story.

The editorial appears to reflect the thinking of Sebastian 
Mallaby, a Post editorial columnist and former fellow at the 
Council on Foreign Relations. It turns out that Mallaby 
participated in an August 31 conference call with Sachs, arranged 
by the pro-foreign aid group Results, to discuss what Mallaby 
called Bolton's "intervention" in the negotiations over the summit 
document. This is a curious use of that term. The U.S. Ambassador 
to the U.N. takes a role in negotiating changes in a controversial 
document that President Bush is supposed to endorse at the U.N. 
meeting next month and this constitutes "intervention." This 
terminology reflects the mindset of those who believe the U.S. 
belongs to the U.N. just so we can fork over billions of U.S. 
taxpayer dollars and say nothing about how the money is spent. 
Actually, the tone of the session was set by the moderator, Joanne 
Carter, the legislative director of Results, who complained that 
Bolton was "seeking to massively rewrite!
" the flawed document.

Mallaby was the first of several journalists asking questions of 
Sachs during the session. A transcript shows Mallaby wondering if 
Bolton is "freelancing" in stating objections to the document and 
whether Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will put a stop to it. 
We see that thinking reflected in the Post editorial.

An honest review of the transcript of the conversation with Sachs 
demonstrates that it is Sachs who is out of control. But Sachs is 
an official spokesman for Annan and the U.N.

In the discussion, Sachs charged that the U.S. is trying to "gut" 
the summit document and that "
millions of people are dying this 
year because the United States is not acting" to spend more on 
foreign aid. Sachs cited no evidence for this sensational and 
irresponsible charge. He also griped about the U.S. spending too 
much money on the military.

The transcript shows that Joe Lauria, the U.N. correspondent for 
The Boston Globe, wondered if the U.S. had an economic policy 
based on access to "cheap resources and cheap labor" and wanted 
"to keep these countries down."

This was a revealing question, demonstrating the mentality of the 
reporters covering the U.N. The U.S. is supposedly the problem 
because we don't spend enough on foreign aid. And the process 
undertaken by Bolton of raising questions about how the aid is 
being spent and whether it is doing any good reflects a hidden 
imperialist agenda.

The questions and answers in this discussion, available at 
http://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=1758, demonstrate 
the poor quality of mass media reporting on the United Nations. 
Not one reporter asked about proposals for global taxes in the 
summit document. Not one reporter asked Sachs about his proposal 
for a global energy tax to pay for increased foreign-aid 
spending.

Because he wrote a book, entitled The End of Poverty, and seems to 
believe the answer to poverty is more government spending and 
higher taxes, he is considered an "expert" by the liberal press, 
not to mention the U.N. itself.

In taking a firm stand in favor of the interests of the U.S. and 
the American taxpayer, Ambassador Bolton is exposing their agenda 
and finding himself made into a villain on the global stage.


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list