Fwd: [slickmisc] Money For the U.N., None For Katrina?
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
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
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
The questions and answers in this discussion, available at
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
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