Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (22719)	6/17/2005 1:18:19 PM
From: manalagi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362428

This editorial is from a conservative newspaper. When will reach the end of the tunnel? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind. signonsandiego.com House bill is blackmail, not diplomacy UNION-TRIBUNE June 17, 2005 That the United Nations is in need of major reform is a given. Even U.N. officials concede the point, and Secretary General Kofi Annan has – albeit belatedly and under pressure – proposed the most comprehensive overhaul since the U.N.'s founding in 1945. But the legislative blackmail before the House of Representatives today is no way to achieve reform. The bill, immodestly named the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005 for its chief sponsor, the Republican congressman from Illinois who is chairman of the House International Relations Committee, seeks to bludgeon the U.N. into reform. Hyde's proposal would mandate a 50 percent cut in the United States' annual $400 million payment to the U.N. if certain proposals on a long list of demands are not implemented. Other proposals would mandate a 25 percent cut. It would "sunset" all new U.N. programs and limit annual increases in individual program funding to 10 percent. It would reduce the American contribution to U.N. peacekeeping operations, block the expansion or creation of peacekeeping operations until certain changes are implemented and demand a new and tougher code of conduct for peacekeeping troops. It would demand less spending on costly U.N. conferences, and U.S. contributions to other U.N. operations would be declared voluntary. Some provisions of the Hyde bill are clearly necessary – chiefly those demanding that the world body adhere to more strict and transparent management and accountability standards to prevent future scandals such as the larcenous Iraq oil-for-food program that has scarred the U.N. all the way up to Annan's office. But the Hyde legislation overall is unnecessary. It's bad policy. And it's bad diplomacy. It's unnecessary because Annan's proposals would do much of what Hyde proposes. It's bad policy because Congress has no business trying to micromanage the budget of an international agency. It's bad diplomacy because it will only anger – and justifiably so – the 190 other members of the world body who already feel bullied by the United States on many issues. As a strategy, that doesn't sound like a winning formula. The Bush administration got it right this week when it sent notice to the House leadership that it opposes Hyde's legislation. The way to achieve reform at the United Nations is for the United States to be fully engaged, taking a leadership role, not threatening to take away half our marbles if we don't get our way. That's the main point made by the constructive task force headed by Newt Gingrich, the Republican former House speaker, and George Mitchell, the Democratic former Senate majority leader. A United Nations summit is scheduled for September in New York to act on the Annan reforms and others, including the highly sensitive question of expanding the Security Council. The American delegation should not be there with Henry Hyde's legislation around its neck.

To: CalculatedRisk who wrote (22719)	6/17/2005 1:23:35 PM
From: DayTraderKidd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362428

Whatever you call them, they own the republican party and have been planning and working there plan for well over a decade. I don't see that party coming back into the hands of fiscally conservative, smaller government republicans... As for the republicans who may oppose much of the bush agenda but choose to stand on the sidelines to protect their career... Peaple seem to like a guy with a backbone, weather or not they agree with him... That could and more than likely will come back to bite those republicans choosing to stand on the sidelines waiting to see if their nightmere goes away. Especially when you have neocons waiting in the wings to expose them as such..