[Mb-civic] Bolton Voices Opposition to U.N. Proposals - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

Bolton Voices Opposition to U.N. Proposals
White House Fears Effort Would Inhibit U.S. Authority

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 1, 2005; Page A23

UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 31 -- John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the 
United Nations, has voiced firm opposition to U.N. reorganization 
measures that the Bush administration fears would inhibit U.S. authority 
to use force and place new legal obligations on countries to intervene 
where genocide, ethnic cleansing or war crimes were being committed.

Bolton outlined his positions in a series of letters to U.N. delegates 
participating in negotiations to draft a 39-page statement to be read by 
world leaders at a summit on development and U.N. reform that begins 
Sept. 14. The six letters, intended to clarify proposed U.S. amendments 
to the draft, constitute the most detailed public picture of Bolton's 
thinking on a range of issues since he became ambassador, including on 
the fight against poverty and terrorism, the promotion of human rights 
and the streamlining of the U.N. bureaucracy.

Together, the letters reflect Bolton's long-held opposition to 
international agreements that he considers incursions on U.S. 
sovereignty and provide a glimpse at how he is working to influence a 
lengthy internal negotiating process that has been dominated by foreign 
policy professionals in the State Department.

Bolton argued that the Security Council already had sufficient legal 
authority to send foreign troops to halt atrocities in places such as 
the Sudanese region of Darfur. He insisted that the U.N. charter "has 
never been interpreted as creating a legal obligation for Security 
Council members to support enforcement action." He also urged the 
deletion of language calling on nations to prevent "incitement" of mass 
atrocities, saying it runs counter to the U.S. First Amendment 
protections of speech.

Bolton wrote that the United States "stands ready" to intervene in 
select cases where governments fail to halt mass killings on their soil. 
But he said that world leaders should not "foreclose" the military 
option by the United States and other governments "absent authorization 
by the Security Council."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083102309.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050901/d7a520af/attachment.htm