re: EU and UN (Cameron Sawyer, Russia)

Bienvenido Macario wrote on 3 November:

It [the EU] is a non-nation international organization very much like the United Nations.

Cameron Sawyer responds:

Au contraire, the EU and the UN could hardly be more different. The essence of this difference is in the extent of delegation of sovereignty to the respective institutions, which in the case of the UN is slight and sporadic (and the UN does not make laws), and in the case of the EU is broad and systematic (and exercised through actual laws, a huge pile of them in fact). As a result of that, the UN has no practical power except to harangue, apart from sporadic, isolated cases, mostly where the UN is used to manage some failed state which is forced by other countries to delegate certain aspects of sovereignty. The case of the EU is completely and totally different–the member states systematically and broadly delegated an ever-increasing degree of sovereignty to the EU, which by now has reached the stage where the EU exercises a significant amount of sovereign power, while, as various WAISers have pointed out, not being subject to much democratic control.

You see, a regular national government has a traditional form of sovereignty which is derived from the feudal rights of big landlords–a kind of ownership of a certain geographical area which gave the landlords the right to demand military service, extract taxes, and impose laws on the peasants living in that area. Modern states work on very much the same principles, except that democracy has helped a lot to give a certain voice to those former peasants over whom sovereignty is exercised. But the “sovereign” has the same nature and functions; just that it is no longer a landlord or a king, but a government not overtly acting in its own interests, but rather on behalf of the peasantry (at least, theoretically, but that is already good). The EU is another landlord on top, to whom a whole series of powers have been delegated by the traditional landlords. This power is so strong that it has been argued vigorously in some court cases that EU sovereignty is actually not delegated at all, but original.

(See: http://www.enelsyn.gr/papers/w4/Paper%20by%20Andras%20Jakab.pdf).

The article cited above is quite fascinating and I recommend it to WAISers interested in these questions. The article shows that massive confusion exists in the various EU member states about the affect of EU membership on the sovereignty of EU member states. I have to say, that these facts lend objective support to Nigel Jones’s thesis about the EU’s achieving statehood by stealth–here is concrete evidence. I particularly love this phrase in the cited article:

“So, how can we solve on a legal level the conflict between European integration and national sovereignty? What should be our answer to the question concerning sovereignty in the EU? My point was exactly it is a misunderstanding that we should answer the question. The real
lawyerly task (as we have seen analogically in different constitutional laws) is to neutralise this question. There are times where straight answers are needed–like the 16-17th centuries. And there are times where not–like now. Or to put it in a more cynical manner: our task is to avoid or to prevent the question, and if someone still poses it then we should give a ’solution’ that does not say anything practical for conflicts. Any other ’solution’ would just strengthen the possibility of conflicts, though we should rather prevent them. The paradoxical lawyerly task in this situation is to build up a legal uncertainty as to the legal outcome of a conflict (by building up complicated conceptual constructs which make virtually impossible the straight use of the sovereignty argument) . . . ”

Op. cit., pp. 15-16

Wow! There’s your smoking gun, Nigel! You can send me a bottle.

JE comments: Yes, but what EU commission regulates the (snail-mail) posting of liquor to non-EU destinations?

re: Cuba, US and the Latino Vote; on Aid and Development (Tim Brown, US)

Tim Brown responds to JE’s comments of 15 April:

Had the Latino vote not gone heavily Democratic in 2008, Obama would not be President. Of course the same holds for African-Americans.

As JE’s comment on Cuban-Americans illustrates, immigrant groups with a particular concern initially tend to coalesce around it and support the party they feel best responds to their concerns, hence until recently Cuban-Americans have been heavily Republican. But as the group assimilates, it tends to lose its core adhesion and become more diverse in both its interests and politics. Today’s Cuban-American community is, for example, much less strongly Republican than it was even four or five years ago.

On whether foreign aid has ever successfully developed a third-world country, while I was a State not AID officer, I did manage several AID programs that were considered especially politically sensitive and a few recent AID Mission Directors once worked for me. As I have mentioned in prior postings, in private AID and IO development officers regularly called foreign aid the process of taking money from the poor in rich countries and giving it to the rich in poor countries. They do not, of course, say this in public since after all foreign aid is their “rice bowl.” Once when I asked the Director of a major AID country Mission for a list of countries that have been developed with foreign aid he handed me a blank sheet to paper and said “none.” He then went on to explain that AID does not develop countries, it just administers programs. Based on my own experience, he was painfully right.

On Spain, having served in Spain under Franco as well as in numerous third-world countries (Mexico, El Salvador, Thailand, Vietnam, Honduras, Paraguay, etc.) I can assure you that while it was poorer before it entered the EC, it was richer than any country in the third world when it did so. But other countries now in the EC also followed than growth path. Ireland and some newer members come to mind, as does East Germany.

The countries that have, in my view, gained the most for foreign assistance were countries that took the lead themselves and did not allow foreign aid agencies to dictate to them. The ones that did this most effectively did best. South Korea, Thailand and Taiwan and, in the western hemisphere, only Brazil and Costa Rica come to mind.

–

For information about the World Association of International Studies
(WAIS), and its online publication, the World Affairs Report, read its
homepage by simply double-clicking on: http://wais.stanford.edu/

John Eipper, Editor-in-Chief, Adrian College, MI 49221 USA

Re: UNITED NATIONS: Sovereignty

Robert Whealey comments on the views about sovereignty of Miles Seeley and Tim Brown:� Why are they frightened of a largely powerless UN? From about 1625 to 1790, lawyers and philosophers in the US, England and France published many books on the nature of sovereignty. The American Constitution divided sovereignty into 13 states and three branches of Federal government. The new states entered the union with the same rights and duties as the original 13.� After 1865 the states lost more and more of their sovereignty.� Sometime during World War I or WW II, the states gave up their rights to an independent militia and delegated their power to the Federal government which created the National Guard (NG).

George Bush now controls the DOD and the National Guard. Hopefully the disaster in Louisiana and Mississippi will wake up a few Americans who still believe in the ideal of democracy to call for the return of the National Guard to the states. The governors should re-create 50 state militias.

Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan had, and Bush II has, monarchial pretensions. Monarchists always demand absolute undivided sovereignty. They and their followers are eroding the US constitution. On the international scale the problem of sovereignty poses a different problem. Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini claimed absolute sovereignty called “fascism” or “communism.”

The Versailles victors in 1919 posited the League of Nations which created a symbolic sovereignty of Geneva.� The Vatican since 1929 also claims symbolic sovereignty.� The League failed totally, but the UN in 1945 inherited a bit of symbolic sovereignty.� This ideal of international law has apparently peaked in 1960s with Dag Hammarskjold.�� There are many in the General Assembly who still have hopes for world government.� But since Hammarskjold’s death, the Department of State has made an attempt to make the UN into an American satellite through money.

Seeley and Brown fear that the UN actually will obtain� some real power at the expense of the US. It is an illusion.
The UN might accumulate some prestige and power, if and when the Republican Party destroys itself in Iraq and Afghanistan through over reach.� The Party’s drive for empire had a set back in Indochina 1973-1975. I doubt one party Republocrats will succeed in controlling the Greater Middle East. The defeat will have repercussions within the United States.

RH: Be careful with the use of the word “monarchial”. Today’s monarchs are virtually powerless, and the countries which are “monarchies” are probably the most democratic in the world.� The National Guard units being sent to Louisiana are being sent on instructions from the respective governors.� What all this has to do with the United Nations, the subject of this post, is not clear to me.

Ronald Hilton, 2005
-

THE UNITED NATIONS: Its future

The Hoover Digest (2005, No. 1) has an article by Charles Hill, “How to Save the United Nations (If We Really Have To).� The U.N. isn’t dead yet– but it may soon be on life support. How to restore it to some semblance of health”.� The article summarizes an official report, making recommendations but suggestsing that they do not go far enough. It concludes:”Perhaps it would be wise to start thinking about a new world� organization, one with a membership that is committed to democracy”. Does this mean abandoning the UN and setting up a new organization?� It is doubtful if the other major powers would agree to this. The UN, like the Vatican, is the equivalent of a sovereign state, and owns its buildings and the land on which it stands.� The US could not simply confiscate them. It reminds me of Ed Koch, one-time New York mayor and a strong supporter of Israel, who demanded that the UN abandon New York, It might resentfully move its main operations to its Geneva facility, while maintaining title to those in New York. It would in faact become an anti US organization, A simpler solution would be to create a democratic caucus within the U.N.

Even that would present difficulties.� Some US allies, notably Pakistan, are not democracies.� I often wonder if I was wrong about Latin America. When I founded Bolivar House at Stanford University, I gave it that name because Bolivar was a believer in parliamentary democracy.� In the 1940s, Latin America was run mostly by pro-US dictatorships supported by the Catholic Church and big business. I was able to travel by land from San Francisco to Buenos Aires, and, apart from a revolution in Bolivia, the journey was not marred by public unrest. The US abandoned its support of dictatorships in Latin America and promoted democracy there.� Look at Latin America now.� It would be unwise to undertake my trip today. Democracy is the result of a long development; the US inherited it from Britain.� Latin America had no such tradition.� Nor does the Muslim world. Is our attempt to promote it there destined to fail? Will it then be possible to form a democratic caucus in the U.N-?� I hope Charles Hill may have some comments.

Ronald Hilton, 2005

� Read the home page of the World Association of International Studies (WAIS) by simply double-clicking on:�� http://wais.stanford.edu/ Please inform us of any change of e-mail address.

RE: PREVENTIVE WARS:

Randy Black writes: Regarding the Israeli attack on Egypt in 1967, the Arab states had been preparing to go to war against Israel, with Egypt, Jordan and Syria being aided by Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria. The path for war was cleared on May 16 when President Abdel Nasser ordered the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Forces from the Egyptian-Israeli border.� On May 27, President Nasser declared: “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight.” Israel took decisive action, claiming the element of surprise was the only way it could stand any chance of defending itself against the increasing threat from neighboring states. Is Robert Whealey saying that Israel should have waited until the other parties actually crossed the line?
�

RE: PREVENTIVE WARS: where is Hans Kammler?

Jon Kofas writes: What a poetic line indeed from Mr. Robert Whealey! “REAL WARS TAKE OVER FROM IMAGINED PREVENTABLE WARS WHICH WERE NEVER FOUGHT” And what brilliant analysis that only a teenage patriot would believe the crudest form of propaganda implied in the concept of preventive war. Robert Whealey views are in line with the mjority of the American people. The latest public opinion poll indicates that the majority of the American people do not believe the Bush administration’s pretext for going to war, that the war was not worth the costs in lives and treasure, that the war has in fact raised the terrorist threat, and that the war has not made us any safer. The same poll indicates, however, that the majority do not want to cut and run, “until the job is done.” Here is where all the military and civilian analysts have endless arguments about when the job will actually be done. Will the job be done when there are few or no acts of resistance, bombings, etc., when the Iraqi army is able to defend the pro-US regime from the militant opposition, when the country has a functioning economy, when the Europeans and UN agree to help out more than they have, when a few strategic Iraqi cities have been reduced to armed camps guarded by U.S. and international troops, when the civil war and chaos paralyzes the country?� How many innocent civilians along with soldiers must perish in the madness before the Republican administration, backed by most Democrats, admits that the war against Iraq was not in the best interests of the US, the Middle East, Europe, the world, though it did help certain companies and obviously those in power in Iraq. My prediction is that the job will be done about one month before the congressional elections of November 2006, or until such time as U.S. and world economic pressures dictate that Iraq is a long-term serious obstacle to world economic growth and stability.

RH: The last sentence doesn’t make sense to me.

RE: PREVENTIVE WARS

Christopher Jones wrote: However you look at it, if a nation launches a “preemptive” or “preventive” strike, it comes perilously close to what became known to losers as a “war of aggression.” Cameron Sawyer counters: I have three comments to this posting by Christopher:
�
1.� What is the difference between a “preemptive war” and a “war of aggression”?� Practically speaking, none at all, other than one’s subjective opinion about who are the good guys.� Even if Saddam had had WMD’s, they would have presented no direct threat to us.� If we can justify a “preemptive war” on the basis of general strategic threats, then any war of aggression can be characterized as a “preemptive war”, one way or the other.� The war in Iraq may have been well-intentioned, but it was clearly a war of aggression.� I don’t believe that it is morally justifiable.
�
2.� Christopher asks how it is that we have any right to judge the Nazis when the Soviets also attacked and took over the Baltic republics and Eastern Poland under the nefarious Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.� This is moral relativism at its height; I am astonished.� Is Christopher unable to distinguish a bad act — taking over half of Poland and the three small Baltic states and imposing Communism on them — from the most evil act of the 20th century — starting a world war which killed 100 million people, 10 to 14 million of which were processed through factories of death at Auschwitz, Treblinka, and so forth?
�
3.� The “Kraut Meteors” were more commonly known as “Foo Fighters”.� Like the Nazi atom bomb, they did not exist, despite their popularity with UFO enthusiasts.� See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter.� Hitler was fascinated with wunderwaffen, but having killed or exiled most of Germany’s creative engineering talent, precious few wunderwaffen were realized, and none of them was of much military value.� Military historians believe that Hitler’s fascination with wunderwaffen at the expense of banal but essential items of materiel like trucks and winter clothing dealt a significant blow to Nazi war efforts.� See Ralf Schabel’s Die Illusion der Wunderwaffen, http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3486559656/infoline-21/302 -9483087-3326431.�
�
Wunderwaffen which did affect the war were not German: radar (British invention), atom bomb (U.S. invention).� German Wunderwaffen which worked and influenced later weapons development but were of not much practical value were ballistic missile (V2; unguided and therefore useful only for terrorizing London); jet fighter (Me262; made operational only at the very end of the war, fast but unmaneuverable, P51 Mustangs could shoot it down).� See: http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/wunderwaffen/wunderwaffen.html.
�
It is little known to some people that the German army were poorly equipped and supplied in WWII.� The worst problem was the lack of motorized transport; when Hitler invaded Russia his forces were accompanied by 800,000 horses, more than Napoleon had.� The British and Americans, and even the Soviets, were almost entirely motorized.� Nazi tanks were unreliable, tended to catch fire, and used huge quantities of gasoline which Germany could not supply despite having taken over the Romanian oil fields.� There were terrible problems with clothing and footwear.� The Fuehrer played with wunderwaffen as if with toys, and prevented his general staff from concentrating resources where they were needed.
�

United Nations: A Nation’s inherent right to self-defense

Tim Brown writes: Further to General Robert Gard’s July 15 comment, the most difficult question may be whether a nation’s inherent right to self-defense stops at its borders or if it has the inherent right to act beyond them when necessary. This is analogous to asking whether, if the authorities know someone is planning to commit a crime, can they act to prevent it or must they wait until it has been committed and then act only after the fact?� Acting beyond one’s borders, by definition, involves acting within the borders of another sovereign nation with, or without, its consent. Acting against someone planning to commit a crime will often� involve taking actions civil libertarians will condemn as violations of� the prospective perpetrator’s civil rights. While there are people on both side who hold absolutist opinions on such things, either for or against, there are probably no absolute answers.�

In terms of today’s terrorism, the responses to piracy at sea and the slave traffic are probably the best precedents. The crimes were considered so abominable by much of the international community that the normal rules of sovereignty were willingly bent by them to confront them.�� By and large these responses worked quite well, not perfectly, since some piracy at sea and trafficking in human beings still takes place, despite centuries of efforts to stop them completely. But in neither case was the perfect allowed to be enemy of the good because reducing piracy and slaving as far as possible has been infinitely better than allowing them to go unchecked. In neither case were the tactics used all black or all white. They were neither purely military no purely political. Nor did 100% of all nations cooperate fully.� The responses varied nation to nation from exceptional zealous to minimal in response to pressure. The best approach to controlling (note I do not say completely eliminating) terror should probably be much the same. Neither purely military now purely political responses will succeeds. It will be a matter of fight-fight/talk-talk, not just fight or just talk but a mixed of the two because war, in this case war on terror, is simply an extension of politics by military means.�

RH: This is a tricky business. Napoleon III started the Franco.Prussian because of the Ems telegram, which was in fact a trick by Bismarck to provoke war. Can anyone provide details?

PREVENTIVE WARS: where is Hans Kammler?

Christopher Jones writes: However you look at it, if a nation launches a “preemptive” or “preventive” strike, it comes perilously close to what became known to losers as a “war of aggression.”� In its 60 years of existence, the UN has proven itself unable to prevent “preventive” wars.� I am wondering if a WAISer could please explain to me how Nazi generals and diplomats could be charged with “waging a war of aggression” when their erstwhile Allies in their “preventive” war against Poland, the Soviets sat as judges on the tribunal.� Speaking of Nuremberg, I have been reading about the elusive SS Obergruppenf�hrer Hans Kammler who went missing in April 1945 with all the secrets of Hitler’s “wunderwaffen.”� It is alleged that Kammler struck a deal with US General George Patton to turn over the secrets to the Americans in return for his “disappearance.”� Kammler took over the Nazi weapons program and used slave labor to construct underground factories etc. for such things as, the Me262 jet fighter, the V1 and V2 rockets, The Nazi� Atom bomb, the Sonic cannon, and other stuff of legends like German flying saucers called Kraut meteors. (This is not a joke) All reference to Kammler was struck from any official Nuremberg documents.

Robert Whealey writes: In 1939 I do not think that anybody used the terms “preventative or pre-emptive war.” This sounds like Pentagon jargon which they borrowed from some foreign militarist. Hitler attacked Poland for discrimination against the German city of Danzig. Since Hitler invaded across the Polish frontier it was a clear act of aggression because Britain and France had signed a treaty to protect the territorial integrity of the Polish frontier established at Versailles. Europeans had more respect for law in those days.

As far as I know, Hitler was the first to argue with propaganda the claim that he had to attack Norway in April 1940, to prevent the British Navy from attacking Norway to establish a blockade. A few days later when the Germans actually landed in Norway the claim was no longer a credible “preventative” excuse. The ensuing war became a German act of aggression and conquest of Norway. Hitler put out the “preventative,” “preemptive” excuse in June 1941 when he attacked the USSR. He claimed that Stalin was planning to attack Germany. The German public believed the big lie, but history now proves that Stalin did everything possible not to appear threatening to Hitler.

Israel attacked Egypt in 1967 claiming that it had to prevent the stronger Egypt from attacking it first. The Israeli excuse was that Nasser was goading Jordan and Syria to attack Israel. Few Arabs believe the Israeli claims of “preventative war.” The Israeli army doubled by conquest the size of Israel. The preventative war line was good for about 24 hours. In 1981 Begin attacked Baghdad’s nuclear facility to “prevent” Iraq from getting a nuclear bomb. Bombing another country unprovoked is an act of aggression, according to international law. So preventative war is the crudest form of propaganda which only a teenage patriot
would believe. No international lawyer, historian or diplomat would take such crude claims seriously.

A military man knows that the preventative pre-emptive excuse can only last a few days or a week at most. If the war continues for very long, who fired the first shot becomes irrelevant. Who fired the first shot in Indochina? What war did Nixon prevent by invading Cambodia in 1970? The mystery to me is why Cheney and Bush would put out such a flimsy excuse to attack Iraq. According to the administration, the US had to prevent Saddam Hussein from getting a nuclear weapon. Few honest people believe the Bush-Cheney line today. Real wars take over from imagined preventable wars which were never fought.

RH: Hans Kammler was Himmler’s chief rocket engineer and architect of the Holocaust, among other things. Where is he? I suppose he is dead, nut I don’t know what he had to do with Hitler’s preventive wars.

Christopher Jones wrote:Hans Kammler went missing in April 1945 with all the secrets of Hitler’s “wunderwaffen.” It is alleged that Kammler struck a deal with US General George Patton to turn over the secrets to the Americans in return for his “disappearance.” Kammler took over the Nazi weapons program and used slave labor to construct underground factories etc. for such things as, the Me262 jet fighter, the V1 and V2 rockets, The Nazi Atom bomb, the Sonic cannon, and other stuff of legends like German flying saucers called Kraut meteors. (This is not a joke) All reference to Kammler was struck from any official Nuremberg documents. Alberto Gutierrez comments: Besides a momentary US and British “amnesia”, the meaning of double standard could explain in part why the Russians sat as judges on the tribunal at Nuremberg. Hans Kammler was not the only Nazi who went missing. For instance, only many years later was Klaus Barbi found. Others such as Reinhard Gehlen always kept a low profile. At the same time. in Japan barbarians of the worst kind such as Shiro Ishii, the head of the Japanese Unit 731, never faced a US tribunal despite the gruesome experiments with Chinese.

United Nations and Self defense

Alain de Benoist disagrees with Geneera Robert Gard: Article 2 of the UN Charter forbids any kind of preventive or preemptive military action, even when there is a supposed “imminent menace”. The UN Charter forbids any kind of war which is not a defensive war. The responsability is clearly attributed to the country which take initiative of military action. Article 51 of the Charter admits legitimate defense only as an answer to an attack by another country. These rules are inherent in any kind of international law since the end of the Westphalian system (see the Briand-Kellogg pact, etc.). It is a clear condemnation of the new strategic doctrine of the United States, as expressed in June 2002 by George W. Bush at the West Point Military Academy.

�

Re: The UN: Self defense

Robert Gard says:The UN Charter recognizes the sovereignty of nation states and provides for the inherent right of national self defense.� RH: Yes, but what does the Charter say about preemptive or preventive action?

�Read the home page of the World Association of International Studies (WAIS) by simply double-clicking on:�� http://wais.stanford.edu/ Please inform us of any change of e-mail address.

Re: The UN: Self defense

Robert Gard says:The UN Charter recognizes the sovereignty of nation states and provides for the inherent right of national self defense.?

RH: Yes, but what does the Charter say about preemptive or preventive action?

Robert Gard writes: I don’t believe the Charter of the UN says anything about preventive or preemptive military action, although a preemptive military attack that meets the criterion of countering imminent military action would be consistent with self defense. My point in stating that the Charter recognizes national sovereignty and the inherent right of self defense was to counter a previous argument that all wars, to be legal from the UN standpoint, required a blessing from the UN Security Council.

UN and preemptive military action.

Tim Brown writes: Carmen Negrin’s stated that “if [a UN]� Resolution implies a military action, it is ONLY in response to an aggression (not a possible future aggression)”.� This is, at most, only technically true. It is also contrary to the publicly announced preferences of the UN Secretary-General.� I refer her and my fellow WAISers to the 17 June 1992 “Report by the Secretary-General pursuant to the statement adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992″.� The Report is entitled “An Agenda for Peace, Preventative Diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping” and can be read at http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/agpeace.html.� It is extremely long and often written in UN-speak. But in it, the Secretary-General clearly and unambiguously endorses the “preventative deployment” of military forces to potential crisis zones (paragraph 28) for either peacemaking (aggressive action) ot peace-keeping (maintenance of a peaceful status quo). In it he also laments that “the Security Council has not so far made use of the most coercive of…measures…” and says that in his view the SC has been too timid and suggests it should be more agressive ( 42), hardly an endorsement of inaction. While some may quibble that “preventative” and “pre-emptive” are not precisely the same thing, I certainly cannot see any real difference between the two beyond semantical hair-splitting.
�
I might add that, to accomplish the UN’s “peace” mission, the Secretary-General also calls for the creation of a standing UN Army with pre-positioned arsenals around the world (51), military forces permanently dedicated to the UN and under the Command of the Secretary-General (44), paid for by UN borrowing from the IMF, World Bank and commercial sources (70e and 71) and UN levied taxes on international arms sales and travel (71). I personally have discussed the UN project to create its own “army without a country” with Canadian and Scandinavian professional military officers who have worked on it. They told me the plan calls for it initially to have one brigade but eventually grow to three full divisions.
�

�Read the home page of the World Association of International Studies (WAIS) by simply double-clicking on:�� http://wais.stanford.edu/ Please inform us of any change of e-mail address.

United Nations: Democrats stall Bolton nomination

Here, abridged, is an angry message from RandyBlack expressing his outage at the behavior of the Democrats blocking the nomination of John Bolton as representative to the UN, for which Randy ex`presses little affection: The fact that Barbara Boxer and others of her party don’t want Americans to know is that their leadership has ALREADY received access to the documents they demand. What some Democrats seem angry about is that some of their leaders gained access but others (Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and a few others come to mind) have been denied access to those classified matters is due to their personal history of ‘not being able to be trusted with secrets involving national security.’ It’s a given that certain Democrats (and Republicans) cannot be trusted with such access and I suspect that her frustration has boiled over. Here is what Boxer and other Democrats don’t want voters to know: Months ago the Bush Administration turned over the requested materials to the Foreign Relations Committee’s ranking Democrat, John Rockefeller of West Virginia.
�
Why do the media and the Democrats continue to ignore such a fact? Why does the media continue to repeat the Democratic deception and not publicize the fact that those documents were turned over months ago? There is only one logical conclusion: The Democrats, and the left-wing controlled media are not interested in the truth; their only interest is in blocking anything and everything that the President and the majority of Americans propose and support. Perhaps we are witnessing the death rattle of the Democratic Party as we know it.

RH: We shall see in 2008.

UNITED NATIONS: Democrats stall Bolton nomination

Here, abridged, is an angry message from RandyBlack expressing his outage at the behavior of the Democrats blocking the nomination of John Bolton as representative to the UN, for which Randy ex`presses little affection: The fact that Barbara Boxer and others of her party don’t want Americans to know is that their leadership has ALREADY received access to the documents they demand. What some Democrats seem angry about is that some of their leaders gained access but others (Boxer, Nancy Pelosi and a few others come to mind) have been denied access to those classified matters is due to their personal history of ‘not being able to be trusted with secrets involving national security.’ It’s a given that certain Democrats (and Republicans) cannot be trusted with such access and I suspect that her frustration has boiled over. Here is what Boxer and other Democrats don’t want voters to know: Months ago the Bush Administration turned over the requested materials to the Foreign Relations Committee’s ranking Democrat, John Rockefeller of West Virginia.
�
Why do the media and the Democrats continue to ignore such a fact? Why does the media continue to repeat the Democratic deception and not publicize the fact that those documents were turned over months ago? There is only one logical conclusion: The Democrats, and the left-wing controlled media are not interested in the truth; their only interest is in blocking anything and everything that the President and the majority of Americans propose and support. Perhaps we are witnessing the death rattle of the Democratic Party as we know it.

RH: We shall see in 2008.

UN Reform

Bienvenido Macario writes: With regards to UN reforms, the General Assembly could borrow from the European Union . Members and aspiring members of the EU are required to maintain a balanced budget, meet human rights standards to be considered in good standing worthy of being a member of the union. EU members must be capable of holding� relatively open, clean and honest elections.� Even if a member or prospective member has a constitutional monarchy or is ruled by an aristocracy, so long as it is democratic and efficient, the EU should not hold it against the member or prospective member. Democracy is often better served in countries ruled by monarchs.

RH: It is true that the EU has these prerequisites, even though they are now strained to the limit, while the UN does not. It would be interesting to compare the EU and the UN conditions for acceptance.� The problem with the UN is that, at the founding meeting in San Francisco, Nelson Rockefeller brought in all the Latin American countries without conditions in order to ensure that the US was backed by a solid bloc.� It didn’t work out that way, but it left the door open to any country without real criteria.� Now it is difficult to unscramble the eggs to throw out the bad ones. However, a democratic caucus could be formed in the UN.� If the question of the funding of parties came up, the US might be in trouble. As for monarchies, I agree that there should be a head of state above politics.� I have suggested that it be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but in the US even that office is not above politics.

60th U.N. Anniversary in San Francisco

Will President Bush show up at the San Francisco celebration of the 60th ammiversary of the founding of the UN, from Germany Eugen Solf writes: Please forgive me but does it matter whether or not “Bush and Friends will attend”? Everybody knows what their opinion is, everybody has followed the Bolton-issue, everybody knows what his attitude towards the UN is - so: let the party go on with or without the Bush & friends - have enough confidence and send invitations, await answer and if they are negative go on regardless. This sounds to me like one little boy lost a pissing contest and is now offended because of that. Does not the Bush Administration promote democracy? Is it not part of Democracy to win a State and to lose another? Has Bush not promised to be president of all Americans? So if he does not go to San Francisco - so be it! I am sure the organisers can organise a dignified celebration worthy of the subject. Maybe I am too “Old-European” - I think with self-confidence this should not be an issue.

RH: Bush and Condi Rice fear that they would be the target of hostile demonstrations if they came to San Francisco. The nomination of Bolton as ambassador to the UN means that the Republicans want a UN which is pliant to US policies. The real deficiencies of the UN provide a smoke screen. To remedy these, I recommend that the democratic nations in the UN form a caucus, which could act independently if necessary. The Bolton nomination opens a new chapter in diplomacy. Why not send to France an ambassador notorious for his anti-French statements?� He could tell Chirac what Americans really think of him and enjoin him to chop off the top floors of the Eiffel Tower.� When Chirac had complied with that, the effectiveness of the new diplomacy would be evident.

�Read the home page of the World Association of International Studies (WAIS) by simply double-clicking on:�� http://wais.stanford.edu/ Please inform us of any change of e-mail address.

United Nations: 60th U.N. Anniversary in San Francisco

The following item has personal interest for me as I attended the San Francisco 1945 conference at which the United NAtions was founded. I was an honored guestat subsequent commemorative meetings, but I have not heard a peep from the organizers of the 60th anniversary celebrations. Peter Orne sends this:

U.N. Party Planners Wonder, Will Bush and Friends Attend?� By Dean E. Murphy

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has indicated she will not attend. So has former President George H. W. Bush. The controversial nominee for United Nations ambassador, John R. Bolton, has not been heard from, nor has President Bush, who was sent an invitation in February. Getting big-name administration officials to attend events outside Washington is always a long shot because of their busy schedules. But in the case of the 60th anniversary celebration of the founding of the United Nations, which will take place in San Francisco in late June, some
organizers are wondering if something beyond scheduling conflicts is at play.

Nancy L. Peterson, president of the United Nations Association of San Francisco, a nonprofit group that has been planning the celebration, said no explanation had been offered by the White House. But she said some members
were worried that President Bush’s seeming disdain for the world organization might be behind the silence and no-shows.� “We are a month out, and that’s cutting it close,” Ms. Peterson said. When asked if San Franciscans felt slighted, she said, “I think the administration is slighting the American people by not stepping forward on behalf of the United Nations at this turning point.”

At the last big anniversary celebration, 10 years ago in San Francisco, where the United Nations charter was signed in 1945, President Clinton played a prominent role. Sherri Ferris, who is organizing the 60th anniversary invitations, said Mr. Clinton’s office had indicated that an appearance next month “is still under consideration.” She expects many invitees will fix their June calendars next week.

Invitations had been accepted by several international figures, including Shashi Tharoor, an under secretary general at the United Nations; Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland who was the United Nations’ high commissioner for human rights; and Ernesto Zedillo, the former president of Mexico. But no member of the Bush administration was among them, organizing officials said.� “It doesn’t mean they aren’t coming, and it doesn’t mean they are,” said Peter Ragone, a spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom. Mr. Ragone added, “We’ve become accustomed to not expecting the Bush administration to attend official events in San Francisco.”� As president, Mr. Bush has visited California numerous times but has avoided the overwhelmingly Democratic San Francisco, where he garnered just 15 percent of the vote last year. Ms. Rice, who taught for many years at nearby Stanford University, was interrupted by antiwar protesters when she spoke at the Commonwealth Club here. For now, the 16-page official program to the celebration is vague on the subject of dignitaries. The entry for the opening event on June 25 says
“speakers will be announced.”

�Read the home page of the World Association of International Studies (WAIS) by simply double-clicking on:�� http://wais.stanford.edu/ Please inform us of any change of e-mail address.