US Ambassador to the United Nations

[Albea]

This from the Hartford Courant, August 30

"Britain is leading a reform effort already endorsed by 175 other countries. Britain, which used to be our ally, has put forth a concise document containing a plan for reforming the U.N. and carrying forward with its goals to eradicate poverty. Bolton ( US Ambassador to the UN) has proposed 750 changes in Britain's 36-page draft plan. One of his proposals is to delete the phrase "respect for nature" from a set of core values that supposedly unites the nations of the world: respect for human rights, freedom, equality, tolerance, multilateralism and respect for nature. The phrase "respect for nature" does not commit the United States to any legal or financial obligation. Bolton just doesn't like it."

Only in the deranged mind of this poor imitation of a human being can the statement "respect for nature" be objectionable. Supposing that only "tree-hugging, bleeding heart liberals" are the ones concerned with endangered species, the environment, etc., etc., wouldn't you think that the destruction caused by the sunami in Southeast Asia and now the devastation of the Gulf Coast would be enough to respect Nature, the one thing that humans can destroy but never control.
Since I don't have children I have no personal stake on the future of planet Earth. However, people with children should consider what kind of Earth the children will inherit.
I do hope that the 175 other nations will have more common sense and preserve the statement.

[Albea]

Donna, either you are having a very bad day or you didn't read the entire post because I doubt very much you, an animal lover, would be against "the respect for nature" statement.
What do the wealth and lack of morals of the Windsors have to do with respect for nature? In the first place it is the Prime Minister and his cabinet that establish policies, the Queen and her family have very little to say about what the delegates to the UN wrote in the draft. In the second place, since all, young and old in the Royal Family, are such strong defenders of hunting foxes and shooting birds, it's not likely that they would come up with the notion of respecting nature.
As for what could be done with their wealth, it should be the subject of another discussion.

[moosmom]

:( I'm sorry. I deleted my post. Didn't mean to make anyone angry. Boy do I feel dumb! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[lizbud]

This objection coming from Bolton does not surprise me at
all. He is reflecting the President's views on the enviroment and
nature in general.George Bush has been the absolute worst
nightmare for those in science who are concerned about the
enviroment worldwide. A very good article on the BBC explains
how respecting nature can help to end poverty around the
world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4199138.stm

[Lady's Human]

1) It's not Great Britain's plan. It is a plan developed by a committee meeting at the UN, which has been under discussion for eight months.

2) When dealing with UN documents, one has to be VERY careful of the language, as these documents can be taken into consideration in international law cases. (Is respect for the environment stewardship or is it stepping back to a lower energy use rate?)

3) There was no US ambassador to the UN for much of the time that the document was being drafted, so submitting changes after appointing a new ambassador is not surprising. Also, according to the Christian Science Monitor, the US delegation was raising objections during the drafting process but were ignored.

4) the US is not the only entity with objections to the document.



The Washington Post reported last week that the US is not the only country with some concerns about the document. Arab nations don't like the terms defining terrorism, and Russia objects to any attempts to give authority to intervene in cases of genocide. "Only the 25-member European Union, Australia, Canada and New Zealand appear to be backing most of the key proposals in the draft document."


I know President Bush is the sole source of all evil in the world, but there's more to this story than what the Courant is reporting.

[Killearn Kitties]

Albea, I didn't post this the other day when I originally read your thread, because it had absolutely nothing to do with your point. (I can't comment on the newspaper story, I don't know enough about it.) However, if you don't mind, I would like to ask this. I was surprised by the quote "Britain, which used to be our ally ... ". Used to be? Have I missed something? As far as I am concerned, my country considers itself very much America's ally.

Please understand that I am not trying to start a fight here, nor create any kind of international incident. I am genuinely curious as to the thinking/attitude behind this statement.

[lizbud]

Originally posted by Killearn Kitties
Albea, I didn't post this the other day when I originally read your thread, because it had absolutely nothing to do with your point. (I can't comment on the newspaper story, I don't know enough about it.) However, if you don't mind, I would like to ask this. I was surprised by the quote "Britain, which used to be our ally ... ". Used to be? Have I missed something? As far as I am concerned, my country considers itself very much America's ally.

Please understand that I am not trying to start a fight here, nor create any kind of international incident. I am genuinely curious as to the thinking/attitude behind this statement.

I can place that statement into some context for you. It comes
from this article.

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=19547

[RICHARD]

Thank god it's some kooky old gal with 23 skidoo and boffo in her spell checker and not some real government official.

Those crazy senators and congressmen embarass me all the time.

It's about time we let another american voice smear us.
:rolleyes:


KK,

I'll bet you a quarter the UK is still our ally, and we theirs....;)

[Killearn Kitties]

Thanks very much, Lizbud. Their site seems to be down just now. I'll have a look later.

Ah but where is that quarter from, Richard ...

[Killearn Kitties]

OK, I understand it now, thank you. It's a more obvious joke within the context of the whole article.