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.