Furthermore, there isn’t some uppity blue hat coming in and telling you what’s a landmark and what isn’t: countries nominate potential World Heritage sites within their own borders.
How could you doubt Republican support for the UN? If they didn’t support it, would they have put such a universally acclaimed diplomat as John Bolton in as UN Ambassador?
A pretty good point.
As it relates to Republican ideals exactly, though, I’ll have us remember who was president in 1965.
Per the Bolton comment above, and given that even his staunchest Republican critics in Congress are now willing to grant him approval, it would appear the consensus party stance is that the UN is Good so long as it functions to further American interests, and it is not so long as it impedes them. So our support for a stronger UN is provisional: So long as it is a facilitator of American foreign policy interests, it has value. Bolton himself has stated this explicitly.
That’s also a pretty good point. I know that the “American” interest idea has taken a hit in recent years, but I bet that most of the people here are not willing to go to gun-enforced theocracy, or women willing the right to vote, or total dictatorship (please, no Bush comments right now), or many other things that we as a culture don’t value.
What I mean is, I think most people have an emphasis on American values in some sense, and would be outraged if the UN said they were prohibited.
Some theoretical examples:
Visual representations of people
Guns in any form
Protest against the government
Suing the government
Independent ownership of mainstream media
Sounds pretty nasty, stated in those terms. OTOH, does any member state, or any important political faction or party within any member state, espouse a fundamentally different view of the UN’s purpose and value? (I.e., other than, “The UN is good only to the extent it helps advance our country’s interests.”)
Is that an American value? What is not state-owned is not necessarily “independently” owned. How many important media outlets do we have in America, any more, that are not owned by one of half a dozen giant corporations?
I meant it as venom, and Bolton deserves it. Do you know nothing of his history, his personality, or his well-documented attitudes WRT the UN?! If other UN ambassadors deserve to be characterized as “third-graders” or “eighth-graders,” then by the same token, the label of “sociopathic and mentally retarded kindergartener” fits Bolton like a shoe he’s worn five years.
The United Nations is in some ways anachronistic, a snapshot-in-time type of organization that has ossified to a certain extent, since a big part of the powerful Security council is setup around those 1945ish realities, although communist china was swapped in during the 70’s. The UN has been largely ineffective at global disarmament, and I’m assuming that really was the goal.
Grenville Clark was one early architect of this plan, a sort of simultaneous, phased reduction over a few years in the number of weapons and armies in all countries and such, till only a small, token military was left, and any “hot spots” that developed around the would be immediately taken care of by the UN.
I know the value of having independent media, but also the idea of having non-government controlled media IS an American value.
Yeah, I can’t believe how the Bush Administration keeps railing against Fox News for simply parroting Republican talking points instead of establishing its own non-government controlled voice, in the finest traditions of American values. :rolleyes:
Well, what they think privately is impossible to know for certain. It’s difficult, however, to understate Bolton’s public expressions of disdain not only for the UN as a body, but broadly multilateral diplomacy in any form. His stated opinion amounts to “Most of the world doesn’t matter, the rest is in the way and needs to be straightened out.” There’s scant evidence that view has changed at all, the Bush admin. endorses him completely, and the rest of the party appears to be coming around. It’s difficult to read all this as anything but a party-wide desire to transform the UN into an instrument of American policy, reflecting a belief that only America should have such a global mandate, being the only remaining superpower. I’m not certain if other nations would or would not want the UN to operate similarly on their behalf, but none seem anywhere nearly willing to just come out and say it.
That’s as much as to say the neocons have taken over the Republican Party entirely, at least WRT to its foreign-policy views. Are there no significant dissenting voices within the party any more?!
Not any loud ones, it would seem. I’m sure there must be some with deep paleoconservative views, but those types tend to favor disengagement. At any rate, party unity is still strong, so even if some-or-other member hates neoconservatism, how would we know?
The paleocons hate the neocon agenda from a nationalist-isolationist perspective. Are there no pubs who hate it from an internationalist perspective? Or is that just too alien to the party’s traditions?
I’ve no idea.
To what “history” are you referring?
Everyone who wishes to participate in the UN puts in an equal share. This would be the first tier, just nations who wish to be part of the over all UN body. Next tier would be nations who wish a vote but don’t want to be on the SC…they would pay the above fee plus an additional fee. Countries wishing to be on the SC put in this share plus a hefty additional fee on top of the others. A country wishing to host the UN additionally provides the building and infrastructure…and nations can bid on the honor. I think its a BAD thing that any one nation would or should pay more than other nations. This would be a much fairer system, where countries could decide their level of participation and how much they wanted to spend.
The current system is just silly IMHO…but then the UN is pretty much a toothless wonder in any case because of the way it was set up, how the SC was created and set up (with all the SC having to agree or nothing gets done on the important issues, having the SC be a closed body with nations past their prime still on the SC while other more vigorous nations are not, etc etc).
I’d have to say, wrt the OP, that Republican’s by and large do not like the UN. Personally I feel myself more in line with this than most of the other Republican positions as I’m not overly fond of the UN either, at least not in its current incarnation. I think its a waste of space, and the US really doesn’t get much out of the thing…except the honor of hosting it (at our expense) as well as paying a hefty fee for its continued existance.
-XT
See post #17.
What am I supposed to be seeing in post #17 BG? That FRDE’s uncle thought in the '70’s that the expense balances out with the revenue generated in NYC? Even if I accept that as fact, I don’t think it really makes the UN benificial to the US. Of course, I DON’T accept that the UN generates sufficient cash in NYC to balance out both the operating expenses of hosting it plus our dues. I’d need something a bit more than FRDE’s recollection of his uncle’s opinion in the 70’s. 
With all due respect to FRDE of course…
-XT