U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolten at the YPU!
ce...@yale.edu
FLOOR MEETING
OCTOBER 3, 2005 - SSS 114
At 7:33 pm, the Speaker called the meeting to order. He explains that
the police will not allow anyone without a seat to stay inside.
The chairmen make their announcements.
The President thanks everyone for coming. Announces that YTV will be
taping tonight's meeting and it will be shown next week. Honored to
welcome Bolton back to Yale and the YPU. He graduated from Yale
College and Yale Law. Was part of the old Conservative Party and was
once the Floorleader of the Right. Worked in Reagan and Bush
administrations. Appointed to UN ambassador by the current President
Bush. Will be talking on reform and what still needs to be done.
Ambassador John Bolton: says that he is glad to be back to the YPU and
on the stage this time. Before talking about what needs to be done, he
needs to talk about what's wrong. Fair to say that US and public
opinion have a skeptical view of UN compared to world. Reason is that
population has a more skeptical view of gov't. Bolton is concerned
about the politicization of the UN. The General Assembly of UN has
said that Zionism is a form of racism. It did so with deliberate
intention to have same effect on Israel as it did in apartheid South
Africa. Continuing effects of anti-Semitism linger in UN. Israel
hasn't been member of UN Security Council. It is unacceptable that
offices are made for the sole reason to promote Palestinian rights. He
claims that he has no problem with Palestinian rights and that's why
he supports a 2 state solution. The commission on human rights is
flawed. Been led by people that violate human rights, like Libya.
Leadership of UN is also a problem. The Secretary General has said
that the Security Council is sole source of legitimacy on the use of
force. Bolton is also worried about the UN's ineffectiveness. The
Security Council hasn't been able to make Iraq accountable. UN
wasn't able to respond to Saddam's actions. What's the purpose
of passing the resolutions if people won't take them seriously?
Wanted to pass a document that formally condemned terrorism of all
forms. Many nations tried to add in ways to distinguish good and bad
terrorism. This debate has lasted for 30 years and we still can't
resolve it. Wants strong language that's critical of weapons of mass
destruction. He says that the most shameful disgrace is that the
peacekeepers have been engaging in sexual exploitation of the people
that they are supposed to protect. Mismanagement has also happened,
like in the oil for food program. High officials have been corrupt.
Many have been found guilty of bribery, etc. What do we need to do to
make our concerns felt more? One of principle reasons that the US
feels that it's alone is that its vote counts for very little.
Current voting system is one nation one vote. But, not all
international organizations are like that. The international monetary
fund is different. Doesn't think there is anything wrong with
advancing US interests. We pay 22% of UN's cost and even more for
peace-keeping. This is in contrast to our voting strength: just half
of a percent. It is difficult for the US to have the kind of influence
we should have. Congress can react by withholding payments. We face a
bill that says that if UN doesn't fare satisfactorily in about 30
reforms, the US can cut off half of its payments. Other bill says that
if that happens, the cut-off is left up to the Secretary of the State.
Important for us to manifest our belief that we need to reform the UN.
An alternative to this situation is to make contributions on a
voluntary basis. There is a difference in the way different agencies
perform. Reports have said that agencies that rely on voluntary
contributions do better. Thinks that it is reasonable that if US pays
so much, we should have more of a vote. Why can't we pay for what we
want? Wants to break sense of entitlement in the UN. Bush and himself
are trying to bring the UN back to what the framers made it.
The floor is then opened up to questions.
Mr. Silas Kulkarni asks if rich people in the United States, who pay
more taxes, should have more of a say in this country.
Bolton explains that his proposal is best for intergovernmental
organizations. These are not taxable. Says that the UN needs to find
other types of funding. Very different from voting.
A gentleman in the body asks if a bicameral system would work in the
UN?
Bolton tells the gentleman to blame the framers of the US constitution
for the existence of the Senate. Does not believe that a bicameral
system would work in the UN.
Another gentlemen asks what is the best thing the UN has done, besides
Iraq.
Bolton says that the UN was an effective instrument of American foreign
policy. Was used to expel Iraqi forces in Kuwait. Bush Sr. did a good
job in bringing that to the Security Council and getting the use of
force approved. It has done some work on the war on terror and has
worked in Afghanistan. Has been helpful in Lebanon. UN's work to
help with HIV virus has been good.
The Vice-President of the YPU asks what short term changes the
Ambassador expects. Would some nations stop contributing or leave?
Bolton expects that it would give us flexibility. If we find some good
programs, we would even give more than 22%. Japan gives 19% and
isn't even a permanent member.
The Director of Campus Relations points out that in every other sphere
of global politics, we're more influential...
Bolton asks if the DCR has a problem with this?
The DCR finally gets to his question. Is there something wrong with
having just ONE organization where we all have an equal seat at the
table?
Bolton says that the question isn't about having a seat at the table.
The General Assembly is concerned with that. The real question is
about effectiveness. Doesn't see inconsistency. If other countries
want organizations without the US, they can go ahead and make them.
Mr. Ross Kennedy-Shaffer asks if it isn't hypocritical to ask the UN
to condemn nukes, when the US has nukes.
Bolton doesn't think it's inconsistent. The US nuclear umbrella
has given us peace. Deterrence helped us bring down communism in
Soviet Union. What we have said is that proliferation poses a risk to
everyone, weapons might fall into terrorists' hands. Many countries
had biological weapons. Nixon said that the US would unilaterally get
out of the business of biological weapons. Bush Sr. led campaign to
eliminate chemical weapons. The US has taken steps to reduce nukes.
Bush and Putin have agreed to a 2/3 reduction. It is important to keep
weapons out of hands of regimes that will use them and don't
understand consequences.
Mr. Kulkarni asks another question. Why can't other countries have
the same reasons that we do for having nukes?
Bolton responds by saying that those countries say that they just want
"civil nuclear power". They have decided that they will get
weapons, but they say that they're not interested in nuclear
proliferation. They don't want to admit what they really want them
for.
The Executive Director for Development suggests that North Korea
pursues nuclear weapons because we broke our agreement. Wants to know
what Bolton thinks about our credibility.
Bolton reminds the body that Clinton signed an agreed framework. North
Korea agreed to give up their nuclear program if the Clinton
administration would provide fuel power. South Korea and China would
also help with power. But, nuclear program was never related to
electrical power. The reactor was inspected. The appearance was that
North Korea was complying with framework. We now know that that was
not true. Be clear on who broke promises...North Korea didn't
comply.
Ms. Betsy Williams asks what the US is doing to end genocide in Sudan?
Bolton explains that he wasn't involved in that, but others that he
knew worked on it. Civil war was along religious lines. It seemed
like we achieved end of the civil war, but a new form of mass killing
began. Worked through series of Security Council resolutions.
Haven't performed in satisfactory fashion. Still working on it.
A gentleman asks what would happen if countries with contrary beliefs
to the US flood UN with money?
Bolton says that that is very hypothetical. China's regular budget
share is 2%. If other countries wanted to give more, we would accept
that. But, we can still deal with different effects...each person
would emphasize on what they cared about.
Mr. Jamie Kirchick asks about the membership of Japan and the size of
the Security Council.
Bolton asks how much bigger the Security Council can be and still be
effective? Originally, council was supposed to be just 9 members. Now
it's 15, which is a substantial growth. Some want 4 more permanent
members.
Another gentleman proposes that the US has done nothing about African
genocide.
Bolton says that it is not true that we haven't done anything.
We're not satisfied with current performance. Unless we act
unilaterally, we have to get other countries' support. It's still
a priority.
The Chairman of the Conservative Party wants Bolton to elaborate on the
shift in the purpose of the UN over time.
Bolton says that the clear intention of the framers was to have an
effective instrument to scourge wars. Hasn't really done that.
Effectiveness has been undercut by countries that don't share
fundamental values. Framers had the example of the League of Nations,
which was ineffective. The UN falls prey to same inability.
Ms. Sophie Brill asks how voluntary contributions will lead to the
achievement of goals.
Bolton says that organizations that have voluntary funding have
historically been more effective. Suggests that funding mechanism has
something to do with effectiveness. Until that happens, our paying so
much for so little is not really the right way to go.
A gentleman asks how the US should be held accountable for human rights
violations at Abu Ghraib.
Bolton responds that we should hold ourselves accountable. No one has
a higher standard of human rights. We'll hold our citizens
accountable when they violate laws. Our military is trained better
than anyone else's.
A lady asks how reform would be done to have greater moral legitimacy
in UN?
Bolton wanted to make a new committee on human rights. Country that
was most opposed to that was China. Wants something better than what
we have now.
Mr. Michael Fernandez wants to know about UN support of Castro and
Chavez.
Bolton observes that Cuba's role is a sad and lonely role. They do
their best to be obstructionist. It looks like Venezuela wants to join
Cuba. They're embarrassing.
Another lady says that reforms have to pass through the General
Assembly. Many will be concerned with checks and balances. What kind
of checks and balances can we put on countries with power?
Bolton reminds the body that the record that we have with voluntary
contribution organizations is commendable. Has done a cost benefit
analysis of what works and what doesn't work. We want to put our
money where it will do good work. Some will disagree, but why should
we pay for so little?
Mr. George London asks if Sudan should hold their citizens accountable
to their laws and customs?
Bolton says that countries that aren't democracies don't meet our
standards. Fundamental point is that we have a system that allows for
participation. It's not perfect. It's different from
circumstances in non-democratic governments.
Mr. Sudipta Bandyopadhyay asked if Bolton has a preference between the
two bills regarding the cutting of funds.
Bolton prefers the bill that leaves the decision up to the Secretary of
State. The executive branch doesn't like to be bossed around by
Congress. No disagreement on underlying substance...debate is on how
this would happen. No problem with giving Condolezza Rice discretion.
The President of the Yale Political Union moves that we thank
Ambassador Bolton for a fine speech on the floor of the Yale Political
Union.
The Speaker announces the reception that will be held in the Timothy
Dwight College Common Room.
The Chairman of the Conservative Party moves that we adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
Maria Gabriela Orochena
Secretary of the Yale Political Union