EURSOC [1] this morning, as noted by Glenn Reynolds.
The article by Canadian Collin May, brings new light to the discussion about was Jan Egeland attacking the US, specificly regarding being ‘stingy’.
Egeland’s comment also reflects a certain European view that contends that the state, and in this case a universal state, should be responsible for the welfare of humanity. Not surprisingly, this view is not shared by the United States, which looks far more to private and community-based actions to resolve social problems. Given this context, Egeland’s complaint was seen as most directly attacking the United States. And if you’ve worked in the UN/NGO community you’d know that this sort of assumption would not be wholly off the mark.
He also makes some mention of China being the dominant player in word affairs on the Pacific Rim:
China remains a dictatorship with a highly centralized authority. Now, this fact isn’t simply a function of the continuing communist regime. China has tended to strong central authority on the imperial model for centuries. This is unlikely to change, and though it can be drawn upon to fuel impressive economic growth, it can also hinder entrepreneurial innovation. Moreover, China remains unable to solve the Taiwan problem. A nation that is unable to control what it considers its own territory still has some work to do before it can rival America. And finally, China knows that a no-holds-barred approach to challenging the US would also mean a loss of access to lucrative American markets. To date, China is in no position to continue its economic miracle without that access.
I’d take that a step farther, by suggesting that clamping down on Taiwan, the way they would certainly like to, would, I think also cause problems for the US/China relations and thereby affect the trading relationship that so much of the Chinese economy is based upon. They’re not likely to do anything to upset that balance.
May also point out tthat the UN may be getting the message.
The United Nations, which has long been a forum for anti-American, as well as anti-Israeli rhetoric, was being told to shape up or it would simply become as irrelevant in humanitarian affairs as it was in military ones. Apparently this is a message that was communicated to Annan by some high-profile friends of the UN, who have been warning him that the UN without American goodwill is nothing, and that the UN had better make some changes to get that good will back. So even this organization, one the French thought they might be able to use against the US during the Iraq war, was now finding itself having to adapt to the new realities of international affairs.
Amen. It’s about time that happened and a well done tothe President and his team for managing that situation as they did.
In any event, RTWT. A good read.