image from The Real World article from The Real World
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The article that follows records one of the ever growing number of examples of how international state players opposed to American interests are manipulating and playing Barack Obama. To date, the President is no match in the game.
The United Nations is a fully corrupted, anti-American organization that stalls or opposes virtually anything that the United States brings forward that would accrue to the benefit of not only our nation but legitimate democratic nations around the globe.
The bad actors amongst the international community know exactly how to play the UN game. Naive political idealists like Obama have no chance to makeover such a failed institution into a force for the benefit of those who need it's support. Yet he wastes his political capital along with American power on an organization that is no longer meaningful or relevant.
The fact is that the UN has morphed into less of a force for good and more of a vehicle for malfeasance and unsavory agenda driven outcomes. The forces of evil are far more influential there on the shores of the Hudson than the interests of the greater good.
Obama is stuck in 1960's doctrine relative to the usefulness of such an awful institution. He cannot reinvent it and it will not respond positively to any American advocacy. The President is lost as often is the case in foreign affairs.
North Korea, Iran, Russia, China and a host of others will smile in his face while urinating on his shoes. Obama and his team are Utopians who are being played by state realists. He will not succeed.
North Korea Crisis Tests Obama's Reliance on U.N.
By JOE LAURIA
UNITED NATIONS -- The Security Council stalemate over North Korea's rocket launch is turning into an early test of the Obama administration's U.N.-focused multilateralism.
Six days after U.S. President Barack Obama called for swift punishment of North Korea, the Security Council hasn't acted.
While Japan is pressing for a quick response, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice has tried to downplay expectations of immediate progress.
China and Russia have resisted a draft Security Council resolution, put forth by the U.S. and Japan, that would at a minimum enforce military and financial sanctions imposed on North Korea after its underground nuclear weapons test in October 2006.
The sanctions were never fully implemented in deference to six-party talks among Russia, China, the U.S., Japan and the two Koreas to dismantle Pyongyang's nuclear-weapons program. China and Russia say reviving the talks is the ultimate goal -- which shouldn't be jeopardized by punishment for the launch.
Pyongyang says its launch was an attempt to launch a satellite and not a U.N.-banned ballistic missile test as Washington contends. Before the launch, North Korea warned it wouldn't resume the six-party talks -- on hold since December -- if the Security Council acts against the country.
Japan's foreign minister arrived in New York on Thursday, saying he will join the U.N. negotiations for as long as necessary to break the stalemate.
For Mr. Obama, who pledged renewed reliance on the U.N. during his presidential campaign, the North Korean crisis presents hard choices, analysts say.
Among the possible scenarios they suggest are walking away from the U.N. and six-party talks, and working with Congress to punish North Korea with more U.S.-only sanctions. Or, President Obama might consider forcing Russia and China to veto or abstain on a resolution -- and risk Pyongyang abandoning negotiations. The president also could compromise with a watered-down U.N. statement that could save the talks but lose face.
U.S. officials declined to comment on the administration's thinking or on details of U.N. talks with Russia and China.
Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, a liberal think tank, said Mr. Obama's foreign-policy team had "no illusions about how long this would take" with Russia and China. "They are looking for sustained collective action, not an immediate slap on the wrist," he said.
Ted Galen Carpenter, an analyst at the conservative Cato Institute, sees U.S. foreign policy reverting to "the style of the Clinton administration," which believed in operating multilaterally when possible and unilaterally when necessary. "For the Bush administration it was exactly the opposite," he added.
Bush-administration unilateralists, some analysts say, regarded the U.N. as an obstacle to American foreign policy.
Although thwarted in seeking U.N. backing for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration proceeded anyway. But on North Korea, Bush officials went from a rejection of the six-party talks to a decision that multilateral participation was the only way to end Pyongyang's nuclear-weapons ambition.
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Click to read the article and comments
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment