The Economist carries an interesting report to the effect that some senior UN officials are now less hostile to John Bolton's appointment than they were at first; and that there's been a similar reassessment 'in some American circles' of the prospect of UN reform:
Now that the [UN] panel has come up with relatively bold ideas (at least by UN standards) and Mr Annan has embraced them, America no longer seems quite so hostile.Against that background the report continues:
Mr Annan wants his proposals to be treated as a single package, not an "à la carte" menu. His new chief-of-staff, Mark Malloch Brown, claims it has "something in it for everyone... but it's also got some things in it that everybody will be mad about." For instance, many third-world countries dislike the idea of the UN having a new "responsibility" to intervene to protect civilians from genocide or other atrocities; Mr Annan is betting that developing countries will swallow this violation of their sovereignty in exchange for rich countries agreeing (again) to jack up their spending on development aid to 0.7% of their national incomes, with the aim of halving extreme poverty by 2015.It's brilliant in its clarity: 'dislike the idea of the UN having a new "responsibility" to intervene to protect civilians from genocide or other atrocities'... a 'violation of their sovereignty'. It rather reminds me of the following from O Brother, Where Art Thou?:
These boys, this very evening, interfered with a lynch mob in the performance of its duties... They trampled all over our venerated observances and rituals.It also shows why international law should not be made a fetish of; this is a field of contestation, and a place, one may hope, of progressive development. (In a related connection, this.)
(Hat tip: BJ / MS.)