Clinton defends the U.N.: ‘If we didn’t have a United Nations, we’d have to invent one.’
Clinton defends the U.N.: ‘If we didn’t have a United Nations, we’d have to invent one.’
Earlier today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the Model U.N. Conference and offered a strong defense of the United Nations and the role it plays. The organization has long been a bogeyman of right-wing conspiracy theories, often championed by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, frequently involving climate change policy and the “threat” of global governance (which is often confused with global government). In response, Clinton explained:
CLINTON: If we didn’t have a United Nations, we’d have to invent one. On issues like piracy or the H1N1 flu virus, we have to work together and we do so through organizations that are formed by, run by, or associated with the United Nations. That’s why it was important when the United Nations was created back in 1945 here in the U.S. that people admitted that we can’t solve all the problems on their own. No nation, even one as powerful as ours, is able to do that.
Clinton concluded by urging the conference attendees to learn to practice “smart power” during the Model U.N. process by “listening to the other side even if you think in the beginning they have nothing that you will agree with.” Watch it:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Mrs Clinton should have added : “The GOP views the UN as a joke ; have they actually noticed their own behavior these last 3 decades ????”
May 11th, 2009 at 11:59 amThis is just semantics. Global governance is Global government.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:04 pmStill, the UN didnt help matters by allowing Arbusto Cowboy to go into Iraq for fictional weapons of mass destruction.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:05 pmClinton defends the U.N.: ‘If we didn’t have a United Nations, we’d have to invent one.’
– - John Bolton: “But leave off the top 10 floors of the building.”
May 11th, 2009 at 12:06 pmHow can the U.S. be the giant slab of country club our founders envisioned if we’re working with brown-skinned people and Obama’s country of birth, Kenya?
/snarky
May 11th, 2009 at 12:06 pmOH NO! Hellary Clinton is bowing to the New World Order! Blue Helmet Alert! Blue Helmet Alert! Another storm is brewing! Get the ammunition! Get the teabags! Call 9/11! NO!! 9-1-1! I think I’m having a heart attack! Damn liberals!
May 11th, 2009 at 12:06 pmthank you, hillary…
and that pink, at the UN – fantastic!
thanks for that too!
May 11th, 2009 at 12:07 pmWait, I thought the Bilderbergers were the NWO..man, the wangers cant even get their conspiracies straight.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:09 pmI recall Bill Clinton once saying that he’s like to be Secretary General of the U.N. Now seems like a good time! It would be interesting to see what he could do there.
PEACE
May 11th, 2009 at 12:15 pmNow if Hilary would just have a nice sit down meeting with her boss and explain exactly why the US needs to clean it’s own house on this war crimes issue. It has to be really hard for a Secretary of State to have meetings with other countries and try to explain why they should believe we actually mean anything we say to the rest of the world when we allow war criminals free media time to brag about their crimes.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:17 pmRepublicans have a different idea for a world body, a de-regulatory partnership called the United Neanderthals.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:17 pmspencers mom Says:
I recall Bill Clinton once saying that he’s like to be Secretary General of the U.N. Now seems like a good time! It would be interesting to see what he could do there.
Or whom…
/I keed, I keed.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:17 pm.
Dear Radical Republicans,
If it weren’t for the U.N. George W. Bush wouldn’t have grounds for his invasion of Iraq.
p.s.
Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, whose false claims that Saddam had biological weapons aided Bush’s invasion, has died
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/ibn-al-shaykh-al-libi-whose-false-claim
XXOO
America.
.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:18 pmThe GOPers distain for the UN is legendary. The fact Georgie boy put in Mike Bolton send a clear message.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:20 pmP.D. Says:
The GOPers distain for the UN is legendary. The fact Georgie boy put in Mike Bolton send a clear message.
Actually, it was John Bolton. But Michael Bolten would have been just as effective, and far less offensive, even if he did start singing.
PEACE
May 11th, 2009 at 12:22 pmThe biggest problem is that people have a fundamental lack of knowledge about the purpose of the UN. They were originally founded as a way to get nations to speak to one another and act together to find peaceful solutions to the world’s problems.
Too many think the UN is a blunt weapon that should use its member’s authority to bludgeon anyone doing something certain nations don’t like. It doesn’t work that way. For better or worse, the UN doesn’t EXIST to respond with acts of violence or aggression against anyone it doesn’t like, regardless of what that other group may be doing.
People can agree or disagree if this is a good way to act to bring change. However, it is absolutely ridiculous for people to get mad at the UN for not authorizing force or war or physically spanking anyone they don’t like for whatever the political reason of the week may be.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:25 pmI think at this point it’s important to make the distinction between the UN, and the UN Security Counsel, which is a real den of opportunistic vipers.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:27 pmspencers mom@15, LOL! You’re right. How could I every got those two mixed up? Maybe I was blinded by the mustache.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:29 pmHISSSS. If I could disband the Security Council, I would. But the Republicans would probably defend it, if push came to shove, because the veto lets them get away with murder.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:46 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
Ever since the U.N. was created in 1945, the United States has been its biggest contributor. The United States currently contributes 22 percent of the U.N.’s regular budget. In contrast, France contributes 6.4 percent, Britain 5.54 percent, China 1.53 percent, and Russia 1.2 percent. This needs to change.
Since the US has been the most vocal proponent of UN values, why? Not that it wouldn’t be great to see the rest of the world pony up more support and cash.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:50 pmLets see. 22% of 4.19 billion dollars is? Barely significant.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:51 pmOnce the UN gave their first Veto to a country they became a joke. how can you regulate a country that has veto power?
May 11th, 2009 at 12:52 pmThis is your objection to the UN?
Bookkeeping?
BTW, how much of our contribution to the UN is in arrears?
For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.
U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:53 pmOr, CFP, are you complaining that because the US puts in 22% they should be able to get UN blessing for invading countries the UN says don’t need to be invaded?
May 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm“The organization has long been a bogey man of right-wing conspiracy theories, often championed by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, frequently involving climate change policy and the “threat” of global governance (which is often confused with global government)”
Jesus Christ Ryan. Do you think I’m that stupid?
Global governance and global government is almost the same thing lol. Its just that the world is not ready for the NEW WORLD ORDER yet. So small steps have to be made in that direction.
And the U.N. Is WEAK. So the UN’s founder (The U.S.) has to support it and its goals.
Maybe if the Neo Con’s at CAP focused on educating the people on why global government might be a good thing instead trying to run game on people, you would have less skeptical critics.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pmHmmm. According to the same Wiki entry the troll quoted; “other member nations”, those outside the top 15, contribute 19.19% of the UN budget.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:55 pmralph the wonder locust Says: For a number of years, the U.S. Congress refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes
Says it better.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:56 pm” . . liberal internationalism, which posits that a global system of stable liberal democracies would be less prone to war.” Despite America being a stable democracy, Bush/Cheney, even prior to the inception of their administration, had every intention to proclaim war on Iraq. So in reality what this states, is that those ’stable’ democracies are totally counterbalanced by those elected to lead them. And since the stupid people of our country [twice] elected these two-bit cowboys to lead us, America was not stable during their reign and certainly not a democracy!
John ‘Ogre’ Bolton was nominated to the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations by Bush. As a result of a Democratic filibuster, he was never CONFIRMED by the Senate and thus never obtained the official title of Ambassador.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:59 pmYou beat me to it, Ralph. We also tend to fall behind on our dues for the space station.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:01 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
Ever since the U.N. was created in 1945, the United States has been its biggest contributor. The United States currently contributes 22 percent of the U.N.’s regular budget. In contrast, France contributes 6.4 percent, Britain 5.54 percent, China 1.53 percent, and Russia 1.2 percent. This needs to change.
And the US compares to the other countries on a per capita and Gross National Income and debt basis how?
If one takes Canada’s contribution (2.81%) as an example and worked out a quick per capita comparison it turns out Canada should be only contributing 2.42%!
How is this possible? Well it turns out that there’s a cap in place now that the US has already hit.
So, as usual CFP you’re wrong! But I’m sure that won’t stop you from spouting more crap in the future!
The General Assembly approves the regular budget and determines the assessment for each member. This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each country to pay, as measured by their Gross National Income (GNI), with adjustments for external debt and low per capita income.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:12 pmtrevinla Says: Once the UN gave their first Veto to a country they became a joke. how can you regulate a country that has veto power?
Because sooner or later the whole world will have American/Europeanized governments. And the more veto rights you give out, the more democratic votes you have against a rogue state that doesn’t want to get with the program.
For example…
If all American backed democracies had a seat on the security council and China was to continue its support of Sudan’s Darfur situation while the rest of the council ostracized Sudan……..
It would give off the apperance of the world being against China’s actions.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:19 pmWhat? The countries with veto power on the S.C. are the U.S., the U.K., China, France, and Russia. The first five nuclear powers.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:26 pmPresident Wilson suggested the League of Nations that then with the help of Churchill and Roosevelt started the United Nations as with the Bush Administration and it’s wackos want it destroyed. Makes sence as Bush aka Cheney wanted to Rule the World alone. Hillary is right and others before her had the wisdom to know we are the World and as noted with Russia/US during the Cuban Missile Crisis we all lose in a Nuclear War. The United States is the only country that has used the Atom Bomb and we all saw the results. Like a Superbowel winning team everyone plays a part to victory.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:36 pmwiley Says: What? The countries with veto power on the S.C. are the U.S., the U.K., China, France, and Russia. The first five nuclear powers.
You don’t think countries like India will want more rights sooner or later?
May 11th, 2009 at 1:41 pmI don’t know. Talks of more members being added to the Security Council comes up like an old penny. If you ever hear talk about changing the veto rules, let me know.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:47 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
The only reason why reich-wingers hate the UN is because their hate radio masters tell them to do so.
I think it might be more that other countries are tired of what the hate radio types are spewing and would like a better chance at running things their own way.
Reich wingers hate the UN because the ‘little people’ want to have a voice.
May 11th, 2009 at 2:23 pmLittle brown people, especially.
May 11th, 2009 at 2:28 pmsesli chat
May 12th, 2009 at 9:18 amseslichat
sesli sohbet
seslisohbet