NY TIMES: Darkest Hour at U.N. For Richest Deadbeat (fwd)

1998-09-24 Thread Michael Gurstein

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 10:49:20 -0400
From: Tori Holt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NY TIMES: Darkest Hour at U.N. For Richest Deadbeat 

The New York Times 



September 21, 1998, Monday, Late Edition - Final 

Section A; Page 6; Column 1; Foreign Desk 


Darkest Hour at U.N. For Richest Deadbeat 


By BARBARA CROSSETTE 


UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 18 --In the annals of American relations with the
United Nations, supporters and critics of the organization broadly agree,
there has never been a more dismal moment than this. 


When President Clinton, personally tarnished by the Monica Lewinsky
scandal, speaks here on Monday, he will face an organization that is
likely to strip the United States of its General Assembly vote by the end
of this year for nonpayment of dues. Washington owes the organization
more than $1.5 billion. 


Mr. Clinton, the political heir to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman -- who
fought to create a strong United Nations and give it Washington's firm
bipartisan support -- is now viewed by many diplomats and officials here
as too weak or unwilling to battle a hostile Congress to preserve that
pivotal American role.  


And the United States is now without a chief representative to the
organization since the departure of Bill Richardson and  Republican
blocking of Richard C. Holbrooke's appointment as his successor. 


The organization's largest contributor is now Japan, which kept its dues
payments up to date despite a recession. What is helping keep the United
Nations afloat -- barely -- is that the Japanese, Europeans and some
developing countries have not been reimbursed for providing peacekeeping
troops, allowing the money to be applied instead to the operating budget. 


"People are furious -- our allies are furious," said Alvin P. Adams, a
former ambassador who is president of the United Nations Association of
the United States, an advocacy and research organization with chapters
around the country. 


Mr. Adams' organization, known as UNA-USA, recently announced poll
results showing that a growing percentage of Americans approve of the
United Nations and want the United States to pay its overdue assessments,
without conditions. Eighty percent of those polled opposed linking the
payments to anti-abortion restrictions on international family planning
groups, as Congress has done. 


In the UNA-USA survey, conducted Aug. 21 to 25 by Wirthlin Worldwide, 72
percent of 1,005 adults said it was "very important" that the United
States remain an active member of the United Nations, which they ranked
higher than NATO, the World Bank and the World Health Organization.
Seventy-three percent said Washington should pay its dues. 


Sixty percent of those surveyed also said the United Nations was doing a
good job, the highest rating UNA-USA has seen in a variety of polls since
1959. Contrary to what some members of Congress and the Clinton
Administration believe, the poll found that many Americans say that they
would take attitudes toward the United Nations into account when voting
for

members of Congress, although this would not be a major factor. 


"These polls have taken a jump in public opinion since we took our last
poll two years ago," said John C. Whitehead, a former Deputy Secretary of
State and chairman of UNA-USA. Speaking at a news conference here on
Thursday, Mr. Whitehead said there has long been a "some kind of
disconnect between public opinion on the United Nations and the voting
record of Congress, at least in recent years." 


The new poll also found a much higher approval rating for Secretary
General Kofi Annan -- although 25 percent of those polled had never heard
of him -- than a similar poll in late 1995 found for his predecessor,
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whose name had become the butt of Republican
ridicule. Mr.  Annan's performance was given a 53 percent approval rating
compared with Mr. Boutros-Ghali's 30 percent. 


Mr. Adams said Mr. Annan's political skills and personable approach to
Americans is probably helping improve the image of the United Nations in
the United States. 


"He's has a sense of the politics of the public that it's hard to think
of any other Secretary General who's had that," Mr. Adams said in an
interview. "Some of the good movement in public opinion about the U.N. is
due to the fact that there is a face now, a face that is warm and
approachable, and people identify with him." 


But even Mr. Annan has become disillusioned with Washington, as
protestations of support for the United Nations in the Administration and
Congress fail repeatedly to turn into tangible support. 


In order to avoid losing its General Assembly vote, the United States
will have to pay about $200 million by Dec. 31. But even if Congress,
which is locked in a confrontation with President Clinton over an
anti-abortion amendment to legislation, is able to authorize the money in
the current session, dozens of conditions, some requiring Administr

Re: Krugman's article (fwd)

1998-09-24 Thread Michael Gurstein


-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:23:32 -0700
From: Curtiss Priest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Telecomm Policy Roundtable - Northeast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Krugman's article

Krugman's article is certainly a must-read.

It is this following paragraph which is particularly compelling --

Krugman is saying why the policy makers (mainly economists) were not
practicing good economics with regard to the growing overseas problems:

  Why? Because, from the beginning, Washington's preoccupation has been
  not economic fundamentals but market confidence. And what does it take
  to restore confidence? Policies that may not make sense in and of
  themselves but that policymakers believe will appeal to the
  prejudices of investors--or, in some cases, that they believe will
  appeal to what investors believe are the prejudices of their
colleagues.

[from
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/magazines/tnr/current/krugman100598.html]

..
   W. Curtiss Priest, Director, CITS
  Center for Information, Technology & Society
 466 Pleasant St., Melrose, MA  02176
   Voice: 781-662-4044  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Fax: 781-662-6882 WWW: http://www.eff.org/pub/Groups/CITS





Re: rights/responsibilities

1998-09-24 Thread Steve Kurtz

Greetings,

I received one response off list which I will share with you. The author
wishes to remain anonymous, having insufficient time to engage in ongoing
discussions.

Steve Kurtz
-

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your posting Re: rights/responsibilities.

> >  ( by the way, I see this as the
> > implied question, Does or should everyone have to work?)

Yes, I agree with your definition; "work as required human actions".
my answer is also YES.

You said:
> A passive, vegetative human cannot survive for many days independently; 
> so someone's work is required for existence. Eating and breathing are 
> not work in isolation, but normally work is required for 
> sustenance/survival. 

It is true. The vegetative people are not responsible and thus no vision
for the future except an empty theory which cannot be proved because
they are not practical.

You said:
> I indicated that work necessitated those qualities, but not the reverse.

Right again. Work necessitated at least a strong will power to hold
oneself together to be diciplined and being serious (not in talking but
in doing).

> > Thomas said:
> > 
> > The key word here seems to be "responsibilities" and the implied question
> > is, "How, without renumeration could we expect members of society to work?"

You said: 
> The "remuneration" is what I called "rewards" - "community acceptance 
> and solidarity"

I think, gaining friend(s) is one of the rewards. Work, attitude and
non-arogance manner yield friends; which results in yielding 'community
acceptance and solidarity'. Without responsible attitude, friends break 
ties and community doesn't vote for those.

You said:
> Since the act of work has its own intentionality, that is reason enough!
> Value lies in the eye of the beholder. If the community doesn't value your
> acts, you have acted independently of communitarian responsibilities. 

Agree. 

> > Thomas said:
> > 
> > However, what should the community expect from everyone as cooperative
> > members?  How about expecting them to feel secure and trusting.

I shall answer this in away that "why should not the community expect
everyone as cooperative members". Otherwise the term "the community" do
not have to exist! How could one be trusted if he/she does prove
non-cooperative in the community? 

You said:
> That is a great idea. The community can decide, if excess resources (not
> only currency/credits) permit human actions (work)to provide the time,
> place and teachers. But the community decides, not you or I. 
> Best case scenarios are always attractive.
Yes, the community decides! thus we should be cooperative. 

> > "Why can't everyone be perfect" is the implied question here. 
> 
> No. Why can't behavior be encouraged that moves *closer* to a best case
> scenario?

Good. The behavioral change from less responsible to more responsible is
badly needed. Responsibilities to the future benefit everyone. The
Future of Work should include working towards the Future Common Good.  

This comment is good too.
> In a way, your "here to experience" reminds me of the Beatles' song 
> "All You Need Is Love".
This "here to experience" against the Buddhist philosophy of "here to
correct ourselves earnestly and to improve ourselves all time at every
second!".

Sincerely,