Global Policy Forum

US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton proposed that member states pay only for the UN programs that they support. The Globalist article criticizes this "pay-what-you-wish" proposal, which could turn the UN system into a "Darwinian jungle" where only the fittest survive. This "cut and gut" proposal could also create resentment and animosity within the UN towards Washington, further isolating the US government.

At the UN Climate Conference in Montreal, Canada, more than 180 countries worked towards an agreement on the second stage of the Kyoto Protocol. This article from The Independent reveals that, meanwhile, the US organized a "behind-the-scenes plan," aimed to draw together international corporations, think-tanks and academics to influence and "destroy" support for the climate change treaty.

This Inter Press Service article criticizes US ambivalence towards international treaties. Washington refuses to sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the treaty on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, among others. The article argues that the US stance and its indifference towards these treaties are damaging its already "tarnished image" and make it seem like a "rogue state."

The US approached the World Summit with diffidence because the Summit sought to strengthen the UN's future capacity. Washington was not concerned with the UN's "structural deficiencies" but rather with allegations of corruption in the oil-for-food programme. The author suggests that the US does not want the UN strengthened and it wants any reform to be only on their terms. The US would rather "de-fang the beast, not give it more bite." (International Spectator)

US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton pressures the UN on the issue of management reform as a means to achieve Washington's "political ends." Critical of these US-backed reforms, the Group of 77 argue that the Bush administration wants the organization to "be run like a US corporation." However, as an international body the UN "cannot be run according to the dictates of a single country," Executive Director of Global Policy Forum, James Paul comments. (Inter Press Service)

US Ambassador John Bolton has once again emerged as a controversial actor in the realm of UN reform. While pushing for what he calls "management reform" in the Secretariat, Bolton threatened that if Washington does not gets its way, the US will no longer turn to the UN for its international policy needs. The Group of 77 and other developing countries are fed up with Washington's current and historical bullying at the UN, and are thus resisting the US-backed reforms more on principle than on substance. (New York Times)

Former US President Jimmy Carter expresses his concerns about Washington's policy of "preemptive war," unilateralism, and disregard for international law. Carter argues that the US government undermines basic human rights, respect for national autonomy and international conventions on nuclear arms control and the treatment of terror suspects. Carter interprets these policies as an effort by the Bush administration to exert "imperial dominance throughout the world." (Los Angeles Times)

"Reform is not really on the minds of many reform mongers," argues this Los Angeles Times op-ed. Instead, many proponents of UN reform, especially US politicians, would only be satisfied if the UN were to completely submit to the will of the US. In reality, a lot of the alleged "bureaucracy" at the UN is the product of the organization's unique diversity. The decision-making processes at the UN, in which individuals from 191 countries strive for respectful cooperation, should be praised, not "reformed."

A film by a freelance photojournalist depicts US soldiers burning two Taliban bodies in Kandahar, Afghanistan. While cremation is against Islamic traditions, the act of burning corpses also violates the Geneva Conventions, which requires that an "enemy dead should be honorably interred." The article warns that the Muslim world might interpret this "humiliating" footage as evidence of US holding Islam "in contempt." (Independent)

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its director, Mohamed ElBaradei, won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to limit the spread of atomic weapons. ElBaradei, long at odds with the Bush administration's policies on Iraq, more recently has argued against US policies in Iran. ElBaradei also criticizes the double standards over nuclear weaponry. While some governments say it is "morally reprehensible" for others to pursue weapons of mass destruction, they defend their own weapons as "morally acceptable." (truthout)

Despite US conservatives' statements to the contrary, and the fact that many nations and NGOs expressed disappointment in the Millennium+5 outcome document, the 2005 World Summit was not a "make or break" moment for the United Nations. It was, however, an illustration of the brazenness and danger of US unilateralism. Nonetheless, "the United Nations will survive – because most of its members, and indeed most of the world's people, want it to." (openDemocracy)

US conservative and former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich weighs in on the UN reform debate. Gingrich makes no bones about the US strategy of pursuing "a fundamentally limited institution," saying "failure…can be an option for the UN." (Boston Globe)

"Why is the Bush administration seemingly hurtling toward confrontation with the rest of the world in the lead-up to the World Summit in New York (…)?," asks the Christian Science Monitor. As the UN "has very little independent existence of its own, and can only ever be as strong as the commitment it gets from its members," many states fear that Washington's obstinacy will undermine rather than strengthen the world body and result in "increased insecurity of everyone in the world."

"The increasingly brazen unilateralism of the United States" leads to greater human insecurity at the global level, the Executive Director of Focus on the Global South Walden Bello argues. The US invasion of Iraq, its unlawful treatment of "enemy combatants," and its increasing demands to access "markets of the developing countries to dump subsidized commodities" are threatening developments that make the US "the key destabilizer" of the global system. Bello insists that Secretary General Kofi Annan's report 'In Larger Freedom' should emphasize these developments.

US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton intends to remove nuclear disarmament from the outcome draft document for the UN Summit in September 2005. This move to change the international framework on non-proliferation, is "part of the US's increasingly aggressive foreign policy," the Guardian article argues. Bolton's action is also a "hypocritical" attempt, which "legitimizes the possession of nuclear weapons by existing nuclear states," while preventing others from acquiring them.

US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton demanded 750 amendments to the draft outcome document for the UN Summit in September 2005. The US seeks to remove all references to the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, and any suggestion that the nuclear powers should dismantle their arsenals. These radical changes show that Bolton "throws preparations for the summit into turmoil," and is "far from being coy or cautious" in his relations with the UN. (Independent)

One week after disrupting the editing process by suggesting the UN draft outcome document should be edited line-by-line, US Ambassador John Bolton circulated a letter stating that "time is short," and urging that the declaration be completed in time for the Millennium+5 Summit. These actions, and his recommendation to scrap more than 400 passages in the draft declaration, have led many countries and NGOs to speculate that the US is attempting to sabotage the reform process. (New York Times)

US President George Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other administration officials have stressed the importance of transforming the United Nations into an effective 21st century institution. However, the appointment of John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN and the approval of the Hyde UN Reform Act by the House of Representatives threaten to undermine these reform efforts. The Hyde Act mandates cutting 50% of US dues to the UN unless the UN implements 39 reforms detailed in the Act by 2007. If the US wants to play an active role in retooling the UN into a "stronger" institution, is appointing an ambassador with a long history of "no carrots" diplomacy and withholding US dues to the UN the right way to go? (TomPaine)

A number of diplomats speaking on the condition of anonymity expressed unhappiness with the United States' decision to scrap much of a draft plan for UN reform. The US move to "seek major revisions and line-by-line negotiations" on the document is particularly untimely, given that delegations planned to approve the draft at September's General Assembly summit. Many diplomats also expressed dismay at the US agenda which, in contrast to the the plan presented in the reform draft, focuses on antiterrorism initiatives at the expense of development policy. (Reuters)

The International Court of Justice states that under humanitarian law, countries must "never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets." However, the US's unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and its use of nuclear weapons in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq show that the US continues to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. In addition, since Washington insists on the use of depleted uranium, it "threatens to commit even greater crimes in the future with its new weapons." (truthout)

US President George W. Bush used the Senate's summer recess to appoint John Bolton as the new US ambassador to the UN. His appointment is yet another demonstration of the White House's hostile attitude towards the UN: as Bolton once stated, "there is no United Nations. When the United States leads, the United Nations will follow. When it suits our interest to do so, we will do so. When it does not suit our interests we will not." (Institute for Policy Studies)

The US may soon resume the production of a new type of antipersonnel land mine called the "Spider." In 1996, President Clinton stated that the US would "seek a worldwide agreement to end the use of all antipersonnel mines" and that it would sign the Ottawa Convention, which bans the use, production, exporting, and stockpiling of antipersonnel land mines. However, the Bush administration has reversed this policy. The US will not join the Convention, and it does not intend to give up a "needed military capability." Given the vast international support for the banning of antipersonnel land mines, the production of these weapons will be a "massive step backwards for the US in terms of making any good will." (Inter Press Service)

Former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali identifies excessive UN dependence on the US as a major obstacle to the world body's reform. He expresses hope that a coalition of developing countries and progressive developed nations will pioneer the necessary changes and thwart US unilateralism. (Daily Star)

The Washington Post discusses the appointment of several prominent Bush administration supporters to top posts in the United Nations. Many observers find it hard to believe that US officials such as Christopher B. Burnham and Ann M. Veneman will put the interests of the organization first. UN management chief Burnham has indicated he sees his "primary loyalty" as to the US rather than the UN, and since moving to UNICEF Veneman has "sidestepped" progress on issues the White House dislikes, such as children's rights. Both are backed by the Republican party currently attacking the UN on multiple fronts.

Washington insists that the UN take action on five key reforms – including a change in the organization's budget system to increase US leverage – before the Bush administration will discuss Security Council expansion. The move is likely to hinder Kofi Annan's reform process, though some supporters believe that linking Security Council expansion to other changes will speed up the reforms. (Los Angeles Times)

The Associated Press reports that US President George W. Bush's nominee as UN ambassador, John Bolton, forced the removal of Jose Bustani, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in 2002. Once Bustani proposed to send inspectors from his global arms agency to Iraq, which threatened the US case for war - Bolton first gave him a "menacing" phone call and then had him removed in a process ruled "unlawful" by a UN tribunal.

As demonstrated by opposition to the International Criminal Court, disregard for the Red Cross in Iraq, indefinite detention of Guantanamo detainees and prisoner abuse, "the US government has long regarded its observance of international humanitarian law as optional, at best." Despite US efforts to "buy influence," disrespect for the law has sparked violence and caused worldwide opinion of the US to plummet. (AlertNet)

With increasing opposition to US foreign policies both within and outside the US, Washington's "global leadership" is experiencing a crisis, says this Foreign Policy In Focus article. Contrary to the Bush administration's policies, a majority of US citizens want the UN to assume a more powerful role in international affairs.

In 1973, world nuclear powers Russia, China, France, Britain and the US agreed with non-weapons states to stop nuclear proliferation. But 35 years later, the US has avoided global treaties on nuclear test-bans and anti-ballistic missiles, called for pre-emptive nuclear strikes, and "routinely cast doubt on the value of negotiating global treaties at all." This AlterNet editorial warns that "when it comes to nuclear proliferation and eroding international controls, the biggest bully on the block right now is in Washington."

Despite Uzbekistan's human rights record, a "litany of horrors" according to this New York Times article, the US has used the country as a "partner in fighting global terrorism." The US has given the Uzbek government millions of dollars for aid and security and received a military base on its territory in return. While Washington publicly denounces torture, several sources also report that Uzbek officials routinely torture and mistreat prisoners sent to them through the CIA's rendition program.

This Toronto Star op-ed denounces the US right's "smear" campaign against UN Secretary General Kofi Annan for alleged connections to the UN oil-for-food scandal. Acknowledging "serious problems" with the scandal itself, the author turns to the comments of US Ambassador John Bolton to demonstrate how the neo-con "desire for a muscular U.S., free to assert its power unchecked," clashes with the UN's multilateral nature and hinders the "civilized world."

In this Guardian op-ed, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook reflects on Kofi Annan's UN reform proposals and describes how Washington neo-conservatives continue to undermine any positive change at the world organization. He labels the US's unilateralist position as "the solid concrete roadblock in the path of the Annan reforms" and defends the Secretary General against the "breathtaking hypocrisy" of US vilification over the oil-for-food scandal. Cook sees John Bolton's nomination as US ambassador to the UN as another example of Washington's "strategy of sabotage."

In this Miami Herald opinion piece, former US President Jimmy Carter outlines several tasks for the US government to prevent further "erosion" of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Carter chides the Bush administration for "claiming to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea" while continuing to develop US weapons capabilities, and warns that the US must recognize how Israel's nuclear status pressures Middle Eastern states to up their capabilities as well.

The US State Department's "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy" report, a follow-up to its report on human rights conditions abroad, claimed that democracy had advanced in such countries as Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. But Amnesty International and other human rights groups avoided praise, saying instead that "US moral authority was undermined" by the report's ignorance of abuses committed by US forces. This article also notes the irony of the US government's recent fighter jet sale to Pakistan, one of the countries criticized in the report. (OneWorld US)

US administrations (Republican and Democrat alike) have usually "gotten their way" at the United Nations, and the US should support the UN for undertaking peacekeeping and disaster relief, reforming at the request of the US, and working to fix internal problems. Yet the Bush administration has increasingly displayed "hostility" towards the UN, culminating in the appointment of John Bolton as US ambassador. This National Catholic Reporter article chides the administration's disrespect for the world body and regrets that the US position will likely not change as long as Bush remains in office.

US Ambassador to the UN-designate John Bolton can be described as a neoconservative, anticommunist, militiarist, liberty defender, UN basher, anti-multilateralist, Republican loyalist, designated treaty breaker, and world's greatest Reaganite, according to this International Relations Center article. Author Tom Barry blasts Bolton's political and personal history, concluding that his "peace through strength" philosophy and his disregard of all things international—from international treaties to the United Nations—proves US President George Bush's determination to "forge ahead with the national strategy blueprint laid out for him."

A 1963 US-proposed protocol to the Vienna Convention handed authority to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over cases of jailed foreign citizens who contended they had been denied access to a diplomat. The US was the first country to employ the protocol, over the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. But the Bush administration has backed out of the agreement, saying it granted the ICJ power over the justice system that they "had not anticipated." Critics say the move could weaken citizens' protections in the US and abroad, and signal that the US will no longer "bow to the ICJ." (Washington Post)

The US has announced its withdrawal from an optional protocol that gives the International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisdiction to hear disputes involving foreign nationals sentenced to death in the US. Legal commentators have labeled the withdrawal as "counterproductive," "unbecoming" and an indication of the administration's "general hostility to international institutions." (New York Times)

The appointment of neocon John Bolton as the US ambassador to the UN demonstrates once again that US President George Bush's administration will continue to embrace unilateralism and disregard the world body. Bolton has often dismissed international law and openly attacked the UN—not just its policy changes, but rather the "very principles on which it stands." This Slate author warns that as the UN gains importance in the coming years, Bush will regret this controversial appointment.

At a 10-year anniversary conference on the status of women, US officials dashed delegates' hopes of reaffirming the 1995 declaration by refusing to sign a draft that includes the right to abortion. Though former US President Bill Clinton had endorsed the 1995 declaration, increasing US opposition to such initiatives demonstrates how President George Bush's "sweeping policy change[s]" are perhaps part of an effort to "score points with Bush supporters on the Christian right." (Guardian)

Since 9/11, the US and UK governments have sidestepped international law in favor of criticized aggressive policies. Though UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has faithfully followed US President George Bush through the post-9/11 terror wars, this Guardian author argues that economic expansion—especially when driven by military intimidation—cannot justify ignoring international law.

New School University's World Policy Institute Director Stephen Schlesinger argues that the US has "already gotten far more out of the UN than we have lost." The US has enjoyed enormous influence over the world body's policies and in return, the UN promotes security, prevents conflict and engages in complex transnational issues. Every US administration, says Schlesinger, eventually realizes that if not for the UN, "the US could well drift alone in a Hobbesian universe of temporary alliances." (Toronto Star)

President George Bush's "pledge to unleash ‘the force of freedom' on the entire world" is flippant at best, says this Guardian author as he points to flagrant violations. If truly interested in freedom, the US could reform Guantanamo and cut aid to Uzbekistan's "repressive regime." US relations with human rights violators show that Bush aims to "realign the rest of the world" to US interests by using concepts of tyranny, freedom and international law as "whatever the White House wants them to mean."

The Guardian asserts that the Bush administration and pro-Israeli groups were instrumental in blocking UN Relief and Works Agency head Peter Hansen's reappointment because he was "biased and soft on ‘terrorists.'" But Hansen, who condemned the Israeli government for destroying Palestinian homes and aiming fire at UN-run schools, says his "job was to represent refugees."

The slaughter of Darfur civilians by the Sudanese government and US-approved torture and prisoner abuse in Iraq, Guantanamo and Afghanistan constitute two of the worst human rights violations of 2004, says Human Rights Watch (HRW) in this press release on their 2005 World Report. HRW comes down hard on the world for inaction in Darfur and chides the "dominant and influential" US government for defying basic human rights, which "undermines the law itself and invites others to do the same."

"The reality is that the current calls for Annan's head are provoked by his opposition to America's pre-emptive war in Iraq," says The Nation's UN correspondent. The author also denounces the "creation" of the oil-for-food scandal as simply a way for US neoconservatives – who have been historically opposed to the United Nations – to push their own "reform" agenda to weaken "multilateral institutions and their role in the world."

Following UNESCO's efforts to develop a democratic governance system of global media to prevent large corporations from dominating the market, the US withdrew its membership from the organization in 1984. This article argues that the US decision in 2003 to rejoin UNESCO followed the organization's adjustment to US interests and idea of a neoliberal global information society. (University of Colorado)

The New York Times states that the US is "blocking" the release of the "UN Arab Human Development Report," fearing critical remarks about the Bush Administration. Portions of the report are said to contain statements condemning the invasion of Iraq. Meanwhile, the Times asserts that the report is a "clear-eyed critique of Arab governance."

In attempts to find incriminating evidence that International Atomic Energy Agency Chief El Baradei assisted Iran in managing "a diplomatic crisis over its nuclear programs," the US has tapped "dozens" of El Baradei's phone calls to Iranian diplomats. The Washington Post asserts that the US wishes to oust El Baradei from running the agency, although it lacks evidence of wrongdoing.

As US conservatives increasingly call for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's resignation over charges of corruption within the Oil-for-Food programme, the New York Times rejects criticism aimed directly at Annan that damages the credibility of the world body. The UN bureaucracy does not hold primary blame for allowing Saddam Hussein to accumulate substantial profits. Rather, the blame lies with Security Council members who knew of illegal trade agreements outside the program between Iraq and Jordan, Syria, and Turkey. The Times argues that Council members did not take up responsibility for overseeing the sanctions they imposed on Iraq.

This Foreign Affairs article draws upon several historical examples illustrating the relativity of US legitimacy. The US has traditionally bent international law in accordance to necessity, making its unilateral conduct a "chronic feature" of the country's foreign policy.

The US gets a slap in the face from the UN General Assembly (GA), which rejected three "US-inspired" resolutions the GA considers a "revolt" at the United Nations on human rights issues. Through its rejections, the GA clearly challenges the increasing influence of the Security Council and the power yielded by its five veto-wielding permanent members, who it considers the "chief arbiters" of human rights. (Inter Press Service)

In light of abuses perpetrated by US in the "war on terrorism," Belarus threatened to introduce a General Assembly resolution condemning US detention methods. Though the delegation withdrew the draft, the Belarus Ambassador said the intent was to expose Washington's double standard of justice. Critics warned against directed resolutions and no-action motions that "often purposefully exaggerated the situation of human rights in particular states in order to exert political pressure." (Inter Press Service)

This article suggests that the reputation of the US "is starting to fall apart piecemeal" by its constant failure to adhere to principles of international law with its "war on terror." This article encourages the US Bush administration to consider its second term as a "second chance" and an opportunity to respect the fundamental principles of human rights. (Cincinnati Post)

A Chicago Council on Foreign Relations survey reveals that the US public overwhelmingly supports US participation in international treaties that have been rejected by the Bush administration, including the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocol, and global initiatives to ban nuclear testing and anti-personnel land mines. The survey further showed that US leaders were surprised at the public's strong support of multilateralism.

Particularly since 1990, Washington has exerted great pressure on the UN to gain US policy goals. The Arab and Muslim world brands the UN's inability to "condemn and contain" US actions in this region as "the epitome of the world body's profound double standards." (Washington Post)

At the UN-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, the US announced its opposition to provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty to ban production of nuclear weapons materials. Arms control experts say the policy shift undermines efforts to convince states like India, Israel and Pakistan to accept oversight of their nuclear programs, and will make it easier for terrorists to acquire nuclear materials. (Sydney Morning Herald)

Although the White House claims to support the Law of the Sea Convention, it has made little effort to ratify the treaty. This article says that conservatives in the US Senate have "capsized" approval of the treaty as they oppose the US signing any more international agreements. (Chicago Tribune)

The author criticizes the weakness of current international law in allowing powerful nations to justify their controversial actions as humanitarian intervention. International law needs to develop a balance where permitting force would relieve the suffering of the oppressed people and not further the interests of powerful nations. (Guardian )

Human Rights Watch expresses concern at the inability of the UN Commission on Human Rights to expose serious cases of human rights violations in the world. The organization criticizes some governments for abusing their membership on the commission to block criticism of each other's human rights records.

The Bush administration has reversed a ten-year US policy to eliminate all antipersonnel landmines and join the Mine Ban Treaty in 2006. Instead Washington intends to use so-called "smart" mines (that deactivate following a prescribed period) indefinitely. Human Rights Watch says the US stands alone in believing in "a technological solution" to the global landmine problem.

The US Congress needs to amend environmental legislation before the US can ratify the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, effective from May 17, 2004. However green groups are concerned that proposed White House amendments to the environmental legislation could make it difficult to pass, thus jeopardizing prospects of US ratification and participation in convention conferences held early next year. (OneWorld)

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Padilla and Hamdi appeals, together with oral arguments concerning the justiciability of Guantanamo Bay cases, in April 2004. The cases are expected to have "profound and long-lasting implications for how power is apportioned between the executive and judicial branches, especially in a time of war." (New York Times)

This paper looks at the US role in international law from the end of World War II until after September 11. "American exceptionalism" has characterized the US approach to international law, as US leaders have supported international lawmaking and enforcement as long as it does not threaten US interests. (Middle East Report)

This paper looks at the US role in international law from the end of World War II until after September 11. "American exceptionalism" has characterized the US approach to international law, as US leaders have supported international lawmaking and enforcement as long as it does not threaten US interests. (Middle East Report)

A San Francisco appeals court disputed US President Bush's claim to have "unchecked authority" in dealing with prisoners at Guantanamo. The court pointed out that even in times of national emergency the judicial branch has to "prevent the executive branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike." (Australian)

In line with its exceptionalist policy Washington renounces the ICC treaty, withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, walked out of the World Conference Against Racism; and fails to adhere to the Geneva Conventions protecting prisoners of war. (Foreign Policy in Focus)

More than 50 civil liberties and social justice groups launch the new US Human Rights Network. They dedicate their work to raising awareness about international human rights standards and focus on the US failure to enforce them. (Inter Press Service)

Ending a 10 year-old ban, Washington has approved the development of new nuclear weapons. The US may plan underground nuclear testing, which would breach international law. At the same time, the US lobbies Iran, North Korea and others to abandon their nuclear plans. (Observer)

The US claims to teach democracy to the Iraqis but it violates human rights at its prison camp in Guantánamo, Cuba. (Common Dreams)

Pentagon adviser Richard Perle says the invasion of Iraq was not justified under international law, but he believes "international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." (Guardian)

US Deputy Secretary of State John R. Bolton says the International Criminal Court is "an organization that runs contrary to fundamental American precepts and basic Constitutional principles." The US seeks to persuade countries not to hand over US citizens to ICC jurisdiction. (Associated Press)

Looking closely at the arguments for war in Iraq and at the US doctrine of preventive war, Peter Weiss concludes that nuclear weapons provide an overwhelmingly fearful and imminent threat that rallies public support for aggressive military action. Unless we eliminate nuclear weapons, preventive war doctrine will proliferate, he argues, and with 35-40 nations capable of producing these weapons, further conflicts are likely.

International law insists on a collective rather than unilateral notion of justice, argues Professor Hilary Charlesworth. Disregarding international law in the case of Iraq makes it harder to refer to international legal standards in future cases. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense would have also allowed Iraq to attack the US. (National Press Club, Canberra)

Secretary General Kofi Annan downplayed the tense relationship between the US and the UN at a speech in Pennsylvania. But Annan again encouraged the US to assume the burden of responsibility in fostering international cooperation. (Pittsburgh Business Times)

The Red Cross denounces the unlimited detention of Guantánamo prisoners. The uncertainty of the situation results in clinical depression among prisoners, and even suicide attempts. Nevertheless, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the prisoners might be held throughout the "war on terrorism." (New York Times)

Amnesty International interprets the US denial of access to Guantánamo prisoners as a tacit assertion that indefinite detentions without charges or trial is acceptable. The organization poses 10 questions to the Bush administration on the legal rights and the health of the prisoners.

A lawsuit put together by several organizations will determine if the US violates both domestic and international law at the military camps at Guantanamo Bay and Bagram air base in Afghanistan. (Washington Post)

Washington plans to use nuclear weapons not only against countries with no nuclear capacity, but in pre-emptive strikes against countries that have not attacked the US. (Le Monde Diplomatique)

Boutros Boutros Ghali, the former Secretary-General of the UN, worries that the organization has become an extension of the US State Department. Only the reform and improvement of the Security Council will prove that "the US and the UN are not one and the same." (Guardian)

Ehsan Ahrari argues that renewed efforts by the Bush administration to secure Iraq peacekeeping troops from around the world signals a return to US multilaterialism. (Asia Times)

While over one hundred nations signed a UN treaty on rights for disabled people, the US abstained, claiming that its laws and standards should be the world model. However, disability activists argue that the US has consistently failed to protect the disabled. (TomPaine)

The Bush administration tossed aside notions of multilateral cooperation and international law when it pushed ahead with its war on Iraq, but as casualties mount and chaos spreads, the US may quietly look for help from the UN and allies. Professor Ali Khan wonders, "Is this how unilateralism ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper?" (JURIST)

Author William Blum critically reviews some of the Bush and Clinton administrations' economically interest-driven foreign policies. He pays special attention to the recent Iraq crisis and President Clinton's past connections with diamond interests in Sierra Leone. Blum concludes that the magnitude of US aggression separates it from past empires and puts it into a league of its own. (ZNet)

The Bush government has announced that two alleged terrorists, both British citizens, will stand before a military tribunal. Baroness Symons, a senior Foreign Office official states "it (the tribunals) isn't something that we would be able to do in this country." (OneWorld)

Amnesty International charges the US with using cruel interrogative tactics--such as forcing prisoners to kneel for several days with bags over their heads-- that violate the Geneva Convention. (Salon)

The US seems to be taking a new approach to humanitarian relief in post-war Iraq, favoring single command authority and unilateral action over multilateral cooperation with NGOs and UN agencies. The vice president for policy at Refugees International warns that the problematic new approach compromises not only relief efforts but also US credibility. (Foreign Policy in Focus)

Human Rights Watch demands that the US suspend trials of terror suspects until it brings its military commissions in line with international due process standards.

In a meeting on North Korea, the US pressured Security Council members to criticize the country for withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Diplomats explained China's exclusion from the meeting, stating that China had previously blocked Security Council action on the issue. (Washington Post)

The New York Times reports on the harsh conditions in the Guantanamo detention camp. In the 18 months since the camp opened, there have been 28 suicide attempts by 18 individuals.

The New York Times reports on the harsh conditions in the Guantanamo detention camp. In the 18 months since the camp opened, there have been 28 suicide attempts by 18 individuals.

Former UK Cabinet Minister Clare Short assesses US-UN relations in the wake of the Iraq conflict and September 11, arguing that global security can only be achieved through the UN. Furthermore, the contemptuous US attitude toward the world body will only feed terrorism. (BBC)

The White House has dismissed Amnesty International's concern on the Guantánamo Bay prison camp as "without merit." Washington argues that the uncharged, untried and unrepresented Guantánamo detainees are "terrorists" and "very dangerous people."

The Bush administration undermined the role of the UN by following a doctrine of preemption and a strategy of regime change in Iraq. Experts argue that the current disunity over Iraq highlights the perennial issue of Security Council reform. (Guardian)

The failure of the US to reach global consensus for a war on Iraq can result in difficulties for the superpower to secure control around the world. Its unilateral action also demonstrated the UN's incapability to enforce resolutions that bind powerful states to international law. (Yellow Times)

US military officials said the children held at Guantanamo Bay may finally be freed after 16 months of imprisonment. US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has previously said the under-16s are "not children" and could be dangerous. (Guardian)

A strong majority of the US public thinks the US should play "world policeman" less in the future, according to opinion polls. Moreover, 88% of people believe the US should have tried to gain Security Council authorization for war on Iraq, despite frequent attacks by the Bush administration and the media disparaging the UN process. (Asia Times)

The Australian Federal Police Commissioner suggests a special international tribunal that would only deal with terrorist suspects. He implied that many countries' criminal justice systems were ill-equipped to deal with the unique threat of terrorism but wished to avoid the problems of Guantanamo Bay where suspects are offered no legal recourse. (Sydney Morning Herald)

After two Afghan prisoners died in US custody, this article reviews treaties and customary international law prohibiting the use of torture. US officials have admitted that interrogators use "torture-lite" techniques such as sleep deprivation and forcing prisoners to kneel for hours wearing black hoods. (Crimes of War)

In a letter to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Human Rights Watch has expressed concern about children being held as prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. "These children are entitled to rehabilitation, not indefinite detention," said Jo Becker, child rights advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.

The US military has admitted that it holds children aged 16 years and younger for interrogation in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. "That the US sees nothing wrong with holding children at Guantanamo and interrogating them is a shocking indicator of how cavalier the Bush administration has become about respecting human rights," said an Amnesty International spokesman. (Guardian)

Most of the nearly 1500 resolutions passed by the UN Security Council since the founding of the organization have been honored or have become defunct. However no country has done more to endanger the authority of the UN Security Council and its enforcement mechanisms than has the US. (Aljazeera)

Every country is guaranteed its sovereignty under international law. But when the US asserts its power beyond its borders, is this an exercise of its sovereignty or a violation of the sovereignty of others? (CounterPunch)

While the US government is right to insist that Iraq must honor the Geneva Conventions, its position is weakened by its failure to practice what it preaches in Guantánamo Bay. (International Herald Tribune)

Afghani prisoners received brutal treatment and torture as suspected al Qaeda or Taliban fighters. "At Sherberghan life was inhuman, all the prisoners had diarrhea, some had tuberculosis, there was no food for days at a time and we were subjected to beatings and torture," says an Afghan released from US detention at Guantanamo. (Khilafah)

Prime Minister Tony Blair is attempting to persuade Washington about the significance of the UN, while officials in the Bush administration want to keep the UN out of a post-war Iraq. (Guardian)

Washington complains that displaying captured US soldiers on Iraqi TV breaches the Geneva Conventions. This sudden concern for international law does not apply to the US itself. The government feels free to wage an illegal war on Iraq and breach 15 articles of the Geneva Conventions by its treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo bay. (Guardian)

The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rules that US courts have no jurisdiction over prisoners held at Guantanamo bay. While international law requires that prisoners of war be held for a conflict's duration, the war on terror has no tangible end. The US administration exploits this loophole, holding "suspects" indefinitely. (Washington Post)

This New York Times article argues that the Bush administration and the US Supreme Court are damaging the US' reputation for fairness by refusing the Guantanamo prisoners their right to due process.

"Routine" interrogation techniques in al-Qaeda prison camps consist of covering suspects' heads with hoods and forcing them to stand or kneel in uncomfortable positions in extreme cold or heat. Other "acceptable" practices include sleep deprivation and the temporary withholding of food, water and medical attention. (New York Times)

Two prisoners have been beaten to death while being held for questioning at a US military base in Afghanistan. Former prisoners claim that detainees are kept naked, hooded and shackled and are deprived of sleep for several days. (Guardian)

Human Rights Watch calls on the US to release prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. The Geneva Conventions only permit detaining war prisoners beyond a war's conclusion for ‘imperative reasons of security' or after criminal prosecution. Many of the prisoners detained by the US satisfy neither of these requirements.

Lawyers believe that US interrogators use torture to extract information from the prisoners held in US military bases in Afghanistan. There is speculation that "torture lite" methods will be used on the captured al-Qaeda leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. (Guardian)

This Guardian article maintains that September 11 was an attack on morality. Who, on September 10 would have thought that Western media would soon talk about the pros and cons of using torture on captured "enemy combatants"?

Due to the fact that a majority of US citizens oppose a war on Iraq unless the UN authorizes the use of force, the Bush administration is attempting to discredit the world body in the eyes of public opinion. This article shows their main arguments followed by rebuttals. (Present Danger)

Powell is set to present "evidence" to the UN, some of which came from Al Qaeda prisoners. Allegations have been made that the US administration sees torture as a necessary tool to fight the war on terrorism. Human Rights Watch urges Mr. Powell to unequivocally denounce this practice before he delivers his speech.

This Human Rights Watch Article sets out the rights of war prisoners under international humanitarian law. This issue is discussed with particular reference to the conflict in Afghanistan and the US treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

The World Organisation Against Torture - the world's largest coalition of NGOs engaged in the fight against torture - is deeply concerned over how nations use torture in the "war against terror," either through their own security services or through those of states with poor human rights records.

A team of lawyers from France defending French prisoners at the US Guantánamo naval base plans to file a suit against the US government for illegally holding prisoners without charges and denying them access to counsel. The lawyers call the detentions "a clear violation of fundamental rights by the biggest democracy of the world." (Radio Netherlands)

The influential Human Rights Watch World Report 2003 blasts the United States for shirking its human rights commitments in the name of the war on terror. The report censures the US for detaining "enemy combatants" without charges, holding closed-door deportation hearings, and abusing prisoners in Guantánamo Bay in violation of the Geneva Conventions. (New York Times)

Over the past three decades, the US has used its veto power on forty occasions and blocked enforcement of dozens of other UN resolutions that would have censured Israel. Stephen Zunes states that the US Democrats and Republicans agree on one thing: When you are the world's sole remaining superpower, you decide whatever you want even if it comes at the cost of lives, world peace and justice. (Presentdanger)

Amnesty International calls on the US government to end the "legal limbo" in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, where more than 600 detainees are held. The prisoners have no access to courts, lawyers or relatives and face "the possibility of trials by executive military commissions with the power to hand down death sentences and no right of appeal."

This article calls on the United Nations to establish its own army. Such a move could only benefit the UN by diminishing the dependence of the organization on the US. (Daily Bruin)

The Nation argues that as people protest the US war against Iraq, they "are also fighting to retain an international order based on multilateralism, the rule of law and the United Nations itself." This article details how the US government has selectively used the UN to further its own interests since Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Although world opinion opposes the US position on Iraq, it seems that the US will continue to act according to its own rules. (Digital Freedom Network)

In a new report, the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House complains that the "US is frequently outmaneuvered and overmatched at the UN." The report recommends that the US improve its image by paying its dues on time and appointing ambassadors without delay. (New York Times)

The US should fight terrorism by participating in international organizations and multilateral treaties that advocate peace and social equality. Instead, Washington has chosen not to join the ICC, to withdraw from the ABM treaty, and not to ratify the land mines treaty, leaving the US in the company of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, Bush's "axis of evil." (Knight Ridder Tribune)

Asked about his opinion on US foreign policy, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan speaks about the American attitude – "one law for us, another for everybody else." (Washington Post)

If the US takes the law into its own hands, what is the future of international justice? The author suggests that other nations should diplomatically impede all US unilateral actions. Guardian

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed Sergio Vieira de Mello, a long-time UN diplomat, as High Commissioner for Human Rights. Vieira de Mello replaces former Irish president Mary Robinson, an outspoken defender of human rights, who stepped down after the US and other Security Council members made clear they did not support an extension of her term in office. Robinson had criticized the US rejection of many international treaties and its treatment of prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. (Los Angeles Times)

The Washington Post argues that the US is frequently "called upon" to "liberate" or to "defend" other nations, making it more "vulnerable to some misguided ICC prosecutor than any other nation."

The US policy towards the UN and other multilateral institutions is simple: "to purge international civil servants judged to be out of step with Washington in the war on terrorism." UN Secretary General Kofi Annan may be the next target in the US hit list. (Foreign Policy in Focus)

Washington finds itself on the same side as Cuba, Libya, and Syria, among other states, in trying to block a proposal before the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva designed to give more teeth to the Convention Against Torture. So much for the "war on terrorism". (Christian Science Monitor)

Human Rights Watch accuses the US of opposing the re-nomination of UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson for a second term. Ms. Robinson has publicly challenged US policies in the war against Afghanistan and displeased the US in her handling of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights took steps against the United States' refusal to define the legal status of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. The US must comply with its obligations under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. (Agence France Presse)

The Nuclear Posture Review issued by the Pentagon declares that nuclear weapons can serve as a mean to fight terrorism, even against countries that do not possess such weapons. This clearly violates international law and represents a great threat to international security. (New York Times)

Hundreds of Arabs are still in jail six months after the attack on the World Trade Center without even knowing the accusations against them. The International Herald Tribune reports the US Government has also secretly transported suspects to foreign countries thus violating extradition procedures, legal formalities and human rights law.

Human Rights Watch Executive Director, Kenneth Roth, speaks out to denounce the Bush administration's mistake in manipulating the Geneva Conventions in "selective and highly political ways." ( International Herald Tribune)

For US leaders, international law applies to all but the US. The Philadelphia Enquirer traces the long list of unilateralist policies demonstrated by the US since the destruction Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 to the unilateral war of revenge against Afghanistan.

Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, addresses a letter to US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on the status of US held prisoners in Cuba. Mr. Roth argues that the prisoners are POWs and gives reasons why the Geneva Conventions do apply.

US government officials claim they don't have to allow the International Red Cross in to inspect the conditions of prisoners at Guantanamo, Cuba. If Americans were being held as prisoners of war anywhere in the world, the US would "raise holy hell if the Red Cross weren't allowed to see them." Double standards? (San Jose Mercury News)

Chained, blinded, sedated. "Taken to a remote corner of the world where they may be executed, where the laws of human rights are suspended." Sounds like the Middle East. Think again, its Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and the prisoners are US property. (Independent)

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly dismisses remarks about the status and rights of prisoners at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Mr. Rumsfeld creates the term "unlawful combatants" to refer to prisoners which, in his opinion, are not covered by the protection of the Geneva conventions. (Guardian)

The international Committee of the Red Cross is concerned that the US's treatment of Taliban prisoners violates the UN's Geneva Convention. The US classification of prisoners as "battlefield detainees" lacks legal meaning and the fighters should be treated as prisoners-of-war until a court decides otherwise. (Independent)

During the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Ashcroft did not quite seem to understand the concerns over the military tribunals. He maintained that "criticisms of the administration only aided terrorists" while the participants reminded him of the legal principles biding the US.(New York Times)

Human Rights Watch analyses the different judicial standards between the military tribunals announced by President Bush and the war-crimes courts established by the United Nations.(Human Rights Watch)

Foreign Policy in Focus studies the evolving relationship between the US and the UN since the attacks of September 11th. With major players such as Iran and Pakistan to be consulted, not to mention the Afghan factions themselves, the US is entrusting the UN with a more important role than usual.

While Nazi murderers who were responsible for 50 million deaths were given a trial at Nuremberg, the US prefers the Taliban dead rather than have them stand trial. (Independent)

Congress challenges both US President's legal authority to establish military courts to try non-US citizens suspected of terrorism, as well as the content of such an order, which violates basic civil liberties. (Associated Press)

Spain is the first European Union country to announce that it will not extradite those charged with complicity in the September 11 attacks unless the US agrees to civilian, not military, trials. (New York Times)

Secret military tribunals raises questions about President Bush's trust in the US judicial system. Along with legislative attempts to skirt around the Constitution and principles of international law, special military tribunals deny the core of the principles of law and the rules of evidence.(New York Times)

Human Rights Watch letter to President Bush raises basic questions about the new Executive Order creating special tribunals to try terrorists.

William Safire strongly criticizes the "military kangaroo courts" composed of a panel of officers that will judge non US-citizens if George Bush "has reason to believe" they belong to terrorist organizations.(New York Times)

Osama bin Laden's future seems unsure in case he is arrested in a third country. The need for an International Criminal Court becomes even more urgent and the US should reconsider its position, as it stands alone among western nations to reject the idea of a permanent court. (Agence France Presse )

Naomi Klein asks the question of why so few world leaders seem willing to use the demands made by the US as an opportunity for international co-operation. September 11 could be a turning point for US ratification of agreements on environment or international human rights. (Toronto Globe & Mail)

Experts in international law react to the merits of George Bush's proposal to establish special military tribunals to try foreigners accused of crimes during "war".(New York Times)

The President of the US, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, vests himself with the power to determine suspected terrorists subject to trial in the newly created military courts. This text is the military order released by the White House. (US Newswire)

George Bush has decided to set up special US military tribunals to try people charged with terrorism both at home and abroad. At the same time, US law enforcement authorities will investigate Middle Eastern men who entered the country legally. (New York Times)

According to the author, Chapter 51 of the United Nations Charter gives a state the right to repel an attack that is "ongoing or imminent as a temporary measureuntil the UN Security Council can take steps necessary for international peace and security." This would make the current US-UK attack on Afghanistan a violation of international law. (Toronto Globe & Mail)

The criticisms raised against Israel's handling of the Occupied Territories and the subsequent walk out by the US and Israeli delegations has diverted the Summit's "ambitious, bold, and noble aims." (Guardian)

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination slammed the US's record on racism, suggesting a halt to the death penalty and immediate moves to stamp out police brutality. (Reuters)

The Bush Administration is threatening to boycott a UN conference on racism next month because Washington objects to two potential items on the agenda: reparations for slavery and Zionism. (Independent)

The so-called "US-UN relationship" is not threatened by the new Bush administration, Powell said to Kofi Annan during a meeting yesterday. Is everybody reassured? (Agence France Presse)

Professor Peter J. Spiro maintains that the US federal government has the constitutional power to participate in international treaties. Furthermore, it is in the national interest to do so.(Foreign Affairs)

A George W. Bush presidency and a deadlocked US Senate would probably mean a low level of US attention and support for the UN. But that's nothing new. (Earth Times)

A former deputy US representative to the UN suggests that the best way to stem the "increasingly destructive" US influence on the UN is for US financial obligations, and correspondingly US dominance, to be decreased. The EU could then step in to lead the way on wide-ranging UN reform. (International Herald Tribune)

The Executive Director of Human Rights Watch argues that by not participating in the international human right system, the US does nothing to improve the rights of its own citizens while at the same time undermining human rights protections abroad. (Chicago Journal of International Law)

Reform Party presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan calls for the United Nations to be thrown out of the US. If elected, he would "send up 10,000 Marines to help" the UN pack. (Associated Press)

Foreign policy has taken a back seat in the coming US presidential campaign. Although this analysis discusses the Eurasian balance of power and the US, determining America's relationship to the rest of the world will determine US policy on the UN. (stratfor.com)

A Los Angeles Times opinion analyzing the US isolationism in the case of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and its refusal to pay UN assessments, considering the three parties in the foreign policy: the Clinton administration, the Pentagon and the Congress.

In this opinion piece, subtitled: "Liberalism in the US is dead ... and frightening right wing isolationism very much alive," Jennifer Schense, of the NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court, places the US refusal to sign the ICC Statute amongst a host of other similar stances that reflect the rise of conservatism in America. (Guardian, London)

In this opinion piece from the International Herald Tribune, the author criticizes the US for its arrogant policies toward the UN, concluding that America "must learn to be a special power, constrained by its own might to feel and observe community."

Boutros Boutros-Ghali highlights the political problems at the United Nations that threaten to weaken the organization's mandate to promote democracy. The former UN Secretary General warns that both the unilateral policies of the US and the apparent unwillingness of other "major" countries to "play any significant role in international affairs" reflect poorly on the UN. (Inter Press Service)

Article in The Australian, discussing the role of the US in the marginalisation of the United Nations with particular examination of the Security Council.

In the early 1990s, a network of Washington backed right-wing organizations consistently attacked the UN, viewing it as a "forum for world Bolshevism and anti-Americanism." But Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's appointments of several US officials to influential positions within the UN pleased the conservative groups. Meanwhile, others feared that the US was carving the UN "into the shape the American right wants." The author argues that Boutros-Ghali was trapped between needing US support and not conceding the "soul" of the UN to the far right. (The Nation)