Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Hi CB,
I just posted this over at BT:
Well isn't that absolutely f*cking brilliant...
The goal of 0.7% of BNP for development aid has been long established:
    * The donor governments promised to spend 0.7% of GNI on ODA (Official Development Assistance) at the UN General Assembly in 1970 -- some 35 years ago as of writing
    * The deadline for reaching that target was the mid-1970s.
    * By 2015 (the year by when the Millenium Development Goals are hoped to be achieved) the target will be 45 years old.

This target was codifed in a United Nations General Assembly Resolution, and a key paragraph says:

Click the link to read the rest.

So Bolton got the other countries to accede to the US definitions on terrorism, while securing a reduction in the target for development aid.  A big thank you to those who negotiated on behalf of the sane world. </sn>

This was a bad outcome...

by ask on Tue Sep 13th, 2005 at 09:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I did hear on a BBC news report that the terrorism difnintion had been watered down to a meaningless generality, but I can't find a link at the moment.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Sep 14th, 2005 at 03:07:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're right, BBC's Paul Reynolds:
The problem was the definition of terrorism.

There have been a number of UN resolutions against terrorism in general and against specific acts, such as hijackings and bombings, but a clear and agreed definition has been lacking.
In the end, no definition was agreed though terrorism "in all its forms" is condemned.

And here's the Guardian's analysis:

Campaigners and diplomats who favoured a bold approach put much of the blame for the failure on John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, who introduced hundreds of late changes to the original document.
by ask on Wed Sep 14th, 2005 at 07:16:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series