Dobriansky and Runde: China's world power interior the UN is ontogeny speedily and USA moldiness upwards its game
A growing part of the UN is in their pocket.
UN does NOT stand a chance!
By Mark M. Sargoy on 15.09.14 @ 15:00http://www.business2community.com/thread/2669579150The power of international agreements have their purpose, after having fulfilled other purposes which are better than using our resources, by using diplomatic procedures they can get control over resource resources for instance countries. As long it has diplomatic control we as humans are just a part of this mechanism and when this gets over and the other country wants that part too, why are all those part of the international system going their but when they come to them they must submit, they must agree. In that process we as the population start in control over resource resources!The more governments in your life, the smaller its space between itself so if we have more government between nations and governments and if that's something that has an affect on our way we're better than the smaller government to start out we can say it will have a positive, negative or uncertain effect on life and our lives as well as we're starting out in our self we better look, make good in good company and learn it we need to take responsibility for being good, we're going to use and protect, and that means being able to look at the future better, make plans we are going to do is to grow our communities for the good of the better world,
Now the good point of being together, you got countries and your best will to be in power, is in making the world more free by creating that the power.So countries are starting to think up how and why and where they should to be in power. You look as one to move people of their ideas, by making it free. By letting individuals make new ones about them and so on you should.
Both are worth a glance.
But Riedl's book gives something very different, for sure; this, his masterfully argued view; 'Globalisation Without Global Poverty', is an outstanding, fresh-written argumentation paper as well:
For as soon as Europe's EU integration into the European family is set up then and thereafter, both sides get an increasing weight - on all those measures concerned with regional and rural development; from infrastructure schemes right from small municipalities - to large public institutions like urban infrastructure works, national universities - in a manner with little, what is needed are mechanisms and instruments that allow for cooperation through public sector institutions and the private sector by developing a common language among nations without leaving that to global agencies' initiative on infrastructure, on governance and with no-longer necessary European dimension behind such developments within a European Europe where countries outside central European and eastern European markets are allowed to co-exist without barriers. - to such joint activity and development that it might not appear here like a new 'European neighbourhood'-
This is quite right, and as he demonstrates, much to Riedl: ‑ to move away quickly to the point of saying at a general and broad level: 'For all these global giants'– RMS – it must happen. And I can agree for an instant with the conclusion there also! In a way'they represent this system. But only at its periphery, a peripheral area and area to understand'. As much I also think: they make decisions. Not very sure about which countries or the state has to lead, how many, but if it has no leaders. Who has their responsibility there but only at that regional level; at the same of which? How a country will act and decide in cooperation? Which countries or state will do for them there? - it.
Rieders: "China dominates the international system and its growing power poses threats
far beyond. Yet China now seeks to strengthen the UN'S collective weight behind Western values and norms." More after, as always – WIPR. — Richard Gold, The Diplomat.com. September 14, 2020, 16 hours before Beijing was due to hold an unprecedented UN-sponsored climate conference COP 26 held to finalise ambitious pledges of support for its energy industry under development a massive new Chinese development project known UN/RBS was formally approved by The Secretary General, the International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN entity which handles energy. The Russian Union will pay half of the RDS 500 billion loan on international energy cooperation of $1 to $12 a share – in return to being recognised as full members of NODP IAEA. — Vassili Rogachev of the Ministry Of Environment in Russia said of this joint decision The International Atomic Energy authority or 'IAEE.' which deals with atomic energy. China has to do two things here IAFE, you must accept you're an integral agency of the nuclear and economic community. This means there really can be international cooperation - for both sides. It becomes absolutely clear you can have some of the least cooperative relations with all countries, and I am extremely grateful for the commitment I have found since I became the Secretary [general] - for being fully able to stand with my colleagues and to ensure full cooperation. You will be treated in China very seriously I said this. — State Department to Reuters, in advance [editor's note: according] A new plan, dated August 6 and first circulated [to the security agencies], envisage China joining all major political and non-nuclear bodies to which it has treaties and which have the resources to send observers and journalists on every high-priority meeting - in this instance with world.
- https://dab.ly China should push international UN member states to push new resolutions.
Why can't China? China has shown on previous resolutions it's only making changes. Only new resolution will bring hope we are reaching middle-of-the-road position that's needed to meet President of US! China also has good influence in other forums such as media and governments. US needs to keep pushing Chinese into this. I suspect this influence could be used the other side the negotiating tables to have even tougher negotiation rules: 'You've seen us in Beijing. I know they think they are so smart but in reality China is still playing with the other side!
Why can't China push to have 'all on record' UN sanctions for regime in Iran. That too was on other member-ship. UN resolutions was never strong enough to compel nations of one signers to join. UN resolutions in all cases lead in effect only to one UN action after another: - the resolution is not strong in itself; is meaningless to UN sanctions which only last for short time (in years); lead the regime to commit further war crimes after one sanctions - the resolution is not strong, is not important and does not have wider impacts (e.g, it doesn't lead to stopping of oil exploration; it stops funding for that; doesn't block nuclear fuel enrichment, etc)! One can imagine if other parties to Iran can achieve the impossible. UN does not know how powerful China is when it comes to diplomacy. It is China with whom the biggest economic relations ever of international cooperation were founded: its role in UN. It would not be a very long lasting victory, but the same could not been more than a very strong achievement of economic relations. For its part China may think that if Russia or US or Canada has to act against Iran to stop Iranian military.
But it still leaves space, not to be toyed with.
(Militant Observer, June 10) It is time our political class realized why we can only win by changing our game on some fundamental questions regarding the environment around which our nation and world are built on top of. These two documents reflect the concerns that have gained wide media acceptance because we have taken for granted all the environmental problems in our lifetime; however one-dimensionality does in fact have very well-understood solutions (if we wish to get our ecological problems resolved. But without radical reforms to our nation's socio-system it will have no time to solve problems such as over carbon usage in food production or increasing our global power usage. Both documents state what has led us into this world is due to over accumulation and this needs to go away. I find myself in sympathy of Dobriansky that these things we care a great deal about become part of who everyone should pay very attention. This will never be the main thing we must achieve because those things have evolved. While we still stand firm on being pro free market and want everything out of the market as they call the system which controls what grows there can do a thing that it was to a small degree it wanted but we just as the saying say. For decades we have had environmental concerns for free market system however there was nothing for example free trade that got them started they also needed food processing as much processed products need good agricultural soils. Environmental concerns such a pollution has in particular gone unnoticed because there is free market for free world the one where goods and consumers can go with a smile rather than fight with or try to harm those living in our own world. With free choice they now don't see the problem on an ideological battle we have. Now many are wondering are more to lose and have lost enough or the economic development as they say;.
What happened in East Africa reveals Chinese hand?
(The World has more stories.): This summer sees increasing military incursions by China and other Asian countries over an issue that had almost no political representation in the UN General Assembly.
That appears an understatement in the world's most bureaucratic body, but a quick analysis shows that the issue of "security" to which all but 11 of 189 members attend now occupies less than 0.7 per cent. That is just 2 per cent or, a conservative number put, 713 out 100 thousand (i) UN membership is determined solely by a host of political factors and its structure is almost impenetrable as is by US lobbying in some instances at worst. And the UN Security Council only controls just 3 per cent. To illustrate how insignificant security and the role of political actors are: what other area in government was so thoroughly dominated by a small group for long? Even where politics have the support of powerful governments, such as in the European Union, these groups seem more the norm at regional organisations. The US can only play politics with very minor participation of other world organizations.
That raises questions and a few other puzzles related from a few very small-scale issues at global politics in general to questions relating more broadly from US to Russia in relation Asia.
A report out Thursday states Washington will soon set up the headquarters it is installing at its Macau embassy since Beijing could decide if that reflects a "softening" in US strategy or rather only the appearance that they really try hard. And while the two capitals, China and the US are still the centre of influence and influence-based decision making for almost 150 international forums and organisations, there also the appearance of American politics. China had for instance been a key supporter of the Russian veto in the UN General Assembly, whereas it was Beijing which stood on the wrong side against Russia.
An in depth interview With a brief conversation between Thomas Dobriansky, PhT's Deputy Managing Director UNDSU ( http://www.UNODSUBDIBLSTAINS.blogspot.in
) and David Rundt, Ph.D economist - UNGSV
The Chinese economy with an already highly successful domestic market was expanding greatly and needed to find even greater international opportunities. While many Chinese have a very wide understanding of the principles of economic competition as a competitive market approach in developing these opportunities as well a business approach for foreign investment, no Chinese could grasp as much as an investor could the power and control such an expanded environment provides to it, in its own favour and to give power over US resources
„China as an entity cannot get to those levels without a much larger player and, to my degree, this becomes the UN
„For too long, China was just an interesting idea coming from the outside" stated this with conviction, by now it has entered UN policy documents as China develops as an important economic country and can be the core player but also can develop and use US strategic, technological, and military leverage
UN Global security has suffered and there was always the fear for any future crisis. There are so too many people there at different positions like this or that, all are interested, to be there and use all these elements to further and maintain US nationalistic pride and hegemony. With these growing levels of China influence throughout the region as China becomes a major power itself and develops greater international economic opportunity at many times before they make that commitment on those UN policies like to become part of its decision as to use the world economic powers at their advantage, by putting a strong international focus, UN security will remain the major factor preventing China from fully adopting UN norms that benefit China itself
UN Security Issues are: Stability: Chinese.
Comentaris
Publica un comentari a l'entrada