07.10.2003, 11:44
So da hier schon öfter über das für und wieder der UNO diskutiert wurde hänge ich den Artikel mal hier mit rein.
Think Again: The United Nations
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=13816">http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/stor ... ryID=13816</a><!-- m -->
Think Again: The United Nations
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=13816">http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/stor ... ryID=13816</a><!-- m -->
Zitat:Bureaucratic. Ineffective. Undemocratic. Anti-United States. And after the bitter debate over the use of force in Iraq, critics might add “useless” to the list of adjectives describing the United Nations. So why was the United Nations the first place the Bush administration went for approval after winning the war? Because for $1.25 billion a year—roughly what the Pentagon spends every 32 hours—the United Nations is still the best investment that the world can make in stopping AIDS and SARS, feeding the poor, helping refugees, and fighting global crime and the spread of nuclear weapons.
By Madeleine K. Albright