In a previous post I questioned what the resignation of John Bolton would mean for developments at the United Nations on addressing Burma. While clearly what Jeremy Woodrum of US Campaign for Burma says is true,
the issues in Burma have nothing to do with individual ambassadors.
It still seemed that it wouldn't take much at the UN for delays in motions to stop abuses. Where I was wrong was that even without delays at the UN, there still is not much much being done to stop abuses as the new draft resolution backed by the US and UK is non-punitive.
However, after last month’s UNSC debate on Burma, John Bolton, the outgoing US ambassador to the UN, indicated that Washington would be prepared to put forward harsher resolutions in the future should the regime fail to comply.
What the draft UN Security Council resolution calls for:
The US hopes to push the resolution through by the end of the year, though that seems unlikely. Also, another issue facing US efforts at the UNSC is that at the beginning of the year, several nonpermanent members will be replaced by others.
My opinion remains the same. The strength and willingness of a US voice at the UNSC can go a long way. Perhaps the intra-diplomatic processes at the UN too closely resemble the junta's fashion of limited movement.
