- opposing provisions that call for action to halt global climate change
- opposing provisions that urge nuclear powers to dismantle their atomic weapons
- introducing new amendments that would eliminate foreign aid to the world's poorest nations
- eliminating all mention of the poverty-fighting Millennium Development Goals and the International Criminal Court
- complaining that there's too much poverty-related content in general
- focusing on expanding global free market reforms
- opposing a restriction on the UN Security Council's ability to veto action that would halt genocide, war crimes & ethnic cleansing
- objecting to a call for a moratorium on nuclear testing
- refusing to agree to language that would urge the US and other nations to observe the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
- suggesting that the most important priorities at an upcoming summit should not be halting nuclear proliferation, addressing poverty, or aiding the fight against environmental degradation, but rather streamlining bureaucracy and cutting the UN budget
On the upside, he does want to push the war against terrorism (which I'd feel a lot better about if I didn't think it was just a pretext to launch more disastrous wars), promote human rights and democracy (which I'd feel a lot better about if he wasn't so dead-set against combating poverty, since democracy and human rights tend not to thrive in extremely poor countries with disease, joblessness and bad infrastructures), and control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (which I'd feel a lot better about if he wasn't simultaneously opposing any attempt to control nuclear proliferation and the development of new nuclear weapons by countries that already have them).
I guess I shouldn't get too upset about this. It's just the UN ambassador, after all. But couldn't he have at least pretended not to be evil for, like, the first week?