No, George, Let's Pick The Worst Person For The Job!
Condoleezza Rice probably still had jet lag from giving speeches around Europe about how we'd make an effort to be a little less...unilateral...when George Bush hauled off and nominated John Bolton as our ambassador to the U.N. Now, there's credibility for you! The New York Times editorial board lays out a few reasons why Bolton's the wrong man for the job:
Mr. Bolton stands out because he is not only bad in a policy sense, but also unqualified for the post to which he's been named. At a minimum, the United States representative to the United Nations should be a person who believes it is a good idea. Mr. Bolton has never made secret his disdain for the United Nations, for multilateralism and for consensus-seeking diplomacy in general.When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee begins taking testimony on Mr. Bolton's nomination next week, it is also expected to hear other charges about his fitness, like allegations that when he was under secretary of state for arms control, he tried to distort intelligence reports by intimidating analysts who disagreed with him. After the invasion of Iraq, complaints that top advisers to the president had attempted to make intelligence reports conform to a preconceived conclusion about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs were often aimed in Mr. Bolton's direction.
All of this is very much to the point. When the country chooses an ambassador to the United Nations, it ought to avoid picking someone whose bullying style of leadership symbolizes everything that created the current estrangement between the United States and most of the world. One of the goals of Mr. Bush's second term was supposed to be rapprochement with other nations, whose assistance the United States desperately needs to curb the proliferation of the real weapons of mass destruction.
You know, if George Bush were an eighth grader instead of president, he'd be flunking like mad. Unfortunately, in the political world, stupidity, irrationality, and incompetence usually lead one to flunk upward.
> At a minimum, the United States
> representative to the United Nations
> should be a person who believes it is
> a good idea.
Why?
Let's remember that aside from all the recent UN scandals involving sexual slavery and misconduct, oil-for-food was the biggest financial scandal of all time.
Of all time.
Crid at April 12, 2005 2:03 AM
Hi !
>>Let's remember that aside from all the recent
>>UN scandals involving sexual slavery and misconduct,
>>oil-for-food was the biggest financial scandal of all time.
>>Of all time.
I seriously doubt that. The so-called "privatisations" in countries of the former East Bloc were far more scandalous and, as far as I know, far more costly. Tens of billions were ripped off, and the Americans ignored it. The vast majority of Americans never even heard about it.
Just look at the former USSR and its natural resources. (smile) What's happened – and continues to happen – there makes puts the "oil-for-food scandal" into proper perspective and shows it for what it is: an event magnified out of proportion by the US corporate press to manipulate the American people for its own ends and keep the people in a state of stupidity.
The real "financial scandal" is yet to come, by the way: when China uncouples the yuan from the dollar and lets it float. Everyone is screaming about how Europe is in bad shape … but when that happens, I, for one, shall be very glad to be holding euros.
L'Amerloque
L'Amerloque at April 12, 2005 4:14 AM
Honestly, I thought Rice's track record made her a much worse candidate for secretary of state than Bolton's makes him for the UN. If the NSA who got blindsided on the national security front got an overwhelming confirmation on her promotion, so will this guy.
So, he thinks the UN is silly. Well, the UN IS silly. China sits on the Human Rights committee, doesn't it? Don't we? Syria is (was?, I don't really care much about the UN) on the security council, despite having (until recently) militarily occupied its neighbor indefinitely. The US totally defied the UN on Iraq and all it did was mutter to itself.
The role I see for the UN in the future is for humanitarian causes and to allow countries to open up dialogue. So let's stop with the silly resolutions, already, and let's stop talking about the UN as a player in international politics.
Little ted at April 12, 2005 10:22 AM
Hi !
>>The role I see for the UN in the
>>future is for humanitarian causes
By politicizing humanitarian aid in Afghanistan and Iraq, the USA has dealt a serious blow to humantarian causes. The fact that the Nobel Peace Prize winning organization Doctors Without Borders has pulled out of both countries is tragic and indicative of just how much moral credit and prestige the USA has lost. It might be difficult for you in the US to see it, but over here, it's quite obvious. If only you could experience the growing puzzlement, fear and hate that the US is generating day by day, week by week and month by month among heretofore friendly – or at least neutral – people, you'd probably be as worried as we are here.
The recent tsunami relief efforts demonstrated that there are still people and organizations – including the US government and military, fortunately – willing to bring help to those in need when it suits them. However, the attempts by US Christian aid organizations to convert Muslim and Hindu children and other "orphans" to Christianity "for the glory of God" were front page (and top-of-the-channel) news over here, of course, and counteracted any moral credit the US garnered by sending prompt and massive aid.
At any rate, there doesn't seem to be much future in humantarian causes for the moment. The UN certainly won't content itself with only that, though. It's probably going to be in a flux fot a number of years. Rumors here assert that the HQ will be moving out of NY "once the Security Council is reformed", but that won't be happening tomorrow. It would be difficult for China to accept Japan as a permanent member (that's part of the reason for the current huge anti-Japanese protests in China, but the press in America hasn't caught on yet, as far as I know. It is quite clear if one is familiar with Chinese history: the rulers invariably "test" and "refine" an opinion well ahead of time by putting mobs into the streets.). Will France ever accept Germany as a permanent member ? What about a permanent seat for "Europe" per se ? What about India ? What about an African permanent member ? All these questions would have to be satisfactorily solved before the UN would move out of NY – but it will.
I wouldn't underestimate the UN. There's quite a bit of life left in it yet. (smile) The international politics it will be playing in the future might surprise us all.
L'Amerloque
L'Amerloque at April 12, 2005 12:22 PM
Leave a comment