Bolton on the UN
The UN Ambassador yesterday:
"Americans are a very practical people, and they don't view the U.N. through theological lenses. They look at it as a competitor in the marketplace for global problem-solving, and if it's successful at solving problems, they'll be inclined to use it. If it's not successful at solving problems, they'll say, 'Are there other institutions?' . . . that's why making the U.N. stronger and more effective is a reform priority for us: Because if it's a more agile, effective organization, it is more likely to be a successful competitor as a global problem-solver."
Hate to say it, but that sounds exactly right to me.
Advertisement
It does sound like a great idea, but so does "eliminating the terror of evil-doers", "fighting the hate bred by Islamofascism", "creating an ownership society" and all the other fancy keywords the Bush regime spews at us. It's all about exactly HOW you defeat "Islamofascism (whatever that is), HOW you create an ownership society, HOW you reform the UN. We all know how Bolton is, he's a bully and a PNAC-er, his idea of reform is to strong-arm the UN into doing business the way the US wants it to so they can implement PNAC.
November 23, 2005 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight-
The same mindset of reform that has done such a great job of "transforming" our own governmental agencies to produce Grover's circular result is at it again and that's a good thing?
So when Beelzebub rings you up and says that you're going to love how he's redecorated the place, you're going to look forward to the visit?
I know that competition can be a good thing for many endeavors, but to put the UN in competiton with other bodies creates a marketplace that implies a "pick and choose" strategy: whatever might not be deemed "efficient" for our (or any other nation's) purpose could be opted (out), like:
Weapons inspections
Human Rights
Torture
Or are you only talking about his fiscal reform ideas? Well, then, you certainly have picked the representative of a group with a sterling track record of fiscal management to pattern after.
"No theological lens?"
Maybe the competition would be opened (as with FEMA) so that the Pakistan earthquake survivors could have Pat Robertson's organization airlift Bibles to them. I'm sure they'd appreciate the reading material to occupy all that extra time they have now. Maybe an "abstinence-only" course for the women of Darfur would help them cope with the temptations of the Janjuweed?
What gives you the impetus to think that Bolton uses such a different code-book to translate his speeches than his Boss or Vice-Boss in DC? When five-deferrment Dick or the Shrub says "we don't torture", they're not talking about the renditions to other countries, they just mean "in the Oval Office".
November 23, 2005 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ivo,
I disagree. If a wonk at Heritage or Brookings said that, that's one thing, because it basically does make sense. If Gov. Schweitzer or John McCain said that, we'd just say they wers straight shooters speaking honestly.
But the reason no one wanted Bolton to be our ambassador at the UN is precisely because we don't need our most important diplomat to be a wonk or a stright shooter . We need him to be a diplomat.
Case in point: Bolton here implies that the U.S. will use the UN when it suits us and drop it when it doesn't. This isn't the Cold War anymore; the UN Security is to a certain degree the only legitimacy game in town. What he is saying is that for U.S. purposes today power trumps the need for legitimacy. Or, perhaps, that legitimacy has its upsides but is not always the right tool for the job.
I would argue that the whole debate about liberal interventionism is misplaced, but rather that the key to future success in U.S. interventionism is a firm commitment to an international system, in which we act and to which we look for legitimacy. That will keep us from both many errors in judgement and from quagmires in which we lack the resources to properly finish the job.
Back to Bolton, let me translate his words for you (because he does BS, just in a kinda strange way for a diplomat: instead of saying the wortds others want to hear, he puts a wonkish gloss on threats and triumphalism). What he's saying when he claims a pratical versus theological approach on our behalf is not that we will use tools that work (that are "successful at solving problems"), but rather that we will use tools that work for us. When one connects that to reform initiatives it seems eerily like some form of coercive diplomacy: make this institution work to serve American interests or we'll create or strengthen a rival institution, and essentially destory the UN security council--possibly the larger UN system with it.
And this is all apart from the real issue which is that my UN ambassador should be saying one thing more than everything else, particularly in the context of UN reform: "We are committed, we are in it for the long haul. The U.S. commits to grounding itself in multilateral institutions. The UN has a pinnacle status in terms of multilateral entities, enjoys an unapproachable status in the eyes of the rest of the world, and will remain so. We are proud to have created such an institution, and we're not going anywhere. We have the staying power and will, and are ready to make whatever investment we need to in this critical piece of the international infrastructure to ensure its role and its strength in the coming century."
(And p.s., We don't have to talk about the exceptions to this rule in the case that our national security is at stake. That's something that's clearly known by everyone without it needing to be said.)
I'll be interested to hear why exactly you found his words to be "exactly right."
November 23, 2005 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the underlying issue is that the UN is set up for perpetual paralysis, because it's structure was designed for the Cold War.
It needs to be adapted to deal with the Post Cold War world.
I believe that it's relative importance compared to the IMF, World Bank, GATT should rise, inasmuch as it is important to give countries more voice in the governance that affects them.
The issue is how do you bring about changes in an organization designed for perpetual paralysis?
One thing that has to go is the vetos by the permanent members of the security council members.
We should require like a 9 country majority for action.
Also, the UN needs to adapt to officially recognize the importance of Multi-National Corporations and Non Governmental Organizations in int'l governance. It currently is too state-centric.
Perhaps, there needs to be three estates in the New UN? One for the states, one for the MNCs, One for the NGOs? It could be modelled roughly after the British system. I think it's becoming more influential and effective as a body of int'l governance means it needs to adapt to the defacto lines of authority in int'l manipulations.
dlw
November 23, 2005 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Watch what they do, not what they say." Bolton/Bush/Cheney have been out to undermine the UN (except when it serves as a US puppet) from day one - and the whole world knows it.
November 23, 2005 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
if it's successful at solving problems, they'll be inclined to use it.
But what Bolton means is if it's successful at solving problems in ways that suit America politicians they'll be inclined to use it.
And the UN was not designed to be figleaf for the machinations of the Whitehouse, and it will not be judged a success in the eyes of the world if it becomes one.
What comes through in the predominant US attitude to the UN is the sheer arrogance that if it's not doing what the US wants it to do, then it isn't doing it's job. And it seems to me that it is that attitude with which Ivo and Bolton are in concord.
November 23, 2005 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
A country cannot be a member of the UN in good faith if they view the UN as "them" and not "us", which Bolton obviously does. Our commitment to the UN should be to make it work well, not to use it as a competitive bidder on jobs.
I agree with the other posters that Bush primarily is interested in a UN that rubber stamps his ideas, allows him freedom to act as he wishes on international issues, and allows him to mount invasions of whatever countries he wishes to invade. (Ok, maybe that's not exactly what other posters have said.) Ivo apparently wasn't quite fully caffeinated when he wrote his article.
November 23, 2005 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bolton's idea of a "stronger and more effective" UN is a UN that will do what he wants it to do, when he wants it to do it, and do nothing else. It's all in the definitions.
November 23, 2005 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ivo -
This quote does not convey the totality nor, in my opinion, the main points of his speech. I do not see the speech as positive for US interests. The message changes when you consider other points in the article:
- The American people are a cover for what is planned anyway
[Bolton] said that continued resistance to change in the organization would drive the American public away from the United Nations.
- This is a bully in action;, using its unilateral power
"In an effort to prod states into action, Bolton proposed delaying the passage of the [UN] $3.6 billion 2006-07 budget until the [US]-backed reforms have been adopted.... Some U.N. delegates fear that the [US] will use the maneuver to redirect funding from programs that are popular with diplomats from poor countries to initiatives the [US] and its allies support."
- If the standard of effective and non-corrupt management is so important at the UN, what about the rest of US foreign policy?
US "might bypass the [UN] to solve some of the world's pressing problems if the organization is unable to make management changes that will make it more effective and prevent a recurrence of corruption."
November 23, 2005 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right but no doubt a red herring to totally eviscerate it.
November 23, 2005 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ivo quoted a few words of Bolton's and agreed with those words. He did not suggest Bolton or Bush would do anything about them or even were sincere in saying them. So many leapt to conclusions based on nothing he said.
November 23, 2005 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish people like John Bolton would view the UN through the eyes of the nations whose only voice in world affairs is through the UN. Membership in the UN is important to the people of those countries who pay a lot more attention to the UN agenda than most Americans.
The idea the the UN should be a competitor in the global marketplace for problem-solving is similar to the one advanced for the privatization of essential services like water. Everyone in the world should be entitled to water and everyone in the world should be entitled to representation in a world body. Competition usually means someone gets left out.
Isn't John Bolton advancing the views of Americans who hold the same political views that he does? I'd like to see the opinion polls that demonstrate American dissatisfaction with the United Nations. During the buildup to the Iraq war, many Americans considered the the role of the UN to be an important one in the decision to go to war. Isn't that why Colin Powell addressed the UN before the war?
I don't know enough about the US's proposed changes to reform the UN to agree or disagree but I disagree with the Bush administraton on a lot of other issues. I admit to being sympathetic to the concerns of developing nations about the US taking more control of the UN agenda. Neocon philosophy, as I understand it, is about the US taking control of the world.
A lot of the UN's initiatives are about providing food, water and health services to developing nations. I am more than hesitant to give someone like John Bolton more authority as to who gets fed and who doesn't.
As a former auditor, I'm sure I could go in and easily lop off big chunks of money wasted by the UN but I could do the same to the US defense budget. I do support increased scrutiny of UN spending practices and I think the members of the UN would be foolish if they oppose such scrutiny.
As a US taxpayer, I want my money spent in a useful manner. I expect some money to be pocketed but Americans cannot be expectected to tolerate wholesale graft.
That said, you have to laugh about the big deal over the Iraq oil-for-food program. The day that progam was set up, everyone
in the world knew the potential for graft. How much money did Kofi Annan's son supposedly get from Cotecna, a measly $150,000? As I pointed out in another post in the TPM Cafe, $195,000 was laundered by Huntington, a town on Long Island, to someone in the Pataki administration in 2003.
Where is the outrage from the UN about the $9 billion of pre-war Iraqi oil revenue "mismanaged" by the Coalition Provisional Authority? In the Wall Street Journal, Stuart Bowen, Bush's inspector general for the reconstruction of Iraq, reported that all of the $9 billion appears to have been embezzled. Personally, I doubt much of that $9 billion found its way into Iraqi pockets.
At least once in awhile, John Bolton and friends could mention how much money was actually spent to provide food to the people of Iraq through the oil-for-food program. My understanding is that the administraton of the program to distribute the food was efficient and fair. Maybe we could hear from some Iraqis who depended on the UN food program to survive as to how they view the UN.
Lastly, I want the United Nations to stay right where it is in New York City so we can all keep an eye on what goes on there.
November 23, 2005 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the same John Bolton who last week, when asked what he liked most about the U.N. now that he's there, replied: "It's a target rich environment" ?
November 23, 2005 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Weak stuff, Ivo.
Bolton: here's the problem. Here's the solution. How can you help us achieve these goals?
If he's said it once, he's said it a hundred times. Bolton's US is not interested in the UN or any other "foreign agent" suggesting problem/solution matrices. He is looking for "practical" organizations that recognize our right and power to have it our way which are willing to play ball with us on those terms.
Hey, face facts, anybody else in our superpower shoes would behave the same way.
U-rah.
November 23, 2005 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel,
So many leapt to conclusions based on nothing he said.
Yah, take poster's or framing, use it to jump on soapbox and expound one's own views. Dialogue, what's that? Um, soo what else is new? It's the internet way. :-)
BTW, this is why I often point out that I think the blog tradition of bloggers not participating much in comments on their own posts, and instead speaking to other people by starting a new thread, is detrimental to discourse in this country. Without direct challenge (i.e., stuff like "that's not what I said," or "you're talking about something else," or "there's no evidence for that in the article, please cite your sources"...,) people are allowed to continue the talk radio rant tradition, where no one informs anyone else, but everyone gets to emote on their favorite bugaboo, or even intentionally disinform. Don't get me wrong, I think going "off topic" can be one of the greatest things on the blogsophere, but, big but ONLY IF people are actually interacting, sharing thoughts. Noise is the watchword here.
November 23, 2005 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
p.s. Just mho: I notice a great deal of noise here the last few days. Is partly the topics, which are the inflammatory 'news of the day' things where everyone wants to put in their two cents (I always wonder when I see it when some of the very same people who go for commenting on "hot topic of day" are also those who bitch about MSM feeding frenzies only covering a few topics per cycle. I feel like saying look in the mirror, blogs, they go by ratings.) But I also very clearly see places where contributors stepping down off their podiums and into comments for a few judicious words could have served as great mufflers.
November 23, 2005 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand Josh's concern that for long threads no one would read the various response by the original poster. However, the book discussions in which the authors respond to actual points and questions seem to generate the best dialogue, forgive the use of that word.
While I have learned a lot from participating here I agree that some forum for really discussing issues would be a great addition to the body politic.
November 23, 2005 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that Bolton's stance here is most unfortunate. He may well be representing the view of most Americans. I haven't seen polling data on this so I have no way of knowing.
But here's the rub: if the US views the UN as an optional tool to be used in foreign policy, then the UN will inevitably be sidelined in the long run. The UN will NEVER be able to compete with the US government for being responsive to the desires of the US government (which is what Bolton is wanting here) unless it becomes nothing more than our appendage.
The even larger problem I have with this sentiment from Bolton is that it is a clear expression of Manifest Destiny and a belief that we SHOULD be the arbiter of "correct" solutions to global problems. The US is not God's gift to humanity. The US is just as vulnerable to corruption, poor leadership and bad decision-making as any other country. That is precisely why there needs to be a communal decision-making process within bodies like the UN.
November 23, 2005 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is an opportunity for Democrats to get out in front on this issue. Democrats need to demonstrate that (unlike Kerry) they are not in denial as to the real problems in the U.N., but that unlike the GOP they are truly serious abotut U.N. reform - and don't just raise the issue as a smokescreen to a larger agenda of theological opposition to international institutions.
November 23, 2005 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did the UN do the job on eliminating the WMD in Iraq, it sure as hell seems they did, and without the body count, torture, WP, and hundreds of billion$ of Bush, Bolton and the neocons.
How about some national problem solving from Bush and Co.? The USA has the western world's leading rate of child poverty, the most expensive and least effective health care system, the largest prisoner population in the world, the biggest debtor nation on earth, highest murder rate, high child mortality, etc etc. The US might be better off if IT was run by the UN.
November 23, 2005 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think harder, Ivo. Bolton's rhetoric is patronizing at best. It's a pleasant coincidence if the rest of the world gets it right and an unexplained phenomena when they get it right and we get it wrong.
If you were to apply this kind of logic to any other kind of relationship, you would be in trouble. If it was a relationship with a stronger partner, say where a state tells the feds to stuff it, you wouldn't get very far. If it was with an equal partner, say in a marriage, you would quickly be in trouble. It is only because of America's status as the world's last remaining superpower that Bolton can briefly survive the laugh test.
Really, this is warmed over hegemonistic quackery. He sounds reasonable because he makes a nod towards middle American common sense. Would he listen to Americans if they disagree with him?
--Dan
November 23, 2005 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This statement doesn't seem to reflect any change in the Bush administration posture toward the UN. The administration came in with an agenda of transformaing the UN into a more "effective" agency from the strictly US point of view. That is, they seek a UN that will more efficiently rubber-stamp US agenda items, and help the US get its way in the world. That's what "solving problems" means for Bolton.
Everybody is in favor of UN reform. The right wants it, and the left wants it. The powerful want it, and the weak want it. But different people want different kinds of reform.
November 23, 2005 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously the Administration saw the UN as a "competitor" in solving the problems of Iraq. That mind-set is so far off the mark that, well, look at the results. The umbrella of arrogance over shadows massive ignorance and Bolton at the UN is a prime example.
November 24, 2005 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ivo,
When was the last time someone in this administration said something vaguely smart and decent and then turned it in any form of action that could be considered at least vaguely smart and decent?
I don't care what those guys have to say. I only believe in deeds.
November 24, 2005 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
To put the issue of corruption at the United Nations in perspective, here are some facts.
2006-2007 UN budget $3.6 billion
Iraq oil-for-food program:
Oil sold $64 billion
Kickbacks paid $1.7 billion
Percentage of kickbacks to oil sold 2.7%
Non-compete payments to Koffi Annan's son by Cotecna:
Total payments $150K
Period of time: $2.5K monthly for 60 months
Deductions: Health insurance coverage
Average monthly cost of Iraq war $4 billion
Annual Medicaid fraud expense in NYS $4 billion
Inflated cost of Boeing lease deal $6 billion
Exxon quarterly profit $9 billlion
Pre-war oil revenue embezzled by CPA $9 billion
November 24, 2005 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
More center-left DC think-tank "I hope this gets me invited to the right dinner party" bloviating.
Here's a clue, Ivo. The US spends more than the entire UN budget in Iraq every couple of weeks. The UN is not in the financial position to "compete" when the US decides it wants to corner the market on "problem solving"----the US can just agree to throw money at a problem (and make sure that the right officials get paid off) and then talk about "problem solved". Of course, the problem isn't solved (see Bush's AIDs in Africa initiative) but the US comes out smelling like a "winner"
November 24, 2005 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink