A Birthday Note
On behalf of my colleagues at Bolton Watch, I want to wish Ambassador Bolton a happy birthday. As we've written before, all of us want to see Bolton successfully achieve U.S. foreign policy priorities and build a strong and effective United Nations. As he might say, we've observed more in sorrow than in anger that he has failed at both.
Bolton's conservative backers spent part of last week touting his response to the General Assembly's resolution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The statement - and its timing - is worth a closer look.
90% of what Bolton said, which is right on, would have been similarly articulated by another Ambassador (in fact, many of Bolton's predecessors have used very similar language). The remaining 10% is why he has to go.
Last week, Bolton forcefully claimed that the U.N. is biased against Israel. For close observers of the United Nations, this is nothing new. It's widely known that Israel long struggled to gain even temporary membership to a regional group, which it needs to sit on any of the U.N.'s primary organs. It is also well known that the U.N. devotes far more time and scrutiny to Israel than any other country.
Most of Bolton's speech highlights this fact. And this is important. Whether or not Israel's actions are worthy of international scrutiny, no one could credibly argue that they should overshadow the atrocities being committed in Sudan or Myanmar. And I doubt anyone could credibly argue that Israel deserves different status than the other 191 countries in the U.N.
But this is no secret, and U.S. Ambassadors have made this clear for years. The only new argument in John Bolton's speech is this:
“In a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question, that of its relevance and utility in confronting the challenges of the 21st century."
To state the obvious, implying that the U.N. is only relevant if it goes along with the U.S. agenda is - and has been - self-defeating. Our next U.N. Ambassador should learn lesson well.
Bolton's effort to use the U.N.'s unfair treatment of Israel as a platform for his effort to discredit the U.N. altogether win him points with the ultra-conservative crowd. But his effort to use that treatment as a platform for another appointment to his current post won't fly.
In short, Bolton totally sucks! Is he really the ONLY person Bush can dredge up from his many retreads to do this job?
Jan Knaus
November 20, 2006 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly is wrong with that statement? Nowhere is Bolton saying that "U.N. is only relevant if it goes along with the U.S. agenda".
What he is saying is that by its actions and inactions the UN has shown itself to be a meaningless and irrelevant institution. It failed to enforce any of its resolutions against Iraq throughout the '90s; it completely failed in doing anything about ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo; it completely failed in doing anything in Rwanda; it completely failed in enforcing any of its resolutions against Hezbullah; it has completely failed to do anyhting about Darfur. Its not even necessary to mention the oil-for food debacle, or he food for sex debacle. Where has the UN been relevant and successful?
The simple fact is that the UN General Assembly is a body controlled by the Arab League and its minions. While the Security Council is a meaningless debating society. In short, the UN has completely, and utterly failed to live up to its own charter and raison d'etre. The only thing it has done is issue biased resolutions against Israel.
November 20, 2006 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the Bush administration's idea of diplomacy?
Yes, this may be the best you think the US can do, but the fact is that true diplomats can make a difference by showing respect for those they deal with. Bolton has no respect for his EQUALS (my emphasis -- ie: he is no better than the other ambassadors -- in fact, he is arguably worse, since he could not be approved and was sneaked in by Bush when he couldn't be approved by Congress)
And what is this about?
"The simple fact is that the UN General Assembly is a body controlled by the Arab League and its minions." Are you a neocon troll? Who has veto power? Iran? Syria? Give me a break!
Your crocodile tears for the UN's failings:
"...it completely failed in doing anything about ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo; it completely failed in doing anything in Rwanda..."
Baloney! If the US declared that Rwanda and Darfur(which you kinda left out) was a world-wide priority, it would be over! Don't blame it on the UN when the US is perfectly content to let Africa go up in flames. Bolton is a pathetic bloviator, and has no business in the diplomatic corps of ANY country! PS That MIGHT be why he cannot get confirmed! You'd think he'd be too embarrassed to keep on, but like this sick administration he has NO shame. Do you?
Jan Knaus
November 20, 2006 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan,
First of all, I did not leave out Darfur. Go and reread my comment.
Second, by saying "If the US declared that Rwanda and Darfur(which you kinda left out) was a world-wide priority, it would be over!" you want the US to set the agenda. In effect, you are saying that for the UN to be relevant, it has to follow the US agenda - a point completely contrary to Mr. Paul's argument.
Finally, in your lengthy response you did not answer the key question: Where has the UN been relevant and successful? The UN is not about John Bolton or any other ambassador. The UN is a broken institution that has absolutely zero relevance, except as a debating club. When you have Zimbabwe, and Cuba, and Syria criticizing someone else's human rights policies, there is something seriously wrong.
November 20, 2006 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read it in foreign press too: "When you have Zimbabwe, Cuba, Syria or USA criticising someone else's human right policies...."
November 20, 2006 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn...Is that in the DPRK news or on al Manar?
Moral relativism...the refuge of the self-righteous ignoramuses.
November 21, 2006 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is the U.N. relevant? Below is a short list that I copied from the UN Foundation, but these are just the highlights. James Traub, who just wrote a book on Kofi Annan, writes that the U.S. and U.N. communicate daily to resolve diplomatic crises. The U.N. has a lot of work to do, but what institution doesn't? The U.S.-U.N. relationship is absolutely crucial to U.S. and international interests.
If you're interested, you can also see the U.N.'s more exhaustive list (though I'll admit it tends to gloss over shortcomings).
http://www.stopbolton.org
November 21, 2006 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Garbage in, garbage out. It has the potential to be relevant, but not without the USA.
Bolton wasn't put there to solidify things. His task was to take the UN down.
November 21, 2006 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have got to be kidding.
Lets go through those points one by one.
-Promoting Peace and Burdensharing
Would those be the peacekeepers that were raping 10 year olds, or the peacekeepers who were trading food for sex, or the peacekeepers who allowed the slaughter in Srebrenica, or the peacekeepers who allow Hezbullah to rearm - afraid to go out at night - while happily firing on Israeli planes? UN peacekeeping is effective when and where it is no longer necessary. In the other places, they do nothing - at best.
-Building Democracy in Afghanistan
Of course the US had absolutely nothing ot do with that. Without the US intervention, the UN would still be happily tolerating the Taliban.
-Responding to Natural Disasters
The bit about the Asian tsunami is simply an outright lie. It was the US Navy that was "on the ground providing food for 1.7 million people, shelter to 1.3 million people, water to more than 1 million people, and vaccinations for 1.2 million children." The UN showed up and held meetings and assesments
-Fighting Poverty
Again, they met, they discussed, they signed a declaration that has not and will not have any effect whatsoever.
-Promoting Justice
How's that Milosevic trial going? Great that they got Taylor, but that is one out of hundreds that they didnt and continue to tolerate.
-Protecting Human Rights
Doing a bang-up job in Darfur. And of course they did great in Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc.
-Establishing International Standards
The one thing that they can do. Good job.
-Promoting Free Elections in Iraq
Was that before or after they fled? And of course, had it been up to the UN, there would never have been free elections in Iraq.
-Fighting for Women’s Rights
No...talking about women's rights. Fighting for women's rights was deposing the Taliban, or establishing the Grameen Bank.
Face it, whenever there has been a real crisis, the UN has talked while others - The US in particular - have done something.
November 21, 2006 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nudnik -
Your cudgel for bashing the UN is blunt and inelegant. You blame the UN for the failings of its Member States; America is one of them, and we've slipped on our international obligations in the context of the UN repeatedly.
Let's go through your list:
- Peacekeepers raping and trafficking in women:
It's not hard to realize that the unwillingness of the US and other major military powers to contribute to peacekeeping is the problem. When we have to rely on highly unprofessional militaries, it's not shocking that we get highly unprofessional results. In any event, the US has disrupted all efforts to hold anyone accountable for international criminal acts, especially under a blue helmet.
- "Peacekeepers who allow Hezbullah to rearm"
The job of the UNIFIL was to oversee the line between Israel and Lebanon - not to enforce an arms embargo. Can't criticize a mission for failing to fulfill a mandate it wasn't given.
- "Tolerating the Taliban"
It's not the job of the UN to pick and choose the governments of its Member States. In any event, our current administration was happy to negotiate with the Taliban about pipeline routes prior to 9/11.
- Flatfooted tsunami response
This is the worst slander there is. In the zones where the UN was able to respond quickly - Sri Lanka and Thailand - they did a fine job. In the Aceh region of Indonesia, the UN and *the entire international humanitarian assistance community* were persona non grata because of the Indonesian military's ineffectual warfighting against the Free Aceh Movement. You can't criticize the UN for failing to respond in a place where they weren't allowed to go - a situation the United States happily acquiesced in for the duration of Megawati-imposed martial law until the tsunami occurred.
- Poverty
The UNDP and other specialized agencies have made measurable contributions to the alleviation of poverty and the accomplishment of the Millennium Development Goals - any criticism you wager here would apply just as much to USAID, the MCC, or any other US mechanism for poverty alleviation.
- Rwanda, Bosnia
The Clinton team's most fundamental foreign policy failures. Especially for Rwanda, see everything that Romeo Dallaire says in "Shaking Hands with the Devil" about the lack of Security Council leadership exerted by a post-Somalia Clinton administration.
- Fleeing Iraq
Breathtaking. A terrible terrorist attack that killed dedicated international civil servants. An American military unwilling to guarantee protection of UN operations. Sleep easy at night, sir.
- Women's rights
Again, we were happy enough with the Taliban until 9/11. Meanwhile, where else but UN fora has it been possible to promote a pro-women, pro-reproductive health agenda in response to the Bush administration's international abstinence-only insanity that is bad for women and men the world over?
You may not be kidding, but you simply can't be taken seriously.
November 21, 2006 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
United Kingdom.
Our closest allies cringe. This is not good.
November 24, 2006 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the UN Security Council is a meaningless debating society, made more so by US vetoes that exceed all other permanent members put together.
It is also true that the UN obsesses about Israel more than any other country. OTOH, so does the United States Congress, which is politically "Israeli occupied territory". AIPAC is probably the most powerful lobby in Washington, and the US spends more tax dollars to support Israel and buy friends for Israel (ie. Egypt and Jordan)than all the other countries in the world put together. Never before in the history of the world have so many (ie. American taxpayers)done so much for so few (ie. Israel).
November 25, 2006 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink