America's next UN Ambassador: Zalmay Khalilzad
I'm cross-posting this over from Bolton Watch, where I wrote it last month.
***
I know everyone in the world already knows this, but as we, and (undoubtedly TPMCafe) prepare to decommission Bolton Watch (although, one should never stop watching John Bolton), let's report for a moment on Bolton's successor.
Bob Novak says it will be Zalmay Khalilzad, soon to be ex-Ambassador to Iraq. Although what no one else is relaying is Novak's "footnote" that says that Andrew Card, former White House Chief of Staff, expressed interest in the job.
What would a Khalilzad ambassadorship mean for America, and the UN?
I doubt we'll see any bruising confirmation hearings over Ambassador Khalilzad - he's been confirmed to multiple embassies by the Senate, and with little dissension. It would take something pretty shocking to make the US Senate, even under Joe Biden's chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee, change their tone, and that ammunition would have been loaded before he was shipped off to Iraq.
Much will be made about how Khalilzad, as a Muslim, will be a good emissary to the Muslim world. But if this was true, we would keep him in Afghanistan, or Iraq, where his presence would soothe the Muslims of the world we need to be most concerned with, rather than the ambassadors of Qatar and Indonesia. With a PhD from the U. of Chicago and a membership in the Project for a New American Century, Khalilzad will be rapidly fingered as a primary neocon player, and that's quite enough to make the Group of 77 and China think you are a loyal Bush/Cheney man.
Still, Khalilzad will be more likely to play by the UN's rule of diplomatic etiquette, and in this way, it will be a smoother time for the United States at the UN. The G-77 and China won't just dig in their heels on issues because Khalilzad is Khalilzad - they'll dig in their heels because he represents America. That's a better situation than where we've been, especially on the critical but underreported UN reform issues that need to be bigger American priorities.
I don't think I'm simply going out on a limb here - check out this report that Dr. Khalilzad signed off to in 2000 when he was still at the RAND Corporation. The report was supposed to be a bipartisan blueprint to manage national security for the winner of 2000's presidential contest:
In our view, sustaining support for this approach will require rebuilding the effectiveness of the UN as an institution and reestablishing US domestic support for the UN. This will require paying the dues that the US owes to the UN, while pressing for needed institutional reforms.
That's a heck of a lot better than "losing ten floors."





If he is so important at the UN who is so important to be in Baghdad? For a President whose legacy is Iraq he ought to be putting his best (as he sees them) people in the most critical places. Iraq seems like one of them.
Reference - for anyone of us who was not paying attention back when. Those who signed PNAC principles:
Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz
January 4, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're serious, aren't you, michaelroston ? Your blog entry reads like it was written by Rendon or the Lincoln Group, and I doubt that is the impression that you are trying to make here.
I've outlined enough citations in my TPM blog entry earlier this AM to convince most readers that Khalilzad is just another trusted Neocon thug of the Bush admin., a repackaged Bolton.
He's married to Cheryl Bernard of the Rand Corp, he is reported to have muscled aside Karzai's political competitors at least twice, at the most critical times in the early installation of the mayor of Kabul.
and, he's a protege of the esteemed, and sole Bush admin. advisor, as with other republican presidents before him, on Afghanistan, Thomas E. Gouttierre, director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, the professor with no PhD who was paid millions....twice...first by Reagan's admin. to compile and print up the "Jihad" school textbooks for Afghanistan schoolchildren in the 80's, books that the Taliban deemed appropriate to be left in continued use after their ascendancy, and paid again, to revise and re-print the texts for use in schoolrooms in the post US invasion era:
Do you really think that the Bush admin. is ushering in a "new era" of constructive engagement in the UN, by appointing Khalilzad?
January 5, 2007 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Man, Host, talk about content spam. You should really try summarizing things in your own words some time and linking to things you want people to read.
I appreciate your suggestion that my writing is good enough to be paid for by such high-grossing corporations. But the truth is, Zalmay is going to do what the White House wants him to do. So, while your criticisms of Zalmay the man and the legacy are legit (and I've written about these, too, at RAW STORY, though not in as much detail as you), they don't have much to do with the outcome of his tenure at the UN.
I want the Bush/Cheney empire to end as much as you do. But the truth is, in the two years we have left, there are other things that are going to have to happen. The issue of UN reform is in the brief of the UN ambassador - it's not something that the White House is going to make decisions about, in contrast to the major Security Council issues that Khalilzad will be overseeing.
Khalilzad is not going to sit down and go through every single UN reform issue and work to knock it down, one by one. He's going to play by the rules of the institution, and let his competent and committed New York-based staff handle the reform stuff. And that's crucial. The UN is an important institution that needs to be improved. And when someone as hostile to the UN as John Bolton is trying to cause death to the UN by a thousand tracked changes, the organization is going to be worse off.
For that reason alone, Khalilzad is going to be a vast improvement over what transpired for the previous year and a half.
January 6, 2007 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink