Cold comfort indeed, but the upside of John Bolton resigning as ambassador to the UN is that the UN does not deserve to be dignified by ambassadors of the stature of John Bolton. His presence there endowed the place with a seriousness it has not earned. Bolton has been valiant in his efforts to clean up UN corruption and malfeasance, and follow UN procedure in dealing with such threats as a nuclear North Korea, a Hezbollah bid to take over Lebanon, and the nuclearization of Hezbollah’s terror-masters in Iran. But it has been like watching one man trying to move a tsunami of mud.
I’m reminded here of an episode from the historical novels of Robert Graves about the life of the Roman Emperor, Claudius, who tried to reform the empire. Toward the end, as Graves interprets it, Claudius concludes that despite his best efforts, Rome cannot be redeemed. Is too far gone in autocratic decay. Claudius figures that before things have any chance of getting better, they must get even worse. So, he lets the throne pass to Nero. Rome burns.
The immediate obstacle to Bolton’s confirmation was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But the larger problem is that the UN is a place where straight-shooters, especially anyone who unabashedly stands up for the interests of the Free World — especially the interests of America — will be undermined and pilloried.
The big question now is whether President Bush will understand the lesson of sending Bolton to Turtle Bay, and recognize the folly of trying to work in good faith through the UN. Founded with the aim of promoting peace, the UN is a collective, which predictably enough has morphed into a machine for promoting and expanding itself — captive of special interests ranging from the left-wing of American politics, to the corrupt bureaucrats within its own ranks, to the dictators of places such as China and the Middle East. Something to consider: The U.S. pays some $420 million per year in dues to the UN, but then lavishes close to another $5 billion in “voluntary” contributions on UN operations — some of them profoundly anti-American in leadership and intent. If Bush can’t have his chosen ambassador on hand to keep an eye on such stuff, why keep the optional billions flowing?
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
17 Comments
1. Vanderleun:Sadly Bush, from all appearences, will neither understand the lesson, nor recognize the folly.
Dec 4, 2006 - 7:08 pm 2. Alex Reed:I have searched, but sadly cannot locate anywhere in my being an even minute shred of comfort – cold, luke-warm, or hot-hot-hot – at the news of John Bolton’s resignation. All I find is despair at the widening wreck of our country, at the quiet dismantling, by almost unseen hands, of the freedom of spirit that has made America unique, at the quick-blossoming treachery, urged on all sides, that would reward our enemies and betray our friends. John Bolton’s resignation is emblematic of the surreal transformation that has been under way in our foreign policy since last spring and earlier. President Bush may still have the captain’s hat, but others are at the wheel and plotting the course, and it’s a course that will see us founder all too soon.
Dec 4, 2006 - 7:20 pm 3. jo:I take some courage at finding one hopeful and undaunted soul amongst this smoldering wreckage, even though I cannot myself make this leap of faith. My fear and expectation is that Bolton will not be replaced by a Nero in diplo clothing who will let the UN just burn down to be replaced eventually by something better; but rather by a smooth enabler who will further the the UN’s relentless desire to chip, and chip, and chip away at the sovereignty of nations the better to put itself forward as a world government. (Bill Evans is just playing “Here’s That Rainy Day”. I have the feeling that Ambassador Bolton’s resignation is the occasion of just one of many rainy days to come.) The faction currently in charge of our foreign policy is fervently PRO-UN. Thus, if anything, I think we will see an even greater emphasis and reliance on working through and for the UN, not less.
As for cutting off funding to the UN, it is, of course, the best possible course of action to start controlling their financial profligacy, the tyranny of despots that currently holds sway there, and the UN’s generally unholy aspirations. However, even in the face of the OFF horrors, and the dozens of other scandals at the UN, no serious move has been made to cut off funding. With Republican majorities in both houses, and a Republican President, American taxpayer dollars have continued, unabated, to flood the UN coffers. If, in those circumstances, this excellent idea was not put into action, I don’t think that there is any chance at all of seeing the upcoming Democratic congress seek to curtail US funding for the UN. I will even go out on a limb, and predict that the Democratic congress will attempt to INCREASE funding to the UN. And we can forget about any further congressional investigations of OFF after January.
We’re in deep water here, and it looks more and more as though we lack the proverbial paddle — or the will to use it. I’m sorry I can’t be more positive and hopeful about the situation. I yearn to be totally incorrect about all this. Please convince me I’m wrong! Any ideas about who the new nominee will be for the Turtle Bay torture seat?
I agree with some of what you say- the UN needs reform to make it more effective especially in the Secretariat.
However, there are a dozen or so UN agencies which do an amazing job around the world every day (WHO, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNDP,WFP etc). There is a worrying trend of people (as demonstrated by your article) just damning the UN as one entity.
In much the same way, the left wing in america’s rabid, mouth frothing hatred of G W Bush is such that they will never believe that anything he does can be a ‘good thing’.
Dec 4, 2006 - 9:29 pm 4. Artbyruth:I hope he writes a book about his experiences with the UN. Sort of an “expose”……
I will miss him.
Dec 4, 2006 - 9:36 pm 5. Michael Kennedy:Bolton is too good to let go. Over at NRO there is a bit of interest in Bolton as president. That may be unrealistic but there may be benefit in pushing this further unless he asks to stop. I don’t even care what his fiscal policies are. We cannot let a truth talker fade away without a fight.
Dec 4, 2006 - 9:49 pm 6. annie nomus:At this point, there’s only one reason to have the UN: Get all the tinpot dictators in there for the general assembly, then detonate all the charges laid about the building’s foundations.
Dec 4, 2006 - 10:59 pm 7. spynverzyon:jo: You give UN agencies such as WHO, UNICEF, and UNHRC far too much credit: they are as corrupt, ideologically bankrupt, and politically co-opted as all the rest. That aside, the last thing we need is a more “effective” Secretariat, empowered to oppose American interests, ostracize Israel, and legitimize thugs and tyrants the world over.
Since honest, competent UN representation does us no good whatsoever, Bush should make a statement about what we think of the UN by giving it the ambassador it deserves: Alcee Hastings; or, since she’s in the neighborhood, why not Hillary?
Dec 4, 2006 - 11:28 pm 8. brooksfoe:Mm hm. John Bolton did more to torpedo effective reform at the UN than any other single ambassador. Annan’s major reform process was initiated in late 2004 and guided through summer of 2005 with constant cross-checking with Nicholas Burns at the State Dept to ensure it conformed to American wishes. The reform package was patiently negotiated with over 100 other countries, who were pushed into agreement by making it clear that expansion of the Security Council would not happen unless the rest of the UN was reformed. Bolton showed up in the summer of 2005 with a list of 140 new amendments to the document and said “take it or leave it”. Many of the amendments were idiotic and contrary to US policy: he wanted to excise references to rich countries’ Millennium Development aid pledges (which President Bush had already agreed to years earlier), for instance. The effect was precisely the opposite of his intentions: suddenly, countries like Cuba and Algeria saw no reason to go along with UN reform any more, since they knew the US, not they, would be blamed for torpedoing it. Bolton couldn’t have done a better job if Fidel Castro had been giving him his orders. Kofi Annan managed to force Bolton to recognize his self-defeating tactics, and salvaged a reform document, but it was much less strong than the document that was there previously — less strong in terms of the US’s stated goals, like reforming the corrupt Human Rights Council.
John Bolton’s diplomatic incompetence sabotaged United States goals and policy at the UN. He was the best friend Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad ever had in Turtle Bay. He should have been fired long ago.
Dec 5, 2006 - 1:34 am 9. jo:spynverzyon
You exactly prove my point- just as the left wing are incapable of believing that Bush can do anything right; in the same way you seem incapable of seeing any good that the UN does i.e. UN organised the first elections in Iraq post-saddam, millions of children’s lives saved by UNICEF, millions kept alive through WFP food each year etc. etc.
Dec 5, 2006 - 3:16 am 10. Fred Beloit:Harumph ahem goboingboing. Brook? You have been reading the NYT again haven’t you. Or do you have a nice little rice bowl at the UN yourself? “Annan’s major reform process…’??? Why the guy’s a crook who opposes the USA and real reform every chance he gets, except at bill-paying time. I couldn’t say the UN does nothing right, but reform itself? Please. Rosset’s right. Bolton was too good for the UN. Bolton for President and Tommy Franks for VP. I can dream anyway.
Dec 5, 2006 - 12:35 pm 11. America - Go to Hell:God, you Americans are retarded. Seriously, all mouth, no brains. BTW, Ms. Roset…cutting and pasting from Wikipedia does not erudition make.
Bolton was a disaster.
I’m all for the US getting out of the UN….and getting off the world stage altogether. I’ll take my chances with rogue nations with nukes rather than having to deal with 300 million fat, undereducated, mean-spirited blowhards who’ve long been the laughing stock of the developed world.
Dec 5, 2006 - 1:59 pm 12. P. Ami:One reads the comments written directly above and wonders if there is any appropriate response. Does one remind the child that however developed their world might be (Europe, I’m guessing is the rest of the developed world?) it was the work of their parents (The US with the Marshall Plan) that brought you up from the levels your shortsighted politics bombed you into? We too were short sighted in those days. While focused on developing your nations so you wouldn’t follow your self-destructive urges and join the Russians in their nihilistic approach to governance, we lost sight that it was you who sent millions to their needless deaths in WWI (that anyone would call any war great is beyond me). The spirit had so left you that you couldn’t learn from this mistake and rose up again for WWII. We lost sight that your version of high-minded ideas has to do with balances of power, the government paying for bread and circuses such as public TV and welfare for the able bodied and minded and your own propensity towards censuring common sense that you deem blasé.
If nothing else confirms the general thinking of this blog-syndicate then your last sentence does. That a preference to rogue states with nukes to even your myopic view of America is openly stated calls into question the maturity of all those you seem to consider your developed brethren.
America will go to hell if it ever elevates itself to the mental Tower of Babel that is current in European thinking. Maybe next time you’ll dupe the Chinese into rebuilding your continent for you.
Save your schoolyard critique for your educational equals in your own weight class.
Dec 5, 2006 - 4:03 pm 13. Hattie:loved your high class reference to Robert Graves. What gravitas!
Dec 5, 2006 - 4:41 pm 14. spynverzyon:jo: Actually, UN apologists who invoke the “save the children” defense perpetuate precisely the kind of misguided, collectivist thinking that makes the UN so dangerous. The political and financial resources wasted on the UN could be far better spent.
Once upon a time, UNICEF was basically a charitable agency that helped keep children alive. Ever since the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, it has become an ideological front group that promotes meaningless “children’s causes” in lieu of practical measures to save children. In that same time period, child mortality reductions in the region of greatest need, sub-Saharan Africa, have lagged far behind those in other regions, and rates have actually increased in some areas (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/mdg-factsheets/childmortalityfactsheet.pdf ; also a good editorial in the Lancet – hardly a right-wing mouthpiece – December 2004).
Likewise, the WHO, rather than focusing its resources on eradication of malaria – still by far the greatest worldwide health threat, especially in developing countries – promotes a political agenda targeted at helping third-world countries take on…cigarette companies. This accomplishes basically nothing in terms of health, but it is fashionable enough to make for good fundraising.
I could go on about the UNDP, the World Bank, etc., but the principle is the same: while there may be pockets of good, the UN in all its manifestations is a huge collective, granted immunity from criticism and reform under its “we are the world” banner. The real work of humanitarian aid and economic opportunity gets done by churches, private organizations, and – gasp – capitalist entrepreneurs. To the extent that the UN co-opts, drives out, or creates a moral exemption for this kind of work, it is a big, world-wide negative. Let’s give it our worst.
Dec 5, 2006 - 10:50 pm 15. Avril:The U.N is a joke. The Left continues down the slippery slope of futile thinking that a group of people making a living off an organization that panders to looters and cheats will somehow save the world. Please. Not every American is fat dumb and stupid. We see what America used to be- and those like Bolton were the cloth from which all our leaders were made. Now those who call a spade a spade are “evil”. How sad for us.
Dec 6, 2006 - 3:08 am 16. jo:spynverzyon
What “meaningless children’s causes” are you refering to in UNICEF?
WHO does massive amounts of work to fight malaria so i dont now how you think they do not.
You say WHO’s anti-tobacco work is “fashionable” and a distraction from ‘real’ work. Smoking is the second biggest cause of death in the world every year- it would be a bit odd, dont you think, if the World’s Health Orginsation didnt try to address that, no?
Dec 6, 2006 - 4:51 am 17. Hank Moody:The UN is an unholy nest of scoundrels and liars, where the sterling Mr. Bolton is an anomaly. As Claudius determined about Rome, the UN cannot be redeemed. Things must get much worse before they get better. So let the ambassadorship pass to Bill Clinton, and hope the joint burns while he fiddles with the interns.
Dec 6, 2006 - 7:40 pm