I was talking to Oliver, and he asked me, “What do you think of Bolton.”
Since I really have not written much about his nomination (other than the hypocrisy of the Raw Story), the short answer is:
“I don’t.”
My firm belief is that anyone who thinks that John Bolton is going to single-handedly go in and bully the United Nations into submission is smoking crack and has no concept of the powerful force known as institutional inertia.
Anyone who thinks Bolton can go in there and ‘shake things up’ and actually change anything is fooling themselves and fails to understand that the very nature of the UN is one that the assembly is made up of people who have their own national interests at stakes. They aren’t going to roll over because some foul-mouthed (presumably) bully goes in and scolds them.
Remember the Helms-Biden reforms? Remember this speech in 2000?
Having said all that, I am aware that you have interpreters who translate the proceedings of this body into a half dozen different languages.
They have an interesting challenge today. As some of you may have detected, I don?t have a Yankee accent. (I hope you have a translator here who can speak Southern ? someone who can translate words like “y?all? and “I do declare.?)
It may be that one other language barrier will need to be overcome this morning. I am not a diplomat, and as such, I am not fully conversant with the elegant and rarefied language of the diplomatic trade. I am an elected official, with something of a reputation for saying what I mean and meaning what I say. So I trust you will forgive me if I come across as a bit more blunt than those you are accustomed to hearing in this chamber…
Let me share with you what the American people tell me. Since I became chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have received literally thousands of letters from Americans all across the country expressing their deep frustration with this institution.
They know instinctively that the UN lives and breathes on the hard-earned money of the American taxpayers. And yet they have heard comments here in New York constantly calling the United States a “deadbeat.?
They have heard UN officials declaring absurdly that countries like Fiji and Bangladesh are carrying America?s burden in peacekeeping. They see the majority of the UN members routinely voting against America in the General Assembly.
They have read the reports of the raucous cheering of the UN delegates in Rome, when U.S. efforts to amend the International Criminal Court treaty to protect American soldiers were defeated.
They read in the newspapers that, despite all the human rights abuses taking place in dictatorships across the globe, a UN “Special Rapporteur? decided his most pressing task was to investigate human rights violations in the U.S. ? and found our human rights record wanting.
The American people hear all this; they resent it, and they have grown increasingly frustrated with what they feel is a lack of gratitude.
After a few global Mon Dieu’s and Dios mio’s (pardon my French) around the world and in the media, that was it. Back to business as usual.
That WAS IT. We brought the original bastard, THE Alpha Conservative of the 20th century, the biggest ass-kicker we had, Satan and Hitler and Strom Thurmond all wrapped up in one hard-of-hearing package, marched him right into the middle of the UN with both guns blazing, and… they yawned at him. In fact, much to the dismay of hard-liners everywhere, it was even worse than that, because you all remember what happened next:
We sent the meanest, snarlingest conservative who ever walked the earth- the equivalent of Pat Buchanan with PMS and a southern accent- to the United Nations to lay down the law, and the next thing you know he is running around the country holding hands and playing kissy-face with a drunken Irish rock star in tight leather pants, all the while talking about increasing American committments to debt reduction, Aids prevention, and a whole list of one-worlder wish list items. Worse yet, he was reduced to tears:
“One of the things that he and conservative politicians like Senator Jesse Helms have in common ? what distinguishes him from other rock stars ? is that they can not only go home and tell their daughters that they met with Bono, but he can speak to them and address issues in a way that touches the heart,” said Marie Clarke, national coordinator for the Jubilee USA Network, a debt-relief organization that has benefited from Bono’s support.
“He touches them, especially Christians, by reminding them of the scriptural call to … protect the vulnerable of society. Which has led to that now famous story of Bono making Helms cry in a meeting.”
And how does Bolton compare to Helms? Let me just say this– I followed Jesse Helms, I knew Jesse Helms, and just so you understand, John Bolton is no Jesse Helms.
Again, we brought the big gun, the human hand grenade, the walking ‘nuclear option,’ and they neutered him before David Broder could even say ‘segregation.’ Excuse me if I am unimpressed with the notion that Bolton is going to fix the UN single-handedly.
But enough about Helms. If you still aren’t convinced, let me offer up another name:
Just say the name out loud and an innocent kitten dies somewhere. A brief mention of her name and Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand are gassing up the Leer Jet for the move to France. If I had to choose to confront Kirkpatrick or Bolton, I wouldn’t hesitate with my decision. I’d pick Bolton, and you could throw in Jesse Helms, Ann Coulter, and Augusto Pinochet and it still wouldn’t matter. You get the point.
Likewise, anyone on the left who thinks that Bolton is going to go in there and ruin the UN hasn’t been paying much attention, either. Pardon me if I also think that claims Bolton is going to destroy the UN are a touch, shall we say, overwrought. The UN is flawed, but any changes Bolton might institute will be minor. You want to change the UN- tell Congress. They pay the damned bills.
So, to sum things up, I really don’t care other than that I think a President should have his nominees confirmed. I would rather he nominate someone else, but it won’t matter. In six months this will not even be an issue other than in hysterical MoveOn.Org fund-raising e-mails. I have complete faith in the capacity of the United Nations to chew up and spit out whoever we send there.
And while we are on the topic, I have mentioned that I think the UN is flawed. Absolutely. Part of the problem is structural and a reflection of the member’s self-interest, as I mentioned above.
I don’t, however, buy into the notion that the UN is fatally flawed. It does do good work, and that should be acknowledged. I have a helluva lot of things I would like them to do, but that would require committments that no one in the world, tragically, appears willing to make (GENOCIDE IN SUDAN, ANYONE?). That was part of the reason I believe The UN Dispatch took on Roger Simon (a debate that has now devolved into a tedious flame war).
I talked to Peter Daou, and I understand why he did what he did– there is no excuse for the Oil-for-Food scandal or for the rape outrages, and people using these because they just hate the UN are, as Peter noted, being unfair and disingeneous (and I am not claiming that is why Roger is so worked up about the scandal- neither is Peter).
In order to address your critics, you have to engage them, which Daou did, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, which I thought was designed in part to get attention. That was sort of hinted at pretty clearly in the initial post:
Is Simon’s hyper-focus on a single UN-related issue based on deep convictions? Unbending principles? Moral outrage? Maybe. Then again, there’s his explanation:
“Thanks to the Secretary General of the United Nations for providing this blog with its first 50,000+ visitor day.” – Roger L. Simon
I have read Roger Simon for a long time, and I am fully convinced he is passionate about UN reform and deeply appalled by the Oil-for-Food scandal. In West Virginia, we have a saying for gentleman like Roger:
“He’s good people.”
Peter used him because he is a highly visible critic of the UN scandals, and he could address the critics who attack the the UN over the oil-for-food scandal simply because they hate the UN. Makes pretty good sense to me, and guess what? It worked. People are now debating the UN and discussing the good and bad things the UN does.
At any rate, Democrats using this Bolton nomination to weaken the administration are equally wrong, and don’t deny it. You would have to be born yesterday to not recognize that this is, in large part, a test of the administration’s power. If Bolton fails, Democrats will be running around screaming gleefully about Bush being an impotent lame duck, and not out of a deep concern for the UN.
I also believe that it is an absurd idea that Bolton as an Ambassador will somehow sully our reputation. The people overseas screaming about Bolton are the same people out there who wouldn’t be happy with the United States if Jacques Chirac was Bush’s nominee. Does anyone think they would be dancing in the streets in Paris and Cairo if Bush nominated Mario Cuomo? Please.
Wanna test my theory? Without google, who is France’s UN Ambassador? Britain’s? Syria’s? Russia’s? Chile’s? Spain’s? You don’t know, and 99.99% of the world doesn’t either, myself included. And the same number has no clue who the hell Bolton is and they won’t have any more of a clue in 6 months, regardless if he is confirmed or not. The only people who care already hate us, and Bolton isn’t going to change that ONE LICK.
Besides, ambassadors do what the POTUS tells them to do, so they are going to hate our representative regardless. Do you thnk world opinion would have been any different if Mr. Rogers had told them where to go stick their UN Resolutions before the Iraq war rather than having- Cripes. I have already forgotten who our last (current?) UN Ambassador was/is.
So, everyone just pipe down and grow up. If Bolton is confirmed, the UN will survive just fine, and nothing will change. If Bolton is not confirmed, the UN will still be here. Regardless of who is eventually confirmed, I propose we ratchet down the rhetoric, and try to get behind the reforms that Kofi Annan has himself proposed.
We’ll all be better off in the long run.
*** Update ***
More from Pennywit:
First, the Bolton nomination is not that important. While Bolton does represent Washington in the United Nations, “ambassador” seems to be a rather lowly position for the amount of fuss that has been made over him. What can he do in the UN once he gets there? He can’t really “reform” the institution without cooperation from other nations. If he is insufficiently diplomatic, he can be removed from his office quite easily. As ambassador, he has no policy authority authority. The ruckus around him is unjustified…
Overall, I find it appalling that so many in the blogosphere leap immediately to the rhetorical big guns — “traitor,” “backstabber,” “spineless,” “stupid” — for a situation that does not call for it. I know that spinmeisters and hacks on both sides of the aisle want their audiences to believe that every confirmation battle, every issue, is a FIGHT TO THE DEATH, but it just ain’t so.
Relax. Put away the knives. And save the rhetoric for situations where it’s truly warranted.
Word.
*** Update ***
Edited when I was reminded in the comments of Jeanne…
Stormy70
When I see legitimate reforms insteaad of ass-covering, then I will reconsider my hate for the UN. Kofi is neck deep in corruption, and should resign. Is the Dutch diplomat who ran the pedofile ring in the Congo being punished? Are the Pakistani peacekeepers (who were raping 12 year old boys, and nearly got into a firefight with the Aussi peacekeepers) being punished? Kofi is stonewalling everyone over the oil-for-food, so I don’t trust him on meaningful reforms.
Laurence Simon
If he’s in, bookmark the UNSC video feed at un.org. I guarantee there will be some interesting clips there when he’s face-to-face with a few of the appeasers and eurocrats.
And who replaced Nasser Al-Kidwa? Danforth dismissed him handily time and time again, but politely.
I do not expect Bolten to leave the gloves on for as long as Danforth did.
Randolph Fritz
With Bolton…I am not so sure he’s harmless. If nothing else, there will be a price for alienating people at the UN, which is increasingly important. And, of course, there’s always the “edge cases”–the bad luck circumstances where hot words from someone like Bolton might actually trigger a war or some other major international relations disaster. He’s a horrible choice for the job, and I don’t see valid reasons for the Senate to confirm him; if the Senate’s “advice and consent” means anything, let them reject him.
Nash
“Kofi is neck deep in corruption”
Running this through the thread-to-thread comment transmogrifier which generates omniscient but fact-free claims we get:
“The Republicans stole the 2004 election in Ohio.”
It’s a wonderful algorithm–it sure beats thinking.
Rick
So the transmogrifier matter of fact statements into fact-free claims?
So Paul Krugman can be replaced by a machine, then.
Cordially…
P.S. John’s on a roll today for having it right (it’s been a couple months since that could be said). Turtle Bay is a morass, and butt-kissin’ Bill Clinton wouldn’t make any real difference from hands-on-hips Bolton.
Libertine
Is the UN a perfect institution? Hell no!!! Is it time Kofi Annan to take his leave? Maybe So!!
But the debate is whether John Bolton is qualified to be US Ambassador to the UN and isn’t a referendum on the UN or Annan. Bolton is on the far right in terms of idealogy, but so was Jeanne Kirkpatrick, so that doesn’t disqualify him in my eyes. But his conduct at State on the other hand is troublesome. Badgering IC people to give him intelligence to make his case, no matter how flimsy the intelligence was. Having analysts fired for having findings different then his. Chasing staffers around the building, threatening them with and attempting to do bodily harm. I believe this questions about his professional conduct makes him unsuitable for the UN post. There are more qualified candidates (including some very conservative ones) who should be considered. We can do much better then John Bolton.
Libertine
BTW…
Senator Voinovich has stated that he will vote to move the nomination to the full Senate to vote but that he will not be voting in favor of Mr. Bolton. And the commitee did not endorse Bolton’s nomination. There is a very good chance the full Senate will not approve him.
Mr Furious
I think Voinovich had it just about right in his statement today [transcript here]. Bolton is a shit nominee and everybody knows it. That said, all the hand-wringing over his ascension to UN Ambassador is pretty much, as John says, overkill.
I still feel pretty much the same as I did a month ago about this whole Bolton affair. If he gets bounced, great. If not, fine. The Democrats using up a filibuster or even threatening one is ridiculous.
Give him a vote and hope some other R’s cross over and join Voinovich.
Nash
“So the transmogrifier matter of fact statements into fact-free claims?”
Rick, buy a verb. Communication is sure to follow.
Leading hint–Show me the proof (and I’m no Kofi supporter)
willyb
Last I heard, Bolton was confirmed by the Senate on 4 previous occasions. And all of the allegations about Bolton have yielded nothing. Zip.
I think this whole issue is symptomatic of the Democrats’ indigestion with the confirmation process in general. You know, the filabuster issue.
As for the UN, I’m not sure that anyone will make a difference there. From the rumors I have heard, the good thing about Bolton is his willingness to speak openly about the problems at the UN. And they do have a bunch of them, with Oil for Food leading the pack. There will certainly be “reforms” at the UN. The question is whether the reforms will make any difference.
lee
the UN is a waste of time, money (our tax money) and is a feel good org for feel good hand wringers. let the red cross do what the UN tries to do (RC could do it cheaper and more efficiently). UN is a corrupt (any doubts?), inefficient dinosaur who’s time to ‘part this earth’ is upon us.
Rick
If nothing else, there will be a price for alienating people at the UN, which is increasingly important.
Randolph,
Increasingly important? Too funny!
Cordially…
Rick
Great point, Nash.
Here’s a look at the institution under the man some tend to think of as Global President in Waiting.
Cordially…
Steven
My favorite line on the whole Bolton thing is that the reason he got the nomination in the first place was because Condi can’t stand him and wants him out of State. She hasn’t been very visible in this fight and that may be why. If he gets in, he’s gone from State, and if he loses, he’s gone from State. It’s a win win for Condi.
Jon H
My concern isn’t that he’ll try to reform the UN. My concen is that he’ll keep stepping in dogshit at the UN, requiring emergency diplomacy by Condi to smooth things over. He will probably also promote his own views, rather than (more moderate) national policy, which again will require Condi’s intervention to convey the actual policy and smooth things over.
Condi has more important things to do than babysitting this guy and fixing things that he breaks.
It would be better to have someone at the UN who doesn’t need that kind of babysitting.
Nash
National Review? Rachel Ehrenfeld?
Nash
that last said with a snicker, if it wasn’t immediately obvious.
Jon H
I should elaborate a little on my comment above.
When I say that Bolton will be metaphorically stepping in dogshit at the UN, I don’t just mean that other countries will get upset over US policy.
I mean he’ll cause problems that have *nothing to do* with our national policy.
Or, hell, he’ll cause problems that have nothing to do with substantive reform of the UN.
timekeeper
Nash:
Leading hint–Show me the proof (and I’m no Kofi supporter)
Oh, please. Get off it. Nobody is denying that Oil-for-Food turned into a huge cash cow for SOMEBODY, and Kofi Annan’s son appears at first blush to be a central figure. Even if Kofi Annan is not involved, he is the leader of the organization; it happened under his watch. Use the same standard the left has used against Bush at every opportunity (Abu Ghraib? Bush should be impeached. Errant bomb kills Afghan civilians? Bush should be impeached. Bush states that British intelligence believes Iraq went to Africa to buy yellowcake? Bush should be impeached. Valerie Plame’s name is leaked? Bush should be impeached) and tell me that if we were talking about, say , the IMF, you wouldn’t be screaming at the top of your lungs.
—-
I don’t believe the UN is useless, nor do I advocate holding back dues or boycotting the organization. However, I *do* believe that there is an inherent anti-American bias (and there is unquestionably a virulent anti-Israel bias); the UN needs reform and restructuring. France and Russia need to lose their permanent seats and vetos; they are not important enough to justify their importance. (Britain might also fall into this category). Germany and Japan (due to their economic strength), India (a regional power) and perhaps Australia and Brazil (same as India) are better choices for permanent seats. Australia and Japan are American allies, but the other three are ambivalent at best, so I’m not just trying to pack the UNSC with American sympathizers.
anon
It still sends the message that the leader of the freeworld who is prosecuting a war in two different countries-Iraq and Afghanistan(in case you have forgotten) is getting whipped by Democrats that lost the Presidency and the legislative bodies, and by an enabling Republican who was not worried enough about Bolton to prioritize showing up for the meetings.
As my husband is military I am sorry if I cannot join you in your casual and flippant attitude. I am still worried about the military fighting for your protection, and I do not find comfort in the message that this partisan squabbling sends to the rest of the world.
Bully for you that you can find it humorous.
John Cole
As my husband is military I am sorry if I cannot join you in your casual and flippant attitude. I am still worried about the military fighting for your protection, and I do not find comfort in the message that this partisan squabbling sends to the rest of the world.
Bully for you that you can find it humorous.
Yeah- it would be a terrible tragedy if the UN forces can’t hold the northern front in Iraq.
Someone else deal with this…
John
Two words about Bolton’s chances to make a difference at the U.N.; Jean Kirkpatrick. John Bolton is Captain Kangeroo compared that tough old broad. You are right, one guy short Jesus himself is not going to make a difference at the U.N.
Aaron
Oh, great. The UN is unchangeable, unreformable.
So let’s do nothing about it.
Wait, no, let’s drag out this guys’ confirmation for fun and games.
Dave Hardy
This Bollton guy seems like a decent fellow. Why are we sending him among a bunch of child molestors, thieves, and scoundrels? It’s gonna be hell on his reputation.
CaseyL
Bolton won’t “fix” the UN. And, no, he won’t “destroy” the UN, either.
The best-guess scenario I’ve heard is that Bush wants Bolton at the UN so that, when Bolton inevitably and totally blows the US case for war against Iran (or Syria, or N Korea, or whatever country the neocons have a hard-on for that week), Bush will be able to say the UN is intransigent, again, and leaves the US no choice but to attack all on our lonesome.
EddieP
The entire Bolton kerfluffle has nothing to do with statesmanship, diplomatic comportment, management competency, or any real purpose except to beat up on the Bush administration.
Lee
now the case for libs against bolton is that he’ll be like a bull in a china shop at the UN and won’t be able to get his point across with ample class? come again? like diplomats from syria, malawi and montserrat will be offended if you don’t drink your tea with your pinkie out? who gives a rat’s butt? we need a doer, not another pretty face to be fodder for the frances of the world.
Sixth Sense
For what it’s worth, I would say that, as the one country that will wade out into the storm as others huddle safe in their homes, why should we not want someone who is willing to not only present an unpopular position, but fight for it as well? While I don’t expect his presence to change the UN, I do hope he ruffles a few feathers, because it needs to happen.
How long should I wait before someone turns that into I think Bolton should provoke other countries into war with us? I’m not asking for war, I’m asking that someone walk into the UN and start verbally bashing people over the head with a common sense stick. If that takes someone using gruff, Southern language while putting their hands on their hips, then so be it.
In the meantime, Kofi needs to go. Volcker has come out and said that he is not “exonerated” by the last report, and two committee members resigned because they felt the committee was going to soft on Kofi. Plenty of other stuff needs to happen around the UN as well, but let’s start with that.
biqbic
Am I missing something?
Wasn’t it Bolton who successfully led the Bush administration’s Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)?
Didn’t Bolton succeed in getting 60+ nations to sign on to the PSI ?
Didn’t the intense multinational cooperation of the PSI result in the smashing of the A.Q. Kahn nuclear smuggling ring?
Didn’t the A.Q. Kahn smuggling ring involve, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Irag, and Al Qaeda ?
Didn’t the PSI inderdict a ship loaded with nuclear fuel centrifuge equipment from the A.Q. Khan ring enroute to Libya ?
As a result, didn’t Libya give up it’s entire WMD program, which was frighteningly further advanced than the CIA thought ?
Are these not facts ?
Is this not about as close to “saving the world” as a human being can get ?
Shouldn’t John Bolton be regarded as hero of all mankind ?
Guess I’m just hung up on facts ‘n stuff. Oh well.
Jon H
Lee writes: “we need a doer, not another pretty face to be fodder for the frances of the world.”
Bolton’s not a doer, he’s a ball-dropper.
He’s been in charge of nonproliferation, yet under his watch North Korea has likely built nukes, and Iran is getting closer.
He wasn’t involved in the Libya deal, in fact, he was against it, and Britain had to demand that Bolton be excluded from negotiations.
The man is incompetent.
Jon H
bigbic,
Bolton nearly torpedoed the negotiations with Libya about their nuke program. He was excluded by British request, and the negotiations were successful. Bolton tried to block them.
A former senior Bush official says PSI wasn’t so much Bolton’s work as the work of Robert Joseph, Bolton’s successor in the NSC.
The guy’s a dud.
jerry
People are now debating the UN and discussing the good and bad things the UN does.
I haven’t seen that, (but I have been working a 60 hour week. ) What I have seen is your typical blog buddies, the knee jerk right wing all excoriating Peter Daou. (Perhaps without knowing that he quotes them in a very nice and balanced manner every day on the Daou Report.) And I haven’t seen Rodgerer himself acknowledge any of the truth in Peter’s commentary.
Rodgerer has just circled his wagon and pointed out all the knee jerk wing nuts who have flamed Daou as Rodgerer’s proof he can do no harm.
Perhaps instead of communicating with Daou, you should communicate with Rodgerer. Although that would have the same result as teaching a pig to sing, cause Rodgerer has found his niche, and he is busy exploiting it.
50,000 hits a day! Woohoo!
To Rodgerer’s mind that’s a potential 50,000 more sells of each of his Moses Whine novels….
That’s real buck payoff for his relatively small investment in his blahg.
And that’s why Rodgerer is doing all of this. Not because he’s good people.
Cutler
“The man is incompetent.”
Well, you disagree with Joe Biden, who once referred to him as “too competent”.
Zong Qua
If the last few UN ambassadors were so good at their jobs, how come we are only now hearing from the MSM about the scandals and corruption? Why wasn’t this stuff exposed before Colin Powell was forced to go begging and scraping looking for security council votes to support GWII? Rumors of the Oil-for-Food corruption had been in the news for years before the spring of 2003. So was news of bad behavior by blue helmets in Yugoslavia. It doesn’t take all that much to clean up the UN – if it’s exposed to lots of sunlight the “Yuk Factor” will force taxpayers and voters and then the pols into action. That is unless goofballs like Volker keep trying to create a coverup.
Collin
The tsunami relief episode demonstrated just how effective the UN is. They spent more money bashing the US in press conferences than they ever did helping people. That doesn’t even count the meetings they had coordinating the coordination efforts to coordinate more meetings. Meanwhile the US armed forces along with the help of a couple other militaries saved lives.
We don’t need to be nice to these people. Every non-democratic country should be removed forthwith. You will never get help in the Sudan from countries that are too busy building up militaries to carry out the plans of a dictatorship. There will be no reform as long as countries like Syria are on the human rights committee. The UN needs to be democritized.
Jon H
“If the last few UN ambassadors were so good at their jobs, how come we are only now hearing from the MSM about the scandals and corruption? ”
Probably because UN ambassadors’ job isn’t to investigate malfeasance by the organization?
anon
Dear John-
Yeah- it would be a terrible tragedy if the UN forces can’t hold the northern front in Iraq.
Funny you should mention Northern you might want to study up on MacArthur’s invasion at Inchon….
You aren’t making too much sense here I am afraid.
If other nations can be interested in applying their will than so can we.
You really don’t sound like someone who comprehends the macro-message.
Libertine
Bolton won’t “fix” the UN. And, no, he won’t “destroy” the UN, either.
OMG…Destroy the UN?
That notion of him “destroying” the UN was drifted out by the far left to attack him. It seems they think he has some mythical powers…
Even though I don’t think he will reign carnage down on the UN…I still don’t think he should confirmed.
Zong Qua
What exactly is the UN Ambassador’s job but to look after the interests of the USA? How about our intelligence services? Why have they been so quiet about all this? Why do we need all of these investigations when the US government should have known about these issues all along and been taking action to correct the situation. Why are we seeing all this ass-covering and excuses? The mgmt of the UN should have been fired years ago – and now we read some dumbass opine in these comments that its not the UN Ambassador’s job to pay attention to what’s going on in his organization. Pleaze, get somebody like Bolton on the job – somebody who is not afraid to speak the truth to the US Public. Then, maybe a few of those wise Senators will stop worrying about hurting peoples feelings and start thinking back about their previous demands that we “not going to war in Iraq without the UN’s security council’s permission”. Remind me, who were those senators dumb enough to be on Sunday morning television a few years ago demanding that we work with the our “allies in the UN”. How stupid do they look now that the truth is coming out?
Libertine
or maybe
I don’t think he should be confirmed…it’s a sign I need sleep, lol!!!
Randolph Fritz
“Increasingly important? Too funny!”
Haven’t you figured out yet that treating the rest of the world as irrelevant is for losers, now? It’s the 21st century–wake up and smell the tea.
leth
while the “left” in DC has cast a pretty wide net in describing just why they oppose Bolton, the actual outrage emanates from a more diffuse source.
From “our” perspective, Bolton is just another in a line of Bush appointees who represent a universal “worst choice” syndrome.
Sadly, while the supposed party of the left undergoes an internal battle between the bastard children of Clinton’s DLC and the watered-down descendents of the genuine liberalism that once carried the hearts and minds of “middle america,” i.e. the middle class and working poor who now routinely vote against their own economic interests hoping the GOP will protect them from abortion, homosexuality, and creeping secularism, the current voices of the Democratic party are left to their own devices, casting about for a catchphrase that will stick long enough to get the Whitehouse to give the minority party a seat at the table.
Me? I’ll be happy if Barack Obama takes his balls out of the freezer.
And as much as I think Bushco would love to do away with the UN, I think Cole’s probably right that this will be a quickly forgotten tempest in a thimble. It has, after all, been 60 years since the last world war. The UN beats holy hell out of the League of Nations in that regard…
HA
leth,
It has, after all, been 60 years since the last world war. The UN beats holy hell out of the League of Nations in that regard…
There hasn’t been another world war for one reason alone. The deterrent effect of American military might. The UN had nothing – repeat nothing – to do with it.
And the marxbot left has spent the last three decades going to extraordinary lengths to tear down the American military power that has ensured world peace.
Rick
Haven’t you figured out yet that treating the rest of the world as irrelevant is for losers, now?
And haven’t you figured out that the U.N., far from being “the rest of the world,” is a mere aggregation of feckless bureaucrats? A feeble debating society, like the League of Nations.
If the U.N. was “the rest of the world,” then no nation would need to to maintain such large foreign ministries/departments of state?
Just guessing, but is your tea one of the Celestial Seasonings variants? ;)
Cordially…
Sharp as a Marble
“What I have seen is your typical blog buddies, the knee jerk right wing all excoriating Peter Daou”
Then jerry goes on to spout the same canard as all the other lefties. Irony.
The Daou Report has linked several times to my site as a balanced look on things. My take with the UN-Blog’s post against Simon was that it was saying ‘look over there!’ instead of adressing Roger’s points.
I am far from a wingnut. I am desperately trying to make a bumpersticker that says “I think therefore I don’t vote for either party religiously because they’re both full of shit” however that would require a large bumper.
The UN isn’t completely useless, just like neither party is completely dishonest. I dislike the UN along the same lines as I do with the United Way. What is supposed to end up helping those who need it ends up as ‘overhead’.
neil
Our last UN representative was John Negroponte, and as a good liberal I can rattle off a much longer list of Negroponte’s crimes than I can of Bolton’s. Don’t really know whether Negroponte was as much of a poke in the UN’s eye as Bolton, or whether that matters.
Rick
Nash,
Well. sorry, but Joe Conason and ilk just can’t be bothered. My Pet Goat being a much bigger scandal and all.
Snickeringly…
Randolph Fritz
Tea. Earl Grey. Hot. From China.
Would you rather have a weak global federalism or a nuclear-armed global empire? Because those seem to be the main choices ahead of us. A “feeble debating society” pretty much describes the Continental Congress under the original Articles of Confederation; it was what came after that was important. Those “feckless bureaucrats” include the World Health Organization, the International Telecommunications Union, and the UN Refugee Agency–all groups that do real and significant things.
Increasingly, the UN is the executive branch of a world government and if it comes to world governments, I will back feeble debating societies over nuclear-armed empires any day.
Rumsfeld et al, of course back empire; they want US to be the empire. To this I have two basic objections: (1) the ethical–I prefer democracy and freedom to empire and tyranny and (2) the pratical–empires always fall.
So, now, what do you see as the geopolitical future?
Ron Levy
As has been mentioned obliquely, John bolton can’t ‘clean up’ the UN. An ambassador doesn’t have that power. Nor can he cause an ‘international incident’ sufficient to start a war.
The only thing he CAN do is publicize wrongdoing at the UN, so the people of the US know what’s going on and can take democratic steps.
We don’t want to kick the UN out of New York.. we like them right here where we can keep an eye on them.
Rick
Increasingly, the UN is the executive branch of a world government and if it comes to world governments, I will back feeble debating societies over nuclear-armed empires any day.
Ah-ha!
Not me, because world government would tend rather more to authoritarianism than old-style NE town meetings.
You haven’t demonstrated the failing institution’s “increasing” importance by citing a few good (though likely overpriced and certainly overhyped) good works over 60 years. You merely state your affections.
I don’t share them, nor your view of only two outcomes. The U.N. is a bad work in progress, and having someone like Bolton speak Truth to Corrupt Impotence might be a tonic for its shrivelled promise.
Cordially…
Randolph Fritz
Rick, what’s your plan? How do you propose to prevent World War III (and IV and V…) How do you propose for us to deal with international terrorism, the global environment, global pandemics, global trade, and weapons of mass destruction? Our current world order has already brought us two world wars, and many smaller, but still terribly destructive, wars. And, with every war, our ability to make war grows; the risk of blasting ourselves back into the stone age grows. Again, what’s your plan?
Failure is not an option.
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”–Einstein
biqbic
Mr Fritz, consider:
Result of UN/IAEA/Clinton efforts to stop nuclear proliferation for 20 years:
Nukes for India, Pakistan, North Korea, and soon Iran.
Nuke Programs for Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda, …
In sum: Diddly Squat !
Result of U.S./Bush/Bolton/Proliferation Security Initiative/60+ Nation Coallition of the Willing for 3 years:
A.Q. Kahn nuclear smuggling ring smashed.
Libya’s Nuke Program totally dismantled.
Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda Nuke Programs exposed and supply chains interdicted.
In sum: A Great Start !
Rick
Rick, what’s your plan?
Randolph,
Empathically, NOT to rely on the U.N. for anything beyond sternly worded condemnations. But those usually are reserved for Israel, in any event. I don’t contemplate an Israeli attack, their espionage notwithstanding.
The U.N. can never rise above the moral level of it’s aggegrated membership. My *plan* would be to try to foster more representative govenments throughout the world, thus helping elevate our beloved Turtle Bay supper club.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
My *plan* would be to try to foster more representative govenments throughout the world, thus helping elevate our beloved Turtle Bay supper club.
So why didn’t/don’t you love Clinton? He was the first President to make this sort of thing US policy, following the end of the Cold War.
Rick
Kimmit,
Oh, not quite the first; Bush the Elder tried in Somalia, and Clinton quit on it. Osama took note of the scuttle, so obviously, Clinton ‘trained” and “created” him.
Let’s keep our kudos in hand–Clinton was the first whole-term post Cold War President. Bound to be a number of “firsts” for him, and I’d guess they’re indexed in his autobiography. Maybe even graphed.
Cordially…
Rick
Oooops. That’s KimmetT. Saw your “sheesh” on another thread. Don’t wanna upset the war effort.
Cordially…
Randolph Fritz
Rick, that doesn’t make sense. We might make solid progress on your “fostering democracy” project in a century; meantimes, all the international problems are still there. If we get really unlucky, some nation might succeed in the project of empire before then. More likely, some alliance would become an undemocratic de facto world government.
There’s a second problem with your proposal. Suppose, tomorrow, all the world had democratic governments. Think we’d suddenly be done with world conflicts? Hell, no! China would still want to burn petroleum, the Middle Eastern states would still want to sell petroleum, every nation would still want favorable trade terms, and so on.
The only way fostering national democracies will resolve any international problems is if those democracies make international agreements. Enough agreements made and, after a while–look ma, world government. In fact, a world government very much like the current UN with real military power.
So you’ve two problems: one that your plan can’t work fast enough, second that it can’t solve the problems we’re facing without forming a world government, anyway.
I just don’t see nationalism as realistic any more. I don’t understand why many people still do.
Rick
There’s a second problem with your proposal. Suppose, tomorrow, all the world had democratic governments. Think we’d suddenly be done with world conflicts?
If by “conflicts,” you mean hostilities, then the answer is Hell, yes. Based on history so far.
I don’t care if Saddam won 100% in the 2003 plebescite–Iraq was not a representative regime.
International problems? Please; they existed for thousands of years before the U.N. was conceived. And “international agreements”–diplomacy–is similarly historic.
The U.N. is just a solution in search of a problem, especially one with high TV and cash corruption potential.
The U.N. fills the global need for a relief valve for nations to posture, pose and blow off steam to each other. If it’s a model for world government, then we are certainly headed for darkness.
And there are millions who would welcome the darkness, regrettably.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
If by “conflicts,” you mean hostilities, then the answer is Hell, yes. Based on history so far.
This is a rule of thumb that really doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. While it is true that the last Total War between democracies was the 1899 Boer War, the US has successfully prosecuted several short wars against democratically elected governments, the most egregious of which (recently) was the 1974 coup against Allende in Chile. The US Civil War is perhaps the classic example of an extremely long and brutal war fought between two territorially intact democratic governments.
The fact that most democratic states are either large enough to stare us down or are smart enough to go along to get along in a unipolar world doesn’t change the basic dynamic. When democratic countries have interests that conflict with other democratic countries, it may take a little more impetus, but the same rules apply. If Jordan were to become a Constitutional Monarchy tomorrow, it still wouldn’t be bestest buddies with Israel.
Rick
This is a rule of thumb that really doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. While it is true that the last Total War between democracies was the 1899 Boer War, the US has successfully prosecuted several short wars against democratically elected governments, the most egregious of which (recently) was the 1974 coup against Allende in Chile. The US Civil War is perhaps the classic example of an extremely long and brutal war fought between two territorially intact democratic governments.
You’re cites are what doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, other than perhaps the Boer War.
But even in that instance, what you had was an avowedly–shoot, exultantly–imperial, expansionsist power with a representative parliament. And a pretty restricted franchise, at the time.
Couple the jingoes with the Gold Bugs, add the revanchist military itching to square accounts for 1881, and give the “cause” the overtones of concern for the civil rights of natives and foreigners working the Rand mines, and you’ve got a Splendid Little War. The ruling elites quite carried along the populace.
Oboyoboyoboyoboy! I had to swallow some math crowin a post to you else on Juice, BUT NOW I GOTCHA!!!
The Chilean coup was 9/11/73. NOT 1974! Down goes Kimmitt! Down goes Kimmitt! Down goes Kimmitt! Down goes Kimmitt!
Get an earful of this: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/4211/hmr_chmp.wav
Ahem. We certainly smiled on Pinochet’s gathering coup–encouraged it. But that wasn’t hostilities, that was backing our Sonofabitch over Cuba’s Sonofabitch. And we know that Allende’s democratic coloration was shaping up to be as enduring as Hitler’s 1933 democratic rise. Thus, the plots against him.
The Civil War was a rebellion. You don’t strike me as a Confederate American, so I’m surprised to see you make this reach.
No, we’ll have differences with representative governments, but there’s scant record of armed hostilities among them. Though the “elected” Hitler didn’t declare war on us, the bastard.
Cordially…
Rick
Er…*did* declare war on us.
The bastard.
Randolph Fritz
Rick, the problems I was discussing as in need of international resolution are: international terrorism, the global environment, global pandemics, global trade, and weapons of mass destruction. You still haven’t explained how a world of democratic states and international diplomacy are going to resolve those problems without forming an international government.
As for “The U.N. fills the global need for a relief valve for nations to posture, pose and blow off steam to each other. If it’s a model for world government, then we are certainly headed for darkness.”
The WHO, the Refugee Commission, UNICEF, and so on do more than that. But posturing, posing, and blowing off steam sounds a lot like democracy to me; they’re part of the process of coming to agreement. What kind of legislative or diplomatic process do you imagine would not include them?
Kimmitt
The Civil War was a rebellion. You don’t strike me as a Confederate American, so I’m surprised to see you make this reach.
The Civil War was the exception to end all exceptions. Generally speaking, when a section of territory elects its own regional and national legislatures, fields a modern army, and holds onto the vast majority of its territory for a couple of years, that means that the war is over. I mention it only as an example of how unusual circumstances can lead to two democratic governments to conduct extraordinarily brutal wars.
The reasoning behind the coup in Chile — or that we allied ourselves with a local faction — is irrelevant; what is relevant is that we pursued our interests in a violent fashion against a democracy.
Other discussions of democracies and wars are found here; I think the War of 1812, the Franco-Roman war of 1849, the Spanish-American War, the occupation of the Ruhr in 1923, the Croatian War of independence, the Ecuador-Peru Border War of 1995, and the Kargil War of 1999 all qualify.
The real thing people try to say is, “Democratic Great Powers don’t go to war with each other.” But that’s almost completely irrelevant — until 1947, there were a grand total of three genuine Great Powers which were genuinely Democratic. And they happened to have a lot of interests in common. And after 1947, Great Powers can’t go to war, because of the threat of atomic holocaust. So do democracies fight wars with each other? Yep. Is it probably harder to get the ball rolling? Yep. So?
Rick
….what is relevant is that we pursued our interests in a violent fashion against a democracy.
Quibbledom Come. It was in our perceived interest to welcome the coup, and entailing the violence. We didn’t commit the violence.
The tendency is for representative governments not to fly at the throats of others of that nature. I think it’s because any government so constrained, so behaved through the “consent of the governed,” has a natural respect for the ilk. Less friction between peoples, than there is between authoritarian/totalitarian ruling elites.
If I’m wrong, I suppose we’ll absorb into our Empire the Transriogrande (nee Mexico) and the Maple Free State (nee Cananda).
Cordially…
Rick
You still haven’t explained how a world of democratic states and international diplomacy are going to resolve those problems without forming an international government.
And you haven’t explained how a world government is going to be established, with the consent of the governed. The U.N. as a prototype is a clunker, the Spruce Goose on the East River. If it can clean up its act, we’ll talk again.
International problems are always with us, and if you banish “international” via the creation of a world government, the problems would remain because there would be “insurgencies” everywhere. All politics being local, and all.
Cordially…
Randolph Fritz
“And you haven’t explained how a world government is going to be established, with the consent of the governed.”
Out of desperate need, the way federations usually get their start. The UN is not my favorite model, either–in particular its legislature represents governments, rather than people. This parallels the pre-Civil War US federal government, and like the pre-Civil War federal government, the UN’s legislature often exacerbates and defends abuses of human rights. But its executive is, in fact, a very decent organization and has done a great deal of good.
I see the formation of a world government as something well under way; international diplomacy is already creating a great many ad hoc international governing bodies. Given that, I would prefer to guide the process; I do not see how we can stop it. Despite its undemocratic legislature, the UN at least has the Universal Declaration of Human Rights–the various ad hoc bodies have only political expediency to guide them.
Our views have, I think, more in common than you recognize. It is not that I wish to saddle the world with a government to reform it; it is rather that I see a need for world government and would prefer to fill that need with a democratic federation.
Rick
Out of desperate need, the way federations usually get their start. The UN is not my favorite model, either–in particular its legislature represents governments, rather than people… But its executive is, in fact, a very decent organization and has done a great deal of good.
I see the formation of a world government as something well under way; international diplomacy is already creating a great many ad hoc international governing bodies. Given that, I would prefer to guide the process; I do not see how we can stop it.
Randolph,
I don’t see the desparate need, other than maybe “desparate” efforts by governmental careerists involved in hustling the E.U. past a servile populace.
And if the U.N. had never existed, I doubt the list of good deeds to its name would have remained undone.
We don’t have to participate in this aggregation of authority, nor should we be in the least bit hurried to do so. Given that there are now many more countries than there were 14 years ago, I believe and hope the trend is stalled.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
If I’m wrong, I suppose we’ll absorb into our Empire the Transriogrande (nee Mexico) and the Maple Free State (nee Cananda).
Straw man. My point is that democracies are happy to engage in violent conflict when they have significant divergences in interests. Neither Mexico nor Canada has anything resembling that divergence in interest, and even if they did, they’re smart enough to know that they’d best knuckle under.
I suppose that’s your real thesis — “democratic governments will have the good sense to roll over and let us do what we want.” Which works well for most countries, but not so awesomely for the EU or India.
Randolph Fritz
The Bolt On devil.
(sorry, guys. reasoned debate tomorrow, cartoons tonight. poster is not responsible if cartoon moves before viewing.)