|
|
|
Jewish World Review May 4, 2005 / 25 Nisan, 5765 Debate over the United Nations is often an exercise in the blind leading the blind By Kathryn Lopez
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
The debate over John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the
United Nations could have been a constructive national conversation
about the future of the United Nations and human rights. Instead the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee — and the media folk cheering it on
— has resembled a rowdy playground scene.
He's a "madman"! Smearing and stalling tactics have been the rule during
the nomination hearings for Bolton. Even the more substantive arguments
against him have been curious ones. One line of attack has included the
complaint that he raised concerns about Cuba posing a
weapons-of-mass-destruction threat to the United States. Imagine —
wanting to protect the United States from a tyrant 90 miles away.
What a fringer! Who did he think he was, U.S. undersecretary of state?
(Which, of course, he was.)
The fact is that Bolton is no wild extremist — at least any more than
is President Bush, who managed to win the last election with a majority.
But that's Bolton's problem.
He's being targeted for two reasons. First, he unapologetically and
consistently represents the foreign policy of President Bush. This is
not a popular position with Senate Democrats and their fellow travelers.
Nor has it been a popular position even in the State Department where he
served under then Secretary of State Colin Powell, who famously butted
heads behind the scenes with members of the administration — including
Bolton. Second, Bolton espouses a distinct view of the United Nations.
As has been repeatedly broadcast, he once said, "If the U.N. secretary
building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a difference."
That might be wildly explosive to anyone who thinks that the United
Nations is doing well, doing the world a service, and should continue as is.
But you would have to have your head deep in the sand to believe that.
Of course, the debate over the United Nations is often an exercise in
the blind leading the blind — in the Senate, in the media, and in the
United Nations. And don't forget U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
The building off the East River in Manhattan seems like a playground,
albeit a dangerous one, where the hungry people of Iraq were robbed to
the tune of well over $10 billion, and a blind eye has been repeatedly
turned away from human-rights abusers by the very institution that
purports to be a human-rights watchdog.
The United Nations would be a joke if it weren't such a dangerous mess.
And instead of standing up and insisting on a full accounting — or,
resigning — Annan complains about getting picked on. He blames the
United States and Britain for not stopping the oil-for-food scandal that
happened during his tenure as U.N. secretary-general.
The United Nations' problem is not Bolton, but the United Nations itself.
There are the obvious scandals beyond the oil-for-food scandal (in which
the U.S. Justice Department has most recently obtained indictments while
the United Nations still drags its feet). There are also the scandals
that tar the day-to-day work of the United Nations. It's an outrage, for
instance, that countries like China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan
and Zimbabwe — some of the worst human-rights violators in the world,
according to Freedom House — sit on the United Nations human-rights
commission.
Where's the moral authority in that kind of commission? How is genocidal
Sudan, for instance, supposed to judge democratic, freedom-loving nations?
These are questions President Bush addressed before the United Nations
not all that long ago. He's no U.N.-basher. In fact, he's its biggest
booster — challenging the body to be all that it can be. Back in
September 2003, when he spoke before the U.N. General Assembly, he said
that, "As an original signer of the U.N. Charter, the United States of
America is committed to the United Nations. And we show that commitment
by working to fulfill the U.N.'s stated purposes, and give meaning to
its ideals." If U.N. officials would really listen — and the
left-wingers in the United States would rechannel their anger from John
Bolton and into resolving U.N. corruption — the Bush administration
could wind up being God's gift to the United Nations.
And it's not just President Bush. Sen. Norm Coleman, R.-Minn., has been
front-and-center among senators calling for Annan's resignation. Why?
Because where the buck stops is a man who has to take the fall for the
current disaster that is the United Nations. The place needs change, and
that high level a resignation would send a dramatic, cleansing message.
But Annan doesn't look to be budging — he recently said "Hell no" when
asked if he would resign.
White House spokesman Dan Bartlett recently said, "A vote for John
Bolton will be a vote for change at the United Nations. A vote against
will be for the status quo. The president believes the status quo is
unacceptable." It is — and that shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Memo to U.S. senators: Get John Bolton to work in Turtle Bay. And send
him over gift-wrapped in a copy of the U.N. Charter as a gentle compass
for a body desperately in need of a healthy survival strategy.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment by clicking here.
© 2005, Newspaper Enterprise Assn. |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
