|
|
|
Jewish World Review June 21, 2005 / 14 Sivan, 5765 If Bolton foes have their way ... By Peter A. Brown
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
The folks trying to stop John Bolton from becoming U.N. ambassador
might want to consider that the alternative could be much worse from
their point of view.
If they are able to block President Bush's choice for the job, he
could give up on reforming the United Nations, writing the body off
as a real player in international affairs. Bush could do that by
appointing a typical milquetoast diplomat whose specialty is
shuffling papers, who would go along to get along.
Let's be clear here. The anti-Bolton people, for the most part, are
Democrats who think Bush has not made U.S. foreign policy responsive
enough to world opinion, as expressed by the United Nations. They
don't like Bolton because he not only shares the president's views
and values, but he would be a forceful and effective advocate for
them at the world body.
If these folks expect Bush to change his tune, they are dreaming.
Yet they should be happy Bush cares enough about the United Nations
that he wants to fix its multitude of flaws.
Just writing off the United Nations might be popular among many of
Bush's core supporters — as well as a growing number of Americans
who are troubled by the increasing revelations about U.N.
corruption.
It's worth noting that the U.S. House of Representatives, frustrated
with the United Nations, Friday voted to withhold half of America's
U.N. dues unless the world body enacts sweeping reforms pushed by
its U.S. critics. The U.N. ambassador is the president's voice there
and, as much as any other administration job, needs to be someone
who reflects Bush's viewpoint on foreign affairs and the usefulness
of the world body.
For the most part, Bolton's critics are using the issue of his
personality as a subterfuge. They like the U.N. efforts to oppose
Bush's invasion of Iraq and its general anti-Bush administration
slant.
Bolton admittedly has rough edges, but the argument that his
personality makes him unqualified to be a diplomat is horse hockey.
Bolton is committed to serious U.N. reform and has a reputation for
getting jobs done, even at the risk of making some people unhappy.
Bush would prefer a corruption-free United Nations committed to
building a world in which democracy and capitalism are the
overarching values a vision the president sees as lacking there
currently. He thinks Bolton is the right man to implement that goal,
as apparently do Bolton's critics, who are more unhappy about the
message than the messenger.
Yet only a committed one-worlder who thinks nationalism is evil sees
U.N. reform as unneeded.
Many who share Bush's vision see the United Nations as dominated by
those with an anti-U.S. slant and instinctive belief that talking is
always better than acting, even in the face of serious threats.
They can't understand why Americans should pay the largest share of
the United Nations' bills, 22 percent of its $1.1 billion operating
budget, plus 27 percent of the money it is spending on peacekeeping.
The other reason for unhappiness with the United Nations involves
allegations of corruption that began with its Oil for Food program
for Iraq. Congressional investigators allege that Saddam Hussein
skimmed $17 billion from it with the cooperation of U.N. officials.
Yet for some reason, many Democrats don't seem as excised about the
U.N. mess as are congressional Republicans who argue that
Secretary-General Kofi Annan — an outspoken critic of Bush's
policies — must bear responsibility for the corruption.
The House of Representatives vote to slash the U.S. financial
contribution to the world body unless it makes sweeping reforms had
a partisan twinge. Republicans voted to make those cuts mandatory.
The main Democratic alternative would have softened the bill by
making such action at the administration's discretion.
Yet the legislation shows the depth of the congressional unhappiness
with the U.N.
The vote follows a report that a newly uncovered memo seemed to link
Annan to the contract given to his son's company that is under
investigation in the oil-for-food scandal. Investigators have just
begun a new probe of Annan's role.
It also follows release of a congressional report calling for an
overhaul in the U.N. bureaucracy.
The anti-Bolton crowd ought to acknowledge they are just trying to
make life as difficult as possible for Bush. That may be good
domestic politics for Howard Dean's party, but it's lousy for U.S.
foreign policy.
Unless, of course, they want Bush to write off the United Nations.
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.
Peter A. Brown is an editorial page columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Comment by clicking here. © 2005, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
